Commons Sitting of 4 April 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

PETITION

  Purbrook Park County Grammar School
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 members of the Purbrook Park County Grammar School Parent/Teacher Association and other interested residents of the area.
  The petition
  Sheweth that the Hampshire County Council proposes in its published scheme for the reorganisation of secondary education in the Havant and Waterloo area to change Purbrook Park County Grammar School to an 11–16 comprehensive school, removing a coeducational sixth form of 270 pupils with whose teaching every full-time member of the staff is involved.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House may act so that Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Education and Science may consider alternative schemes for comprehensive reorganisation which will provide for the continuation of sixth form education at Purbrook Park and thus avoid the disadvantages to pupils inherent in the dispersal of an excellent staff —disadvantages which are aggravated by the inadequacy of provision for post-16 education and the consequent lack of any parental choice, and which are likely to become increasingly severe in the light of the planned expansion of the area.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Geriatric Beds (Fife)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for the provision of more geriatric beds in Fife, and public anxiety on the matter, he will take immediate steps to alleviate the problem.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): A programme of building schemes which will meet the need for more geriatric beds in Fife already exists and planning is in hand. A scheme providing 34 psychogeriatric beds is nearing completion and work on two small projects, providing 49 additional geriatric beds, should start this year; construction of the major schemes will start as soon as planning can be completed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware —and is the South East Regional Board Hospital Board aware —of the increased and increasing anxiety in Fife about the inadequacy of provision of geriatric beds in the Fife area? Will he ask the regional board to speed up its programme in Glenrothes? What is the estimated cost of the unit at Glenrothes, and is that unit on schedule? Will the Minister get going with the regional board and tell it to get on with the job?
    Mr. Monro: I was glad to have a chance to talk with the hon. Gentleman yesterday about the schemes in Fife and I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and other hon. Gentleman next week to discuss the matter further. The programme of geriatric provision in Fife is substantial and when completed should be adequate for all needs in the area. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I should like to see everything going ahead as fast as possible, and this is part of what we shall discuss next week. The total scheme at Glenrothes, excluding the health clinic, will cost about £500,000.
    Sir J. Gilmour: When calculations are made of the number of beds required, will my hon. Friend take into account the overspill arrangement between Glasgow and Glenrothes?
    Mr. Monro: I would have to check that, but I am under the impression that that is the case.
    Mr. McElhone: I would not wish to detract from the problems in Fife, but may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that the humane answer to this serious and growing problem is not to keep on building geriatric units as we are doing all over Scotland but to expand the home help service and the home nursing service and to ensure that the social services work and keep many of these elderly people at home?
    Mr. Monro: I agree. That is why the Government are spending so much money on all the matters about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, including sheltered housing and so on. I agree with the objective behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I must emphasise that we are getting on with the job.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the urgency of this problem, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Irvine Development Corporation (Housing Costs)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the amount of high-cost subsidy that will be given to Irvine Development Corporation during the present financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I have no evidence of any widening of the differential between Irvine New Town rents and average Scottish rents significant enough to justify the payment of high-cost subsidy to the development corporation.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that the tenants of Irvine Development Corporation have been faced with further increases in rents under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act? When will the Secretary of State for Scotland step in and take action —as
    416
    he promised to do in Committee on that legislation last year —to protect the tenants of the new town corporation against further rent increases, since those rents are already well above the rent levels of normal local authority houses in the area?
    Mr. Younger: The fact that they are above the normal local authority house rents reflects the fact that most of the houses concerned in Irvine are new, in a good environment and of modern quality. The object of the high-cost subsidy is to deal with the situation if there should be a significant widening of the differential between average rents in new towns and average rents in Scottish local authorities generally, and this has not happened.
    Mr. Ewing: As the section in the 1972 Act deals also with SSHA houses, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of a widening in the gap between the rents of SSHA houses and local authority houses? Does he envisage the need to pay high-cost subsidy to the SSHA in the future?
    Mr. Younger: For the same reason, there is no evidence to show that there is a widening of the differential between SSHA tenants and Scottish housing tenants as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should not forget the effect of the rent rebate scheme here. For instance a married man with three children living in Irvine would have to have a household income of over £40 a week —£2,000 a year —before being called upon to pay the average rent of £230.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many improvement grants in the private housing sector have been approved in Scotland since March 1971.
    Mr. Younger: From 1st April 1971 to 31st December 1972, the last date for which figures are available, improvement grants and standard grants were approved for 21,796 privately owned houses.
    Mr. Hunter: I appreciate that the housing improvement scheme is contributing successfully to maintaining the stock of old houses in Scotland, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money spent

    417
    for this purpose is properly allocated? Is he aware of cases where grants are given to owners whose houses have all the amenities and meet all tolerable standards and that they are improving their houses beyond their family requirements? If this is true, is it not denying improvement grants to those who need them?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the improvement grant scheme. I do not have evidence of abuses such as he outlines. This is a matter of discretion for the local authorities to exercise. If an authority thinks that an individual request is unreasonable, it has the right to refuse to make a grant. My own attitude is that every house improved to modern standards is a further house for people in Scotland to live in.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the Government have repeatedly stressed as a principle that housing subsidies were not to be paid in respect of bricks and mortar but should be paid to persons in need, how can the hon. Gentleman justify this vast expenditure on improvements without any test of means?
    Mr. Younger: A house which is below the proper standard and which therefore needs improvement is a house which has a great need of improvement, and that is what the scheme is all about.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How many of these grants have gone to property companies which have speculated in housing, obtained improvement grants and subsequently sold properties without any need to repay hard-earned cash from the Exchequer?
    Mr. Younger: I have no figures to show what might be the numbers for property companies. But I hope that as many as possible of these grants can be used for privately tenanted houses many of whose tenants are living in deplorable conditions for the lack of improvement. The general purpose of the scheme is to get houses improved. So long as it is achieving that, I shall be satisfied.
    Mr. Ross: Of the 21,796, how many were for owner-occupiers and how many for properties with tenants in them?
    Mr. Younger: Of the figure quoted, 17,400 applications were by owner-occu-
    418
    piers and about 4,400 by other applicants including the owners of let houses.

    Glenlivet Estate
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the report of the working party set up by the Crown Estates Commissioners on the balance which should be maintained on the Glenlivet Estate; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The working party was set up by the commissioners to advise them on matters of estate management which are within their responsibility and the question of publication does not arise. However, I am sure they would be glad to assist my hon. Friend with information on any aspect in which he is interested.
    Mr. Baker: Before the plan is implemented will my hon. Friend assure the House that full and proper consultation will take place with all interested parties on the Glenlivet Estate?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that certain consultations have taken place already and that the commissioners will continue to consult individual tenants about any changes which may affect them.

    Council Rents
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total additional rent paid by local authority tenants in Scotland in 1972; and what he estimates the further total increase to be in 1973.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): This information is not available, and there is no basis for making estimates. It would be necessary to make assumptions about such matters as the state of housing revenue accounts, the composition of families of tenants and levels of earnings. The Housing Act 1972 restricts the amounts per year by which local authorities can increase rents.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not know the effect that the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 has had on

    419
    local authority tenants in Scotland and that he is not worried about the effect that the Act will have in Scotland in future years? Is he aware that many large burghs are now estimating that the total increase in rent revenue paid by local authority tenants will verge on £1 million per annum and that this can only come out of the pockets of local authority tenants at a time when they are being asked to hold back on wage demands?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have said, there are restrictions on the increases which can be made in rents each year. There are also the rebate and rent allowance schemes. The figures are not available for 1972 and estimates cannot be made because all the facts are not yet available. I can, however, give figures for previous years. In 1969 the average percentage increase in local authority standard rents was 18·2, in 1970 it was 14·8 per cent. and in 1971 it was 6·8 per cent. In the case of Glasgow the average increase in the six years from November 1964 to November 1970 was 193 per cent. and in the two years from November 1970 to November 1972 it was 0·1 per cent.
    Mr. MacArthur: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much less in rent will be paid by the many tenants who will benefit from the Government's generous rent rebate scheme? Will my right hon. Friend either circulate or publish figures in HANSARD showing what effect the Act will have on reducing rate poundages throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: We have given some estimates already. There are large numbers of tenants who will benefit from the rebate and allowance schemes. But we cannot make further accurate estimates without knowing about the circumstances of individual families. This information will become available in due course. When it is available we shall inform the House.
    Mr. Sillars: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the percentage figures of increases which he read out and ask him whether I am right in thinking that he disapproved of them and would not tolerate them under his own Government?
    Mr. Campbell: I was giving the House the facts which are available and also
    420
    undertaking that when similar information becomes available, as it will later in the year, it will be made known to the House.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My right hon. Friend will recall that at the last count the average council house family in Scotland paid about four-sevenths of the proportion of its income on housing which the average council house family in England paid. What is the ratio today? Has my right hon. Friend any information?
    Mr. Campbell: Not without notice. But the facts have been made plain as they were by the Allen Committee which reported on rates some time ago. Rates have been very high in Scotland while rents in the public sector have been low, and this was not so in England.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When will the right hon. Gentleman stop dodging the issue and admit frankly that the vast majority of local authority tenants in Scotland will pay greatly increased rents despite the rebate scheme?
    Mr. Campbell: The annual rent increase which is permissible is laid down in the Act, so increases can take place only by gradual steps. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the 5½ years in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was Secretary of State the average local authority rent in Scotland was doubled precisely.

    Timber
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate he has made of the expected out-turn of Scottish forests in the years 1974 to 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Forestry Commission's out-turn of timber in Scotland will amount to 670,000 tons in 1974, and is expected to rise annually by about 30,000 tons to 850,000 tons in 1980. According to the latest estimates the corresponding figures for private forestry are about 430,000 tons in 1974 rising to about 490,000 tons in 1980.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite this increase there is now a shortage of timber in Scotland? In view of the importance of integrating agriculture and forestry in Scotland, is

    421
    there not a need to look again at the proper allocation of land between these two essential services?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend will know that we import about 90 per cent. of our timber requirements. I assure him that in our review of forestry policy we will look closely at the question of proper land use and proper integration between, for example, forestry and hill farming.

    Confederation of British Industry (Meeting)
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Council of the Confederation of British Industry on 16th March 1973.
    Mr. Younger: The main items raised on this occasion were the IMEG report on the possibilities for participation by British industry in oil developments; the way in which industry can most usefully participate in local government after reform; and the CBI's recently revised attitude to the regional employment premium.
    I found the discussion useful and informative.
    Mr. Smith: Regarding the CBI's revised attitude to REP, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware thai since the meeting the Confederation of British Industry calculates that if REP is withdrawn there will be extra unemployment of between 20,000 and 50,000 people in the development areas? Is he further aware that if REP is withdrawn Scotland will lose £40 million? Will he tell the House what he and his right hon. Friend are doing for Scotland to try to save this £40 million?
    Mr. Younger: First, the delegation which I saw from the Scottish CBI made it clear that it had always considered that REP had great shortcomings as a regional development aid. It said that it had in recent weeks come to the conclusion, however, that it should be carried on until 1978 because it was becoming concerned about its removal. The delegation also spoke to me about its ideas as to what should be done about replacing or phasing-out REP. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have undertaken to con-
    422
    sult the CBI and the TUC about the methods of doing this in due course. I assure him that we will take into account the views expressed by all these bodies in considering phasing-out and replacing REP when the time comes.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Was my hon. Friend able to tell the Scottish Council whether, if the Government decide as a result of representations which have been made to continue REP until 1980, the Common Market Commission would allow us to do so?
    Mr. Younger: This matter was briefly touched upon, but it was not considered to be a bar to taking sensible action to consider how REP can best be phased out and what steps can be taken to help the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Douglas: How did the Minister justify the ending of the regional employment premium in 1974? What devices did he put to the CBI for some form of labour subsidy? On the IMEG report, may I ask how he justified the non-implementation of the proposal for the setting up of a petroleum industry supply board?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the representatives of the CBI told me that they are examining the practicability of a regional VAT subsidy scheme as one suggestion for what might replace REP in due course. My justification is that, as long ago as six or seven years, the Labour Government decided that this scheme would run until 1974 and we said that it would be phased out thereafter. We are merely carrying out what we said we would do.
    I have not yet received a letter of congratulation from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) or his hon. Friends on the fact that this very week we have abolished SET, which was the most greatly resented tax on the service industries in Scotland.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While recognising the drawbacks to REP, may I ask my hon. Friend nevertheless to pay careful attention to the latest report of the OECD on British regional policies which confirms or tends to emphasise what many of us have believed for some time: namely, that our regional development policies are far too capital-intensive oriented?
    Mr. Younger: We shall certainly pay close attention to that and to all the other views that have been expressed.
    Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) that the withdrawal of REP will mean a loss of £40 million a year to Scottish industry? Does he also accept the figure given by the CBI that the withdrawal of REP will result in an increase in unemployment of between 20,000 and 50,000 in the development areas? That being so, and as the hon. Gentleman agreed about the need for some labour-intensive subsidy, may I ask what the Government propose to put in place of REP if they are now to phase it out? I remind him that on 27th October the Chancellor said that it would end, not be phased out. We are glad to know that there is some amelioration of the position.
    Mr. Younger: I am sure that we are all glad to have a few words from Mr. SET himself in this particular week. I cannot confirm or agree with the figures that have been quoted. Some are very speculative. I cannot confirm them as being necessarily correct. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we would not wish to phase out REP without consulting the CBI and the TUC. We must do so and we have said that we will do this.
    Mr. Ross: I do not want REP to be phased out at all in view of the precarious position of employment in Scotland. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department publishes the amount that Scotland receives per year in REP, and that £40 million is the figure? In fact, the last figure was £40 1 million. Why does he not accept this? Why does he underrate the importance of this matter to Scottish industry?
    Mr. Younger: I do not underrate its importance at all. It has been clear for many years what we were going to do about REP. Indeed the Labour Government made clear what they were going to do about it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the balance of measures which he introduced involved the inclusion of REP and SET. SET was greatly resented in Scotland because it hit hardest on the service industries. The right hon. Gentleman should be thanking us for having removed it.

    Further Education (Handicapped Children)
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the opportunities for further education for physically handicapped school leavers provided in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: Many physically handicapped school leavers can attend further education colleges in the ordinary way and are encouraged to do so. For those who require special facilities and residential care there is one college with 34 places at Crossbasket in Lanarkshire. Handicapped young people from Scotland also attend residential colleges in England.
    I have asked the Committee on the Secondary Education of Physically Handicapped Children to consider whether the present provision for the further education of the physically handicapped in Scotland is adequate.
    Mr. WilsonI find that answer completely unsatisfactory. It shows a lack of feeling for these young people. Is the Minister aware that these children have already had fragmented basic education due in most cases to medical treatment and hospitalisation? What are his plans for extending the facilities which should be available for further education for these children? Is he prepared now to act on the basis of the Melville Report which is in his possession? Will he tell the House what action he proposes to take on that report?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman must be clear in his mind about what he is asking me to do. I have explained that the majority of handicapped children are able to go on to further education colleges in the normal way. I am sure we would all wish them to be treated as normal children. We have set up the McCann Committee. It would be foolish to make major changes before that committee reports this year. The Melville Report is in the hands of my right hon. Friend and we are considering it. We have not yet reached any final decision. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Government take this position very seriously. There is no question of underrating the importance of helping disabled children.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of extending the scope of the committee by making it a continuing committee to keep a general watch over the situation in future as opposed to a committee with a specific remit which will conclude after its report is published?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I think that perhaps we should allow Baillie McCann and his committee to report and discuss it with him afterwards.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week I visited a constituent of mine who is in the Princess Marina centre run by the Spastics Society and that I was greatly impressed by what I saw? May I ask when he will set up a similar centre in Scotland so that Scottish people do not need to go to England for such treatment?
    Mr. Monro: I shall give this whole matter careful consideration when the committee reports.

    School Building Allocations
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his education allocation for the next grant period.
    Mr. Monro: I shall notify education authorities of their school building allocations for 1974–75 as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of urgent expectation among local authorities on this matter? Cannot he tell us what will be the global figure for Scotland, particularly for school building? Is he aware that the much-vaunted primary school building programme is urgently required in Lanarkshire? When will he make it known to the local authority that it can build the primary schools which are still urgently required and the secondary schools which are urgently needed to carry out the comprehensive education programme?
    Mr. Monro: When the Government are disbursing such a large sum as about £38·5 million for school building, including nursery school building, we must look very carefully at how we allocate the money to each authority. This is why it has taken a little longer than last
    426
    year, but I shall announce the plan as soon as I can.
    Mr. Ewing: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my remarks in the debate on the rate support grant on Tuesday of last week, when I described the serious difficulties encountered by Stirlingshire Education Committee in that the school population in the Falkirk/ Grangemouth area is increasingly rapidly and said that an extra allocation should be made to the committee for this purpose? Can he comment on this?
    Mr. Monro: Certainly, the Scottish Education Department looks at population trends and the special requirements of special areas when we are making up the allocations. I am sure that this will be taken into consideration.

    Highlands and Islands Development Board
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the meetings he has had with the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since becoming Secretary of State, I have had one formal meeting with the board and I have also met members of the board on a number of occasions. In particular I am in close touch with the board's chairman and from time to time discuss with him the work of the board. In addition, since June 1970 other Scottish Office Ministers have met the board on four separate occasions.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the Secretary of State accept that there is considerable disquiet about the board's performance, which is not unrelated to the fact that former servants of the board find it remunerative and profitable to take jobs outside not unrelated to their former activities with the board? How much land has the board in terms of options or ownership which might be used for offshore oil supply purposes?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that a former member of the board who was deputy-chairman —a retired civil servant, he was appointed deputy-chairman at the age of 60 by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock

    427
    (Mr. Ross)—over five years later, when he has left, has taken up an appointment with a development company. There is nothing in the rules governing the question of going to such a company from a public board such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the selective employment tax was introduced, the former Highlands and Islands Development Board made representations to the then Secretary of State that it should not apply to Highland hotels and that the Labour Government responded favourably to that request? Has he had similar representations from the present board about the impact of VAT on the Highlands, particularly on the Highland tourist industry? If not, why not? Will he have discussions with the board at once about this?
    Mr. Campbell: I well remember a long campaign in which I took part to try to get the previous Government to relieve hotels and the tourist industry from the obnoxious SET, which in the end they reluctantly did, dividing Scotland up into a curious chequerboard so that there was relief in some areas but not in others. I have not received representations of this kind on VAT.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Reverting to the question of further employment of members and former members of the board, in view of the remarkable responsibilities given to the board by the previous Government is there not a serious case for subjecting its members to the same rules regarding employment after quitting public service as apply to civil servants, and ensuring that they are enforced more effectively than they have sometimes been on civil servants?
    Mr. Campbell: This is a matter that needs consideration. I was informing the House of the present position.
    Mr. Strang: Is it not remarkable that even merchant bankers are now criticising the Government's oil policy for a lack of planning? If they are not yet convinced of the urgent need for a comprehensive land policy for the north of Scotland, will the Government at least make a statement on their attitude to the taking of options on large areas of
    428
    strategically-placed land by private companies backed by Scottish financial institutions?
    Mr. Campbell: That is quite a different point. The hon. Member will recognise that it was merchant bankers themselves who were being criticised for their activities last Friday. We are making good progress in Scotland in respect of undersea oil, and the onshore activities are all welcome developments. None the less, this seems to be an area in which each sector criticises the other.

    Mental Welfare Commission
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to seek an increase in the powers of the Mental Welfare Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: The commission's powers in relation to the taking of evidence were recently extended by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, and I am not aware of any need for additional powers.
    Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman really content with present arrangements for Secretary of State patients at the State mental hospital? Can he, for example, tell us what percentage of such patients receive psychiatric treatment? Will he consider whether the excellent work of the Mental Welfare Commission could not be usefully supplemented by mental welfare tribunals to which complaints by such patients and other patients who are detained in hospital could be referred?
    Mr. Monro: I certainly join the hon and learned Member in praise for the Mental Welfare Commission, which does an exceptional job in Scotland. With respect to him, he may be thinking of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in England, which only advises the Home Secretary. In the same way as my right hon. Friend has to make the final decision on discharge of Secretary of State patients at Carstairs, the Home Secretary has to make the final decision in England. It would not help to add to the powers that we already have.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Mental Welfare Commission satisfied with the present position of out-patients, since the local authorities are responsible for them

    429
    while the commission has a visiting responsibility?
    Mr. Monro: I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend. Certainly there were some difficulties as insufficient people were coming forward to offer to look after out-patients, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the immediate position.
    Mr. John Smith: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question of the rights of patients, whether mental patients or other patients, will he explain to the House why he accepted an amendment in Committee on the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to the powers and duties of the Health Commissioner, which were taken out of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill dealing with England which is at present before the House?
    Mr. Monro: This in no way affects the position of the Mental Welfare Commission, which we feel needs to be retained in a strong position in Scotland.

    Housing (Estimates)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the highest annual figure in the parliamentary Estimates for housing during the period 1965 to 1969; and how this compares with the parliamentary Estimates for 1973–74.
    Mr. Younger: The highest annual estimate between 1965 and 1969 was £30·2 million in 1968–69. The estimate for 1973–74 is £101·6 million.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does my hon. Friend realise that I am almost speechless? Is he aware that these remarkable figures make nonsense of the mischievous and alarmist housing stories spread about Scotland by those sour and prattling hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Younger: I have no illusions that even figures like these could make my hon. Friend speechless. Of course he is right: Opposition Members who made a great thing a year ago about the Housing Finance Act cutting subsidies have been proved totally and absolutely mistaken. I should have thought that they would have had the grace to admit it.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if anyone is speechless, it is
    430
    the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are confronted with the escalating prices of houses about which the Government are doing very little?
    Mr. Younger: I should have thought that, whatever one may accuse the Government of doing or not doing, doing very little about inflation is the last accusation that could possibly be levelled against us. The hon. Gentleman knows that until inflation is conquered that sort of thing will go on. This Government have taken bigger steps than any other Government this century to do that.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend emphasise on every possible occasion that the excellent figures which he has just quoted include the fact that there arc literally thousands of people in Scotland who, under the new Act, will live rent free from now on?
    An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
    Mr. Younger: That is a very important point. We have always maintained that more money could be made available for housing in Scotland provided that it was concentrated on those who need it most, which is precisely what we have done. The people concerned are very grateful about it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How much of this total is the result of the record house building figures between 1964 and 1970? How much of the figure is due to inflation? What increase in house building does the Minister expect in the next couple of years?
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure about all those questions. But absolutely none of this figure is in any way due to any activities by Opposition Members.
    Secondly, the housing programme has received a welcome boost from the generous subsidy arrangements which were brought in by the Act. That is why local authorities had a record number of approvals to put to us, which they are now proceeding to go on and build.
    Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that the quarter of a million houses built by the Labour Government, a record number, are attracting no subsidy at all? That would be the implication of the hon. Gentleman's answer. If those houses were not there, there would not need to be any continuing subsidy at all.
    Mr. Younger: I must give the right hon. Gentleman a slide rule for Christmas because he will find that if his subsidy system had been carried on and the new Act had not been brought in, his subsidy would have produced nothing remotely approaching the figure of £101·6 million.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. On the theme of speechlessness, may I point out that 12 Scottish Questions have taken 37 minutes. I hope that we can make quicker progress.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the expected expenditure under the parliamentary Estimates for housing in the year 1973–74; and how this compares with the equivalent sums in 1971–72 and 1972–73, respectively.
    Mr. Younger: The figure is £101·6 million for 1973–74, compared with £50·1 million for 1971–72 and £61·4 million for 1972–73.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) I am speechless, but before I lose my voice altogether may I ask what steps the Minister can take to trumpet these facts all over Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: The evidence of these facts is to be seen in the balance sheets of local authorities, which find that the new subsidy system gives most help where it is most needed. It is worth noting from all these figures that of all the years under the present Government, even the lowest year is substantially above the highest year under the previous Government.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the Minister estimate how much of this new payment will come out of the rates, either for the present figure which has been given or for the figure covering the immediate future?
    Mr. Younger: None of this figure comes out of the rates. It is Government money which is devoted to housing under the parliamentary Estimates for housing. But the rates will be substantially assisted too by the fact that the
    432
    burden ratepayers now carry for housing will be more than halved over the next five years.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received about employment prospects in the light of future pit closures in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The last colliery closure in Scotland was in October 1972. No further closures in Scotland have been announced by the National Coal Board, so that questions of alternative employment have not since arisen. I shall continue to keep closely in touch with the situation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Secretary of State aware that such a statement from him —that no pit closures are contemplated —shows that he is completely out of touch with what is happening in Scotland? Does not he agree that it is time there was a statement on how the new Coal Industry Act, and the money earmarked in it, will prevent pit closures?
    Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there is growing suspicion that the Act and the money therein mentioned are becoming merely symbols and will not be activated by the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this?
    Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman not misrepresent what I have just said? I shall repeat it for him. I said that no further closures in Scotland have been announced by the National Coal Board but that I was keeping closely in touch with the situation because I recognise that closures could be announced in the future. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made a statement about this in the debate on 21st December. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear it he can look it up.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is too late to do anything about a particular area when the announcement of a pit closure has been made? We are asking that Section 9 of the Act be applied to see whether

    433
    some of the collieries which we hear—only hear—axe contemplated for closure need not be closed if there were an application of the money which the Government keep for this purpose.
    Mr. Campbell: It has been made clear that the future depends upon the industry's success in selling its product and on changes in productivity. The coal industry as a whole and miners recognise this and have been making special efforts. I must point out also that the National Coal Board has a good record of giving adequate notice before closures. But in the closure of October 1972 I am glad to say that of the 448 men employed, 310 were transferred to other collieries and of the other 138 who were made redundant a very large number were over 60 or in their late 50s.

    Family Planning
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future development of family planning services in Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: From April 1974 family planning will become a normal part of the health services, with advice and treatment provided without charge. Contraceptives will, like other drugs and appliances, be supplied as appropriate under the National Health Service. The standard prescription charge will be paid for each item supplied and the usual exemptions from charges will also apply. The overall effect of the changes is likely to be a substantial expansion of the services provided in Scotland as a whole.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Under-Secretary aware that some local authorities in Scotland provide a free comprehensive family planning service and that the impact of his announcement today means that these will not be allowed to continue? Will he, however, change his mind on this and allow area health boards to continue an existing service or to adapt new services under Section 8 of the 1972 Act? How much more will it cost in Scotland to give a completely free service as opposed to the arrangements which the hon. Gentleman has announced today?
    Mr. Monro: I could not tell the hon. Gentleman the cost of a completely free service, but he knows that the United
    434
    Kingdom figure is about £3 million for removing any prescription charge. The hon. Gentleman and I appreciate what has been done in Aberdeen and that if we are to go on to the National Health Service for the whole of Scotland it would be unreasonable to continue local authority services, or something equivalent to them, because they will cease next April.
    The present plans are the most satisfactory. I am always willing to listen to discussion. The Bill is at present going through the House and I shall willingly listen to what anyone has to say.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: How can my hon. Friend justify expenditure by the Exchequer on family planning, which surely should be the responsibility of families and not of the State?
    Mr. Monro: I must disagree with my hon. Friend. There are over 100,000 abortions each year and over 70,000 illegitimate children. If that number can be reduced by constructive help of the family planning service, it is to the great good of the country.
    Mr. Carmichael: On the question of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, the Minister may remember that he gave an undertaking on Report stage that health boards in whose area there were local authorities which operated a free family planning service, for both advice and appliances, would be allowed to continue this service. Will he look back at the Report stage and realise that he is changing the attitude of the Government on this point?
    Mr. Monro: Certainly the policies laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are marginally different from what was before the House a year ago. But the hon. Gentleman can raise this matter at a later stage. I am always willing to listen to argument, but I do not think that it is right for a local authority scheme to be perpetuated in the new national scheme under our policies.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that Aberdeen deserves the greatest tribute for its pioneering, progressive system in this matter and that its successful example has been in large measure responsible for the change in public attitude and the new policy which has

    435
    now been put forward? However, will not many of those who are at present receiving the free system in Aberdeen continue to do so because of the new exemption methods which are proposed?
    Mr. Monro: Yes. I gladly pay a warm tribute to Aberdeen Town Council, because it pioneered this policy from 1946. It has obviously been successful. I agree with my hon. Friend in that Aberdeen's thinking and what it has shown in practice is in some way responsible for the policies of today. But I agree with my hon. Friend, too, that a large number of people attending clinics will continue to receive the same free service as they obtain now.

    Shandy (Sale)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to prohibit the sale of the product shandy from non-licensed retail shops.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend proposes to await the Clayson Report before considering possible changes in the licensing laws.
    Mr. Stewart: In view of the delay in production of the Clayson Report, will the Minister take action in the meantime to prevent the sale of this product containing alcohol, however minimal, by retail shops?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The use of the beverage might help any speechlessness that there might be in the House. It is not fair to say that there are any real delays over the report. It is a big subject which arouses a lot of controversy in Scotland and the committee has not been sitting for an undue time. We expect to receive the report shortly. As for the beverage, we have certainly received no representations about it and I am not aware that it does any particular harm.

    Secondary Education (Edinburgh)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the representations he has received seeking an early decision on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have received representations from Edinburgh Education Authority and from some Edinburgh parents pressing for an early decision. Some hon. Members have also approached me on this subject. I shall announce my decision on whether the authority's proposals can be approved in their present form when all the implications have been fully considered.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome very much the important assurances he gave us last week on this matter but that notwithstanding those assurances we feel that the decision is long overdue? Can he assure us that he is not deliberately holding back his announcement until after the municipal elections?
    Mr. Campbell: I am not sure whether the assurances to which the hon. Member refers are the same as some of the comments that I saw in the Press. However, I have made clear that this is a matter on which I cannot take a hasty decision because the proposals would have a far-reaching effect on the provision of education throughout the city, and all their implications must be carefully considered before decisions are reached.

    Perth Road Bridge
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the proposed new road bridge at Perth; and if it will be a toll bridge.
    Mr. Younger: The estimated cost is £4 million. The bridge will not be subject to tolls.
    Mr. Doig: Is the Minister aware that this is a form of discrimination between one route and another? Is he not aware that the effect of this will be slightly to shorten the route at Government expense? There will be no tolls for traffic travelling on one route but there will be tolls for traffic going the other way over the Tay Road Bridge, which is at present the shorter route. Has the Minister considered the effect this will have on the revenue of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board?
    Mr. Younger: That will have to be considered when the bridge is constructed. This Government's policy is the same as that of the previous Government: that tolls are levied on major new

    437
    estuarial crossings which provide exceptional benefits to the users in the saving of time and expense. Tolls are charged throughout the country on such crossings of estuaries. I hardly feel that this bridge could be described as crossing an estuary.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Can my hon. Friend say how long it will be before the bridge is connected to the existing motorway system?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot, because this is the subject of planning procedures upon which objections have been lodged. All I can say is that we are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible but at the present time it is not possible to determine how long this will take.
    Mr. MacArthur: There is a pressing need for the new bridge. Will my hon. Friend give any indication when it is likely to be completed?
    Mr. Younger: That depends how long it takes to resolve the planning and objection problems which have arisen. The bridge is expected to take about three years to build once a start has been made, which we hope will be next year, but that depends on the resolution of legal proceedings.

    Schools (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the degree of consultation with parents and teachers which he regards as appropriate in cases in which local authorities are promoting major reorganisation schemes or school closures.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The need varies with the circumstances and it would be impracticable to lay down a particular pattern, but I would take up with local authorities, as I have done, any case in which I thought their consultations were inadequate.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consultation over the closure of the selective schools in Glasgow consisted of the issuing of one circular letter to the parents of the children a day before the schools broke up for their holidays telling them that the schools were to close and inviting them to speak to the headmaster if they had problems?
    438
    The headmasters were about to go off on a two-months' holiday. If that kind of consultation which my right hon. Friend has approved for these schools were applied on the shop floor, there would be a general strike within days and many Glasgow folk would feel inclined to join in.
    Mr. Campbell: In March last year I insisted that Glasgow Corporation should carry out consultations with the parents and teachers and it did that in June. It wrote to all the parents of pupils substantially affected, and that gave parents the opportunity of expressing their views. I agree that Glasgow Corporation could have done more. But when I pressed the corporation, it did in the end carry out consultations.

    Scottish Economic Council
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next take the chair at the Scottish Economic Council.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: On 13th April.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the members of the council why in the economic review section of the Scottish Economic Bulletin there is only one passing reference of one sentence to North Sea oil and its effect on the Scottish economy? Is it fair for us to regard this departmental omission as an indication of the well-recognised fact that on matters of oil policy the Secretary of State's influence in the Cabinet is negligible?
    Mr. Campbell: No, the hon. Member is talking nonsense. The Bulletin has a purpose which is well recognised. It was not on that occasion dealing with North Sea oil. The question of undersea oil has been dealt with in various ways, including a publication from the Department of Trade and Industry, and it will be dealt with in the future. It is a continually changing situation and the Government will be issuing information in the most appropriate forms on the many different aspects of this important subject for Scotland.

    Employment (School Leavers)
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to create further employment

    439
    opportunities for unemployed school leavers in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 31st January to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Since then the substantial downward trend in unemployment in Scotland has continued and this affects young people as well as adults.—[Vol. 849, c. 1131–3.]
    Mr. McElhone: Notwithstanding that reply, is the Minister aware that 32 per cent. of all unemployed school leavers in Scotland are in Glasgow? May we have an assurance that the Secretary of State is pressing as hard as possible in the Cabinet that Glasgow and West Central Scotland get their share of the Civil Service jobs being dispersed under the proposals of the Hardman Report?
    Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Member's concern about unemployment of young people, which is one of the worst features of unemployment and one we all want to eliminate. The hon. Member will know of the Community Industry Scheme, which has two particular centres in Scotland, of which Glasgow is one. We are anxious to encourage this and we are doing all we can to see that Scotland receives its fair share of projects under the scheme. The hon. Member would not expect me to anticipate publication of the Hardman Report, but the views of all interested bodies in Scotland have been well considered by all those concerned with the discussion.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that since 1969 there has been a gradual decrease in the number of apprentices being employed by Scottish industrialists and that if it had not been for the increase in the school leaving age the situation would be more precarious? In those circumstances the Scottish Office must accept some responsibility. In Lanarkshire 7 per cent. of the insurable population is still unemployed. What will the Government do about it?
    Mr. Younger: I will not go into all the measures taken to relieve unemployment. It is sufficient to say that unemployment has been substantially reducing for a full year, and everyone is extremely pleased about that. The main remedy is to get the economy as a whole expanding. As we are all very glad to note, the econ-
    440
    omy seems to be expanding at an annual rate of about 5 per cent., a rate undreamed of under previous Governments.
    Mr. McElhone: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the fact that the Secretary of State has not given the assurances for which I asked, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

CONTROL OF MOTOR RALLIES BILL
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the control and regulation of motor rallies.
The numerous complaints I have received from constituents have prompted me to introduce the Bill, which is an attempt to resolve the conflict between the interests of the rally enthusiasts and those people who reside in areas that are suitable for rallying.
Rallies take place at night. As country roads provide the best tests for motorists, those people living near such roads, who are accustomed to quietness at night, find that the noise of a rally is a great nuisance. There have been complaints about dangerous driving, rudeness and abuse from rally drivers, but the major complaint has been about noise.
The present controls come under the regulations that came into force in April 1969. Those regulations largely follow the recommendations in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Motor Rallies, published in 1964. The regulations give to the Royal Automobile Club the power to authorise rallies. Any motor club wishing to stage a rally applies to the RAC and pays it a fee. Paragraph 10 of the relevant statutory instrument requires the RAC to notify the chief officer of police of any area where it is proposed to hold an event, and to consult the appropriate highway authority. This arrangement of consultation and notification is far too loose. The power still lies with the RAC.
Paragraph 11 requires the RAC to have regard to
"(a) whether in all the circumstances it is likely that the conditions, subject to which

441
the event if authorised, would be required to be held, will be observed ".
Note the words "is likely". It also requires the RAC to have regard to
"(b) the extent to which the holding of an event might prejudicially affect the safety, amenity or convenience of members of the public, …
(d) the nature and suitability of the route …
These matters are to be within the prerogative of the RAC to decide. It is a matter of opinion on which it will judge. The arrangements are far too loose and need to be tightened up. Both paragraphs that I have quoted place far too much power in the hands of the RAC, which has been far too remote, far too off hand in dealing with complaints from the general public.
The Bill would change the controlling agency and make it more subject to local interests. It proposes that bodies be set up in each area or region of England and Wales, bodies consisting of representatives of motor clubs, motor cycle organisations, police authorities and local government. Those bodies will be responsible for authorising events, for receiving and dealing with complaints, and for supervising events.
Motoring organisations contend that "cowboys"—unofficial competitors and spectators—are often the cause of complaints. More adequate supervision by the bodies I propose in the Bill might deal with some of those problems.
The public would have more confidence, in that the complaints machinery would be more subject to their control, as they would be directly represented. We should have on the bodies people more sensitive to local feelings, as are the best motor clubs.
The Bill also provides for a semipermanent commission to meet at regular intervals—say, annually or every two years—to keep the situation under constant review and to make recommenda-
442
tions to the Minister on any changes that may be thought necessary.
The last advisory committee sat 10 years ago. It stated then:
"Although the number of events held each year seems to be fairly constant, there is some evidence that the total number of participants is growing."
The situation has changed considerably in 10 years, and a new look at the problem is needed.
That committee also recommended, in paragraph 97 of its Report, the setting up of a permanent advisory committee. The Government of the day did not think that to be necessary, but I believe the committee was right. A permanent commission is needed.
I would also mention, although it cannot be the subject of this legislation, the use of forest roads. Many of the problems could be overcome if direct grants were made to the Forestry Commission to strengthen and improve certain forest roads so that they could be used freely by the general public in the day and for rallies at night. The present fee payable for the use of the roads by motor clubs makes it prohibitive for all but the wealthiest clubs to consider using them.
I hope that the House will accept that the problem needs urgent attention, and will allow the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. Elystan Morgan and Mr. David Clark.
CONTROL OF MOTOR RALLIES
Bill to make further provision for the control and regulation of motor rallies, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 4th May and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
3.37 p.m.
The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has two principal objectives. The first is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation, which is commonly known as the Montreal Convention. The second is to enable the Government to seek information from and to give directions to airlines and airport authorities on matters concerning aviation security.
Hijacking and sabotage of aircraft and other acts of violence affecting the safety of civil air transport present one of today's most difficult problems. It is a problem that knows no boundaries. No State and few of us can consider ourselves immune from its risks. It is a problem that brings with it actions which can have no possible justification in the threat which they present to the safety of innocent passengers and aircrew and in the intolerable pressures they place on the unfortunate victims caught up in this violence.
It is a problem that imposes the most extreme strain on pilots. It has only been the exceptional skill, discipline and control of these men, to whom I wish to pay tribute this afternoon—and I know that the House will join me—that has averted major catastrophes in a number of incidents. It is a problem which requires the constant application of the closest cooperation between States, airlines, airport authorities and all those who fly in aeroplanes. There are no easy solutions. It is against this background that I bring the Bill before the House.
Before I explain the form of the Bill, I think hon. Members would expect me to say something about the Government's policy and their general approach to combating violence against civil aviation. Our policy has three basic objectives: first, to
444
prevent violence occurring; secondly, to ensure that we are able to deal with any violence which may arise; thirdly, to provide that when hijackers and saboteurs and the like are caught they can be dealt with effectively wherever they may be throughout the world.
The first requirement in effective prevention is to be forewarned of possible violence. The gathering and dissemination of such information is primarily, though not exclusively, a matter for Governments. We keep our airlines and airport authorities closely advised of the threat to their operations and of the measures which they might take to combat this threat. This involves a clear understanding of the responsibilities of all concerned and the closest liaison between the airlines, airport authorities and the Government.
The emphasis on co-operation is vital to our whole approach to the problem. Nothing in this Bill is intended to undermine the close contacts which have been built up between all sides of the industry and the Government, or the mutual trust and understanding which I believe exists, and which, in our judgment, is so necessary to combat the evil which we face.
The Government have the overall responsibility for aviation security policy and for the provision of the advice and guidance on the threat and the counter-measures to which I have just referred. Operational responsibiliy, on the other hand, for implementing security measures rest- with the airlines in respect of their aircraft and everyone and everything which goes on board, and with the airport authority in respect of the overall security of the airport.
The provision of advice, guidance, liaison and co-operation is achieved formally through the National Aviation Security Committee, and I know from personal experience the close attention it pays to all aspects of aviation security, through the airport security committees which complement the national committee at the local airport level and through the more or less permanent contact, on a day-to-day basis, which has been established between those involved with the problems in Government and in the industry.
I should be the last to suggest that violence can be dealt with by setting up

445
committees, but I believe that the National Aviation Security Committee, which involves the Government Departments concerned—that is the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence—and the police, airline operators, airport authorities, the Civil Aviation Authority and the trade unions, including the British Air Line Pilots' Association, complemented in the way I have described, fulfils an important function as a forum for consultation and for the regular review of the situation facing our civil aviation and the preventive measures which are continually being taken.
The preventive measures taken at our airports and by our airlines are related to two basic considerations—first, to prevent the hijacker joining an aircraft or the saboteur from placing his bomb on board; secondly to ensure that security measures are related to the threat and are concentrated on those operations most at risk. Some of these measures, notably the searching of passengers and their baggage, will be familiar to regular travellers and those hon. Members who recently had the opportunity to visit Heathrow who will know something of the security precautions which are applied there and which are equally applied throughout the country.
The House will understand why I do not intend to catalogue the full range of precautions which are taken or the equipment which is being used. It would be wrong if I did so. There is limited purpose in installing security measures if we immediately advertise them to those they are designed to catch. They vary with intensity as between airlines and individual flights, and it is a foolhardly person today who ignores the comprehensive security framework around our airports.
The Government's response to the security problem is not confined to the provision of advice and guidance. To ensure that measures to combat hijacking and sabotage in the United Kingdom are not frustrated by financial considerations, we are meeting the full costs, originally estimated to be about £1 million a year, of over 30 British and foreign airlines in searching their passengers and baggage at our airports. This is a major contribution to the effort to contain violence and has been recognised as such both
446
by the air transport industry in the United Kingdom and overseas.
The searching of passengers and baggage and security of the aircraft is only part of the answer. It is necessary to complement these efforts at the airports. When our airports were designed it was never imagined that we should be faced with violence in the forms which we now face. The emphasis was on the smooth and speedy flow of passengers, baggage and cargo. To apply security to existing airports presents complex problems, but we have no choice but to face them.
The Government for some time have been undertaking comprehensive security surveys of British airports. These are of major importance in reviewing existing security measures, and in considering improvements and in recommending the action which has been or might be taken to effect further such improvements. Very considerable progress has been made with the surveys and in the implementation of the necessary decisions that followed from them.
A lot of hard work and resources are being expended throughout the world on efforts to combat violence and terrorism directed at civil aviation. And the inevitable question is the effectiveness of these efforts.
Mr. Dan Jones: Hard work is one thing, but can the Minister assure the House on this very important issue that professional people are employed for these purposes?
Mr. Heseltine: The most professional people are available to us. I can readily give that assurance.
Are the efforts that we are making effective? The disappointing answer that I must give is that nobody knows how effective they are. I can point to the statistics which show that the number of hijackings has declined significantly over the past two years, and that the proportion that have been successful in the sense that the hijacker or extortionist has achieved his objectives has declined even more rapidly.
I can point also to the considerable number and wide variety of firearms, ammunition and other potential weapons which have been removed from passengers and their baggage at our airports. For example during the period October to

447
December the following were among the many items found on passengers by BOAC: 10 shotguns, 72 toy guns, revolvers and pistols, six rifles, one musket, 332 rounds of ammunition, 2,000 air gun pellets, 245 various knives, 67 swords, five crossbows, and a variety of other offensive weapons. But I cannot say how many potential hijackers and saboteurs have been deterred by the measures which we have taken.
This is at once the dilemma and frustration of those engaged in security work, that they are rarely able to assess the positive effects of their efforts. There can be no complacency. Security measures consistent with the threat are being rigorously maintained by our airlines and at our airports and they must also be kept constantly under review. But it should be a sobering thought for any would-be criminals that the success rate of criminals hijacking aircraft for financial gain is very low indeed. In America for example which has been particularly prone to this kind of violence, there were 22 hijackings involving extortion demands in 1971 and 1972. In only one case did a hijacker avoid capture and retain the ransom which he demanded. The conclusion is clear: there is no future in hijacking and bomb threats as a simple way to easy money.
Prevention is the first objective. The second objective of our policy is to deal with any violence which may occur, since no preventive measures will ever eradicate violence. I cannot go into details, but I can assure the House that contingency plans have been made to deal with any violence at our airports, that there is a clear chain of command, that the full resources of the State are involved in these plans and would be deployed as required, and that all those concerned have been briefed accordingly.
I turn now to the third objective—the punishment of offenders—which is primarily a question of international action, and specifically the development of an effective and comprehensive legal framework. There are three international conventions to which I should like to refer briefly, and work is currently proceeding on ways to make these conventions more effective.
First there is the Tokyo Convention of 1963, which deals generally with crimes
448
committed on board aircraft, which sets out the jurisdiction and duties of States and describes the powers of the aircraft commander in relation to such crimes. The enactment in 1967 of the Tokyo Convention Bill enabled the United Kingdom to be among the first to ratify the convention, which is now in force for 62 countries.
Secondly, there is the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, which is concerned with the hijacking of aircraft. It was given effect in the Hijacking Act 1971, under which anyone who commits the offence of hijacking is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. Again, the United Kingdom was among the first ratifications of the Hague Convention, which has now been ratified by 49 States.
Thirdly, there is the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, which was concluded at a diplomatic conference in September 1971. This convention is specially aimed at sabotage and similar acts other than hijacking. Its general form is similar to that of the Hague Convention on hijacking, which it effectively complements.
The Montreal Convention was put in hand largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom at the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which was convened in June 1970 especially to consider all matters affecting the security of civil aviation. It was signed on its conclusion at Montreal by 31 countries, including the United Kingdom, and since then there have been another 30 signatories, making a total of 61. It has been ratified by 23 countries and it came into force among those countries which have ratified the Convention on 26th January 1973.
Mr. Dan Jones: And ignored by the Middle East.
Mr. Heseltine: One hopes that progress will be made in encouraging other countries to add their signatures.
We know from the initiatives we have taken to encourage States to adopt both the Montreal and Hague Conventions that many other countries are preparing for ratification. What the convention

449
does, in brief, is to require contracting States to make it an offence for any person to perform an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight which is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; to destroy or damage an aircraft or air navigation facilities or to place on board an aircraft a device or substance likely to endanger aircraft in flight; and to communicate false information thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. These offences are to be punishable by severe penalties.
It includes provision for arrest, facilitates the extradition of offenders between contracting States and obliges any contracting State where the offender is found to take jurisdiction to prosecute him if it does not extradite him. We believe the convention to be an important additional instrument in dealing with violence. It has been welcomed by all sections of the air transport industry in this country.
It will be apparent from what I have said so far that Her Majesty's Government have been very active in developing and supporting these various conventions. But there is one further area which has been a matter of particular concern, and that is the steps which might be taken, including sanctions, to deal with those States which do not act in accordance with the conventions. At the meeting of the Legal Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal in January, it was decided that four proposals should be submitted for consideration at an extraordinary session of ICAO and at a diplomatic conference to be held concurrently in Rome in August.
The first proposal was a joint United Kingdom-Swiss proposal to amend the Chicago Convention to provide for the use of the sanctions in that convention, including the stoppage of air services and the suspension of voting rights in ICAO against offending States. The second was a French proposal for incorporating the provisions of the Hague Convention against hijacking into the Chicago Convention, under which in theory a State could be expelled from ICAO if it failed to ratify the amendments. The third was a proposal by the Soviet Union for a protocol to the Hague Convention providing for the automatic extradition of
450
an offender to the State of registry of the aircraft concerned. The fourth proposal was by the Scandinavian countries for a new convention which would provide for recommendations to be made to an offending State.
We are now actively engaged in preparing for the meeting in Rome in August. We are seeking, through all the means open to us, to achieve the widest possible support for the proposals we have put forward to amend the Chicago Convention. If these efforts are successful and our proposals are adopted, we believe they will be an important addition to the measures being taken internationally to deal with violence against civil aviation.
The question of sanctions is of special concern to the pilots and to other employees in air transport. I keep closely in touch with them about this and I fully understand their position and the depth of their feeling. But we all recognise that, to achieve their result, any sanctions which might be imposed must be significant in their effect and widely applied. Unilateral action is likely to have negligible effect—indeed, it is more likely to damage the State imposing the sanctions than the State at which they are directed.
I do not propose to go through the Bill clause by clause, since the purpose of each clause is, I think, clearly stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, but there are a number of points to which I should like to draw attention.
Mr. Robert Adley: Would my hon. Friend list, either now or later in the debate, the nationalities of the passport holders he mentioned as having been caught at Heathrow in possession of offensive weapons?
Mr. Heseltine: I think my hon. Friend will understand that the provision of that information would require a lot of detailed analysis, and I doubt whether I have it available today. I will see whether it could profitably be made available.
The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to enable us to ratify the Montreal Convention, and the main provisions relating to this are contained in Clauses 1 and 2, which define the offences of destroying, damaging or otherwise endangering the

451
safety of aircraft in flight and destroying, damaging or interfering with air navigation facilities or communicating false information likely to endanger aircraft in flight; in Clause 4, which provides that those committing these offences shall be liable to imprisonment for life; and in Clause 5 which is concerned with the extradition of offenders.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but can he explain whether Clause 1(3) indicates that damage or destruction to a civil aircraft is an offence under the Bill even if the offence is committed outside the United Kingdom and by a non-British person? Would the provision thereby cover such incidents as the destruction of the Libyan civilian airliner on 21st February?
Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question in general terms. The object of the clause is to give effect to the agreed provisions in the Montreal Convention. One of the purposes of the convention was to have a global international situation which is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has suggested it. It was agreed that countries would take the sort of powers implied in the Bill, although outside their own territorial boundaries, and they rely on the convention to give them effective support to be able to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provision would cover specific incidents such as that to which he referred. I first point out that there is no such law in this country until the Bill is passed, and therefore that incident could not have been affected, I imagine, by a law which has not been passed. However, I will refer to this matter later. Meanwhile, I will check up on whether the opinion I have given is correct.
In relation to Part II of the Bill I have already emphasised that the process of continuing consultation and voluntary co-operation between the Government and industry is working extremely well. It is our wish that it should continue, and we believe that it will. But recent acts of terrorism have taken forms which can barely have been visualised. For example, there was the massacre of innocent passengers at Lod Airport in May 1972, the sabotage
452
in June of a Cathay Pacific aircraft over Vietnam, the hijacking in November in America which lasted over 29 hours and involved the shooting of the co-pilot and a threat to crash the aircraft on an atomic weapons centre. There was also the hijacking of an Ethiopian airliner in December 1972 when a grenade exploded in the aircraft and a major catastrophe was narrowly averted. These incidents are of an order of magnitude and threat which could never have been envisaged in the early days of aviation.
In the light of these developments, the Government consider that it would be imprudent to expect that in every circumstance, no matter how willing the cooperation, owners and operators of aircraft or the managers of aerodromes could be expected to take the necessary steps without formal statutory backing. For example, violence might take such a form that the Government considered that more rigorous searching should be introduced. While we would expect the airlines to appreciate the need for this, since they would be advised of it, the searching might involve long delays to flights and some risk to the goodwill of the airlines. In these circumstances, the airline operator might well find it an advantage to receive a formal direction so that he could make it clear that he was required to take such action because the Government had ordered him to do so.
This was the first reason which influenced the Government in seeking these powers. The second main reason was that while it was impossible to forecast what form future violence might take, we believe that the public would expect the Government to have the powers to deal with any eventuality. That is why the powers are so all-embracing and in certain respects unprecedented. It gives the Government no pleasure to have to ask for these powers but we believe that the situation makes them necessary to support our efforts to protect innocent passengers and aircrews against the menace of terrorism.
The Government are very conscious of the implications of these powers for the liberty of the subject. I wish to emphasise most strongly that the powers apply only to the purposes to which Part II of the Bill applies. These purposes, which are the protection of aircraft and aerodromes and persons or property on

453
aircraft or at aerodromes, are contained in Clause 7. I wish also to assure the House that the powers will be used sparingly, reasonably and with all due care, with a proper regard for the rights of the individual and after appropriate consultation.
The powers for the Secretary of State to request information about security measures and to give directions are contained in Clauses 8 to 11. In relation to this, and following discussion in another place, the Government will be introducing amendments intended to extend the coverage of the Bill to air navigation facilities. The House will wish to note particularly Clause 11 which provides a general power to give directions; Clause 15 which enables a direction to override any contract, Act or rule of law to the contrary; and Clause 18 which provides powers of search. These clauses are all qualified in certain respects but I believe they raise particular points to which the House will wish to apply itself carefully.
No nation is more rightly proud of the fundamental rights of its citizens than we in Britain. No Parliament is more jealous of the protection traditionally afforded to individuals to pursue their lives, fully protected from the arbitrary use of power by civil or military authority. No Minister will come lightly to this House and ask for powers of arrest unprecedented in peace time.
But I must tell the House that I believe that no Government can fail to recognise the realities of piracy and terrorism in the air today. Having recognised them no Government can fail to equip themselves to act against politically or criminally motivated people with the speed and decisiveness appropriate to the nature of modern hijacking.
The risk to the average passenger—we have 40 million passing through our airports every year—is of tiny proportions, for in reality the number of incidents is very small. But for the few who innocently become involved, pursuing their commercial duties or travelling on holiday, the risks are total.
I ask the House in giving this Bill a Second Reading to demonstrate its determination to give every support to those whose job it is to protect us at the point of confrontation with desperate, ruthless and often fanatical men and women.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Roy Mason: The Minister has briefly given us an account of how the International Civil Aviation Organisation has been doing its job. The member States of the Organisation have been building up international legislation over the past 10 years with a view to stamping out aircraft hijacking and sabotage and with a view to obtaining international recognition of penalties which will deter such piratical acts. This Bill, which has the blessing of the Opposition, goes some way towards meeting ICAO's goal.
We have had the Tokyo Convention of 1963 which dealt with crimes committed on board aircraft and particularly described the role and responsibilities of the aircraft commander. The United Kingdom was among the first to ratify that convention. In June 1970 at another ICAO meeting the United Kingdom gave a further lead in outlining the next steps in international legislation to curb acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation. At The Hague meeting in December 1970 a new convention was produced suggesting measures for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft which required all the contracting States to make hijacking of aircraft an offence punishable by severe penalties, including provision for the arrest and extradition of offenders between contracting States, or prosecution if extradition did not take place. The Hijacking Act of 1971 ratified that convention. Again I am pleased to say that we were among the first to do so.
We have this Bill as a result of the Montreal Convention concluded in September 1971. Having framed legislation against hijacking, ICAO was quickly forced to consider legislation to protect aerodromes, aircraft and passengers because of a series of attacks against aircraft on the ground and the sabotage of aircraft in flight. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation is the proposed legislation on which this Bill is based. We recognise that the Bill is much more comprehensive than ICAO recommended.
During the Second Reading of the Hijacking Bill in 1971 we recognised that

455
it was a useful measure but did not provide powers enabling effective action to be taken against those who wished to use aircraft hijacking as a means of obtaining recognition for revolutionary minority forces or against fanatical nationalists, saboteurs and other such criminals.
Since the hijacking legislation was passed there have been 109 acts of aerial piracy. From July 1971, when we debated that measure, until the end of 1971 there were 34. During 1972 there were 72. This year there have so far been three. Contrary to what the Minister says, 1972 was a particularly bad year, involving 72 aircraft, 4,000 passengers, 14 of whom were injured and 11 of whom were killed. That includes the nine Israeli hostages at Munich.
According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 22 of the hijackers were killed in 1972. What was most disturbing—and here I disagree with the Minister—was that the hijacking success rate increased during 1972. In 1968, according to my figures, 85 per cent. of attempted hijackings were successful. In 1970 that figure was down to 60 per cent. and in 1971 it was 44 per cent. However, according to the figures supplied by the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations the success rate in 1972 rose to 50 per cent. The criterion used is that an aircraft did not reach the planned original destination.
We must recognise that hijacking and aerial piracy is still a major threat to airline travel and to all civil aviation airlines. It is still a threat, too, to the small and younger democracies. Here an aircraft and hundreds of innocent passengers can be used as pawns in inter-State conflicts. In particular, it can be used as a tool to prise out of Governments response to demands by rebels and fanatical political minorities that otherwise would never be heeded.
As the Minister suggested, we have to bear in mind that air travel has always been and probably always will be vulnerable in the face of a determined lunatic or paranoiac. But these are rare compared with the series of hijackings which we have recently witnessed, which were premeditated and callously planned to hold airlines, passengers and nations to ransom.
456
To date we have already established the law that hijacking is an offence, whether the hijacker seizes or exercises control of an aircraft. Punishment may be equivalent to imprisonment for life, and there is extradition of the hijacker between member States. We have also erected a screen of precautions, which vary between States and airlines but include air marshals, frisking at airports, the separation of luggage from passengers and security patrols. I believe that this collection of security measures is absolutely necessary and must be maintained. The cost is infinitesimal compared with the loss of a life.
However, I must warn the House that loopholes still exist and that this Bill will not block them, although I hope that, as the Minister suggested, the next ICAO conference will deal—indeed it will have to deal—with the ultimate problem, which is the problem of sanctions. One major worry to all concerned with civil aviation is that the Arab nations, although members of ICAO and most of them members of the International Air Transport Association, are not co-operating with the same will as most of the members of the two international organisations. If co-operation is not forthcoming and any act of aerial piracy or sabotage emanates from these countries, then the ultimate sanction must be used. They must be frozen out of the use and services of international airlines and air traffic control aids. If any nation harbours or provides refuge for one of these air pirates, steps must be taken to freeze the offending State internationally from all civil airline ports.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why he has singled out certain nations in this regard so soon after the shooting down of an airliner, which occurred very recently and is a very tragic memory for us all?
Mr. Mason: I have not singled out individual nations but a bloc, because, if the hon. Gentleman peruses all the conventions that were discussed at Tokyo, The Hague and Montreal and ratified in later years, he will discover that the Arab bloc generally has not ratified. If any of them did ratify, they were late in doing so. I am saying that we are not seeing the same co-operation, the same

457
will, from that group of nations as from the other major civil airline operators.
Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend also blamed the Arab States for not cooperating with ICAO. Is he not aware that at the recent conference of ICAO it was the Israeli Government which alone voted against the resolution, which was carried by 105 votes to 1, which demanded an independent international inquiry into the incident to which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) referred? Can we avoid double standards from the Front Bench? Will he put the blame where it belongs?
Mr. Mason: It is not a question of double standards and I am not talking about one nation or one bloc. I am speaking as forcibly as possible about the major issue of civil airline sabotage and aerial piracy. My hon. Friend will also know that many times previously at almost any one of those conferences the Israelis, as distinct from other civil airline operators and nations, could also have asked for emergency resolutions against the Arab bloc as a whole.
I stand by what I say—that this major loophole exists. Therefore, if we are to freeze offending States out, first of all we should deny their airlines the use of other nations' air space and air traffic control facilities and, secondly, we should place an embargo on their airports. An effective blacking of this nature is the ultimate sanction and ICAO, backed by the major aviation nations, must now be prepared to consider it. All these conventions so far are necessarily limited in solving that major problem while some countries still continue to grant asylum to hijackers. It is possible, however, as the Minister suggested, that the next ICAO conference will deal seriously with this matter.
The United States and Canada have already proposed agreement to impose sanctions on States which shelter hijackers or detain aircraft, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government, if they feel that the proposal of the United States and Canada is stronger than the joint United Kingdom-Swiss proposal, will back the former all the way.
It is also pleasing to note that Cuba is making hijackers increasingly unwelcome and has begun discussions with the
458
United States about further deterrent measures.
I should like at this stage to pay a tribute first of all to the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations but in particular to our own British Airline Pilots' Association. Although they have been under great stress and pressure from their members, they have continued flying, apart from a 24-hour token stoppage, throughout the most dangerous and troublesome period of civil aviation history. They feel that it is the Government's job to develop procedures and sanctions to make their job safe and and that it is not for them to suspend all air services in the world in anger and frustration over aerial piracy. They feel that this Bill will give them some support and they back completely the provisions contained in it.
This Bill, as I suggested initially, goes well beyond what the Montreal Convention suggested owing in the main to the expertise and authoritative pressure of noble Lords who so pressured Lord Drumalbyn—and to some watching the debates he seemed constantly to get his wig in a raffle—that he had to consider so many points that eventually, after the Second Reading and the Committee stage he had to take the Bill back and produce a more formidable Bill, which we are now having presented to the House.
Part I of the Bill seeks ratification of the Montreal Convention. It lists the offences against aircraft or air traffic control facilities both on land and at sea. It deals with the issuing of false communications or inducements within the United Kingdom or outside to act against aircraft or aids which might endanger an aircraft. The maximum penalty contained in the Bill is imprisonment for life, and there are important provisions for quick arrest and for remanding in custody. All this is necessary. We have a build-up of severe penalties and a listing of the offences which may jeopardise an aircraft or any of its aids, plus the extra powers for aerodrome constables of arrest and detention.
Part II of the Bill seems to be a protective part of the Bill. It spells out the protection for aircraft, aerodromes, persons and property from acts of violence. It decrees further offences regarding the carrying or use of dangerous

459
articles, firearms and explosives, including duds or imitations. It also increases the powers of inspection and detention of aircraft.
Two major matters in this part of the Bill are worthy of note and necessitate some further explanation from the Minister. The first is the extraordinary power granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill—power through directives. I have never in my life seen so much directive power vested in a Minister in a Bill. By directive he can ground all aircraft, detain all passengers, search everyone on the aerodrome and establish guards at every aircraft door.
While recognising the need for all this in order effectively to guard against hijacking and aerial sabotage, we shall have to question this massive directive power of one Minister. Perhaps he will be able to elaborate a bit more on this when he winds up the debate, but the Committee stage will be the opportunity to take the matter further.
Secondly—and this spills over into Part III—there are to be directives to persons employed for specific duties, and that will involve constables. They are not constables, in fact. They are airport security guards. There are to be directives regarding searches and other measures, including authorisation to carry firearms. We shall perhaps want to know a little more about that. There are to be directives about qualifications which involve specialist training and experience. "Constables" is obviously the wrong description. First, these people are on a specific job which necessitates specialist training. Secondly, the Home Secretary is not the governor of these people. The Secretary of State, with his directive powers, has responsibility.
The Bill further states that the Secretary of State shall be able to direct the manager of the aerodrome as to the steps he shall take to guard an aircraft in his aerodrome against acts of violence, specifying what measures shall be taken by his constables, whether they shall be armed, whether they shall make searches without warrants, whether they shall have extra powers for quick arrest and detention without charge. I should like the Minister's thoughts on this development, especially the establishment and build-up
460
of a special airport security force, the cost of which according to the Bill will be £600,000 in 1973–74, although the Minister says that security is costing the Government about £1 million a year.
It is a tragic reflection on the state of international society that such measures should be necessary, but necessary they are. These sums are small but, as the Bill makes obvious, the cost is bound to increase. I hope that the Minister, without breaching security, will tell us how he visualises the development of these airport security forces.
Constables' powers are greatly reinforced by the Bill. Constables will probably have a stronger legislative backing for search, arrest and detention than has any other peace-time corps. The cost of guarding aircraft on the ground is £50,000, which is by no means sufficient. I wonder what the survey of security at the 25 airports which handle our international traffic revealed.
Before security was stepped up, there were cases in which people who were not intent upon harm easily boarded aircraft. When one thinks of the average weekly wage and the number of international aircraft at Heathrow and Gatwick alone —even from the troubled areas of the Middle East—it is obvious that there are insufficient guards.
I should like the Minister to tell us more about the growth of the security forces. They need not be called constables. We can afford to say that we have a specialised security force operating at the airports. The £50,000 is a paltry sum to ensure that the job is done effectively and well.
The Bill could be committing the Government to large sums of money by way of compensation, but I agree that payment of compensation is absolutely right. One way of controlling the Secretary of State's powers of direction is by ensuring that full compensation is paid if, as a result of his directives, damage is caused to buildings or land or loss is suffered by persons.
The Bill and its proposed measures, when ratified by all the ICAO members, will step up security and surveillance at all the major international airports. It will, therefore, deal more effectively at its source with the danger of hijacking. But, useful as the Bill will be, we must

461
be prepared to legislate quickly against the political hijackers, those determined, fanatical, intelligent, well-trained groups which use hijacking and aerial sabotage for the purpose of securing political objectives. They are the biggest problem and the most difficult to defeat.
I look forward to hearing soon from the Government that, having taken a lead in framing the Montreal Convention on which the Bill is based, they will be in the vanguard in the next ICAO session, speaking out and being prepared to act against any nation that harbours air pirates and mass murderers. That must be our goal, and the quicker it is achieved the sooner shall we stamp out this civil aviation menace.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that the Government have already taken to counteract hijacking and air terrorism generally, and I welcome the Bill. The problems of hijacking are extremely difficult to solve and I am not sure that the apparently easy solution of sanctions to beat the political hijacker is as simple as it sounds, but I will return to that.
Only this morning I arrived back from New York on a transatlantic airliner after the British Caledonian inaugural flight. As I sat in the aircraft over the Atlantic, my thoughts turned to the problem of hijacking. I thought what a terrifying situation it must be when a hijacker makes his presence known in the fuselage of an aircraft. Suddenly the problem is there, on the plate of the air hostess and then of the pilot.
Of course one hears of marshals being carried on board some aircraft who are said to be such accurate marksmen that they can shoot down a hijacker as he stands in an aircraft even though it is 30,000 ft. over the sea. But that is a solution to hijacking which I would not wish to see adopted on any aircraft, for it contains the dangerous presupposition that the hijacker who has made himself known to the crew is the only one on the aircraft. There have been occasions when there have been other hijackers who have remained in their seats until they were ready to spring into action. One can imagine a marshal shooting down the one who stands up, but what
462
about the others? I do not want to live through a gun fight in mid-air.
I want now to deal with the extradition clauses in Part I of the Bill. Essentially there are three types of hijacker. There are those who are motivated by political objectives, those who seek to hold aircraft to ransom for financial reward, and the small and dangerous crank minority who are prepared to blow up an aircraft and themselves for the life insurance that their family will inherit. The later probably come within the category of the mentally unbalanced and are therefore so dangerous that one cannot think of measures adequate to catch them. Since there is a life insurance policy built into every air ticket, it should not be possible for a person to insure his life for a vast sum of money, buy an air ticket and then blow up an airliner. But I think that the compensation built into the air ticket under the Warsaw Convention of, I think, 75,000 dollars, should be looked at again to see whether it is adequate without being so excessive as to encourage anyone to take this kind of action.
The hijacker who holds an aircraft to ransom is a straightforward criminal, a highwayman, and the measures that we have discussed will catch, or at least deter, him.
With the political hijacker we are in a different world altogether. We can all think of so-called terrorist groups who have hijacked airliners to bring publicity to their cause and who have used the airliner and its passengers as a means of bartering the release of their imprisoned fellow nationals. It is surely reprehensible to hold in ransom innocent lives in that way. But it is sometimes a little more difficult to condemn all acts of political hijacking. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) feels about the political refugee who, for the sake of argument, is fleeing from an Eastern European country. Are we to hand him back when he has hijacked an aircraft simply as a means of transport from the country which is oppressing him to the country in which he seeks asylum? He is not a terrorist. He is not a criminal, although of course he is a hijacker. [An HON. MEMBER: "He could be a murderer."] He could be a murderer, but if he is the kind of person I believe

463
he is, then I do not think he is any of those things. He is simply somebody escaping to freedom. Obviously, if we are to be tough about the question of sanctions we must send him back, but we have to be extremely sure that he is the person we have singled out for the treatment we imagine that we can take with sanctions.
I am very unhappy about the whole concept of sanctions. Too often in this House, over quite a period of time, we have talked of imposing sanctions in various parts of the world, but very seldom have those sanctions proved to be as effective as we imagined they would be when we passed the legislation or ratified the treaty.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend must not confuse the matter of sanctions which, as we all know, seldom work, with the matter of the return of the hijacker to the country from whence he has come, or his trial in the country in which he arrives. Quite clearly, if a man hijacks for political reasons, whether his political reasons are that he is a Palestinian who feels that the Palestinians have been wronged, or is a Jew in Russia who feels that this is the only way he can escape—whatever the motives—the crime is the same and must be dealt with in the same manner.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend's intervention is very interesting, but the point I am making is that the crime is not the same, which is why I raise the whole question of imposing blanket sanctions.
Mr. Michael Fidler: If my hon. Friend does not accept that, is he drawing a distinction between the refugee who is seeking to escape and the terrorist who is seeking to terrorise and intimidate? If so, how does he treat these separate categories?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is the exact difference I am trying to draw. We have to recognise that there are two very different approaches, one where there is a definite intent to destroy life, the other where somebody is running for his life and where there is no intent to hurt anyone at all. I believe that that is a consideration. Perhaps I should say no more than that when talking of sanctions.
Mr. Mason: We are getting into a rather sophisticated argument, but if a person is using an aircraft and determining the passage of that aircraft and its flight path, even though that person may be a refugee escaping from one country to another, in so doing he is endangering the life of all on board, especially when the flight path and fuel of that aircraft have been computed. Therefore, that act alone is a crime.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is simple enough to state it as the right hon. Gentleman expresses it but I will just leave that thought in the mind of the House. I believe that there is a distinction to be drawn and I am sure that there ought not to be the same punishment for these two different categories. The concept of extradition, therefore, is that much weaker than sanctions. If it works it can be effective, but obviously it will work only with the co-operation of those countries which do not at present seem anxious to put their signatures, shall we say, to such legislation as controls the movement of air traffic.
Having said that, I turn to the second part of the Bill, which raises the question of the powers of the Secretary of State to control airlines and airport authorities. I imagine that it is to be superimposed on the responsibilities which already lie in the hands of the British Airports Authority—to name but one organisation —to take certain measures against hijacking.
Having seen the British Airports Authority at London Airport, I am well aware that it is itself apprised of the problem and has introduced all kinds of security measures. One thing that struck me most was that the authority draws a distinction between what is described as the "land" side and the "air" side of the airport. When I went there within the last six months, the authority seemed to consider that security measures necessary for the land side of the airport—that is to say, that part of the airport before passengers go through the barrier—did not require the same surveillance as was required once passengers had passed through the barrier into the take-off lounge.
I find this a curious distinction, because it seems to me that the whole area of the airport must be seen to be

465
at risk and therefore the land side and the air side should merge together in security measures. No doubt that is one of the considerations that the Secretary of State has in mind in taking these new powers to give direction to airport authorities. Yet if one thinks about trying to maintain a security ring round an airport and one thinks of the enormous size of an airport, one realises what a superhuman task this is. I believe I am right in saying that Gatwick, at least, does not have a perimeter fence, so that it is quite possible to get on to the airport without much trouble.
When, as one does from time to time, one reads stories in the newspapers about a reporter who has managed to get into an airport workshop or a hangar in which there are airliners, it shows no credit on the newspaper's ingenuity. It is all far too simple, because the area is itself so widespread. Yet clearly the perimeter ring must be made as secure as possible.
By the same token, therefore, one appreciates the need to give power to the various authorities, or at least to their so-called "constables", to be able to enforce that security. I certainly join with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in questioning this statement about constables. I believe he is right in saying that the word is given a very wide definition and could include security guards from private firms—very often Securicor. It is a dangerous development if we allow those people to carry arms. It is a departure from what has gone before in this country. It may be a necessary departure, but it is one which causes me some unease.
I would far rather there was a special group of airport police on all these airports who alone were entitled to carry firearms, rather than have the feeling that a security officer from a private firm, who—and I speak with some diffidence— is not always quite as much a fully trained professional as one might suppose from seeing him in uniform, is authorised to carry any kind of firearm or shotgun and might have the ability, although not the desire, to kill somebody. This is a side of this whole issue that badly needs considering in the Bill. Some limitation should be drawn on just how much power
466
we feel these newly-named constables should have.
Another point on which I wish to touch is that of the time which, it seems, is to be allowed to pass between the Secretary of State's requiring information—this is in Clause 8—and the time when the airline or airport authority must return that information to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that in the situation which might exist after a red alert in a hijacking situation, information would have to pass very quickly, and action be taken equally quickly. Therefore, I wonder whether four weeks can be allowed to elapse before authorities need to provide such information as might be needed at such short notice.
My last point relates simply to a method which I understand the American airlines have found singularly successful in defeating the criminal hijacker—that is, deciding the psychological profile of a hijacker and, working on that basis, training staff to recognise and pick out such a person. Eastern Airlines claim that they have a remarkable record of picking out, by this method, people who were intent on doing foul play on an aircraft.
Although it may sound far-fetched it is not very far removed from a situation which I recall when talking to a lady store detective. She told me that without knowing quite how she did it she was nearly always able to pick out a shoplifter before he or she had got very far. She had a sixth sense.
Perhaps this point is already in the Minister's mind and perhaps the British Airports Authority has already drawn up a list of people who have sensitive antennae for detecting hijackers. This may sound far fetched, but there may be something in it. After all, we must remember that we are talking about a criminal hijacker who is after loot—and, just like a shoplifter, intends to get something out of his actions and betrays that fact by his mental approach.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I warmly welcome the Bill. In my view we should take the strongest possible action against all those who attempt to damage or destroy aircraft as defined in the Bill. Some hijackers—I

467
have in mind particularly the Palestinian Arabs—in my view have strong reasons for feeling a deep sense of bitterness and despair, but nothing can excuse endangering or killing innocent civilians. I have said this before and I say it again.
I also welcome the Bill because it avoids double standards. It is extremely important in this House that we should avoid double standards when talking about the morality of acts of violence and terrorism. Whether or not we agree with their politics, we should condemn whoever commits them. I think that is what the Bill does, as I read it. I asked the Minister to explain it and I think that his explanation was acceptable to me, though I am glad that he will refer to the matter again when he comes to reply to the debate.
Mr. Heseltine: I have had an opportunity to consider the matter further, and can tell the hon. Gentleman that the explanation I gave was correct.
Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the Minister. It is a further reason for welcoming the Bill. It brings into account the destruction of an aircraft such as the destruction of the Libyan airliner on 21st February this year. Perhaps to keep temperatures down—and perhaps this will anticipate what the Minister will say— I should add that I am not stating that the Bill necessarily will cover that situation because there has been no inquiry into that particular case. However, I am certain in my own mind that the Bill would cover the Libyan airliner incident, but it would be a matter for the courts to decide when the legislation became law. I cannot prejudge the decision of the court, but it seems plain to me that Clause 1(3) would lead to criminal prosecution against the Israelis responsible for the destruction of that airliner.
Mr. Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman reading into the Bill that it will cover events which occurred between nations at war? At least some of the parties in the Middle East maintain that they are at war, even though other parties do not so maintain.
Mr. Mayhew: Yes, and one of the parties which does not maintain that it is at war is the Israeli Government, for
468
various good reasons, including some insurance claims involving hijacked aircraft. The Israeli Government strongly denies that a state of war exists.
To keep the temperature down, let us take an imaginary circumstance involving a BEA aircraft flying, let us say, over the Libyan frontier, turning round and then being shot down by a Libyan pilot on its way back. In that case quite plainly action would be needed, and if the Libyan Government refused to set up an inquiry, as the Israeli Government are refusing an inquiry, and if the Libyan Government refused to accept blame, as the Israeli Government are refusing to accept blame, I do not believe any British Government would fail to invoke the Montreal Convention and the provisions of this legislation to do their utmost to bring that Libyan pilot to justice.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) talked about an imaginary example. But he knows that a specific incident of this kind took place and involved a British aircraft which flew over Libya and was ordered down by the Libyan warplane. The pilot had the good sense to obey instructions, he landed and as a result there was no loss of life. I am not implying anything other than culpability for Israel through the shooting down of the Libyan airliner, but the circumstances of the other incident should be made clear.
Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and I for once agree. We both agree that the Bill should apply to the actions such as those he mentioned and also to actions such as that which occurred on 21st February—that is all I am saying, and that is why I particularly welcome the Bill.
I welcome the Bill because in the case of the Libyan airliner the reaction in Israel has been surprising, and indeed callous, on this tragedy. They have refused an inquiry. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) talked about non-co-operation with ICAO and then spoke of Arab non-co-operation with that organisation. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend said that when one

469
bears in mind the Libyan air disaster. The Minister within the scope of the Bill did not even mention, as I said in my intervention, that at the last ICAO conference a recommendation for an independent international inquiry into the Libyan air disaster was passed by 105 votes to one—the Israeli vote—with two abstentions. That is non-co-operation. As my right hon. Friend said, Governments which do not co-operate should be punished. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should even invoke sanctions against them, whether they be an Arab Government or the Israeli Government.
Mr. Mason Mr. Mason indicated assent.
Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend agrees. I believe that this argument particularly applies to a Government which harbours a person who damages or destroys an aircraft, as the Israeli Government is harbouring the pilot who destroyed the aircraft with great loss of life. Therefore, since the Bill covers that essential point, I warmly welcome it.
I believe that the Bill must operate strictly. The hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) instanced the example of a political refugee who hijacked an aircraft to come from, let us say, Eastern Europe to Western Europe. What would we do in a case of that kind? I feel for that man and I am sure that such a case would present the utmost difficulty, but I am sure that the man should be sent back. We must be absolutely rigorous against all hijacking, all acts of violence, all destruction of aircraft, no matter who commits the crime.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he is drawing an unfair distinction? If the man uses a car or any other vehicle, he would not be handed over. Therefore, why must an aircraft be treated as something so special in those circumstances?
Mr. Mayhew: Because such an act endangers, and sometimes kills, innocent civilians. Lives have been lost and people must be protected.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: Perhaps I should explain that there is not an automatic assumption that if a man is found
470
guilty, he is extradited. The definition means that he is equally likely to be prosecuted in the courts of this country. Therefore, the option exists for the court to decide whether to extradite or to punish with a penalty up to a maximum of life imprisonment. This is the way to achieve the sort of flexibility which some hon. Members have mentioned.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: In face of the general welcome which has been given to this Bill, my remarks will be brief. I wish to begin by saying how much I prefer the Government's second thoughts on this Bill to their first thoughts, and how much I personally welcome—as I believe do many other hon. Members and certainly many people outside the House—the fact that the Bill has been very much strengthened during its passage through the other place.
Having given the Bill that general welcome, I wish to express a few doubts about the measure in so far as its powers go beyond those needed to ratify the Montreal Convention. None of us will quarrel with the need for the Secretary of State to be granted extraordinary powers. But there must be an element of unease about the fact that those powers are limited in time. I think that we ought to consider seriously whether there should not be really extraordinary powers for a limited time, or whether the powers should not be trimmed and made permanent. My own preference would be to grant the Minister extraordinary powers for a limited time. I have no doubt that this matter will be raised again in Committee, as will the question of whether there should be a right of appeal against the use of some of these powers where time is not of the essence and where there is not a great deal of urgency. I am not quite sure to what extent this right of appeal already exists.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: An amendment was accepted in another place providing for just such an opportunity for further consideration by the Secretary of State on appeal where there is no urgency.
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He adds not only to right hon. and hon. Members' observation of the

471
fact that I had missed that point but also to my own gratitude to their Lordships in another place for their work to improve the Bill.
I agree with many of those who feel that the final defence against the hijacker, which is what this Bill is primarily about, is that his crime should not pay. To do that we have to ensure first that the hijacker never achieves his objective. That means that we must be clear in our minds and that the potential hijacker must be clear in his mind that blackmail will not succeed and that, at whatever risk to whatever hostage, the British Government will not submit to the demands of hijackers. That has to be firmly established in the mind of everyone before we find ourselves in a situation where there has been a hijacking and where the will and resolution of Her Majesty's Government are being called into question.
We must also be clear that the life of the hijacker ought to be at stake, and not merely at risk from the guns of guards, constables or whatever we choose to call them. At the end of the road, through the due process of the law and the courts, he should be called upon to pay the supreme capital penalty, just as in law that is still the potential penalty for an offence of piracy with violence at sea.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is right to say that sanctuary must be denied the hijacker. However, the right hon. Gentleman must be enough of a political realist to know that political expediency can easily override high-minded principles. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has survived on the Opposition Front Bench. He must be enough of a political realist to understand these matters. He must know, as my hon. Friends must, that countries which have an interest in sanctions busting will bust sanctions, whether they are black African, East European or white Western Powers busting Rhodesian sanctions or whether they are Arab Powers or those who have an interest in trading with Arab Powers busting sanctions against Arab States. We must be realistic. We have an interest in trading with the Arab bloc, as do many other advanced Western countries. We know
472
in our hearts that sanctions are very unlikely to stick in the present climate of world opinion.
I want finally to be clear in my mind that I understand the situation which was raised by my hon. Friend and political neighbour the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). As I understand it, the person who hijacks an aircraft to escape from a State as a refugee and arrives in this country will either be extradited back to the country from whence he came or be tried in this country. If he is tried in this country, found guilty of the offence of hijacking and serves his sentence for that crime, he will then still be eligible to be considered as a political refugee and admitted as such as an act of political asylum if it is thought that his life will be in danger if he is returned to his country of origin. That must be right. He should not be returned at the risk of his life. But he should be made to pay, somewhere in this country or in another, for the crime which he has committed.
In general, I welcome the Bill. I am sure that we shall have minor differences about it in Committee. But I wish it a speedy passage into law.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. Dan Jones: I wish to make a brief contribution in order primarily to associate myself with the basic principles of the Bill. I say immediately that I have no intention of allowing references to the unfortunate Arab-Israeli conflict or to the issue of capital punishment to sneak into my remarks. Unlike some hon. Members, I intend to deal explicitly with the issue before the House.
In the violent age in which we live, I believe that the hijacking of an aircraft is one of the most calculated forms of physical and mental torture which can be inflicted upon innocent people. Like other hon. Members, I am expected frequently to travely abroad. I hope to have that privilege again in the years to come. But I undertake it as a duty, unlike many other people who do it for social reasons. It is a shame that they should have their lives menaced by this horrible fear, for such it is. For that reason, I have no sympathy with the hijacker, and I register that as my first point.

473
At the same time, while I associate myself with the Bill as far as I can possibly do so, I wish to make certain criticisms which I hope will be the means of strengthening it. It may be that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able to give us his opinions of them.
Earlier we listened to an exchange between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who said that the amount of money now being spent to provide at our airports the kind of safety to which the travelling public are entitled, which is apparently about £50,000, seemed to him to be a pitifully small sum. I believe that my right hon. Friend has a valid point.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a specific sum of money, a specific allocation, dealing with certain aircraft. It does not cover the totality of guarding aircraft. It is a specific area where we have additional precautions under way.
Mr. Jones: I accept that. Perhaps we can have the total figure when the Minister winds up. My point is that if the Government will employ professional people —I had an assurance that such would be the case—I should like to know how they will be used. It is possible and certainly desirable that travelling lists should be scrutinised by these professional people before passengers are allowed to get anywhere near embarkation point. If the right kind of professional people are employed in this capacity it is possible that a number of potential hijackers will not even reach the gangway. I believe that matter should be considered sympathetically.
I now turn to what I call the mental torture of the process. Let us imagine the captain of a plane with a gun in his back and ground control to his front and a conflict between the two. It is easy to imagine a man in those circumstances having a heart attack. It is a wonder that something of that unfortunate nature has not already occurred. I do not know whether the Minister or his advisers have tried to project themselves into that kind of position. On a number of occasions the instructions of the man with the gun in his back and the instructions of ground control have been in total conflict. It is difficult to imagine the utter wretchedness of that man's unfortunate situation.
474
I believe that the British public and other responsible elements throughout the world must sometimes wonder why, this hijacking scourge having been imposed upon human society for 40 years, we have not got universal laws to check it. The travelling public, who make airlines possible because they make them profitable, must wonder why successive Governments—not only British Governments, but Governments throughout the world —seem to have failed in providing effective universal sanctions against these murderous people.
In that connection I turn to Clause 5, which could be the most important clause in the Bill. It deals with extradition. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
"Clause 5 amends the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 so as to provide that the offences created by Part I of the Bill are extraditable offences under the 1870 Act and relevant offences under the 1967 Act. It also provides that where there is no extradition arrangement with a State which is party to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, an Order in Council may be made under section 2 of the 1870 Act as though the Convention constituted the extradition arrangement with that State."
I should like to know how an Order in Council could possibly achieve that objective with a foreign Government. I offer an illustration. Let us assume that a British plane with British crew and passengers has been hijacked to a Middle East State. How could the terms of Clause 5—an Order in Council—control that eventuality? In reply the Minister might be well advised to direct his explanatory detail to that clause.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is not in the event of a hijacking that a provision of this kind would come into force. It is simply that where this or any other Government do not want to go through the negotiation procedure of establishing extradition arrangements with another country, they can deal with the matter specifically in connection with hijacking threats by resting on the authority of the Montreal Convention. There would then be a limited form of extradition arrangement reached without duress under a hijacking threat.
Mr. Jones: I still do not understand how extradition can be applied. I need

475
hardly remind the Minister that the Montreal Convention has been totally ignored by certain countries. I do not want to get involved in the Middle East Arab dispute, but some Middle East countries are in that position.
The Minister has advised the House that an international conference will be taking place in August this year to discuss certain legal points. That conference could have a tremendous significance concerning the principle of extradition. I hope that the Minister will agree that this could be the most effective international means of controlling this scourge. Is it possible, in advance of that particularly important conference, for our embassies in the Middle East to make diplomatic approaches to the Governments in that part the world and at least ask them to send representatives to hear the arguments advanced by the legal people who will be involved? It is obvious to me that if they do not send representatives they will appear to have no intention of following any international pattern regarding the problem that we are properly discussing.
The Government must realise that however much support they will get from the Opposition—I am sure they will get full-hearted support—they must not regard time as being on their side.
I believe that two agencies are probably watching developments in this House today and are taking serious note of what is being said, particularly by the Government. I refer to the International Transport Workers' Federation and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations. These people will not necessarily sit on the sidelines much longer. They could, and probably will, take action unless there is action, or at least signs that the Government are taking imaginative steps to bring about universal action to deal with this issue. These people could disrupt the airlines of the world, with all the effects that would have upon the economies of the national airlines. Unless the Government take immediate steps to reach agreement with the people who are not at the moment prepared to come into line, they must accept full responsibility for any action that might be taken by the people to whom I have referred. In so
476
many instances it is not merely a question of economics. The lives of international airline pilots are, and have been, at stake. In consequence, they have a right to expect responsible Governments to measure up to the challenge.
In the interests of civilised behaviour, I hope that we shall pursue whatever methods are available to get other countries, particularly the Middle East and some South American countries which have not yet come into line, to bring about a situation where this cruel scourge, this cancer on human society, can be properly and effectively eliminated.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Michael Fidler: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has left the Chamber. I am tempted—but I will not succumb to the temptation— to be led along the path of irrelevance by some of his comments. I welcome his recent conversion away from double standards to the circle of those who have one standard only. Would that his clarion call had been heard in what happened at the Munich Olympics, at Lod Airport and in the outrage at Dawson's Field.
But then the hon. Member's obsession with the Libyan air tragedy was brought into the debate. Of course I and every other hon. Member regret the loss of innocent life, but if one is viewing that incident in the context of the Bill and of what we are trying to do, one sees that the arrival of a civilian plane on the lines drawn—the plane having been cleared over Egyptian armed fortifications without any challenge and proceeding over Sinai in the direction of what seemed to be Tel Aviv, after there had been threats to drop bombs from such planes on Tel Aviv—placed the Israeli defence forces in an awful dilemma when that plane did not respond to challenge. One can imagine our reaction in the last war if a German airliner had been seen flying over the cliffs of Dover and had failed to respond to challenge. But I will leave that path of seduction and turn to what the Minister said.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the facilities that he afforded to hon. Members on both sides to visit Heathrow and to see for ourselves the steps which have been taken to institute security

477
measures. It would be improper for me to deal with them now, but I am greatly encouraged, as all of us were, by the thoroughness with which the steps already put in train are being implemented.
I extend a warm and general welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Minister and the Government on implementing this vital item, which was included in the Gracious Speech last year. Significantly, it was the first legislative proposal mentioned in that Speech.
Reference has been made to the necessity for the Bill because, in recent years, there has been such a violent escalation towards violent terrorism and hijacking. However, I fear that the penalty, if it is to be effective, must be an effective deterrent. In this respect, Clause 4 is deficient. The Minister said that there should be in the minds of hijackers the sobering thought of the penalties that they will face. Clause 4 provides life imprisonment as the ultimate penalty. That is insufficient. The ultimate deterrent must be the dealth penalty. That is the only effective penalty.
After all, do we not authorise summary execution on the spot during the hijacking incident or the attack itself? If we condone summary execution on the spot for the defence of the property and the lives concerned, why do we fall short in defining the deterrent we require by not introducing the death penalty for those responsible for hijacking?
What is the position on piracy at sea? The Piracy Act of 1837, which is still operative, contains the deterrent of the death sentence. No attempt has been made, to the best of my knowledge, by this Government or their predecessors to repeal the powers in that Act. Hijacking is simply piracy in the air, and the same punishment should apply in both cases.
If the punishment is only life imprisonment, do we not encourage further hijacking with the object of releasing those hijackers who have been apprehended under the Bill's proposals? If we introduced the death penalty, the period of risk of such a further hijacking to free those imprisoned would simply extend from the time of apprehension to the time of execution—a matter of weeks or months. But with the ultimate deterrent being life imprisonment, the period of
478
risk of further hijacking and blackmail will extend from the time of apprehension to the end of the life sentence, which would obviously spread over many years.
I know that aircraft hijacking was dealt with in the Hijacking Act of 1971, Section 1(4) of which dealt with the liability on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. This Bill deals with violence against civilian aircraft, other than hijacking. As the Minister said, the Montreal Convention should be implemented. This Bill seems to me merely to provide that we punish hijackers whose crime is committed in the United Kingdom only or by its subjects. I hope that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.
Surely the real problem of piracy and hijacking is that which takes place on a trip to one of the countries customarily providing sanctuary for the terrorists— for example, Algeria, Libya or Egypt— as has been our international experience. Effective international measures require that the principal aviation and trading countries should impose an aviation boycott on countries which otherwise give sanctuary to the terrorists or hijackers. That is where the shoe pinches.
Ideally, a United Nations resolution committing all countries to do this would solve the problem, but our experience is that the United Nations and the third world, unhappily, are hopeless in this respect. Nevertheless, 10 or 15 countries, led by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, the Soviet Union, Brazil, the Argentine, Mexico and Japan, to name but eight, could achieve this desirable result. It is up to us to give the lead.
I welcome President Nixon's recent announcement that, recognising that the deterrent for hijacking must be effective, he proposes to introduce to the United States Senate and Congress legislation to deal with hijacking and terrorism, providing the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent, certainly imposing far more rigorous standards. I am asking my hon. Friend to give a lead from this country.
Certain it is that the United States and Canada are willing to go further. They are prepared to impose a secondary boy-cot on countries which fail to observe the preliminary boycott of the terrorist- and hijacker-harbouring countries. The International Air Line Pilots' Association

479
militantly supports this USA-Canadian initiative. In fact, it has even threatened a world-wide strike if an effective convention is not agreed soon.
What is the position of our own BALPA? I have here a letter from the Chairman of the British Air Line Pilots' Association, dated in March, only a week or two ago, in which he says:
"The Protection of Aircraft Bill at present going through Parliament is, we feel, a step forward in so far as security in the United Kingdom is concerned in that the recent amendments lay the foundations for building a firmer and stronger basis for legislation. We have, as you know, been pressing the Government for legislation requiring both Airport Operators and Aircraft Operators to achieve, and maintain, a basic standard of security. These requirements should, we feel, form part of the Airport Operators' Certificate and the Aircraft Operators' Certificate, in the same way that they have to meet certain requirements before the issue of an operations certificate. For instance, the Airport Operators must satisfy the installation and maintenance of fire equipment, navigational equipment, runways, etc. The Aircraft Operator must have aircraft maintenance schedules for the aircraft and so on. All these requirements are monitored and in the same way we see Security as being another schedule to the Certificate."
I commend that to my hon. Friend, especially since the letter goes on:
"Such legislation should allow for escalation of the security measures to meet specific threats as and when they arise."
Why does Clause 13 specify constables as the only people who are permitted to carry firearms? Why does not the provision extend to all those who are specially trained as security officers, in the employ of the Airports Authority, Her Majesty's Government or the airlines themselves? If we are to have an effective deterrent, surely it would be logical that permission to carry firearms should be given to those who are specially trained for the job.
I urge the Minister to consider adopting in Committee the amendments to which I have referred, if he cannot give a complete answer tonight. He will then strengthen an already very useful measure.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked a question which has not been completely answered. That question was: what is the difference between using a motor car
480
and hijacking an aircraft? That question needs an answer.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson rose—
Mr. Mendelson: Let me answer that question before the hon. Gentleman asks a further question.
The answer lies in technology. In the olden days, if someone stowed away in a ship and just stayed there, starving in a corner somewhere, before arriving at his destination, and escaped, that was one thing. But if a man now goes aboard an aircraft—a highly sensitive instrument of transport—threatens the pilot, and by an unguarded or a deliberate movement, brings about the death of that pilot or endangers the life of the pilot, there is a difference. That is a crime in itself. It is a crime, or a potential crime, against the pilot, regardless of the motivation of the man who is hijacking the aircraft.
Therefore, it is inescapable that we must all unite in demanding that such a man be punished and be treated as a man who has committed a crime. That is the first straightforward proposition which we owe to those whom we ask to carry us about in aeroplanes. If we do not admit that proposition universally and unanimously we have no right to call upon anyone to enter into a career as an aircraft pilot.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman returned to the point that I made. The only reason I wanted to intervene was to point out that it is a question not just of hijacking but of the political refugee escaping. The hon. Gentleman has referred to punishment. I accept that. But I was concerned that a man escaping for his life might be extradited to the country of origin, there to lose his life. That seems to me rather too severe a punishment for someone who, fundamentally, does not want to hurt anyone, and is merely trying to escape from a regime which is intolerable to him.
Mr. Mendelson: I shall return to that point shortly. I was confining myself to the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical question concerning the difference between a man using a motor car and a man hijacking an aircraft. That is the first thing to establish. We have no right to ask people to enter into this profession or craft if we do not ensure this minimum

481
degree of security in protecting their lives.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East referred to extradition. I join with those who say that every Government, as a sovereign Power, must have flexibility. Every Government must, ultimately, be in a position to say that the man will be brought to trial in the particular country, and then leave it to the normal established quasi-judicial authority to determine whether anyone is forcibly deported from its shores. That is the second proposition on which we can agree.
My third point is political and not judicial, and is one on which we ought to hear more from the Government. Over a number of years, with others, I have urged succeeding Governments—both Labour and Conservative—to enter into a political arrangement with 10 other Powers, which is what is ultimately required if these crimes are to be ended. I call it political because it includes enforcement and because these crimes are committed in many different countries and different areas. It cannot be within the judicial authority of any one Power to deal with them effectively in all cases. As has been said, there are obvious limitations to the authority of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, this matter now enters the political sphere.
Here I part company with the hon. Member for Bury and RadclifEe (Mr. Fidler), who has tried to introduce into this debate his campaign for the return of capital punishment. This has nothing to do with it. There will be a debate on that subject next week, when hon. Members will be able to determine their position and make up their minds. We had better leave that matter alone in this debate.
I urge that the laws that obtain in this country should be exercised in these cases as in all other cases. One cannot introduce a different reform of the law for a particular case.
Mr. Fidler: I was merely attempting to indicate that the Bill contains a clause which lays down a form of punishment, and was suggesting a different form of punishment. It is perfectly proper so to do.
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has also become involved, this week, in a
482
famous correspondence considering the other matter. I am not sufficiently naïve to accept that it is only by accident that this argument has crept into the debate. It should not have done so.
The normal laws and punishments which apply in all cases in Britain must be applied in this matter as well as in others.
Mr. Kaufman: In my hon. Friend's incisive reply to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe he inadvertently omitted to take up an extraordinary anomaly in what the hon. Gentleman was proposing. He was proposing the death penalty for hijackers who might not commit murder—that is, he was extending his wish for capital punishment for murderers other than hijackers to capital punishment for non-murderers if they hijacked.
Mr. Mendelson: I was rather wise in attempting to keep the argument about capital punishment outside the confines of the debate, as it should be. I shall not be sidetracked by any further interventions, even from my hon. Friends, however close they may be.
The laws which normally obtain must obviously apply. We cannot call upon the Government to introduce special penalties in this way. We must realise clearly that the political dimension enters into this matter very forcefully. If enforcement is to be possible, political considerations will intervene. There is nothing wrong in that. One cannot expect a Government to abandon all future political considerations when a particular case arises. After all, the present Government have acted quite successfully on a number of occasions, and have produced the minimum loss of life. A Government must have that kind of flexibility in order to act. But they must also be further armed with what they do not have at present. Therefore, I urge the Government to enter into an agreement between the 11 major aircraft Powers. There are only 11. Happily, this is one of those occasions where one does not need the agreement of 121 nations. All that is required is that the major carriers should enter into an agreement.
Mr. Michael Heseltine Mr. Michael Heseltine indicated dissent.
Mr. Mendelson: I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply on this point.
The 10 other Governments would be in a particularly strong position, in that they would have the full support of the people employed in the industry. When a Government introduce a certain policy they hope that it will have the support, by and large, of the people who work in the industry. Here there is no need to urge those who work in the industry towards their view. They will be an enforcement agency which is only too willing to enforce the agreement between the Powers.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman list these 11 Powers? Do they include, for example, the Soviet Union and China? A hijacking could even happen to them, and they are major aviation Powers.
Mr. Mendelson: I would include those two Powers. I accept that it could happen to them. My information is that both those Powers are sufficiently conservative to enter into such an agreement with the others.
Reaching agreement will take some time, but the Government must work on the idea. These Powers must be determined and it must be made known to all concerned—because the deterrent effect is important—that wherever such an incident occurs the 11 Powers will take joint action and will impose such disadvantages upon the harbouring State as will be an effective deterrent to all such States. That is the crux of the matter.
This has never happened in the tragic story of this matter. No effective action has ever been taken against any one country, to whichever bloc it belongs, or even if it belongs to no bloc.
Where the criminals have quite freely been able to prepare the crime for months we must not accept the myth that the people involved are generally poor and ill-educated—that they do not know what they are doing, and are living on the starvation line. Most of them live in luxurious flats in Paris and Rome and enjoy a much higher standard of living than the average citizen, let alone the average refugee. They are financed very powerfully with large sums of money and are not negligible enemies of the community of mankind. They are backed
484
by powerful forces, who regard this as an easy way to salve their consciences instead of doing what, in their hearts, they think they should be doing for some of their fellow countrymen. They have spent millions of pounds in financing these crimes and they are a formidable enemy of the community of nations and must be treated as such. I urge the Government to get into consultation with the other Powers, some of whom are already willing to co-operate and some of whom are ahead of us. We must reach a firm agreement, so that joint action can be devised and taken, with a Minister or official designated by each of these Governments to enter into an agreement. They would be called together immediately so that action would be taken quickly against the country where the crime was planned and where all the facilities were made available.
There is a corollary to this. The country where a crime is planned is often the country to which the criminal wants to return, and where he will return as a hero and not a criminal. This increases the desire of people to play at this kind of tragic mock heroics, thereby endangering the lives of the pilot, the other airline staff, and the passengers.
I make a distinction here, because the passengers want to get from A to B while the pilot has to do his daily work like a motor mechanic or insurance agent. He therefore deserves special protection. But passengers also deserve all possible protection. When action such as I have suggested is taken, the harbouring country would know, for instance, that other countries would not allow their planes to fly over the territory of the 11 countries. Any airline not allowed to fly over the territory of those 11 countries might as well shut up shop.
Secondly, the necessary international co-operation, without which, technically, no plane can stay in the air, would be refused to any planes owned by any company in that country, be it the State airline or a privately-owned airline. Thirdly, and equally important, there would be no political interference with an attitude of this kind. There would be no friend or foe, and each State would be treated equally.
If the Government were to create such an alliance among the major carriers it

485
would provide an effective deterrent. Secondly, people who work in the airline industry—and we all have them as constituents—who have expressed their deep concern and have been very patient, would know that the Governments concerned meant business. These people should be reassured, because they have been bearing the brunt of the danger and terror of the situation. I urge this course upon the Government. We should have some preliminary comments on the proposal when the Minister replies.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I do not usually agree with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) on foreign affairs matters and I have grave doubts whether the scheme that he has just outlined would be practical. However, I thoroughly support his underlying motives.
The Bill is a worthy and important attempt to stop up certain loopholes in the legislation used against air pirates. It will make it a little more difficult for certain categories of hijacker to operate in the future, but I very much doubt whether it will have a great effect on the category referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson)—the political terrorists. I do not believe that the political terrorist is any longer deterred by lengthy sentences imposed by the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) said, many terrorists do not believe that they will ever serve out their sentences. At this moment there are many in Northern Ireland who have received long sentences from the courts and are convinced that they will get out in a year or two as a result of some political amnesty. A great many of the air pirates today who are caught and sentenced believe that as a result of further outrages by their accomplices they will be released from prison. The Lufthansa hijacking following the Munich massacre was, if not a death blow, at least a savage blow to the Montreal Convention.
Therefore, I do not believe that this sort of hijacking will end. The record of some countries in these matters, apart from Germany, is pretty bad, and for very understandable reasons. If a country arrests potential hijackers on its own
486
territory and brings them to trial, the aircraft of that country's national airline are put at greater risk. The other day warnings were given to the Italian police about certain terrorists who were then pushed over the border into France. They were there apprehended by the French police who immediately extradited them to Damascus. That can hardly be considered to be a major deterrent.
The difficulty with that kind of approach is that it makes international political terrorism appear to be a low-risk operation. Serious steps should be taken to prevent that happening. The reason why it is considered a low-risk operation is that certain countries offer a haven to these air pirates. What can be done about it? The hon. Member for Penistone suggested an alliance of 11 nations to say that air space would be refused by those nations to airlines whose countries gave refuge to air pirates and that the nationals of those countries should be debarred from air flights. I doubt whether that would be an effective deterrent.
For example, would it stop Libya from behaving in this manner if the Libyan airline was refused permission to land in Rome or London? I do not consider that such an action would affect Libya, Egypt or the Lebanan. If we do not allow their aircraft or their nationals to use our air space it is certain that they will prevent the airlines of the 11 major powers from using theirs. That will stop effective action on an 11-Power basis, such as the hon. Member for Penistone suggested, or even by ICAO itself.
I do not believe that multilateral sanctions will work, but we need not sit back and do nothing. We know that certain areas, certain countries, certain cities, provide a haven for air terrorists. Most of those places have good and friendly relations with us. Just the other day my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that our relations with Egypt had rarely been better. It is reliably reported that we shall soon be entering into a substantial arms contract with that country. The position of the Government in Cairo has from time to time been equivocal. At certain times they have been helpful in dealing with acts of terrorism and at others they have not. The sensible

487
approach would be to say that the completion of any arms contract with the Egyptians should depend on their taking a resolute line—more resolute than they have taken in the past—against any terrorists who seek sanctuary in their territory.
The same applies to the Lebanon. It is reported that we are about to enter into a substantial arms contract with the Lebanese Government. Many of the air terrorists' activities have been planned in or near Beirut. It would be worth while saying, "The arms we have contracted to supply you will be supplied provided you take more effective action than you have taken against those outrages that are plotted on your territory ".
In the past, the main haven for hijackers has been Algeria. Fortuitously, it is one of the very few countries in the entire Arab world from which no visa is needed to enter Britain. It is sensible to say that those who come here from Algeria should be scrutinised very thoroughly, although there have been welcome signs recently that the Algerian Government are taking a somewhat harder line on terrorists who seek sanctuary in Algeria than they did before.
But the main country in which we are threatened is Libya. Not only has it provided sanctuary for certain air pilots; it has provided our enemies in Northern Ireland with arms. That distinguished journalist and commentator, Mr. Chapman Pincher, reports in the Daily Express that we are planning to sell some small submarines to the Libyan Government. I find it very difficult to believe that that can be true, because after experience of recent years it seems to me that anyone who sold arms to Colonel Gaddafi would be about as sensible as a person who gave a tin of kerosene and a box of matches to a six-year-old child.
Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also selling two submarines to the Israelis, who have been responsible for far more civilian deaths than have the Libyan Government.
Mr. Goodhart: I rather doubt the hon. Gentleman's last statement, but I join him in deploring the shooting down of the Libyan airliner by the Israeli Air Force. I regret that the Israeli Govern-
488
ment have not held an independent investigation into the incident. But that does not alter the fact that Colonel Gaddafi has espoused the cause of terrorism in Africa, Europe and this country. Therefore, it would be lunatic to sell arms to him until he showed signs of mending his ways.
There are ways in which the Government can put pressure directly on those who seek to breach the universal abhorrence of air piracy by offering sanctuary to those who carry out this terrible crime. Meanwhile, the Bill is an important step along the road to blotting out this form of terrorism.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. E. S. Bishop: The Bill has been given a general welcome by hon. Members on both sides. It carries forward activities in seeking precautions against terrorism and measures to deal with terrorism, a matter that has concerned my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) from the time when he had responsibility in 1964 to the present day. We can only be appalled at the slow rate of progress during that period.
We are seeking to safeguard the interests of millions of our people in all our constituencies, to give greater confidence and assurance of safety to those who travel and to those who remain at home, because people on the ground can be affected as much as those in the air.
The Bill is the result of international discussions. One of the great benefits resulting from those discussions is that all countries are aware of the possible dangers in modern travel and are co-operating to do something urgently and effectively against the common danger, regardless of which side of the ideological line they happen to stand.
As several hon. Members have said, those who are incensed by ideological and emotional considerations are not always likely to be deterred if they have the opportunity for terorism. Therefore, our legislation must seek mainly to be a deterrent, because once hijacking situations arise the task of trying to reconcile the safety of passengers and others is more difficult.
It is difficult for those who have not experienced terrorism to realise what it can mean. Those who are involved do

489
not always see, mercifully or otherwise, the end of the incident, as we do when we read of it in the Press or hear about it on the radio and television. With the travels of many hon. Members around the world, there must be few who can say that they have not been involved in an incident at some time. I have been involved twice in situations when travelling by air when things could have been much worse. One situation took place in the Middle East. There was a tip-off that the plane in which I was travelling was likely to be hijacked. As a result, there was a two or three hour search in the early morning, the temperature being 80 or 90 degrees. It was a situation that I do not want to have repeated.
We are dealing with a difficult task. Some terrorists may not be deterred but motivated to be martyred for their cause. That might be borne in mind by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler). We must also be aware that to pass this measure is not enough. Action must be taken to introduce more preventive measures which are necessary to cover other eventualities. There must be a greater incentive to seek, by policies of social justice, to eliminate and reduce some of the causes which help to stimulate terrorists to tread their ideological paths. That is an argument which may be pursued later but should not be overlooked.
Ten years have past since the Tokyo Convention of 1963. That convention was signed by 63 States. At the Hague Convention seven years later 51 countries were represented, and the convention was ratified by 42 countries. It is vital that all countries should agree to such conventions. Any countries which do not support agreed international action are a danger to all other countries.
I appeal to some of my hon. Friends who have differences on Middle East politics to recognise that ratification by all is essential. I appeal to my hon. Friends, and to all who have any sympathies in any direction, to use what influence they may have with those concerned to see that ratification takes place. I should like to see far more countries in the Middle East identifying themselves with the ratifications which have so far been made. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) that there are about 10 Com-
490
munist countries, including the Soviet Union, which are already committed to ratification.
As we all know, these issues can be explosive to those who feel strongly about the various factors which motivate terrorists. Many steps have been taken publicly and privately to prevent terrorism. Urgent attention must be paid to the freezing out of air travel for those countries which give haven to offenders. I am glad to know that BALPA and other bodies of that sort are anxious that some attention should be given to that matter.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked about the position of refugees, and whether they should, after a period of imprisonment, be extradited. Again, we must recognise that all who take part in terrorist activities are equally to blame. We must hope that none who commit crime shall benefit from their crimes at the end of the day, even though they may have done a spell of imprisonment in the meantime.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), after having put his toe into the troublesome waters of the Middle East, managed to some extent to extricate himself rather neatly. That comment applies to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, who said that all those involved in these crime are equally guilty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will use their considerable influence to get their hon. Friends to come into line with the treaty.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used the word "terrorist" when talking about political refugees. I should not put into that category a young Czechoslovak who decided that he wanted to get out of that country when the Russian tanks came in. I should not blame him for taking any measures open to him. I could not find it in my heart to call such a person a terrorist.
Mr. Bishop: It is a matter of words as to the view we take of those who are motivated to be involved in these offences.
It will be difficult for individual countries which ratify the convention to put offenders on trial and sort out motives.

491
We may well get into difficulties in trying to sort out Middle East conflicts—for example, whether Israelis or Arabs had a right, a motive or a reason for doing what they did. It must be made clear to all those involved that they are equally to blame and that they must all suffer the consequences. The safety of people who travel, and those at airports, must be safeguarded regardless of the motives and the reasons which may prompt people to take action which may be called terrorism or a crusade. Whatever such action may be called, it is equally damaging and dangerous to those who seek to communicate with each other in world travel.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) made the same point about the need to take care so that those who seek asylum do not necessarily achieve their goal. The same point must prevail: those who commit crimes or offences must not benefit from them.
I hesitate to become involved in an argument about the death penalty with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. The hon. Gentleman said that there is an incentive when somebody is imprisoned for others to take action in order to release the prisoner. He might well ponder the argument that if someone has been subjected to the death penalty, others may be equally inclined to take action of a similar kind, with far greater demands on Governments and others, to get some recompense for the supreme penalty having been carried out. That is an argument which should not feature in the debate at this stage.
The Minister rightly said that this measure is one of great severity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley has said, "directive" and "ministerial power" appear many times in the Bill. We believe that that is right. However, it may be necessary in Committee to find out what is meant by some of the clauses. Clause 9(6) requires an operator
"to take all such steps as… are practicable and necessary …".
Clause 11 provides that a direction under the section does not require the searching of passengers but allows the giving of a direction that passengers are not to be admitted to aircraft unless a search has
492
been carried out. That is a subtle change.
The House may well ask the Minister to explain what safeguards are provided. The House may want to know about the powers to search for revolvers and guns, and how "reasonable" is to be defined. If "reasonable" is disputed, what redress is available? The clause mentions the role of the constables, and that is another matter which needs definition. What is to be the situation if it is thought that the constables have not acted responsibly? One wonders whether the Secretary of State, who has immense power—we do not necessarily challenge that power—shall be made liable in civil or criminal law for the actions of others when it is felt that the powers of the measure have been exceeded.
What kind of contract is there to be made for the carriage of passengers under the Bill? We all recognise that the airline business is not one of great viability margins. Airlines have to carry out their task without a great deal of financial backing. Although, of course, one recognises the contribution made by the Government, which I understand is about £1 million or more, nevertheless the Bill may make it necessary for airlines and air travel agents to incur far more expense than they are now committed to. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us his thinking about that aspect.
Another most important aspect of the larger powers that we are giving to the Government is the question of accountability to Parliament. We are willing in the House to give these increased powers, but Parliament has a right, on behalf of those for whom we exercise our own power, to know how Ministers' powers are being exercised. Should we not at least have an annual report to the House and possibly a debate on how these powers are being exercised from year to year? However, we can argue this matter out in Committee.
I hope the House will support the Bill, which is most urgent and must get through Parliament as quickly as possible. We most certainly support the precautions taken at our main airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick, but we should not overlook the need for such precautions at our regional airports, some of which are under local authority control. If we were off our guard there, there

493
might be a greater temptation to terrorists. Therefore, we must be sure that the powers and precautions authorised by the Bill are applied with equal care and attention to every part of the United Kingdom.
One is entitled to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has in mind any special financial and other help which might be made available to these regional airports so that other parts of the country may be brought up to the level of competence in this matter which now prevails in the capital.
Although we support this comprehensive, necessary and urgent measure, we are aware of and sensitive to the wide powers and severe penalties it contains. But we are anxious to ensure that air navigation and other facilities are included, and we are anxious that far more progress shall be made internationally to ensure that more countries sign the convention and that other measures supplement the Bill.
The House should express its thanks and gratitude, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley said, to all working in air travel—all those working in our airports and in our airlines, especially the pilots, air hostesses and other crew members—for the bravery and fortitude which (hey have shown in these past difficult times. Their contribution towards international security is an incentive to us to ensure that the Bill goes through as quickly as possible and that the Government are supported in any action they take to ensure that people can travel in safety in the air.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: I thank the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for reflecting accurately the general spirit of accord which has been extended to the Bill by the House. I believe that the Bill is a matter of urgency. I accept that we are taking substantial powers. I also think that the House appreciates that, in the circumstances, we are left with no alternative, however distasteful it may be to all involved that we should have been driven to such lengths.
A number of points have been raised in the debate, many of them more appropriate to the Committee stage. However, I shall endeavour to reply to as many as possible now.
494
The hon. Gentleman referred to regional airports. I can assure him at once that surveys and security measures have been carried out at such airports as well as at the main London airports.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested the possibility of an annual report to Parliament. Parliament would be concerned about a specific incident, with which we could be confronted and, therefore, I believe that there are many and faster remedies open to hon. Members wanting to question Ministers on the use of their powers under the Bill. Inevitably, an annual report would be issued only some considerable time after the event in most cases, and could not by then add a great deal to our knowledge. In any case, it would not be possible to include in any such report details of a great deal of the work. The less one says, the more effective one's measures become. I think we should rest on the normal parliamentary protections which exist for scrutinising the work of Ministers.
Much interest has been shown in the debate in the carrying of firearms and the use of constables. Only the chief constable of the local police force may authorise the possession of firearms. Where the Bill envisages the carrying of arms, this remains the situation, subject to proper authorisation by the chief constable concerned. Only policemen, therefore, will be armed.
Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend make it clear whether the chief constable of the British Airports police is a chief constable in that context?
Mr. Heseltine: The British Airports police could be armed at the discretion of the local chief constable, as could special constables under the chief constables' jurisdiction.
Mr. Tebbit: I hope I do not embarrass my hon. Friend by pressing this point. Would that be the chief constable, for example, of the Surrey Police Force or of the Middlesex Police Force—if one still exists—or of the airports police?
Mr. Heseltine: It would be either of the first two chief constables to which my hon. Friend refers, dependent on the circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) asked about the omission

495
from the Bill of any time restriction. We are sensitive to that point. It might be argued that the Bill should lapse after a given period of time as thought appropriate, but we do not foresee a situation in which the threat of air terrorism is likely to decline. We are determined that the Bill shall do everything possible to minimise the threat but we do not see a time when it will be possible to remove its powers. We therefore decided to go in for permanency. Of course, it will be possible to review the measure in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) raised an issue of principle more appropriate to another occasion. I would not want to be drawn into the merits of the argument about re-introducing the death penalty in this context. However, there are one or two special arguments which it might be appropriate for me to mention now. For example, if there were the possibility of a death sentence for hi-jacking, it is certain that the chances of a hijacker surrendering would be immediately reduced. Secondly, if there were to be any negotiations with a hijacker, it is certain that those negotiations would involve the question of whether the death sentence would be likely to be carried out. It would be impossible to avoid such discussions, whatever position the Government might wish to take up. However, it is appropriate that the general discussion about the death penalty should be dealt with by Parliament in the round and not specifically in the particular case of hijacking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping raised the question whether someone who had been prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for an offence under the Bill in this country would then be open to the possibility of deportation. He would be able to apply for political asylum. A judgment would then have to be made in each case.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) asked about the use of professional people. I mentioned this in opening. There is a great degree of expertise at the disposal of those responsible for administering our airports and airlines. The greatest possible expertise available has been deployed. I do not believe there
496
is any ground for criticising the skills that have been used. There is a reservoir of international knowledge and experience. Widespread international discussions take place on the techniques being applied. It is not appropriate to reveal the measures that we have in mind.
Mr. Dan Jones: I had one thing in mind. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that his Department has seen the head of the CID? These people are experts, and because I much prefer prevention to cure I believe that a visit to such a person could be highly profitable.
Mr. Heseltine: I can give the hon. Member an assurance which covers the general gist of his question, and that is that the security forces have been fully consulted, as one would expect.
The hon. Member mentioned the despair which he felt, and which we all share, that after 40 years of this threat, vastly greater today, we have no international laws to deal with it. This is a reasonable thing about which to despair but it applies to many things other than civil aviation. The reason why we do not have agreement is that the sovereign rights of nations are involved. Each nation believes in a particular cause or has what it considers a legitimate trade interest which makes it impossible to surrender a certain area of responsibility.
In such circumstances we have not reached agreement. This is what the convention process has been all about. The Montreal discussions and the forthcoming discussions in Rome reflect the fact that there are now such imperatives in the situation that we must be prepared to act together in the spirit of a world community. That does not mean that we shall be able to do so. Our initiatives and efforts through our posts abroad are directed at persuading other countries which have not yet ratified the various conventions to do so at an early date.
The question of whether the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations would take action to disrupt world airlines if progress is not made is much the same sort of question as that which asks why nations do not come together to reach agreement. The pilots have found to their regret—and to my regret—that national interests of certain countries make it impossible to reach

497
agreement. Indeed, they make it impossible for the pilots of different countries to reach agreement. Such pilots would undoubtedly be prepared to take concerted action but they know that limited action in certain countries often has no effect upon countries elsewhere and sometimes has a positive counter-effect because of the reprisals which those other countries are able to take without harming themselves. The pilots have lived with the agony of this situation, as have all of us in politics who have been connected with this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNairWilson) asked about the period of 30 days for the receipt of further information. This is a provision in general terms because by and large there is a close relationship between those administering airports and running airlines. We know what is going on. It seemed that there should be this general ability in certain circumstances to ask for information. This is perhaps even more so in the following subsection, which says that there should be a seven-day provision dealing with changes in any arrangements. That is important in keeping us abreast of what is being proposed at any one time.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) helpfully clarified the Libyan situation for me. However, it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in a discussion of the Libyan incident because this Bill, since it is not yet law, can have no effect on that incident. It is in no way retrospective. After it comes into force, if an aircraft is destroyed while in service that would be an offence under the Act if the destruction was carried out unlawfully and intentionally. It would be up to the appropriate authorities to interpret any such incident.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East asked about our policy regarding air marshals. Our view has never been that we should take a hard and fast line about this. We believe that prevention on the ground is the best solution. There are great difficulties involved with armed marshals in aircraft.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) raised a number of issues
498
about sanctions. This is where the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendel-son) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) also entered the discussion. Various ideas have been put forward.
The hon. Member for Penistone had the idea of 10 countries reaching agreement. There is as yet no indication that the 10 major airline countries would reach agreement. One of the difficulties confronting all of us who will be watching with such interest the progress of the Rome talks in August is that we have to find a way of persuading a large number of countries to accept some effective common form of approach to the problem.
In the Legal Sub-Committee in Montreal last autumn the American and Canadian proposals were simply not acceptable. They have not gone forward for discussion at the Rome meetings. There are four suggestions on the table at present, and we shall use every possible method of persuasion to find a way of making progress. Indeed, people have paid tribute to the efforts of the Government in continually trying to keep up the pressure and not allowing the discussions to drift back into some ineffectual form of agreement which will not take the situation much further forward. We are determined to get the most effective arrangements we can.
Unless a large number of Powers are involved we shall not make progress. I do not believe that there is agreement between the 10 major Powers of the world or any combination of them. There are arguments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham pointed out, for using non-aviation Powers to bring pressure to bear on those who do not come into line with anti-hijacking proposals. Just as that argument can be advanced, so the implication is that there are some sanctions outside of civil aviation. That is true, but it is equally true that there are good arguments outside civil aviation why the 10 major Powers will not sacrifice their sovereignty. There are reprisals, sanctions, which could be applied against the 10 major Powers by other countries involved and could be more harmful to those major Powers than any harm which we could inflict upon the countries causing the difficulty.

499
Whichever way we look at it we are faced with the problem of reaching agreement. That has been the only way forward in such a situation. It is an unsatisfactory method because it is slow and it is bound to be much less effective than any of us would like. I do not know of any further initiatives the Government can take. They have taken initiatives consistently with immense help and support from the pilots, who have been extremely co-operative in all the discussions I have had with them. Much of that co-operation has come about because they believe the Government have done all they can. We shall keep up the pressure because I share the anxiety of all hon. Members. We have a great responsibility to those who travel by air and to those whose professional responsibility it is to conduct people by air. It is a massive responsibility and one which we shall in no way shirk.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, and to make other provision for the protection of aircraft and aerodromes against acts of violence, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. Michael Heseltine.]
SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) BILL [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3
IMPLIED UNDERTAKINGS AS TO QUALITY OR FITNESS
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'reasonably'.
We had a long discussion about this during the Committee stage of the Bill and the Under-Secretary was kind enough to say that he would look at the points again. That was why I indicated that on Report I would raise the matter again. I do not think I need go over all the arguments because they were rehearsed reasonably fully in the Committee stage.
The purpose of asking for the deletion of the word "reasonably" is that many people, myself included, take the view that the word is superfluous. Under Clause 3 there is an implied undertaking that the goods supplied are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are supplied. Since 1893 the word "reasonably" has been included. I do not want to overstate the case and I am not suggesting that any great harm has been done to the consumer as a result of the word "reasonably" being included in the Act. None the less, it would be much more helpful to the consumer if the word were not included because he would then be able to understand exactly what the undertaking is.
The undertaking, as far as the consumer is concerned, is that the goods should be fit for the purpose, and "reasonably" to some extent confuses the consumer as to his actual rights. It is an expression that lawyers and courts are very used to interpreting but it is an expression which the consumer finds some difficulty in understanding.
I am advised that if the word "reasonably" were not included the result would probably be the same as far as the courts are concerned because the courts would put a commonsense construction on the phrase "fit for the purpose". They would

501
not apply a standard of perfection, because, unfortunately, perfection cannot be attained in the manufacture of any goods. They would not, to use the example given by the Minister, say that if somebody supplied a Rolls-Royce and the windscreen wiper were defective the whole transaction would be void if the word "reasonably" were not included. In my view, they would apply a common-sense attitude and, without using the word, say that "fit" meant "reasonably fit".
From the point of view of clarity, even though it has stood the test of time and is included in the 1893 Act—which may be a very good reason for taking it out—the Minister might consider that now, all these years later, we can do without the word, and that the goods should simply be "fit".
I do not press the point but I should be interested to know whether the Minister has had any second thoughts since the long discussion in Committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): As the hon. Gentleman has said, and indeed those who were present during the Committee stage of the Bill will remember, I undertook to look again at this whole question of reasonableness in relation to fitness for purpose. I have done this and have found no good grounds for departing from the traditional wording which has been retained in the new Section 14(3) which is to replace the existing section of the 1893 Act.
The concept of "reasonableness" runs throughout our law from the requirement that the prosecution prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt" to the provision enshrined in Magna Carta that a widow should have a "reasonable" part of her deceased husband's estate for her support.
What is reasonable is usually to be decided as a matter of fact as in the case of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. It is true that there is a fashion now for replacing the word "reasonable" with the word "fair" where perhaps before 1965, say, a draftsman would have used the word "reasonable". But the courts have never found much difficulty in handling the notion of reasonableness.
I do not want to take up too much time but I commend to the hon. Gentle-
502
man and any others interested what is probably the most useful recent case, in which this matter was discussed by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls— Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus Ltd., 1965. I will not read the whole of the judgment now, but it is very interesting.
The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) touched upon the main difficulty when moving a similar amendment in Committee and asked whether, after all this time—and we are talking about 100 years or so—there would be any injustice or inconvenience if the word "reasonably" were now omitted so that the Bill merely provided that the goods should be fit for the purpose.
The answer is that, since we are dealing here not with a warranty but with a condition in the first instance, I think that it would. Moreover, it would be a burden on the consumer as well as on the retailer. If the word "reasonably" were to be omitted there would be a very real risk that the courts would hold that a change of meaning in the law had been intended and that in future goods would have to be more than reasonably fit. Nothing, of course, is perfect in this world, and to make it possible for every purchaser to repudiate a contract in circumstances in which a reasonable man would say that the goods were reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were bought would be not only unreasonable but also unrealistic.
The main burden from such a change would fall on the retailer. He might have to accept that any article he sold which was less than absolutely perfect could be returned to him for a refund. It might be no defence to say that the imperfection was so slight that it was unreasonable to say that it affected the article's fitness for the purpose. This would inevitably increase the costs to manufacturers and retailers, and, of course, at the end of the day these costs would be paid by the consumer. If a buyer demanded 100 per cent. perfection most sellers would take the precaution of raising their prices, perhaps inordinately, to cover the additional cost of being certain that they could meet the requirement, or indeed of not supplying at all. In either case I believe that the consumer would suffer in the end.

503
I do not think that this is what the House wants in this Bill, and for these reasons I must reject the amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 4
EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 22, leave out from 'void' to end of line 25.
I think it would be convenient, subject to your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if with this amendment we took Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, which are consequential amendments:
Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Mallalieu): Yes, if that is the desire of the House.
Mr. Davidson: The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there will be no contracting out of implied undertakings as to fitness as between business firms. The Bill ensures that as between business and the consumer it is not possible to contract out of liabilities, in particular the implied undertakings in the Bill. The Bill allows a measure of contracting out of implied undertakings between one business firm and another, subject to the courts having the right to say that it is reasonable or unreasonable to enforce the contracting-out. We discussed this at length in Committee, and the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to give a considerate and lengthy reply.
6.30 p.m.
Our purpose in suggesting that it is morally, if not legally, wrong to allow contracting out between business firms— whether between a manufacturer and retailer or between a retailer and another firm—is that in the long run the consumer suffers because he will receive goods which may be less perfect than they would be if the firms were not allowed to contract out of their implied legal undertakings. It is fundamentally right and just that the loss should fall upon the person who is responsible for the defective goods, in
504
most cases upon the manufacturer who in the first place puts them on the market.
All too often manufacturers are in a stronger position than are small retailers. I accept the Minister's argument that all retailers are by no means weak creatures, that there are big chains of retailers with the advantage of expert advice and that often chains of retailers are more powerful than are small manufacturers, but in most cases the manufacturer is by far the more powerful party of the two. He is in a position to put pressure on the retailer and put him in the position of striking a bargain which is not in his interests and from which the consumer will ultimately suffer, while the manufacturer can contract out of his liabilities.
I have particularly in mind the manufacturer contracting out of his undertakings and the retailer being responsible. The retailer might go bankrupt so that when the consumer attempts to sue him for breach of implied undertakings he is carrying out a useless action in trying to get his money back or his goods repaired. The manufacturer will say "I contracted out of my undertakings. You cannot go for me either", and the consumer will be left in a defenceless position. He will have rights but will not be able to enforce them.
Contracting out is an encouragement to insurance companies to offer terms which make it more favourable for the firm which is insuring to slip in an exclusion clause. There is evidence that many insurance companies make it financially worth while for a manufacturer to slip in an exclusion clause by offering a cheaper premium. Insurance companies should be discouraged from indulging in that inducement, which is ultimately damaging to the consumer.
While I accept that the compromise produced by the Law Commission which is included in the Bill—namely, that the courts can overturn an agreement to contract out if they think it unreasonable— will assist in many ways and will be a discouragement to manufacturers or retailers unreasonably contracting out, I feel it would be to the long-term advantage to do away with the whole concept of contracting out of the legal obligations. It would certainly be to the advantage of the consumer and would also improve business ethics.
Mr. Alan Williams: It was not my intention to intervene at this stage, but I do not think it will cause a major difficulty. If my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), who did not know of the arrangement, caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he might be able to obtain the permission of the House to speak last on the group of amendments.
Amendment No. 4, which relates to standards, was discussed in Committee. I was unable to be there because I was in the Committee dealing with the Fair Trading Bill. We return to the amendment because we are anxious for an assurance from the Minister—and I almost feel that we shall get it—that the safety aspect is adequately covered by the Bill.
We thought that this provision would automatically be included in the Fair Trading Bill, but we discovered that there were loopholes in that Bill that needed to be closed. Rather than allow any defect to slip through, which neither side of the House would wish, we thought—at the risk of wasting 10 minutes of the time of the Undersecretary of State—that it would be better to raise the issue now. We want to be sure that in terms of safety, neither the retailer nor the manufacturer can escape from his responsibility to the consumer.
There is a terrifying report in the current issue of Drive—the magazine of the Automobile Association—of a series of tests on childrens' car safety harnesses. It emerges from that report that the use of many thousands of these so-called safety harnesses could lead to death or serious maiming, although parents have reason to think that their children are being protected by them.
The law places the responsibility on the parent, which seems to be unfair. That is why the amendment refers to "any relevant British Standard". Under Regulation 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973, it is an offence to drive a car which has a safety seat that is not approved by the British Standards Institution, and the penalty is a fine of up to £50. But manufacturers are putting on the market safety seats which in no way conform to the requisite British Standard. In
506
passing, I may say that the British Standards Institution agrees that the current British Standard is not adequate and is about to publish a new Standard for childrens' car safety harness.
Despite the responsibilities that the law imposes upon parents, manufacturers are selling products that do not conform to legal requirements. Drive reports:
"One type of seat, made of tubular metal like a small high-chair served only to raise the child to exactly the right position for any sudden stop to cannon-ball it straight through the car's windscreen."
That chair is being sold as a safety chair and is being installed by parents in the belief that it has BSI approval and is safe. The report goes on to say that these seats have been sold in great quantities. One firm has sold 70,000 in about five years. There could be 70,000 children at risk because parents have no way of knowing that the product on which they rely for their child's life and safety is defective and does not satisfy legal requirements.
Here, I draw the attention of the Minister to the difficulties parents have in establishing where responsibility lies. Several examples can be quoted from the report:
"The pram department of Selfridges, in London,"—
and Selfridges, with all respect, makes every attempt to deal fairly and honestly with the public—
"claimed that the Amacourt and the Niki Jet 2000 Recliner were BSI approved. 'They must be or we wouldn't sell them.' In fact they are not."
So anyone who is driving a motor car with belts of these types installed is technically in breach of the law. At another shop—the Arcadia Pram Centre, West London—the Niki Jet 2000 was described as "the best in the world". When asked if it was BSI approved the answer was:
"Well, yes, it's made in Germany and anything made there is strictly tested. At Youngsters, a nursery shop in Wembley, north west London, and The Tiny Set, Putney, south west London, the Tubemaster Mark I was claimed to be BSI approved."
In fact this seat does not have BSI approval.
"Babyland, Wimbledon, south west London, claimed that both the Amacourt and the Tube-master Mark I were BSI approved."

507
Many people are labouring under a misconception about the safety of the product and are utterly unaware that they are liable to be subjected to legal action for using it. The worst example is one of the most expensive. It is a German car seat—the Kettler Touring Hort. When the German Automobile Club tested this seat it failed, because it tore from its mounting. The company—and in the amendment we refer to companies' responsibilities—
"has subsequently been quoted … as having strengthened the mounting. … It has apparently failed to do so on its export models."
The company is selling in this country models which do not meet German safety standards.
My point is that we ought to be absolutely sure that responsibility lies where it should, with those who sell and who, misleadingly, first put the product on the market. We want to be sure that the harnesses referred to in the report in Drive—the death trap harnesses—will be driven off the market at once. It is not a matter of waiting for discussions; these products must be taken off the market immediately.
For that reason, I submit to the Minister that local weights and measures inspectors should initiate immediate prosecutions, under the Trade Descriptions Act, in cases where stores continue to sell car seats which the report has shown to be defective. I also ask for urgent Government action to introduce the new British Standard in respect of future sales of car seats. The Standard is about to be published. It normally takes several months of consultations for a Standard to be legally implemented. We cannot afford to wait. The new Standard should be introduced at the earliest possible date.
Finally, in view of the serious injuries which a child could suffer in any of these seats, I urge the Minister to ensure that an immediate publicity campaign is instituted to warn parents who have them installed in their cars that they are killer harnesses and not safety harnesses. We have taken the opportunity of raising this matter today, and it may be that we have strained the orders of the House a little in doing so—you have very kindly
508
allowed me to speak at this length on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but we have felt that we should start immediately alerting parents to the hazards which these faulty safety seats represent. That is why we have taken the opportunity of raising the matter on this amendment. We should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal not only with that matter but with the three points that I have raised, which call for immediate action which I have raised.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: My very brief intervention relates to Amendment No. 4. I speak in support of the safety points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). I believe that the Automobile Association has done a public service in pointing out the dangers of failing to use BSI-approved safety seats for children in cars. When in its current publication, a conservative body like the AA says quite boldly that it is convinced that the wearing of seat belts should be made compulsory, we know that there is no doubt about it. It may be inconvenient, it may upset a family's budget, and travelling habits, but I am convinced that the fitting of BSI-approved safety seats for children in cars should be made compulsory.
I suppose we were all made unhappy on the subject of child safety in cars when we heard of a car crash in America in which a child was decapitated owing to a badly-sited dashboard ashtray. It seems that head and facial injuries are more frequent among child passengers than among adults. It is also clear that not sufficient is known about child injuries in cars. That does not help the authorities to seek the remedial action that may be necessary. On this matter I would like to see co-ordinated emergency action taken by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, and the Home Office. This triple approach of the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, the Minister for Transport Industries and the Home Secretary could prevent thousands of family injuries and tragedies which the present explosion in car buying and childbirth presages.
Chief constables should be given an immediate mandate to take effective

509
action, because we all know that prevention, particularly in this case, is better than cure. It is one thing for an adult's brains to lie on a shattered windscreen or bonnet; it is near-criminal, perhaps criminal, to ignore the fact that thousands of minors risk a similar fate. I conclude by asking the Under-Secretary whether he will tell us what he proposes to do in this matter.
Mr. Anthony Grant: I will deal first with Amendment No. 2 moved by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). This amendment touches upon one of the fundamental principles of the Bill itself. Therefore, it can be viewed only against the background of all that has gone on over the past 10 years or so in the way of inquiries and consultations on the problem of exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods.
In this perspective it is fair to say it quickly becomes apparent that all the arguments we hear on this aspect have really been gone over many times before. As long ago as 1962 the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection touched upon this. It said that the arguments whether exclusion clauses should be permitted between business parties would merit further consideration. But, of course, it was outside its remit since it was concerned only with the consumer and consumer protection, and did not want to delay consumer protection on that account.
The further consideration to which the committee referred was given by the Law Commissions. I think it is generally agreed that they considered the matter with the utmost care. In fact, about one-fifth of the Law Commission's first report is devoted to the point.
The Law Commissions found that the Molony Committee's view that retailers were capable of looking after themselves was not universally shared. The evidence presented to them did not however lead the Law Commissions to consider that there might be a case for a complete ban on exclusion clauses across the board. None of the Law Commissioners saw any need to extend the ban on exclusion clauses in consumer sales to business sales as well. On the contrary, half the Law Commissioners recommended that there should be no restrictions of any
510
kind on the use of exclusion clauses in the general run of business sales. They made it clear that, in their view, in relation to business sales generally there was insufficient evidence to justify interfering with the freedom of contract which is the fundamental principle of our commercial law.
The other half of the Law Commissioners accepted the representations made on behalf of retailers that they needed the safeguard of legal protection if exclusion clauses were to be barred in consumer sales. Paragraph 109 of the first report sets out what the retail organisations themselves described as the essence of their case. These commissioners also saw no reason for extending the ban on exclusion clauses to all business sales, and it was they who recommended the test of reasonableness as providing adequate protection for those in business who were not in a position to protect themselves. Even those Law Commissioners opposed to exemption clauses in business sales generally agreed that the test of reasonableness would provide the most satisfactory solution if it was decided, as a matter of policy, that exemption clauses in business sales should be subject to legal control.
Further consultations and discussions which have taken place on this matter, including discussions with the National Chamber of Trade, since the publication of the report have elicited no new facts which would justify going further than the Law Commissioners' recommendations. Indeed, they have, if anything, shown that the position of the retailer may be improved by these provisions of the Bill. Very few shopkeepers attempt to exclude their liability to their customers, so the relationship between the retailer and his customer will not be changed in the great majority of consumer sales. What will be changed will be the retailer's ability to pass on to his supplier liability for any defect in the goods supplied to him. He will no longer be forced to accept exclusion of liability by his suppliers, and where he feels aggrieved he will be able to challenge an exclusion clause in the courts.
During the consultations and discussions which we have had on this part of the Bill the pressure for change has not been confined to the retailers' proposals. Representations leading in the opposite

511
direction have been made by those who believe that any change in the present freedom of contract will be a hindrance to commerce and industry, and it has been represented to us that freedom of contract should be allowed, particularly in the sale of capital goods.
We are not persuaded that an exception should be made there, but what we have done is to accept the Law Commissions' recommendations, which are to a large extent a compromise. One could say that Government Departments and other large buyers, some of whom may be retailers, prefer to retain freedom to negotiate terms under which the risk of defects falls upon them in circumstances where it is advantageous for them to bear the insurance risk themselves against such defects, and this can be of benefit to the man in the street, both as a consumer and as a taxpayer.
We accept that in this respect the provisions of the Bill are a compromise, but it has been reached after very careful consideration, and I hope, therefore, that I have convinced the House, and possibly the hon. Member for Accrington, that the compromise is fair. In the circumstances, I do not think that I can accept that amendment.
I now turn to the amendment which deals with another matter to which the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) referred. The clause requires the court to decide whether it is reasonable to allow a seller to rely on an exclusion clause in the light of all the circumstances of the case. In addition, five guidelines are provided which are intended to bring the court's attention to those factors which are most likely to be important.
This is, of course, a matter of judgment—an infinite number of other factors could be added to these five—but the Government, like the Law Commissioners, have taken the view that the five now set out in the clause cover most of the issues likely to arise in most cases. I recognise that individual cases may turn on quite other issues, and in such cases the courts will be able to take these into account. But it is not possible to foresee what these issues will be and it would be undesirable, even if we could, to try to write them all
512
into the Bill. Such a course would give the impression that such guidelines were exhaustive; that once the court had taken them into account nothing more need be considered. I must emphasise that that is not the case. The courts will decide these matters in the light of all the circumstances of the case.
In that context, the fact that certain goods failed to measure up to safety standards would mean that they were not reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required. Clearly, the matter would come within the terms of the clause, and it would be for the courts to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.
Both hon. Members have drawn attention to the disturbing reports in Drive on the subject of children's safety belts and seats. I think they will accept from me that the points raised both in the article and in their speeches range over very much wider legislation than is contained in the Bill and concern some of my colleagues in other Government Departments. I shall ensure that what both hon. Gentlemen have said is drawn to the attention of my colleagues who are concerned and have responsibility in this matter. They will no doubt look very carefully at what has been said, and in due course make their decisions.
The amendment refers to standards and suggests that a further guideline should be added. The question whether goods do or do not comply with British Standards or any other recognised code is something which would be considered by the courts if it were an issue, but I do not think that it is one which is likely to arise in most cases. This was the test by which we judged whether a guideline should be included in the Bill.
Not all goods are covered by British or other recognised standards. This is particularly true of newly developed articles. In some cases newly developed goods will be competing with conventional goods which are covered by a recognised standard. In some cases the newly developed goods may be better than the old ones, and once accepted might displace them altogether. If a case in which this was a factor were taken before the court it might, saddled with the proposed guideline, find that the goods did not conform to a recognised standard, and

513
innovation and development could be set back for several years.
To sum up on this amendment, I am not persuaded that the factor covered by the amendment would arise as a matter of importance in most cases. In some cases where this arose it could have harmful effects possibly in raising the price of goods and conceivably retarding innovation.
I hope that I have said enough to show the House that this is a wide clause and that the words "in all the circumstances" mean what they say and probably will cover most of the anxieties which have been expressed. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I hope that, with the leave of the House, I may briefly respond to the Minister. We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the trouble he has taken. I fully accept that had he agreed to my amendment it would have completely altered the Bill. The amendment is substantial, and the House would have been a little surprised if he had said that he could accept it, because the Bill is based on firm recommendations made by the Law Commission.
Although we are all grateful for the work done by the Law Commission—I pay tribute to the Commission—I beg to differ modestly from its conclusions, because I still believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the consumer if nobody were allowed to contract out of a legal obligation.
With regard to the safety factor, I would point out that this is one of the criteria which a court should take into account in judging the reasonableness of an exclusion clause. It is less important that the safety factor should be written into the Bill than that the court should bear that factor in mind. I am sure that the court will view the subject of safety as an important factor and that the public will be adequately protected.
We did not expect the Minister to go much further in terms of possible Government action than he went today in the light of the alarming report which appeared in the magazine Drive. We must all be grateful to the Automobile Association for its report and to Dr.
514
Mackay for compiling it. It is terrifying that such equipment should be on sale when, in fact, it provides no restraint at all. From a safety point of view the equipment is obviously a disaster. Dr. Mackay was dealing with practically all the safety harnesses which are advertised; far from providing safety for children, they do just the opposite.
This evidence adds weight to my argument that by encouraging people to contract out one possibly will encourage them to manufacture and put on the market less perfect goods than they might otherwise do. It is undoubtedly an alarming report in the light of the evidence that no fewer than six separate harnesses— all sold openly to the public and no doubt bought by thousands of parents—were tested and found to be potentially dangerous. I know that the Minister is concerned, as is everybody else, about safety factors, and I hope that some action will follow. In the light of the Minister's reply it would not be right to press the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: We cannot allow the Bill to pass without recording yet again, as we did on Second Reading, our welcome to these provisions. I am sure that that sentiment is echoed in all parts of the House. This is an "all-party" Bill—except for the Liberal Party, whose Members have taken no part in the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and are not in evidence on Third Reading. We are accustomed to the fact that Liberals are more concerned with Press headlines than with the practical and hard work of this House.
The Government and Opposition can rest content that we have jointly carried out a good job of work on the Bill. It must be said that the spade work was done during the period of office of the Labour Government since the report on which the Bill is based was commissioned by a Labour Government. Happily, the Conservative Government have readily accepted the recommendations in that report. Anybody who reads the proceedings on the Bill, both in this House and in another place, will agree that the

515
measure has gone through in an atmosphere of constructive co-operation.
All hon. Members are sick and tired of phoney guarantees, with people being deliberately cheated of their rights by legal sleight of hand—deceived into thinking that they are being given security when, in fact, security is being taken away from them. The Bill, once enacted, will end the distortion of fair trading in terms of the supply of goods, but we must await another Bill to give some protection in terms of services.
The Bill exists because tour operators, household appliance manufacturers, and, above all, the car trade have had a spree of irresponsible deception at the expense of the public for many years. In this Bill Government and Opposition have united to put an end to the deliberate robbing of the public of their existing legal rights. There was no hope that the suppliers would do this for themselves.
On Second Reading I said:
"The Motor Agents Association standard so-called 'order form' is a moral disgrace. On the back of it, in the small print, there appear over 1,000 words in 10 clauses imposing the motor agents' own terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 1164.]
In other words, it took away the protection which members of the public would otherwise have. Within days of those remarks the head of the Motor Agents Association was speaking in Swansea, in my own constituency. He had the audacity to say that his association's order form was "OK" and legal, although this was only half the truth.
The advice I give the people of Swansea and people everywhere in this country is to refuse to sign any Motor Agents' Association order form until this Bill becomes an Act. Once the Bill is enacted the order form will not mean anything. Certainly at present it is a fraud, and the public should be made aware that it is a fraud. The head of the Motor Agents' Association and his trade have done more than any other association or trade to condition the public to expect shoddy treatment from suppliers.
The motorist and other consumers must be made to understand that Parliament has unanimously decreed that goods that are sold must be fit for the purpose for
516
which they were intended. The onus is completely on the suppliers to put right any faults in the goods supplied. I say to the Automobile Association and to the Royal Automobile Club that we must watch the actions of the motor agents in the next few weeks and months to see whether there is any evidence of reluctance by the motor trade to accept the new duties imposed upon it by the Bill. I urge the AA and RAC to initiate an early test case to establish the sanctions which we are providing to the consumer to protect him from the motor trade and certain other suppliers. It is hardly surprising that the public are punch drunk as a result of the treatment that they have received.
In Committee on the Fair Trading Bill I quoted a case which was sent to me in February. Someone had bought a new Ford car from a Ford agent in London in August of last year. In October he took the car in for servicing under warranty. He was told that it would have to remain in the garage for four days. Four days having elapsed, he went back to the garage, where he was told that his car had disappeared. From that day to this he has not seen it. The traders do not deny that the car was on their premises. They say that it is not their responsibility if it disappears because it says on their servicing order form that they are not responsible for any loss or damage while customers' cars are on their premises.
The traders having lost the car in October, the owner wrote to me in February, when he was still without a car. The garage which had lost the car refused even to lend him a replacement while the insurance was settled. The solicitor for the garage told the owner of the car, who was an entirely innocent party, that he should claim through his own insurance even though that meant losing his no claims bonus, and that it was not the practice of the company to lend another car in such circumstances. It sounds as though the company has a lot of experience of it.
The owner also wrote to the massive, powerful Ford Motor Company. The company backed its agent, regardless of the fact that for months someone who had bought through an accredited dealer had been denied the use of his car because of the incompetence of the dealer

517
in looking after property on his premises—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Shame.
Mr. Williams: The word "shame" describes it very well. It is an astonishing conspiracy between the solicitor, the garage and the Ford Motor Company which can deny a customer the protection that he should have.
That example demonstrates the magnitude of the retreat of the car trade from fair dealing with the public, and it explains why" this House has to think in terms of passing this measure and the subsequent one—because a case of the kind that I have described needs subsequent legislation to give the individual concerned the necessary protection. But at least we are doing half of what is needed pending the second report of the Law Commission, which I appreciate I am not allowed to refer to in the Third Reading debate on this Bill.
The Opposition have given the Bill their fullest backing throughout its various stages. We give it our fullest backing now, and we hope that it is successful. We work on the basis that half a Bill is better than no Bill. If consumers use the protection that this legislation offers them, they will get yet again the protection which the law originally intended them to have.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Grant: I believe that this is a very much needed measure, and I join the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Allan Williams) in his description of the considerable degree of accord, the wide measure of agreement on, and the general welcome for its provisions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to those of my hon. Friends who have enabled us to apply our minds a little more exactly to getting a better Bill, even though we have not been able to accept all their amendments.
The Sale of Goods Act is some 80 years old. To some extent it could be described as having been secondhand even then. Tremendous changes have taken place in our commercial activities since. In the last century it was possible to have an evenly struck bargain between people of equal power and
518
opportunity. Mass production and the growth of development, quite apart from the complexity of our lives, have caused that balance to get out of true. Hence the need for a consumer protection measure of this nature which I believe will be to the great advantage of consumers.
This has been a widely researched Bill —first by the Malony Committee, then by departmental consultations with a wide range of interests, and finally by the Law Commissioners. I pay tribute to the work that they have done and the way in which they have helped this House in its legislative process. They are now hard at work on the need for protection to be afforded to consumers of services. The Bill has to be seen against a background of a programme of measures which will transform and revitalise this general area of the law.
This is a very important step forward in protecting the consumer. Make no mistake, he will now have a very powerful right of redress, which will be particularly important in ensuring that he gets goods of merchantable quality. No consumer should be misled by any exclusion clause in his contract of sale of goods. He will have an absolute right to the implied terms of Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act. These are very valuable rights. It was possible to rob him of them before this Bill. It will not be possible when it is enacted.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear, and I repeat now, that if the practice of including void exclusion clauses in consumer contracts of sale were to become widespread the Fair Trading Bill would provide powers for dealing with it. It will be open to the Director General to proceed under Part II of that Bill and propose that to mislead consumers in this way should be made a criminal offence. We shall watch the working of the Bill very closely to ensure that it is effective.
We believe that the Bill makes this very considerable addition to consumer protection in a way which is also fair to sellers. All those in weak bargaining positions will be strengthened but strong buyers and sellers may continue to deal with each other on whatever terms suit them. If buyers exercise their rights and sellers fulfil their obligations, as I am confident the great majority will, we can

519
hope to see an improvement in the quality of goods supplied in this country. We shall move nearer the ideal in which the consumer has no need to complain or seek redress because he will be satisfied with the goods supplied.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I wish to put two questions to the Under-Secretary. I accept all that has been said about the need for the Bill and about the fact that it ought to do away with the appalling, disgraceful and discreditable practice of manufacturers setting out elaborate phrases in their contracts which they are happy to delude the public into thinking are generous terms when they are depriving people of rights that they have under the common law. I feel sure that this legislation will go a long way to do away with that discreditable practice. However, I am certain that there will still be manufacturers who will endeavour to get round it.
In Clause 3 there is a provision dealing with fitness for purpose. The implied condition as to fitness for purpose applies except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgment. I do not want to put nasty thoughts in the minds of firms, manufacturers or anybody else. However, some firms have nasty minds and thoughts already and are no doubt seeking ways to get round the Bill through loopholes which may be found in it. I can imagine some of them putting in those delicate little phrases in small print which say "You should not rely on my skill and judgment" or "Beware, I have no skill and judgment", or words to that effect. In other words, they will be seeking underhanded ways of once again getting out of their obligations.
Mr. Cormack: In the way that certain people have tended to evade responsibilities under the Trade Descriptions Act by putting in auctioneers' catalogues "This is not to be taken as a statement of fact, but merely as a statement of opinion."
Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman, who has displayed considerable interest and has done a great deal for consumer protection, is quite right.
I should like to give another example with which the Minister will be familiar.
520
Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act one practice in which trade directory firms indulged was to put on an invoice in small print "This is not a demand for payment ", when clearly it was. The whole purpose of sending out invoices is to ask for payment. We should give a warning that the courts are unlikely to look kindly on firms which indulge in that practice. I hope that the courts will take what is traditionally called a robust view when interpreting whether a clause is an exclusion clause or not.
If the Bill, when enacted, is to work effectively it is important that the public should know the safeguards that it gives. In other words, they should know that it is the buyer who in the long run has the right to recover from the seller. I fear that so long as manufacturers continue to print guarantees—they can still do so; the Bill does not prevent them printing guarantees—in practice when a consumer goes to the shop from which he has bought goods and says "They are defective; I am not happy with them" the sales girl, in all her innocence, might say "You have got the guarantee. Have you written to the manufacturer?" The buyer might then write to the manufacturer, who will, because there is a clause in his guarantee which does not apply to the consumer, say "We will repair it, but there is this clause which provides that we can charge for labour", and so on. Therefore, unless the consumer is fully aware of his rights against the person from whom he has bought goods, the legislation may not be as effective as we want it to be.
I hope that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs will produce a booklet or start a campaign to inform and educate the public about the buyer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act. The public should know that a buyer can go to the seller and say "It may not be your fault, but it is your responsibility and I hold you to your bargain". Perhaps the Minister will reply briefly to those points.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Cormack: I should like to reinforce what has just been said by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). This is a question of the public knowing their rights. It is all very well passing Acts, but if the public

521
do not know their new rights our labour has to some extent been in vain.
I should like to see a plain man's guide to this difficult and complex problem. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give some thought to this proposal. Obviously, I do not expect an answer off the cuff tonight, because expenditure is involved. However, I suggest that citizens advice bureaux up and down the country and, indeed, Members of Parliament should be supplied with such a guide—one thinks of the supplementary benefits handbook as an example—so that people may know their rights. If something along those lines can be done I am sure that the legislation will become more effective because it will be respected by manufacturers and sellers throughout the country.
Mr. Anthony Grant: By leave of the House I will reply briefly to those points.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) that certain people will always beaver away seeking to find cunning loopholes in the statutes passed by this House. If these people are considering such action they may find themselves in for a shock when they come before the courts. Indeed, there has been a substantial increase in consumer interest over recent years. The Bill is intended for the consumers' protection. I advise anybody who may seek to find ways to evade his responsibility under this legislation to hesitate and consider that it is probably in the best interests of business people not to evade responsibility to the consumer by means of some artificial loophole because it is upon the good will of the consumer that the success of business depends.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) raised an extremely good point about the need for publicity. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is anxious that the provisions of this Bill, when enacted, should be known as widely as possible. He is considering ways in which he can secure this degree of publicity for it. Certainly the suggestions which have been made will be very carefully considered by him.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
EDUCATION BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
EDUCATION (WORK EXPERIENCE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to restore a state of affairs which existed before the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16 last year and to enable local education authorities and schools to continue to make arrangements for a particular type of educational provision which would otherwise cease to be permitted and which it is generally felt is desirable.
First, it might be as well to explain what is meant by the term "work experience" and precisely why legislation has become necessary. The term is one which has grown up in the educational world to describe activities undertaken by senior pupils as part of the process of learning about the adult world. The part of this process with which the Bill is concerned is the broadening of the pupil's experience and understanding by introducing him at first-hand to the conditions and circumstances of adult work. Clearly, pupils may be taught about the outside world in a classroom, but this teaching needs some reinforcement by first-hand experience.
Some of the points made in the classroom can be illustrated by half-day or whole-day visits by school parties who undertake conducted tours of factories or other undertakings as observers. Such visits have their place in the programme, but a greater impact and deeper understanding can be achieved if the pupil can take part in the work. It is this actual

523
participation which gives rise to the problem which the Bill seeks to resolve.
As the law stands, a pupil who participates in the work of an establishment is considered to be employed. If the pupil is below the upper limit of compulsory school age he is a "child" for the purposes of legislation which prohibits or regulates the employment of children. The effect of the law is that pupils of compulsory school age are prohibited from employment in industrial undertakings or in mines and quarries by legislation which extends back to the Employment of Women, Children and Young Persons Act 1920 and includes various provisions of the Factories Acts. Their employment elsewhere is subject to restrictions, mainly under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the equivalent Scottish Act of 1937, which forbid in any form, the employment of children during school hours, or for more than two hours outside school hours, on any school day. The effect is that participation in work experience which involves taking a hand in the work of the undertaking is restricted to pupils who are above the school leaving age.
In fact, most of the schemes which have been in operation were designed for pupils aged between 15 and 16—that is, those who were in their first year after the school leaving age, until that age was raised in September 1972. Experience with these schemes showed that they were of very great value in the education of the pupils and were particularly relevant to the knowledge and needs of pupils of this age. Provided they are given proper support in the curriculum within the school, both in preparation for their visits to factories and in the follow-up afterwards, pupils of this age are well able to appreciate what is involved, to link with experience gained outside with their teaching in school, and to draw conclusions from it.
The difficulty caused by raising the school leaving age is that the date on which any individual pupil ceases to be of compulsory school age is postponed by one year, and therefore the upper age limit of a child, for the purposes of the statutes, is raised by one year. The effect is that the very group of pupils for whom most of the schemes have been devised
524
would be excluded from those schemes until they reached the new upper limit of compulsory school age.
Hon. Members may well ask whether, in this situation, it would not be possible to devise different schemes, aimed at pupils between 16 and 17—the first year after the new school leaving age—and to rely upon those pupils who stay on voluntarily beyond that age. There are two objections to this suggestion. First, although we expect that raising the school leaving age will have some secondary effects on the number of pupils staying on voluntarily until the age of 17, we do not yet know precisely what these effects will be. Secondly, the experience gained has been mainly with the 15- to 16-year-old group and has demonstrated the value of these schemes for that group.
With these considerations in mind in 1971, I undertook consultations to discover the views of the various interests concerned on the general proposition that the law should be changed to enable pupils of 15-plus to continue to participate in the out-of-school part of work experience schemes after the school leaving age was raised, in the same way as they were able to do beforehand. Among the bodies consulted were the professional associations of teachers, the associations of the local authorities and the CBI and TUC, representing the employers and the organisations of the employees collectively. The response was almost unanimous. The teachers' associations, the local authorities and the employers in England and Wales were agreed that, on educational grounds, this change must be made. Their attitude was one not merely of agreement but of enthusiasm.
It is fair to say, however, that the TUC, both in England and in Scotland—where similar consultations were undertaken— had reservations on the ground that they did not consider work experience of this type to be a proper and relevant part of secondary education. The Educational Institute of Scotland also had reservations.
It is in the light of this response that the Government have decided to bring in this very short Bill, to make this small but important change in the law. I emphasise that support for this measure

525
was expressed on educational grounds by the representatives of the authorities who are responsible for providing education in this country, and in an overwhelming majority by the teachers who are engaged in the daily business of putting theory into practice.
I think that we would all agree that it is necessary to protect the young against exploitation and ensure that they receive a proper education. It is also right that those who have doubts about the new proposals on the ground that they may be diminishing the protection which we have built up over a great many years in this country should express those doubts. But, with great respect to those who expressed those doubts, I think that they may have misunderstood the purpose and the nature of these schemes. They are not intended to produce any sort of vocational training. The schemes have been devised to fit in with the general education given within the schools, to reinforce that education with the help of illustrations from the real world outside, and to help in the transition from school to work.
For example, in one scheme the pupils were involved in some of the preliminary letter-writing necessary to make arrangements for their visits. They were required to write diaries and reports on their experiences as they went along, and to record descriptions and impressions of the work at the end of the course. This, I suppose, might be described as the use of English in a practical situation. In another scheme in which boys were visiting an engineering firm, a great deal of emphasis was given to the importance of safety in the work of the firm. Before the boys actually began the work they were given a training session on the subject and issued with a copy of the "Accident Prevention Code for Young Workers in the Engineering Industry". In a number of schemes the pupils are required to work out their travel arrangements in advance.
I have mentioned the need to protect young people and the emphasis given to safety in one scheme. Consultations in 1971 emphasised that any work experience scheme should be subject to proper safeguards and that if the law were to be changed the safeguards applying to the 15-year-olds should be maintained. It might be helpful to turn to the pro-
526
visions of the Bill in order to show how we propose to do this.
Clause 1(1) removes the application of the enactment relating to the employment of children, subject to certain conditions. This subsection bites only on those enactments which are framed in terms of "children". It has no effect on the enactments designed for the protection of workers in general and expressed without any limitation of age. This will apply to pupils who are taking part in work experience schemes under the Bill. The conditions imposed by this subsection are, first, that the employment is within the pupil's last year of compulsory schooling; second, that it is part of arrangements made or approved by the local education authority as part of an educational programme; and, third that it conforms with the additional requirements set out in subsection (2).
These conditions set work experience firmly in the educational context and place on the local education authority the responsibility for making or approving the arrangements. The further requirements in Clause 1(2) impose the same safeguards relating to health, safety and welfare as previously applied to pupils of this age taking part in such schemes.
To take them in order, work experience as provided for under subsection (1) will not be permitted if it contravenes legislation framed in terms of specific ages and prohibiting or restricting the employment of persons under those ages. The next proviso takes acount of the particularly hazardous nature of employment on ships, and provides that work experience on ships—if anyone had it in mind to provide such experience—may be undertaken only within the very narrow range permitted by the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 or those provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts 1970 which will supersede the provisions of the 1920 Act when they are brought into force. Finally, no work experience arrangements are to be made which would entail work by a 15-year-old which would be illegal for young persons, that is to say, those between 16 and 18 years old.
The Bill is largely an enabling measure, which permits the authority to continue to make arrangements of the sort which it has been making in the past, subject only

527
to a little more formal restriction. It is, however, the intention of the Government if the Bill is passed to issue guidance to education authorities and schools explaining the legal provisions and giving advice, based on the observation of good practice, about the organisation of work experience schemes, the need for proper preparation and consultation with those who will be asked to cooperate in carrying them out, and the safeguards and supervision which should be provided in order to protect the young people who are taking part. It is our intention to consult existing authorities about the content of this guidance and to give them a chance to comment before it is published. It is certainly my intention that these consultations should include, as before, not only the educational and local authority interests but those of employers and employees.
7.40 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: The right hon. Lady has shown the importance which she attaches to the Bill by presenting it to the House herself. I thank her for a very lucid explanation of its contents. I want to make one or two observations and to enlarge upon some of the points implied in the Bill.
The necessity for the Bill arose from the raising of the school leaving age. With one or two exceptions or additions, it restores the state of affairs which existed previously.
It is right that one should stress the educational nature and content of the Bill because its intention is to enable children in their last year of compulsory schooling to obtain work experience as part of their education. That side of the Bill needs to be stressed, and the right hon. Lady did so.
Work experience is not always understood by many parents, and, indeed, by other people. The term describes a variety of activities undertaken by pupils as part of the process of learning about the adult world within the context of their general education. This is very suited to their last year at school. The value and the intention of work experience schemes should be—as it has been very largely—to try to introduce pupils to circumstances and conditions of adult work in a rather fuller way than by half a day or even a day of being taken to visit a factory or some other
528
establishment. Although the visits which are undertaken from schools are exceedingly valuable, and one does not want to detract from them, the experience of work, of necessity, does much more than those short visits.
The right hon. Lady rightly said that, by and large, the only objections to the Bill which have been received have come from the TUC. The TUC was kind enough to send me a copy of its objections. The Opposition do not accept the TUC's reservations as being sufficient grounds for objection to the Bill, but one or two of the TUC reservations are worth mentioning. Perhaps later in the debate hon. Members may care to comment on some of them. The right hon. Lady has mentioned one of them.
The TUC has never been very happy about the whole programme and idea of work experience. The first of its two main objections is that there would be a tendency to limit young people involved in work experience to the most unskilled jobs with little or no educational value. I do not know upon what evidence that objection is based. But we can safeguard against such a tendency. If we are aware of that danger and so long as we make it clear to firms taking part in work experience schemes, this is not something that would merit objecting to the Bill. However, it is a valid reservation.
The other point made by the TUC is of interest, but again it can be dealt with. This was that there is still a limited number of places available for work experience, as not all employers are willing to participate, and some are not able to participate, for obvious reasons with which I need not deal.
The TUC's fear on this point was that there could be a tendency, because of the limitation of places, for work experience to be regarded as something appropriate only to what the TUC calls the less able child or the non-examination child. So long as we are aware and take it for granted that work experience should include a cross-section of young people and that no one should be excluded from it—and that no one should be pushed into it unwillingly—we can safeguard ourselves from the tendency to regard it as something likely to be used for the unskilled jobs. That is not an objection which would invalidate the Bill. In the

529
main, it is not an objection which we support. However, the objections have to be borne in mind.
The Bill touches upon some practical questions, some of which the right hon. Lady mentioned, such as safety, insurance matters and health risks. These matters must be carefully considered. One or two experiences in the past have focused attention on these things.
There is also the over-riding point that because work experience has not been fully understood by all parents, parents should be acquainted with what it is all about and their full consent should be obtained for their children to participate in this very important experience.
Work experience has an enormous value. It could have a far greater value educationally. It is important to stress that it should not simply be regarded as something relevant only to factory work or to limited areas of future employment. In the future it should be seen not only as part of education but as a general part of a careers advisory service which would cater right across the board for young people of various abilities, intellects and interests. It should be seen as applying to various areas of employment, and not as being confined to certain narrow areas, as has been the tendency.
The right hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that for the first time the Bill enables handicapped pupils to be included in work experience. This is invaluable. I hope that we shall give every encouragement possible to firms to involve handicapped young people in work experience. This can only bring benefits to such people and to all who participate with them in this experience.
All of us on the Opposition side of the House regard work experience as a vital part of the final year at school. Therefore, we welcome the Bill as restoring the status quo to the situation. If the Bill is handled with imagination, skill and concern, it will prove of great value particularly to young people but also to the country.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It gives me great pleasure to speak immediately after the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and my right hon.
530
Friend, and to be able to say that I agree with every word they have said.
I want to take up one point that the hon. Lady mentioned. She said that work experience could and should be looked upon as part of a general careers advisory service. In a sense, this is my maiden speech. I was a schoolmaster for 10 years, but I have never dared to speak on this subject previously in the House. However, it has always seemed to me that the crying need in our secondary schools was for a comprehensive—I use that word advisedly—and a thorough careers advisory service. Far too often in our schools the work of the careers advisory master or mistress is delegated to some willing member of the staff—or even to an unwilling member—who has a full work load and timetable and knows very little about giving careers advice. Such a person also has little opportunity to acquire experience, to go into factories and offices, and so on.
I should hate to think that the Bill was in any way looked upon as a substitute for providing the sort of careers advice desperately needed by our schools. I know schools, as do other hon. Members, where the careers advice is first class. But it is a grave deficiency in our education service that in 1973 a very large number of schools do not provide proper careers advice.
I know not whether it would be appropriate to the Bill—I am not suggesting necessarily that it would be—but I should like my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully, through either the Bill or another measure in the near future, making it obligatory for all secondary schools to have a proper careers master or mistress. By that I mean someone who would have at most no more than a half-teaching timetable. I have done this job myself in a couple of schools. To do the job properly one needs time to meet employers, to go into factories and offices, and to study the sort of entrance requirements needed for various colleges and universities. One needs time to assess the pupil and his potential, to see parents and to give a prompt and constructive piece of advice. Very often children leave school with a chip on their shoulders because they have failed to measure up to their parents' expectations and because they have not been given proper advice in the schools.

531
I well remember the case of parents who came to me because they were desperately anxious that their son should be a vet simply because he liked animals. The boy was a delightful lad in every way, but his intelligence was certainly limited and his academic achievements never rose above four O levels. But the consequence of the parents ambition was that the boy felt something of a failure until we were able to get hold of them all and prove that there was a career for which he was ideally suited.
It is essential that all our schools should be able to give this service to pupils and parents. Valuable and important as the Bill is, and important as work experience can be in the curriculum in the final school year, it is to some extent negatived if it is not part of a wider and general careers advice.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the point and that something can be done in the Bill or later to make work experience part of an integrated and thorough careers advice which we should be able to offer to children in secondary schools.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Dormand: I welcome the Bill, which seems to be aimed at making the final year at school more meaningful, something which is long overdue. Boredom in the final year is not a new problem. Although the Bill will not get rid of it, it will make a significant contribution to easing that problem.
My only criticism of the Bill is that it is too general. I should like it to be more specific, particularly about how work experience should be conducted. I am not referring to the detailed arrangements of work experience. That is obviously a matter for the local education authority and the school. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said that she wishes to issue a circular of advice. This is of fundamental importance if and when the Bill is enacted. It is essential to do this because, if I can presume to tell the right hon. Lady, although most schools are enthusiastic about work experience there is considerable timidity about undertaking it. They want to know whether unions in the area will accept it. The memorandum from
532
the TUC has been mentioned, but there can be a great lack of communication between trade union headquarters and people in the area of the schools who have to work the scheme with schoolchildren.
This is a problem which I feel will be met. But the teachers will want to know about the responsibility for supervision, particularly as it relates to the difficulties involving handicapped children. They will obviously require special attention, but, more than anything else, they will want to know, and will need to be satisfied about, insurance arrangements in case of accidents. The Minister may think that this is a small point but I can assure her that it is not. As recently as five years ago there was a parallel scheme for work experience with teachers. It was a most laudable scheme but it failed. No more than about half a dozen LEA's in the country were able to implement the scheme. It failed simply because the insurance aspect was not clarified to the satisfaction of the teachers, and, in my view, they were right to take that view. In my area I had to deal with that problem. Teachers were enthusiastic about the scheme but it fell down after many hours of discussion because I could not get a definitive answer from the Department of Education, the LEA, or anyone concerned.
The position will be more difficult with schoolchildren. Obviously, there are likely to be more accidents than with adults. The position with teachers in conveying pupils to and from places of work will create difficulty and teachers may have to supervise children in the place of work. Perhaps most important of all, the attitude of the parents is fundamental. They will need to be completely satisfied about this aspect if they are to bring their enthusiasm to bear on the scheme. I am aware that the Government will have thought about the question of insurance, although when the Bill had its Second Reading in another place there was little indication about this important aspect.
My appeal to the Government is that the insurance provision be set out in a crystal-clear manner to the LEAs and the schools. The provisions should be placed on every head teacher's desk and spelt out in a manner that leaves no room for

533
doubt. I do not say that the whole scheme will fail if this is not done, but it may not meet with the success that it deserves.
The insurance aspect was my main reason for intervening in the debate tonight. However, I hope that when the Bill is passed schools will not over-do work experience. It could become too easy for schools to send droves of pupils over every week for hours on end. The purpose of such work is to give them a test of adult working activity. It is not vocational experience as such. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the last year of school, even though children are there until the age of 16, should be generally educational and not vocational, although it is a tremendous challenge to teachers to ensure that the last year is as relevant as possible.
Work experience has been carried out in many countries for years, notably Sweden and the United States. From what I have learned of their experience it seems to me that we could learn the valuable lesson from those countries of not over-doing work experience schemes. Everyone concerned in this activity has a lot to learn about it. Experience of it should be documented as soon as possible. I appeal to the Secretary of State that after perhaps three or four years we should set up a working party to consider the experience that we shall undoubtedly have gained. I believe that course would be essential.
7.58 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being present tonight, and also for producing what I think will be a valuable Bill. It will help to smooth progress from the sheltered life at school to the adult world. It is a great shock for many young people to go straight from school to work. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) said about careers officers. I heard of the case of someone in America who was keen to be a vet but was told that his qualifications were not good enough. He is now training to be a dentist.
I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) about unskilled jobs with their limitations. One
534
is entitled to ask whether hospital visits, for example, will be included, and whether children will be allowed to see how probation officers work, and how the social services and citizens' advice bureaux function. Will they also have an opportunity of going to children's homes and working in playgroups? Not everybody wants to go into a factory, store or mill.
How far will the Bill go in helping young people? It is essential for them to know what is going on in their area. To go through the different departments of their local authority and understand the work of local government in their area would be invaluable to them. They could also visit the disabled, and homes for spastic children, and thus obtain a good understanding of some of the problems of life.
I am delighted that the handicapped are covered by the Bill, as it is even more difficult for them than for other young people to obtain jobs when they leave school.
The Bill should also help with the drop-out rate—a cause of concern to many of us, as there is a great deal of truancy among older pupils. The Bill should provide them with something interesting, which is another reason why I am very keen on this Bill. If we can make wide enough the scope of the visits young people can make for work experience we may find something to suit practically everybody.
I hope that girls will not be shown what are usually considered to be girls' jobs. Girls have recently been admitted to naval dockyards. This innovation was not very successful in the beginning, because the girls did not want to take up the apprenticeships. But now they are entering in fairly large numbers and are being accepted by the young male apprentices. If they could have seen such work beforehand it would not have been so difficult to encourage them to enter.
I was interested to learn that Dame Muriel Stewart, ex-President of the National Union of Teachers, has stated that
"Experience for a week or weeks in a factory, mill or office is what these pupils need. Only in this way can they find out what it is like to work a full day …"—

535
that appears to me to be the opposite of the TUC's views—
"and to carry out tasks for which they carry responsibility."
I should like to make two suggestions. The first concerns agriculture. I realise that the industry is now highly mechanised and that it is not easy for young people to work on farms. But it is essential for children, and for urban children in particular, to know how farms are worked, how the food is produced, and how hard this work is.
We should also help young people who would like to enter the Services. Twenty per cent. of young people who would have gone into the forces would have done so on leaving school at the age of 15. Those who wish to join the Services should now be allowed to go to some of the forces' educational establishments, which are excellent and give a very good education. I think, for example, of HMS "Ganges", which has small classes where education is very well taught.
Young people who genuinely want to enter the Services should have an opportunity to learn what Service life is all about before they join up. If they already knew something about the Armed Forces it might be possible that less of them would want to opt out after entry My right hon. Friend has said that young people could go on ships, so there can be no reason why they should not go to sea in naval ships for a week, or have a few flights with the RAF. If this suggestion is not possible, pupils might be encouraged to join the local cadet force of the Service of their choice.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider my suggestion that young people who genuinely want to enter the Services should have the same opportunities to see that side of life as to see what goes on in a factory.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the trouble she has taken in coming here today, and I hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary will consider some of the points that I have raised.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the exploratory speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers).
The Bill is highly significant. It deserves to be a great success, and it will be if the teachers, local education authorities, trade unions, and firms, large and small, work together.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Secretary of State's declaration that she will issue a guidance circular. It will require good will and sufficient financial and staff assistance if the Bill is to achieve the required social and educational standards.
We should not forget that starting a new job fresh from the classroom can be a frightening experience for hundreds of thousands of youths and girls. The Bill will help the more sensitive and timid school leavers.
I hope that the Bill will help to break down a damaging aspect of our society—the fact that various sectors operate in isolation from each other. The community as a whole will benefit from the Bill if it is a success. The schools will not suffer if young people see more of local industry, commerce and trade unionism. In passing the Bill we shall probably be ensuring a big breath of fresh air for the education service as a whole. The schools' curricula will change, but certain educational principles will need to be protected. There must be considerable preparation by the teacher and, say, the shop steward, before the pupil leaves school for his or her work experience.
The work experience should be participation and not simply observation, though there are problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) has spoken. For example, there will need to be careful thought about the place where the pupils will obtain their meals while at work, and what kind of cloakroom accommodation they will have.
I hope that on the shop floor the pupil will be given a thorough explanation of welfare and safety regulations, and will have pointed out to him that the success of the company's operation depends, at least partly, upon the solid day-to-day contribution of the trade unions.

537
I hope that the Bill will have two effects: first, to help improve trade unionism's undeserved image of restrictive and bloody-minded practice and, secondly, to give young people a better chance to make a success of their working lives. After all, in the years ahead there is the prospect of fewer jobs, us each technological breakthrough occurs.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for doing us the courtesy of introducing the Bill herself.
I am particularly interested in the Bill because my own Bill—the Employment of Children Bill—will have its Third Reading on Friday, if the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) is kind enough to let it skate through the House. I think I can tell my right hon. Friend without any fear of being criticised by her that her Bill is younger than mine, because we shall be two or three weeks ahead of her.
I was worried by the raising of the school leaving age. Even now, I am not certain that the implications are fully understood by the House; I am not certain that, on balance, it was the right decision. Only time will show. I supported the change at the time, but it is one of those decisions that I shall judge having seen how it works out. It was not one about which I was certain when I made it. We hear from schools, and from children that some children want to leave at 15 and not 16. It is therefore of vital importance that their last year should be made interesting. Work experience is the best example for the sort of child who has immense physical energy but no desire to be stuck in a classroom the entire time. Such provisions are more than worth while.
I know that in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will talk more fully on the TUC's view of safety, health and insurance. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) made that point very well. The hon. Lady will find that we will listen carefully to her views in Committee, if we are allowed to be in Committee, and shall do what we can. Having had my Bill go through Committee, and having heard the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) and the right hon. Member
538
for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) put their views on my Bill, I now have a fresher mind.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comment on the advisory code. It is important that everyone should be well briefed on the significance of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend's words will not just be words said at the Dispatch Box. One of the great criticisms of the Government has been that when they have achieved something which the people were meant to know about, everybody in the House who has followed the subject has known about it, and those who read the papers in detail have found out, but the information has not percolated down to the people who mattered. We must act at departmental level, and ensure that everyone gets to know. We must ensure that it is not a case of words being said at the Dispatch Box.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to the House. It is a pleasure to support her. I am delighted that the Opposition support her, and I hope that the measure will speedily become an Act.
8.12 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): This is a small but a most important Bill. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the generally favourable reception which the Bill has had. I welcome, too, the constructive speech made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). We must bear in mind that the Bill is essentially one which restores the situation which existed before the school leaving age was raised. It enables local education authorities, if they wish to do so, to continue to arrange work experience for a limited range of pupils.
It is right that we should not lose sight of the need to make these schemes genuine educational schemes and to provide for the protection of pupils. The hon. Lady expressed concern about handicapped pupils. That was a point which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand).
Special mention should be made of the position of handicapped pupils at special schools. Since 1945 handicapped pupils have been of compulsory school

539
age until 16-plus, whereas other children have ceased to be of comparable school leaving age at 15-plus. Therefore, the former have not been able to take part in work experience schemes until they were of the age of 16. The school leaving age is now common to both groups. It seemed reasonable to bring handicapped pupils into line with the others.
It may well be that no schemes will be devised for handicapped pupils, but the Bill enables local authorities to produce such schemes if they decide that it is right and in the interests of handicapped pupils to do so as part of their education.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the forthcoming issue of guidance from the Department. The Department's advice will remind local education authorities of the need to pay attention to the educational value of the schemes and to provide for the safety of pupils participating in them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) made clear in her quotation, these courses are intended to be not vocational but educational. The guidance will also draw attention to the need for the fullest possible consultation from the early stages in working out any scheme.
In the debate on the Bill in another place my noble Friend Lord Belstead suggested that those who might be brought into consultation included the governors of schools, the inspectorate set up by the local authorities for the Children and Young Persons Act and that for the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools and local education authority careers officers would also be involved.
It is also right that the parents of the pupils should be kept informed of what is going on. The means of communication vary from one school to another. A number of schools in the past have not only given the parents information but have asked for their formal consent for their children to take part in the scheme. That was a point which was made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and the hon. Member for Easington.
It is best to leave the local authorities to judge in the light of the prevailing
540
circumstances whether to obtain formal permission. The guidance will emphasise that special care should be taken to ensure that no pupil is employed in work which is unsuitable for him or her on physical or medical grounds.
Work experience schemes must be regarded as part of the general curriculum of a school—
Mr. Dormand: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend has in mind that there should be a special paragraph or paragraphs in the circular dealing with handicapped children? This is a matter which needs to be spelt out very clearly.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We will certainly take into account the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Work experience schemes should be regarded as part of the general curriculum of a school. It would be inappropriate for pupils to be paid for their participation in the work of a firm. That point will be covered in the guidance that the Department will circulate.
An important matter to which reference has been made is the amount of time that should be given to work experience. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules about the amount of time to be taken up in activities outside school. In accordance with the underlying nature of the scheme, a pupil's participation should be long enough to give him or her a proper flavour of what is going on. On the other hand, it would clearly be wrong for the amount of time spent out of school to interfere seriously with a pupil's education. Some schemes have arranged for pupils to be out for half a day or a whole day a week for each week of one term in the final year. That does not seem to be excessive.
The possibilities range from comparatively short periods spread over a long time to a smaller number of longer attachments of one or two weeks. Much will depend on the employers and local circumstances. It is essentially a matter for local decision. Supervision is also of great importance. The arrangements should include proper provision for the supervision of the pupils both within the firm and by the school. Within the firm there should be a responsible employee or member of the staff who is acquainted with the aims of the scheme and will

541
assume responsibility for the pupils' welfare while they are with the firm. The school should arrange to keep in touch with the pupils. There should be standing arrangements for teachers to visit the firms concerned and supervise the progress of the pupils.
The hon. Member for Easington raised the question of insurance. The first point to be made here is that the need for it should be kept to the minimum by paying attention to safety and supervision in the arrangements. Nevertheless, of course there may be occasions when accidents will happen. Someone will be injured or property will be damaged, and there will be a claim for compensation. Because there is no contract of employment, the pupils will not be eligible for industrial injuries benefit. It is, therefore, essential that the local education authorities should make sure, before pupils are sent out on work experience schemes, that there is adequate insurance cover, either under their own schemes or from the employers. The arrangements made by the local authorities to cover possible liability vary a great deal, and the Department does not, and cannot, give guidance of general application. The need for insurance, however, is a matter which will be taken into account in the advice it is proposed to issue. I hope that will reassure hon. Members on the point.
I want to refer to the position of girls in these schemes. Work experience is not a scheme for one sex only. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport relating the constructive experience of the girls in the naval dockyards of her constituency. A number of schemes already in operation provide opportunities for girls to participate, and I am sure that local education authorities will take note of the need to avoid discrimination against women in this as in other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also asked whether hospitals, playgroups and nurseries would qualify for work experience courses. These are matters which the local education authority itself should decide, but existing schemes include groups working in hospitals, nurseries and playgroups, in dentists' reception, in public libraries and in council offices. So work experience is not confined to industrial work as
542
such. Some schemes are obviously non-vocational. For example, a boy doing a CSE project on computers went to a computer firm although he had no desire to make that his life's work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also referred to the educational establishments of Her Majesty's Forces, pointing out the difficulties which may arise because of the raising of the school leaving age. It is a most important point, and we shall inquire into it to see whether anything can be done. I join in her tribute to the work of HMS "Ganges" and other educational establishments of Her Majesty's Forces.
I turn now to the question of careers guidance, raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). Work experience is not primarily a part of the careers guidance provisions. Nevertheless, of course, it can be of great help in giving pupils information about the nature of particular jobs which will assist them in making career choices. Local authority careers services can help in formulating work experience schemes by suggesting, from their knowledge of local employers, which firms would be suitable and which form of project would be most likely to produce a co-operative response. Good liaison with the careers officer and with the careers teachers in the schools will be most helpful in producing work experience schemes.
Dame Joan Vickers: What about agriculture?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that there will be opportunities also for work experience in agriculture. I hope that answer satisfies my hon. Friend, whose interests range remarkably widely.
I repeat my pleasure that the Bill has not proved controversial and has received the welcome which it has from the Opposition. I hope that its passage through the Committee and its remaining stages in the House will be equally uncontentious.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

DANGEROUS DRUGS
8.25 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I beg to move,
That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
It may help the House if I briefly put the order into context. The Government—indeed I am sure that I may say the whole House—are aware of the great dangers that the misuse of drugs presents to all levels of our society and in particular to its younger members. On coming to power, therefore, we took over as a matter of high priority the Misuse of Drugs Bill that had been introduced by our predecessors and saw it enacted as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
As hon. Members will be aware, the 1971 Act consolidated and modernised the dangerous drugs law which had grown up piecemeal, largely in response to the upsurge of drug misuse in the 1960s. The new Act will enable the Government to respond speedily and positively to the changing patterns of misuse and the complex social problems it causes, as well as to strengthen our defences against illicit traffic and misuse.
Some provisions of the Act are already in force, particularly those establishing the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and providing for research. We are anxious to get the Act into full operation as soon as possible. We shall welcome any help that we may be able to get from the newspapers and the other media in making known what is proposed as the Act comes fully into force later this year.
Since its enactment we have pressed ahead with the preparation of the detailed subordinate legislation that is needed to bring the Act into force. This has been a big task both because of the novelty and complexity of the provisions and because of the wide impact that they will have upon all those who are in any way concerned with the legal use of controlled drugs. Consequently, lengthy consultations have been necessary to ensure that the Act and its instruments will achieve their full effectiveness. I am glad to report to the House that
544
the subordinate legislation is now ready to come into operation.
Since the 1971 Act was passed—this comes more directly to the order—there have been changes in international narcotics law and in our own assessment of the drugs misuse situation in the United Kingdom. These changes require adjustments to be made to the list of drugs that are controlled by the 1971 Act, and this is the purpose of the order. The order is a short one, but it looks rather formidable because the subject matter seems complicated and unfamiliar to many of us. Since it paves the way for the 1971 Act to be brought fully into operation the House will appreciate its importance. In fairness to the House and to those outside who are following our proceedings, I must therefore take a few minutes longer to try to explain clearly the purpose and provisions of the order.
The substances controlled by the 1971 Act are listed, in Schedule 2 of that Act, in three classes—A, B and C—according to the assessment of their danger if they are misused. Each class is contained in a separate part of the schedule. Offences in respect of substances in different classes attract different penalties. These are tabulated in Schedule 4 of the Act. It is possible by Order in Council for substances to be added to or removed from Schedule 2, or to be moved from one part of the schedule to another. This order is the first of its kind to be introduced. As the Act requires, the provisions of the order have been considered by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the changes it makes are made upon the recommendation of the council.
In brief, the changes it will make to Schedule 2 fall into three groups. First, there is a group of adjustments occasioned by recent changes in the international controls on narcotics. Second, there is an adjustment to put right a defect in the Act because of which some drugs are placed in two different classes, and, third, four drugs are removed from control because they are no longer thought liable to be misused.
Let me explain these changes more fully. The first group is covered by Articles 2(a) and 2(c) of the order. They arise from the United Kingdom's adherence to the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As a

545
party to the Convention the United Kingdom must amend its domestic legislation to give effect to decisions of the United Nations with respect to drugs under international control. Since the 1971 Act was passed the United Nations has brought two drugs—drotebanol and propiram— under control. These are synthetic pain-killing drugs. Drotebanol is powerful, like morphine while propiram is less powerful, like codeine. The United Nations has also adjusted the controls on a third drug—nicodicodine—by moving it away from the most potent and dangerous drugs and putting it into the same category as codeine.
The appropriate amendments to Schedule 2 of the Act to give effect to these international changes are, first, to add drotebanol to the list of Class A drugs and to remove nicodicodine from that list; and, secondly, to add nicodicodine and propiram to the list of Class B drugs.
Next is the change made by Article 2(b) of the order. This remedies an anomaly created by oversight when the 1971 Act was drafted. Paragraph 3 of Part I of the schedule controls as Class A drugs the esters and ethers of any of the substances specified in paragraph 1 of Part I. Thus, morphine has certain ethers, and by this paragraph they are controlled as Class A drugs. Offences in respect of them could attract appropriately heavy penalties. When this provision was drafted it was overlooked that some substances which are esters or ethers of substances in Part I are in fact specified by name as Class B drugs in paragraph 1 of Part II. For example, codeine and ethylmorphine are ethers of morphine and, because they are named in Class B, the offence of being in illegal possession of them would attract a lesser penalty— which is what we intend—than for drugs in Class A. This overlap is clearly unsatisfactory, and Article 2(b) will remove it if the House approves the order. Lastly, in these changes, Article 2(d) takes out of control entirely four substances which appear as Class C drugs in Part 3 of the Schedule. These are fencamfamin, pemoline and prolintane, all of which are minor central nervous system stimulants.
To explain why we are doing this I shall have to tell the House a little of
546
the history of why they came to be controlled in the first place.
Going back to 1964, it became necessary for the Government of the day to deal with the problem of the increasing misuse by young people of pep pills or, more precisely, certain central nervous system stimulants, particularly, of course, the amphetamines. The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 brought these substances under control. Originally, most of the drugs under control were not mentioned by name in the schedule to that Act but were controlled because their chemical structure fell within the generic formula set out in the schedule. Unfortunately, the formula caught not only the amphetamines, which then, as now, were the main drugs of misuse in this class, but substances which were not and never have been misused. Thus, the generic formula turned out to have a much wider effect than had been expected.
Fencamfamin, phentermine and prolintane are three drugs that became controlled in this way. The fourth with which we are concerned—pemoline—was named specifically in the schedule to the 1964 Act because, although its chemical structure was not caught by the generic formula, it had a structure and clinical effect similar to amphetamine. It was therefore considered to have a potential for misuse, although there was no evidence of misuse at that time, nor has there been since.
When the Misuse of Drugs Bill was before the present Parliament representations were made to the Home Office by the manufacturers of products based on pemoline, phentermine and prolintane that the continued control of these drugs could not be justified, on the ground that they were being misused, or were likely to be misused, or that if misuse occurred it would be harmful.
In 1970 the Government had already decided to abandon the generic formula, which was done by an order amending the schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. But the Government thought it best to keep in the Misuse of Drugs Act the list of drugs which were controlled under the existing law and to use the machinery provided by the advisory council, to be set up under the new Act, with the task of, among other things, considering changes in the list of drugs subject to control.

547
So one of the first tasks undertaken by the new advisory council after it was set up in January 1972 was to consider the status of these drugs. The Department of Health and Social Security suggested that fencamfamin should also be considered. The council came to the conclusion that none of these drugs was being misused, or seemed likely to be misused, or, indeed, that misuse of this kind, if it occurred at all, would be capable of having harmful effects that would constitute a social problem. Accordingly, the council took the view that in line with the criteria for control contained in Section 1(2) of the new Act there was no ground for these drugs remaining under control, and they have recommended to us accordingly.
I hope that this short explanation has enabled the House to grasp the purpose and nature of the changes that are proposed. As I have said, they are being made on the recommendation of our advisory council. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. John Fraser: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his clear explanation, for which I am sure we are all grateful. I also congratulate him on his pronunciation of the names of the drugs, although he neatly side-stepped the pronunciation of the full names of drote-banol and nicodicodine—I do not blame him for that.
The statutory instrument is totally incomprehensible. That is a reflection on the way in which the House deals with subordinate legislation. As the Undersecretary of State said, this is an important subject. Dangerous drugs can ruin the lives of individual people and can ruin societies. An order of this nature should be comprehensible to the House and to ordinary men and women. It should also be comprehensible to pharmacists. During the last few days I have talked to pharmacists and asked them what the order means. Many have not been able to tell me and have never heard of some of the drugs mentioned in it. To lay an order before the House with a totally inadequate explanatory memorandum is discourteous to the House and to the specialist public who have to try to understand it. It is to treat them with contumely.
548
The order does not mention that some drugs are now included in Class A because of a United Nations agreement. We are all impressed that the United Nations has been able to secure agreement on certain dangerous substances being classified as extremely dangerous and being incorporated into our legislation. That should have been mentioned in the explanatory note.
I know that alteration of the classification of drugs in Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act is done on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but the advisory council publishes nothing. From research which I have done, it appears that the advisory council simply tells the Minister that a drug should be transferred from one part of Schedule 2 to the other part of Schedule 2, or should be included in the schedule. That advice is not made public. Once again, that is treating the public in the wrong way. These matters should be explained.
I found it extremely difficult to discover what drotebanol is, and why it has been included. I know a little more after listening to the Under-Secretary of State. When similar orders are published in future, I implore the hon. Gentleman to give us a little more information so that we can intelligently debate and understand them.
The hon. Gentleman has answered most of my questions. He has explained what drotebanol is and why nicodicodine has been demoted—I guessed that it was an ester or ether of morphine. The explanatory memorandum should have explained why four drugs have disappeared into limbo.
We all understand the difficulty of this problem. I have been told that there exists an X-ray device which is able to detect drugs carried in luggage, but so far that machinery is not in full operation at our seaports and airports. I have read articles about this X-ray device which not only finds guns and ammunition in passengers luggage but can also detect drugs. I understand that there is resistance to using the device because of the charges that would be placed upon airline carriers, but if we have to decide between keeping dangerous drugs out of the country and the comparatively small expense of operating the device I would prefer that expense to be borne.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Lane: With the leave of the House, I will try to take up some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in reverse order. I am grateful for his general welcome and I understand his reservations.
I cannot answer him off the cuff about the X-ray device. I should like to go further into it and consider the possibility of making better use of the latest technology. I agree that it is vital to use all the resources of science to catch drugs that may be brought in wrongly or illegally. I will look into this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it. He may want to question us further in the next few weeks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the advice of our advisory council had not been published. There is no regular understanding that bodies of this kind which give advice will always publish their advice stage by stage as they go along. There is no particular mystery about this. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the further information we will be giving and the further publicity as we get nearer the time when the Act comes fully into force, it will be made quite clear what the advisory council has been saying to us on particular points in preparation for bringing the Act into force, examples of which we have had tonight. I would like to look further into the desirability of more general publication of the advisory council's work and advice to us. I cannot tonight make any more commitment than that.
That brings me to the hon. Member's main criticism that this was an incomprehensible order. He particularly suggested that the explanatory note ought to be fuller and said that some pharmacists to whom he had talked had never heard of these new drugs and knew nothing at all about them. His criticism is somewhat ill founded, because we are dealing here with getting the machinery put together, ready to start work. This particular regime of control is not yet in force. Several of the drugs we are discussing are not yet available in this country; so it is not surprising that even people in the trade are not wholly familiar with them although all through our consultations the Pharmaceutical Society has been completely involved and its repre-
550
sentatives have known exactly what has been proposed, stage by stage.
I hope I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman by saying that between now and the date when the Act comes into force, a little later this year, we shall see to it that the maximum explanation and publicity is given promptly and well before the operative date to all those who will be concerned with the new machinery when it is in force. In particular, the Department of Health and Social Security will be informing the medical world thoroughly; and the Pharmaceutical Society will certainly be informing its own members, including those of whom the hon. Gentleman spoke. We in the Home Office will ensure that those involved in the courts and the police are familiar with the changes and new machinery. For the public—whom I mention last but by no means least—we shall do everything we can via the Press, radio and television, to let people know that the Act is coming into force, what is involved and how the machinery will work, in good time before it does.
I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman will feel a little more satisfied than he was a moment ago. I will look particularly at the possibility of a fuller explanation of this very technical matter in any future orders that are to come before the House. I hope on this basis we can get at least this order on its way.
Mr. John Fraser: I realise, of course, that this part of the Act is not yet in force and that full information will be given to pharmacists, the police and others about its effects. But what the House is being asked to do this evening is to add to Class A drugs in the Second Schedule the name of a drug of which probably none of us has heard before but the supply of which will carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. I do not think the House ought at any time lightly to amend the law to create a new offence carrying a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment without knowing exactly what it is doing. That was my main reason for putting forward a request for more information.
Mr. Lane: I will consider whether there is anything within the rules and form of orders of this kind that we can

551
do beforehand, but I have detained the House, and no doubt bored a number of people stiff during the last 15 minutes, only so as to get on record, not only for those in the House who are interested but for those outside who are interested, what is involved in greated depth than in the short format of the order. I will consider this further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (CALF SUBSIDIES)
8.50 p.m.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
We move from drugs to calves. The draft scheme which we have before us gives effect to the changes in the rates of calf subsidies announced by my right hon. Friend on 21st March. I ought to explain, perhaps, that the scheme is called the No. 2 scheme because earlier this year we had a variation scheme which dealt with technical legal changes which had to be made as a result of the ending of the guarantee for fat cattle.
The scheme would have the effect of reducing the rates of calf subsidy in the following way: that for steers would be reduced from £11·25 to £8·50, and for heifers from £9·00 to £6·50. These new rates would apply to calves born on or after 16th April 1973. As the subsidy is generally paid on calves when they are eight months old or more, the reduced rates would not become effective until the coming autumn.
The essential purpose of the calf subsidies has been to encourage the rearing of calves for beef production. This is made clear in the 1971 Calf Subsidy Scheme, which sets out the requirements and specifically links the payments of subsidy to calves which are suitable for beef. In the past, many calves were being
552
slaughtered as young bobbies and as a result we were losing potential productive capacity. Thus, incentives were clearly needed to make it worth while both to produce calves of a type suitable for beef production and to encourage farmers to rear them. Over the years the scheme has been effective in reducing the number of calves slaughtered from as many as 870,000 in 1962 to 150,000 last year, and in encouraging the trend towards breeds suitable for beef. We now have a national herd which is much better geared for beef production than ever before.
I readily accept that the calf subsidies have been a valuable production grant, improving returns at a key point in the production cycle when returns from end prices were not enough to bring about the necessary expansion. But the situation over the past year or so has changed markedly as a result of the shortage of beef supplies. This has increased returns from the market and has had the effect of making this subsidy less necessary.
For example, the prices of bull calves less than three weeks old were £10 or more higher in February this year than last. The increase is seen again in the prices for yearling steers of beef breeds which, over the same period, rose on average from £93 to £123 a head. And yet again, if we look at the prices of two-year-old animals we see increases of about £50 apiece.
Along with these improvements in returns from the market we have seen a sharp increase in the rate of expansion of the beef herd, which rose by 10 per cent. last year. Clearly, therefore, the market is giving farmers a good return for their calves and cattle at all stages in the production cycle, and farmers are responding well to it.
A reduction in the calf subsidy is, in my view, therefore, a reasonable and logical change at the present time, and I do not think that it will prejudice the returns of producers. The size of the reduction is quite modest—£2·50 for heifers and £2·75 for steers. These are about one-quarter of the present rates of the subsidies and would save about £8 million in the cost of the scheme in a full year.

553
I commend the scheme to the House. It represents a worthwhile saving in Government expenditure in a sector where the market has already more than compensated for the reduction in subsidy.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Gavin Strang: There can be no argument about the need to expand our beef production. There is a shortage of beef in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States—indeed, there is a world shortage of beef which will last for some time, particularly with the increasing demands being made on the world market by Japan. If we are in favour of expansion, as I believe both sides are, at present no commodity is a better bet, in terms of expansion, than beef. Although we may have some reservations about other commodities, possibly even cereals, there can be no ground as yet for talking in terms of an over-supply of beef in the market. The Government's policy should be to maintain and encourage the present expansion in our beef herds.
I acknowledge that the expansion in beef cow numbers—in calf heifers particularly of the beef type—has been considerable and commendable in the last year or two. Therefore, at a time when we should be encouraging even greater beef production it is illogical to proceed by cutting some of the important production grants which are aimed at achieving an expansion. For this reason the Opposition deplore the Government's decision to cut calf subsidy.
I appreciate that the matter must be looked at in perspective. There is a hill cow subsidy of £18·75, a beef cow subsidy, and a winter keep hill cow supplement. More important, there have been sharp increases in the prices of fat cattle and store cattle. From March last year to March this year store cattle prices increased by £5 per cwt. This means £30 in the case of a 6 cwt. beast, and it can be even greater for a larger beast.
There is no doubt that beef producers are experiencing significantly increased returns as a result of what has been happening in the market in the last year. Therefore, I cannot see how the Government can justify a cut in the subsidy at the present time. The Government are underestimating the effect which this will
554
have upon agriculture. Time and again we have been exhorted to expand, but this attitude seems to have fallen away. We cannot blame the industry for beginning to wonder why the Government say, on the one hand, that we are desperately in need of beef expansion, and yet, on the other, cut the calf subsidy for the first time since it was introduced in 1952.
The Minister has acknowledged that this has been a useful grant in increasing the supply of calves for beef. I do not think one can attribute the reduction in the percentage of calf slaughterings to subsidy alone. The fact that producers have changed to the Friesian as opposed to the Ayrshire, and the increase in the value of Friesian steers, must have been a large factor in what has happened in agriculture.
Nevertheless, it is worth bearing in mind that it is more than 20 years since the calf subsidy scheme was introduced. When it came in it was £5 for steer calves and £2 for heifer calves. The subsidy was increased by the last Conservative Government, and increased again by the last Labour Government. Now, more than 20 years later, at a time when we are crying out more than ever for increased beef production, the Government proceed to cut the calf subsidy.
Why are the Government cutting the subsidy? Are they saying that beef is too profitable? Are they saying that producers are making too much out of beef? I have never seen production grants as providing a way of bolstering farm incomes. They provide a way of achieving the right level of supply in specific commodities. But this production grant's function is not to help farm incomes. It is not a good way of supporting farm incomes. It is aimed specifically at increasing the supply of beef.
I am reminded of the antics of this Government just after Christmas, when we had the "instant" beef prices report. We had a great deal of misguided comment about the wicked farmers making a big killing in beef and holding the consumer to ransom. The Government rather basked in this. They liked the idea that criticism was being directed to the farmers rather than to themselves. I cannot help wondering whether this cut in subsidy has its origin in some of the discussion which took place at that time.

555
Everyone knows that the farmer sells the bulk of his fat cattle on the open market and takes the price that he gets. He takes the highest price, of course, just as anyone selling a house does. The extent to which cattle are sold dead does not affect the argument. The fact is that any producer takes the price that the market will give him. It is nonsense to argue that it is somehow the producer's fault that we have high beef prices.
That is not to say that high beef prices are inevitable. The Government could control them if they wanted to. They may decide that the cost of legislation and the difficulties of the intervention required are not justified. That is arguable. But they cannot say that they are unable to take action to contain beef prices. If the political will is there they can get over the administrative problems.
There can be no doubt in any one's mind, however, that present beef prices will not be helped by cutting production subsidies. Cutting production grants makes the producer even more dependent on market prices. If the Government are serious about trying to reduce beef prices, and if they hope that the slight fall-back in fat cattle prices will continue—I believe that it is only temporary—that is all the more reason for continuing the production grants.
Are the Government saying that they do not want beef to be profitable? Are they saying that beef is too profitable? Do not they accept that we need to put everything that we have into expanding beef production, and that it was misguided of them to give grounds for apprehension among beef producers? It was that, coupled with the economic loss, which caused the farmers' unions to deplore the cut in the calf subsidy.
In addition to talking about the reduction in the subsidy, the Opposition believe that there is every justification for making some reference to the future of the calf subsidy, and we cannot talk about that at the present without looking at it in the context of our membership of the EEC.
I recall the arguments and discussions that we had, throughout the negotiations, on the need to obtain adequate guarantees on these production grants. I wrote to the Minister about this matter and
556
received a reply. I concluded from that reply that the Government had not had any specific assurances for the production grants, but had received only a general assurance that the Community recognised the need—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon Gentleman realises that the motion is not very wide.
Mr. Strang: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that at a time when we are seldom able to debate production grants we can at least ask the Minister why this cut has been made, and whether it has anything to do with our membership of the EEC. Is the Commission at present looking at the calf subsidy to see whether it is incompatible with the philosophy of free competition? May we have an assurance that, regardless of the Commission's views, we can keep the calf subsidy at any level?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that it will not be in order for the Minister to answer a good many of these questions. I hope, therefore, that he will restrict himself to the content of the motion.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not challenge your ruling, but I think that in dealing with motions of this kind it has generally been customary to discuss the implications and the future development of the sphere to which the motion relates. I hope that we shall be able to continue to debate this matter in the customary way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must see now the debate goes. I have issued my warning.
Mr. Strang: Is this the beginning of the phasing out of the calf subsidy? May we have a clear-cut statement from the Minister on this point which I think is relevant? We have a right to know what the Government are driving at here. Is this the first step in the ending of calf subsidies?
In my opinion, the Minister has not justified this cut in the calf subsidy—the first since it was introduced. Why are the Government cutting the calf subsidy? What is the long-term significance of this cut? Is it the first step in the eventual

557
elimination of this well-tried and—as the Minister acknowledged—successful production grant?
9.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): It is a pleasure for me to be able to take part in this debate because, I remind the House, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is equally concerned with beef production in every form. Farmers in Northern Ireland are just as interested in what is going on as are farmers in Great Britain.
The proposed reduction of the calf subsidy was announced on 21st March, several weeks ago, and has in general been received as a reasonable reduction, given the market situation which obtains for cattle and calves.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the prospects looks good. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said that as well. The demand for beef is high and there has certainly been a considerable increase in production. The increase in production is very significant. It shows that the farmers have the confidence to produce the much-required beef. The increase in the number of calves retained is also highly significant. Indeed, this is a major test of the farmers' confidence in the future. All this is very encouraging for the consumer, because what we need to do is to produce more and more of our beef at home and not rely on overseas supplies. The signs are good, and I believe the confidence is there.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talked about expansion. He is absolutely right. Expansion is under way and will continue to be under way. The hon. Member also spoke about the Government being illogical. I remind him that we still have the subsidies on the hill cow, the beef cow, and winter keep, all of which are very important. I believe this is the start of it.
I also remind the hon. Member about the high prices for store cattle. Some of the prices I have seen in the markets and have obtained myself have been considerable—£25 per cwt. for store cattle is a very high figure. This is what encourages a farmer to produce, because he is getting such a good return for his store cattle.
558
Coupled with that, a farmer still has the assurance not only of high prices but of the intervention arrangements. I would be straying a long way from the correct path if I continued on that point, but it is a very real assurance to the fanning community.
It is the end price which counts. This is what gives confidence to the farmer. I do not know whether the hon. Member farms, but in the past deficiency payments have not always given the fair return which farmers require. Some of us have often sent cattle, pigs and other animals to market when there has been a slump and the deficiency payments received have never made prices up to a fair figure—
Mr. Strang: They are better than the ones they are getting now.
Mr. Mills: With respect to the hon. Member, that is not so. Future beef production will continue on this high level because of the high end price that farmers are getting, which, the hon. Member admitted, will continue.
The hon. Member asked about the future principles of the calf subsidy. I fear that in commenting on this matter as well I would be straying from the correct path—but the United Kingdom favours the principle of production grants and we are continuing to encourage the European Community to adopt joint measures to promote beef production.
Different aspects of the calf subsidy have been debated. I trust that hon. Members will now agree that the reductions in calf subsidy which will take place as a result of this order will not harm beef—or, for that matter, dairy producers —or have an adverse affect on food prices. This is an important point, which hon. Members opposite might have mentioned. What we are doing will represent a useful saving in Exchequer subsidy.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I should like to take up one or two points which have been made.
It is not sufficient to argue the case for this cut, as has been done this evening, on the ground that the industry is doing well; in other words, basing a change in principle, the beginning of a cut in

559
the production grant, on the fact that the end price is doing well. Production grants have another purpose. I cannot accept this cut on the basis that it is the end price that counts. With respect to the farmer, it is not just a question of the end price. Many farmers prefer a more harmonious relationship between their own returns and the prices being charged in the shops.
One of the difficulties was exactly the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about the time of the beef price explosion over Christmas and the New Year. The tendency then was to set housewife against farmer. The farmer would much prefer a support system which allowed harmony between himself and the consumer. I do not know why the Minister is shaking his head. I am saying that the farmer would prefer a system which allowed a continuous harmony between the consumer and the fanner. The Minister is now nodding. I hope that he agrees with that. What the farmer is concerned with are his returns and his income, rather than that matters should be based primarily on a price or on anything else. It is a dangerous concept to suggest that all that he is concerned with is the end price. Taking that kind of argument of principle, it suggests that the future of these grants is in jeopardy if it is a principled attitude that the Government are taking.
Thirdly, it is not enough to say that the end price position at present is a sufficient safeguard to the farmer. That was not the case when we scrapped the guaranteed price on beef and replaced it with the Intervention Board system. This does not allow for the kind of fluctuation that could occur in the future. There is far too much confidence on the part of the Government in relation to agriculture that the high price position will necessarily continue indefinitely. That is a wrong and dangerous assessment because it also presupposes a permanent high price policy in this country.
We object to the order and to the arguments advanced. For the reasons I have explained I cannot accept the arguments of the inadequacy of the guaranteed price deficiency payments system. The end point of the chain of structure which we could have used, if it was the correct
560
thing to do, as I believe, was to bridge the gap between the high price of imports, due to high world commodity prices, and the needs of our people for a cheaper food policy. That is another reason why we object to this break in the direct type of grant. It is not true that it has no relationship to price. It has, because in addition to the main function of increasing beef output, it also has the effect of dealing with income and giving a return in this particular way.
These arguments have worried me. The main implication of the order, in view of the principal arguments advanced, suggests that this could be the beginning of a movement towards an ending of production grants of this kind.
I understand the Ministers' interest and concern and their knowledge of British agriculture. I know where their hearts lie in terms of agriculture. I take the point when they say that they would like to see arguments of this kind in relation to production grants within the Common Market continuing. But to what extent is the cut in production grants due to our entry into the Common Market, due to requests made to us by the Council of Ministers? Have there been any demands of that kind? We have seen it happening in relation to other orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier.
Mr. Buchan: I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only trying to draw an analogy, rather than to make a new specific point. The analogy may be valid. The other requirement which has been made in relation to beef is clearly related to our entry into the Common Market. Is this order connected in any way with the Government's understanding that production grants will not be allowed at some point during or after the transitional period? If we do not get an answer on that point, we shall have to leave the matter there.
We have expressed a displeasure which will be backed by not only the consumer but by the farming community in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Sir Edward Brown be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. David Waddington be added.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Goodhew.]

BRITISH CITIZENS ABROAD (DEATH CERTIFICATES)
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I am grateful for the opportunity of putting before the House an account of quite extraordinary difficulties which one of my constituents has had in recovering a passport, personal papers and a death certificate relating to his father who, it seems, died nearly a year ago whilst on holiday in Haifa.
Perhaps I can best assist my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary by submitting the facts upon which the difficulties arose and then trying to suggest to him how our diplomatic and consular representatives abroad could help in future cases of this kind. These are what the House may well consider to be the somewhat curious, if not rather mysterious facts. My constituent Mr. A. Mercer is a schoolmaster living in my constituency at Penwortham near Preston in Lancashire. In April 1972 Mr. Mercer's father, who was then 76, a retired architect, booked as a passenger on a 15-day cruise in the Mediterranean with Clarksons' Tours, the well-known travel firm.
He left home on 10th April and was never seen again by his son. Apparently Mr. Mercer's father flew to Rimini and joined the Greek Ship SS "Delphi" for a cruise round the Eastern Mediterranean, and it would seem that on 18th April he had a heart attack. The following day he died when he was in hospital in Haifa where he had been taken, and on 26th April he was buried in Haifa. But until as late as March of this year Mr. Mercer was still uncertain about what had happened to his father.
562
On 20th April a relative of Mr. Mercer got in touch with him on the telephone and told him he had heard that his father had died in Haifa the day before. On 24th April a representative of Clarksons' Tours telephoned to say that the father had died in Haifa. On 26th April the personal secretary to the managing director of Clarksons' Tours Limited, Mr. Jack Straw, telephoned Mr. Mercer offering to give Mr. Mercer all the help that she could. In May the agent of Clarksons' in Haifa sent to Mr. Mercer by air mail a letter telling Mr. Mercer that his father's passport, papers and death certificate had been sent by him to Clarksons' in London on 27th April. So, Mr. Mercer, thinking he would take advantage of the offer by Mr. Straw's personal assistant or secretary, wrote to her asking her if she would help him by sending the documents to him in Lancashire when they arrived.
It all seemed straightforward and no one was very worried. But he got no reply to that letter. So he wrote immediately to Mr. Straw, the managing director of Clarksons', telling him that he had written to his personal secretary and had had no reply. He waited. The days went by and he got no reply. In mid-May, still without a reply, he wrote again to Mr. Straw. This time the letter which was posted on 20th May was sent by recorded delivery, but again he got no reply.
As the weeks passed into months, Mr. Mercer became more distressed, and ultimately came to see me as his local Member of Parliament, as undoubtedly he was entitled to do, to see what help I could give him. I found some difficulty at first in accepting what he said. Therefore, on 6th July I wrote a personal letter to Mr. Jack Straw, the managing director of Clarksons' Tours, setting out all the facts. I received no reply.
A month passed, and I wrote another letter, dated 8th August, to Mr. Jack Straw. I said that I found the delay in dealing with a matter touching so deeply and personally the case of one of his clients somewhat surprising and disturbing. I received no reply.
When I returned from my own holiday, which fortunately I had not booked with Clarksons', I wrote another letter, dated 28th September. I told Mr. Jack Straw that unless he replied pretty swiftly I

563
would take steps to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate. I received no reply.
In mid-November I saw a member of the Press and told him all I knew. I expressed my indignation in no uncertain terms. No story appeared in any newspaper. I made inquiries, and discovered that members of the Press had apparently got in touch with Clarksons' and had spoken to one of the directors, who had so discouraged them or frightened them that nothing was printed.
If Clarksons' alarmed the Press, certainly the Press must have alarmed Clarksons', because on 23rd November the personal secretary to Mr. Jack Straw telephoned me in the House and told me to my surprise that Mr. Jack Straw had, in fact, written me a letter. The letter was supposed to be dated, she said, 2nd October, and she said that she was very surprised that I had not received it. I replied "That's very easily put right. Send me a copy of the letter".
On 24th November I received a letter, the first from Mr. Jack Straw, telling me that he had sent me a letter which his secretary said had been delivered to the House by hand. The letter had been dated, according to him, 4th October, and he said that it contained an uncertified certificate of death.
On 28th November my own secretary in the House was telephoned by Clarksons' and was told that my constituent by then owed Clarksons' £407 for expenses incurred as a result of the death of his father abroad. Mr. Mercer told me "That is something of a surprise to me, because I have had no letters, telephone conversations or notice of this from Clarksons'."
Mr. Jack Straw offered to meet me in the House. It seemed such an opportunity to get to the bottom of the mystery that I at once accepted the offer. We were to meet in the Central Lobby on 12th December. At half-past six, the time for the meeting, I was in the Central Lobby. I was there for some considerable time after that when I received a message, apparently coming from Mr. Jack Straw, saying that his motor car had broken down on the motorway and that he would not be arriving.
564
I then made inquiries by letter to find out what had happened to the letter of 4th October which was supposed to have been delivered by hand at the House. I received a letter from Mr. Straw on 13th December offering his apologies and telling me that that letter had been delivered by one of his drivers, but he could not give me any further particulars. That put an end to any hope I had of discovering what had happened. He said, which I found most surprising, that he could not find any trace of the letters which I had sent to him. It was particularly surprising because I discussed the letters with his personal secretary.
When I was in Belfast on 12th March a representative of the Sunday Express rang me and said that the paper was going to run this story. I was asked to give as many facts as I could. I gave all the facts that I had. In spite of the discouragement which the Sunday Express also apparently received from Clarksons', the story was published in full. I congratulate the Sunday Express on the robust attitude which it took. It had the immediate effect of getting another letter from Mr. Jack Straw. That was a letter dated, oddly enough, 11th March. It referred to the newspaper article which he said he had read that day, although 11th March was a Saturday and the newspaper article was not published until the Sunday.
In his letter, which Mr. Jack Straw sent to me, he said that Clarksons' had gone to considerable expense without reimbursement, and that Clarksons' did not seek to be unhelpful to its clients or its clients' dependants. He included a letter which he said he had sent to Mr. Mercer. In that letter he said:
"Whatever the reasons for your not having received satisfaction, I am very sorry, and in the particular circumstances of your bereavement it is doubly distressing not to have had matters cleared up. I will do all I can to rectify this as quickly as possible. I have not seen any of the letters written by yourself that are referred to by the Press. I would be grateful if you could let me have a copy of the registration slip so that I can cheek the signature and date of your communication."
He then said:
"Your father's passport and death certificate were sent by our agents to this office on 28th April but I cannot trace their receipt or present whereabouts."
Mr. Jack Straw then promised to give further assistance. Yesterday, of all days,

565
I received an undated letter from Mr. Jack Straw saying that he had now received a notarised copy of the death certificate from Haifa and that he had forwarded it to Mr. Mercer. I telephoned Mr. Mercer last night. He said that he had not received it. However, I have no doubt that Mr. Mercer will receive the death certificate today, the very day on which I have to raise an Adjournment debate to ensure that he gets it.
In my view—and it may be the view of many others—this affair represents a scandalous neglect of his duties to clients and others by the managing director, as he then was, of Clarksons' Tours. He is no longer the managing director of Clarksons' Tours, but he is a director of that company. I hope that the shareholders of Clarksons', and prospective holidaymakers who might think of relying on that company for their next holiday, will not let the facts that I have outlined this evening go unnoted.
In the latter part of September or the beginning of October, Mr. Mercer wrote to Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv asking for a copy of the death certificate. He had a reply, dated 2nd October, which said:
"It would seem that at the time that your father died no one applied for his death to be registered."
The vice-consul then helpfully suggests that he can make arrangements for the registration and for the production of a death certificate.
I make it clear that my constituent is grateful for the assistance he has received from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv. I assure my hon. Friend also that I do not complain at all about any negligence on behalf of any officials at the British Embassy. I merely make the suggestion that, in case this kind of situation ever arises again—as, alas, it well may—steps should be introduced at least to alleviate the worst of the sort of distress which certainly my constituent has suffered very severely over the past 11 months.
If it is not thought to be too impracticable, I suggest that when a British citizen dies abroad it might be of some assistance if the death were seen to be properly registered by the officials at the embassy or the consulate as the case may be, and in particular that valuable docu-
566
ments like passports are returned to the next of kin or to a responsible person.
In spite of the evidence by my constituent and of the pleas, which I have briefly outlined to the House, to Clarksons' for the return of the passport which Mr. Mercer's father had in his possession, it is still somewhere—heaven knows where—on its way to Clarksons' or has gone into the dustbin in the administrative muddle which obviously is one of the reasons why we have had the experience of this case. I would be glad if my hon. Friend could give some idea of the possibility of the improvement in the procedure which I asked for under the title of this Adjournment debate.
9.37 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): First, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) for bringing this matter before the House, since it clearly gives rise to some public concern. I am certainly grateful on behalf of the consular departments and the consular officials in the diplomatic service for the chance of detailing the facts as we know them. I do not think—indeed, I know from his words—that my hon. and learned Friend would expect me to comment on the activity, or lack of activity, of the travel agency firm he mentioned, but I want to comment on the actions of the diplomatic service.
The consular section of the British Embassy at Tel Aviv has had correspondence, as my hon. and learned Friend indicated, with Mr. Mercer's son, Mr. Alan Mercer, of Preston, on this subject. Shortly after the death, Mr. Alan Mercer telephoned the British Consulate at Tel Aviv asking it to pass on a message to a travel agency in Haifa about arrangements for his father's burial.
The Haifa district health office issued a death certificate on 21st April. It showed that the cause of death was myo-cardial infarction. A death is not normally entered in the consular register unless the next-of-kin so request it. The consulate in Tel Aviv did not receive such a request until September.
Again as my hon. and learned Friend indicated, in a letter dated 2nd October

567
1972 Mr. Alan Mercer was asked to furnish certain additional details needed for the completion of the entry. In a telephone conversation with a member of the Foreign Office last month Mr. Alan Mercer confirmed that he had received the embassy letter on 2nd October and added that he had not replied direct as the matter was in the hands of his solicitors. He was told that if he sent the required particulars to the Foreign Office the embassy would be asked to register the death without delay. He replied that he preferred to leave the matter with his solicitors. Therefore, the delay in obtaining a death certificate, from the embassy's point of view, lay with events at this end. This was acknowledged by my hon. and learned Friend.
It might be helpful at this stage to say a word about the procedure for obtaining death certificates for British citizens who die abroad. This might help other citizens who are abroad with a close member of the family who dies. In such tragic circumstances it is often difficult for tourists or other members of the travelling public to know what to do or where to go.
In most foreign countries the local authorities issue their own form of death certificate in respect of persons dying in that country, irrespective of their national status. Such certificates can be obtained by the next-of-kin direct from the foreign authorities or through the nearest British consulate.
In addition, on production of the foreign death certificate, together with evidence of the deceased's citizenship, the deaths of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies can on application be entered in the consular register of deaths kept at the appropriate consulate.
This registration, which is carried out under the Registration of Births and Deaths (Consular Officers) Regulations 1948, has the advantage of providing the next-of-kin with a death certificate in the English language and also ensures that the death is later recorded at the General Register Office in London and also in Edinburgh or Belfast if the deceased was born in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
As for the passport, the question of personal effects is a matter for the rela-
568
tives of the deceased. I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the tribute he has paid the consular staff in the Tel Aviv Embassy. This will be greatly appreciated, as will the fact that Mr. Alan Mercer has confirmed that tribute. It is clear from my comments that in this unhappy story members of the diplomatic service have fulfilled their duty correctly and properly.
Perhaps I should end on this sad note, by saying that Mr. Mercer was buried in the British Community Cemetery at Haifa. Her Majesty's Consul at Tel Aviv arranged a small burial service at which the Chaplain of St. Luke's Church, Haifa, officiated. The Consul was present and helped lower the coffin into the grave.

TEACHER SUPPLY
9.43 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to have the opportunity of initiating a second Adjournment debate tonight on a matter concerning a great many people, namely, the statistics of teacher supply and the turnover of teachers in our schools. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary has found time to remain after the earlier debate to answer this subject.
It will be agreed on all sides that during the last election, and subsequently, one of the things which had been the pride of this administration was the phrase "open Government". The Prime Minister at the time of the last election and subsequently said that the Government would provide all the facts and figures to the public when great issues were being debated. I feel at the moment that this is not the case with teacher supply, and that certain facts and figures relating to teacher turnover have not been provided. It is generally agreed, irrespective of party, that our educational system is one of the first calls on our national finances. I am sure that this is common ground between myself and the Under-secretary.
At the same time, nobody would suggest that educational funds be made available ad lib, otherwise no doubt the total Government expenditure could easily go on this one service alone. Governments of every political persuasion

569
have to try to draw a balance between what is desirable from the educational point of view and what is possible from the point of view of national finance. But I think it is common ground again that in drawing this balance a quantitative measure of what money will buy has to be taken, and when it is being decided how much to make available the actual needs of education must be examined. The assessment of need must come before it is said that only so much can be allotted.
We all know that the salaries of teachers, whatever the level may be—and I hasten to add that I am not going to take up this matter tonight—are a major call on educational finance. To that extent the numbers of teachers in our schools or in service training has a more than proportionate effect on educational expenditure. Nevertheless, teachers are the vital element in any educational situation. The personal relationship between teachers and their pupils is vital in the educational process. That is why their numbers and the flexibility in teaching available to any head or any educational authority are so important.
Recently we had a White Paper entitled "Education: A Framework for Expansion" and the Government sought to say that in the next leap forward in education they were indeed expanding the service. There are doubts about how far there is going to be an expansion of education, but that, again, I will not deal with tonight.
There is, however, some argument between teachers' organisations and the Department of Education and Science, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State, and her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as to how far they are making wise or adequate provision for the numbers of teachers required in the schools— and that now includes nursery schools— in the next 10 years or more. I am not going into the figures, because I shall ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give various estimate later on, but there is an argument between the National Union of Teachers and his Department as to whether they are providing correctly. One side suggests that there will be a shortfall in the numbers which are being planned but the Department says that there will not be.
570
We all know that forecasting in this field is fraught with difficulty. First, the number of pupils in schools after the next five years can only be assessed because no one can say exactly how many people will be born next year. But within five years it is not too difficult to make a reasonable estimate of the total population in terms of children, therefore forecasting 10 years ahead in terms of pupils is not all that difficult.
What is more difficult is to know the number of teachers who will be in the profession at any one time because although we can forecast reasonably the numbers who will retire it is not so easy to forecast the numbers who will leave the profession after some time for some other job, or after a very short time to get married. On top of that there are the married women returners to take into account. That is another difficulty. Therefore, it is rather difficult to say that the teachers will be there in specific numbers. But I think it will be universally agreed that the numbers are likely to be fewer rather than greater, because, alas, the wastage over the past few years has run rather high in terms of both young teachers leaving the profession in toto and those getting married and having children.
On top of all this uncertainly there is the James Report on teacher education, which was interesting because unlike many other Government reports— departmental or otherwise—it contained no appendices of statistics. It was then that certain hon. Members on this side of the House, and myself in particular, became extremely worried.
To make the suggestions made by Lord James about the withdrawal of teachers from schools and the recasting of the whole educational training system without producing the statistics or the range of possibility involved was fraught with difficulty. It is suggested that there shall be a closure of certain colleges of education and a cut-back in the number of teachers under training. It may be right for certain colleges of education to be closed or amalgamated with other institutions, but there has been no quantitative analysis of the need for teachers or of the way in which the supply could be maintained.

571
On 28th March 1972 I asked the right hon. Lady to provide projections of teacher supply under the then system and under Lord James's proposal. She said that she was considering publishing projections, but no figures were published. On 13th April I asked another Question, to which the right hon. Lady replied that figures would soon be available. On 11th May, in reply to an Oral Question, I was told that no figures were available but that the number of teachers would increase at the present rate of between 18,000 and 20,000 a year. The right hon. Lady also said that no figures were being suppressed.
I put the matter to the test in a Written Question on 22nd May to the then Undersecretary of State. I asked for a projection of both forms of teacher training until 1983, but the reply contained figures only up to 1976. The hon. Gentleman said:
"I cannot usefully make longer term projections until major issues which my right hon. Friend is now reviewing concerning the rate and direction of development of the educational system have been resolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd May 1972; Vol 837, c. 290.]
He was saying, in other words, that he could not project the figures of teacher supply because his right hon. Friend was preparing a White Paper on educational expansion. Surely the demands for teachers and schools will be the same, irrespective of White Papers. It was clear on 22nd May that these figures would not be available because of the forthcoming White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman went further on 15th June, when he said that projections would not be meaningful because they were projections after the 1976 projections of national expenditure. It appears that the teacher supply position is tied not only to the White Paper but to national expenditure, instead of to the needs of the system.
Matters were left there, although the right hon. Lady remarked that I had paid some attention to the matter. It was not until 30th March that I had my last answer. Another phase has been reached, because the right hon. Lady, probably correctly, has decided to rejuvenate the old committee on teacher supply. I have no direct knowledge of what has been going on, but I understand that there
572
have been negotiations between the teaching organisations and the right hon. Lady about participation in this new committee.
I asked the right hon. Lady:
"What recent requests she has received from teachers' organisations for statistics related to teacher supply; what is the nature or categories of figures, known to her, that she has not chosen to supply; and what reasons she has given for not so doing."
I understand that the teachers' organisations—particularly the National Union of Teachers—were not satisfied that they would necessarily participate in this exercise until they were certain that the new committee could have access to all the relevant figures. One would have expected the hon. Lady to say, in reply, that of course, she would supply all the figures available to her. The educational system is a public one, and one would imagine that figures relating to the requirements of the need for teachers would be public in every degree There is no question of national security at stake— or perhaps there is; perhaps it is national security in its deeper sense. No reason is given why everybody professionally involved should not know what the projections are. Of course they cannot be definite, but at least they can be maximum and minimum, even over a very wide range. We have maximum and minimum projections for London Airport. Why cannot we have them for teachers and pupils?
The reply which the right hon. Lady gave was very unsatisfactory. She said:
"The National Union of Teachers asked at the end of January about projections in the White Paper"—
she does not say what they asked but admits that they asked
"In my reply I said that the latest population figures were under study and that my proposed advisory committee would no doubt have the opportunity to consider the assumptions underlying the projections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1973, Vol. 853, c. 414.]
In other words, the right hon. Lady was saying that she had some figures of population—I presume school population, or perhaps total population, or birthrate trends—and that the new committee would have the opportunity to consider the assumptions underlying the projections. She did not state specifically that they would unreservedly have access to all the figures available. In other words, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his right

573
hon. Friend was being less than frank in that answer.
The hon. Gentleman will know that on Monday last there was a meeting—I believe in the Department—between representatives of one teacher organisation and his right hon. Friend. I hasten to say I do not know what happened at that meeting. I would probably be wrong if I guessed, but certainly I do not know. All I know is that as an ex-teacher with a concern for the proper supply of teachers I have been asking the proper authorities in this House over the last year to "come clean" over teachers, and I believe I have already sufficiently shown that consistently the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor—not he himself; I hope he will "come clean" at the end of this debate—have failed to do so.
At any time this would be wrong but in the light of what the Prime Minister said in the election and subsequently about open, frank and honest Government I can conceive no valid reason why these figures should not be made available, and why the right hon. Lady should not say unreservedly that all the figures in her possession will be made available to proper professional organisations, if not the public as a whole. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will give us projections under the present arrangements for at least 10 years for both teachers and pupils, and that projections under the proposal in the White Paper and the James Committee, even if arranged, together with issues of fact and material relating to teacher supply and pupil estimates, will be available to the proper organisations if not to the public as a whole. In terms of parliamentary democracy and the responsibility of the executive, he will surely give us these undertakings.
The second matter that I want to raise under teacher statistics is not unrelated to the first, namely, the matter of the turnover of teachers in schools. It may not be known that one of the difficulties faced by teachers at every level is setting up administrative machinery—whether it be that of the school, headmaster, district office or local education authority, and still more so the Department of Education and Science—to provide resources which meet the needs of the teacher in the classroom and, therefore, the real educational needs of pupils. It is my
574
belief that the real priorities in education are often not those of political life, of the Times Educational Supplement, of all kinds of erudite journals, or the pundits who seem to abound in education these days. The real needs are in the classroom or the school, and are between the teachers and pupils concerned. This learning relationship depends on confidence, on trust and on consistency between the two parties concerned. This is particularly true in primary school, but it is also true, though in a different way, in secondary school.
If a school is faced with a fast-changing staff its task becomes very difficult, and it is generally acknowledged that in many parts—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of House lapsed without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
Mr. Spearing: It is acknowledged that in some parts of the country the turnover is larger than in others. What is not generally known is that in particular areas of teacher recruitment difficulties —which are not altogether unrelated to areas of educational deprivation—the turnover in some schools is very high. In other words, the number of teachers which a secondary school class will have, which may be high enough in the normal course of events, is further increased by the turnover in teachers.
Statistics can be misleading unless one knows how they are gathered, because it is not just a matter of the turnover of the assigned staff. If there were a census in this matter—I do not believe that one has been taken—I think that one would get a lower figure than reality, because there would be a census possibly of assigned staff. But there are other staff on temporary assignment, or who are sent as supply teachers, perhaps for a day or even for half a day. The number of teachers confronting particular classes is rising disastrously in certain places.
Whilst in administrative terms a school has a full complement of staff, in practical terms education may only be vestigial. Before I entered the House and, indeed, for a short time after I did so, I was responsible for staffing in a certain

575
school. Teachers would come for two or three weeks and then leave. Some would come for only two or three days. One teacher who came for an interview one day, came to the school the next day. At lunch time when I asked a colleague of mine where she was, he replied that she had gone. She arrived at the school at 8.45 a.m. and resigned at 10.30 a.m.
That is not uncommon. I know of several primary schools in London at which a particular class has had half a dozen teachers assigned to it since September of this year. I believe that in general education authorities do not like to discover these unpalatable facts because, from the point of view of the Department of Education and Science, it may appear to reflect badly on that education authority. I do not believe that heads like to admit it to the education authority because it might reflect badly on them, and possibly on the teachers themselves—and still more upon the children.
At some stage this matter must be faced fairly and squarely, because it means that where this is happening— or where there is a high proportion of young teachers who stay for a year or two years—the pressure and strain on the core and cadre of experienced staff becomes unbelievable. Anybody who knows anything about schools knows that many classes are carried by a third or a quarter of the staff who are experienced and can give support to those who are less experienced. Where the turnover becomes increasingly high, the pressure on the experienced staff is unbelievable. Their interest in the school falls, and they are more likely to leave, with the result that the difficulty becomes far worse.
Since September I have asked one or two Questions about this. On 15th February I asked the right hon. Lady
"if she will now initiate an inquiry to establish the highest rates of turnover of teachers … and to determine in what areas and under what conditions these rates are highest."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 415–16.]
The right hon. Lady replied that she would consider that.
576
On 13th March I asked
"what are the results of her investigations into the feasibility of investigating the varying degrees of turnover of staff in schools."
The right hon. Lady replied:
"The investigations continue. A survey might help to establish the facts. It would not be likely to tell us much about why people move."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1973; Vol. 852, c 307.]
I could tell the hon. Gentleman why people decide to move, but that is another matter.
Not until 3rd April, when I tabled another Question, did the right hon. Lady finally concede that she was proposing shortly to consult the parties concerned about the possibility of conducting a sample survey next term among schools in all areas. I emphasise that she is only "consulting" about the possibility of so doing. It is rather on the lines of the parliamentary use of the expression "tomorrow". "Considering" and "consulting" about a possibility is not a firm commitment.
I am firmly of the view that many local authorities do not know what is happening in their own schools and that many heads do not know the precise effect on the attainments of their pupils. I believe that we must face this task fairly and squarely, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to look into this matter.
In earlier answers the right hon. Lady said that this was a matter for local authorities, but understandably local authorities do not necessarily want to look into the matter. They will not take voluntary action. If the right hon. Lady argues that it is right for her to stop local authorities spending their ratepayers' money on school improvements and to put a ceiling on the amount that can be spent per school place, has she not a moral obligation to find out what is going on? Nobody likes to look under the carpet if he knows that what he will find there will be disturbing, but I submit that the Department and the right hon. Lady have a responsibility in this matter.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me that action will be taken on both these matters. If the Government are to retain any form of respect in the provision of educational services they must come absolutely clean.

577
in providing teaching statistics for the future. There must be no suspicion that the Treasury has said to them. "There is your amount of money. You must make it go as far as you can, because you cannot have any more".
It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ascertain the needs of the teaching service and to strike the right balance. Teachers are the life blood of our education system. It is also the right hon. Lady's responsibility to see that sufficient statistics are available to provide a reasonable background in studying the needs of pupils—who, after all, will be the adults of tomorrow.
The House will soon be discussing matters relating to law and order. If the hon. Gentleman studies the history of some of the people who, unfortunately, have not been law abiding and who have been involved in various crimes, he will no doubt see from their school careers some black spots in the educational system. In the present system we may well be laying up for ourselves great trouble and vast social services expenditure in the future, because we are not providing a good background for our pupils. A good background is given not only by providing buildings but by supplying the teachers to do the job. Therefore, let the right hon. Lady do her job—and I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will tell me that she will undertake that task.
10.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): We are grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for raising this subject tonight. I know from the number of Questions which he has tabled on this subject that he takes an intense interest in the important question of teacher supply. He made one or two astringent comments about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and myself, but I appreciate what was a remarkably moderate approach by the hon. Gentleman.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was disappointed at the refusal of my right hon. Friend to accept the target for teacher supply in the future which has been adopted by some of the teacher interests, and in particular by the National Union
578
of Teachers. They have always sought to persuade the Government to pin their flag to the mast of a supply of teachers which would make it possible for no class in any kind of school to exceed a maximum of 30 pupils. Although my right hon. Friend wants to see a considerable reduction in class sizes, and is planning to this end, she does not as of now accept a maximum size of 30 as a policy target. She believes that we are over the worst period of staffing shortage thanks to the efforts not only of successive Secretaries of State but of the local authorities and especially of the colleges of education. As teacher supply improves, and improve it will for at least a decade yet, the case for devoting resources to other needs grows stronger. What the White Paper does is set out a balanced policy of which the increase in teacher supply is an important element but only one element.
Let me look more closely at the problem of the statistics in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted the difficulty of forecasts in this matter when one is looking into the future. He said that my right hon. Friend had been less than frank. I do not accept that charge. The White Paper is rich in statistics.
Clearly, these had to be based on information available while the White Paper was being prepared. But any projection of school population or of teacher supply more than a few years ahead must obviously be subject to a measure of uncertainty, not only because all projections into the future are by definition uncertain but because estimates of school population more than five years ahead are inevitably at the mercy of the birth rate. Therefore, the figures in the White Paper are grounded on the best information which was available last autumn.
Since then further figures of live births have become available, and these again obviously have to be taken into account along with other information as time passes. As it works out, they are all so far broadly neutral in their effect.
In the subsequent part of my remarks I shall use rounded figures based both on those in the White Paper and on the new information which has become available. The changes consequent on one year's

579
births not surprisingly fall within the broad tolerances which must underlie any projections.
Subject to all these uncertainties, to which the hon. Gentleman himself drew attention, the teacher supply policy announced in the White Paper will mean a very big step forward. We are planning for a total supply in 1981 large enough not only to extend educational facilities to a high proportion of children under the age of five and to give new and serving teachers greatly increased opportunities for further education and training, but to achieve a substantial improvement in staffing standards for the school population aged five and over—10 per cent. more teachers for this age group than the number needed merely to leave staffing standards at their 1971 levels, the changes in the age distribution being taken into account. In other words, the fact that in 1981 there will be more older children who are taught in small groups does not affect this figure of 10 per cent., though it increases the number of teachers needed to secure any given standard of staffing.
The White Paper indicated that to achieve these objectives for the projected size and composition of the school population the qualified teaching force would need to grow to about 510,000 by 1981. On the latest figures the effect of a fall in the number of births has been offset by a tendency for the staying-on rate to rise so that the net effect of the changes is to leave the total projected population for 1981 very much where it was. It is now projected that the total maintained school population by the end of the decade will be some 9·45 million. I must emphasise yet again that these latest figures are still subject to a great deal of uncertainty, as were their predecessors, not least because at the present time inevitably they count some children who are not even born.
The application to the projected population figures of pupils aged five and over of the actual staffing standards of 1971 suggests a need for some 420,000 teachers of this age group in 1981 merely to stay where we are in terms of standards. With the addition of 10 per cent. to achieve the planned improvement of these standards, the total becomes about 465,000. To staff the projected nursery population on
580
the standard proposed in the White Paper would need about 25,000 teachers, and the release of teachers from the whole teaching force for induction and in-service training on the scale proposed would require replacements totalling some 20,000. That is the breakdown of the target figure of 510,000. These broad components of the total have not substantially changed since publication of the White Paper.
Attainment of the target will require a net increase of about 146,000 teachers over the 10 years 1971 to 1981. But we have already seen some 40,000 of this increase in the first two years of the period. To go on increasing the teaching force at that rate would clearly mean the pre-emption of resources for the staffing of the schools which, in the view of the Government, would be better used in other ways. The target that we have set ourselves represents the highest which, in our judgment, it would be reasonable to aim for having regard to other claims on resources. That is the basis of our decision to reduce not the teaching force but the rate of increase in the teaching force.
We recruit most of our teachers from three main sources: three and four year courses of initial training, one year postgraduate courses, and the pool of qualified teachers—mainly married women— who are out of teaching but may wish to return. There are, of course, other relatively minor sources of recruitment into which I need not go, but we can expect to continue to get most of our teachers from the three main sources. In the event, the actual distribution of recruitment will depend in part, as the White Paper points out, on employers' preference as between these three sources, but in preparing the projections underlying the White Paper it was obviously necessary to make some assumptions purely for planning purposes.
The prospective output of newly-trained teachers is already largely determined up to 1976, because reduction in the non-graduate entry into training, which has hitherto been the largest single element, cannot now start for practical reasons before 1974 and so can affect output only from 1977 onwards.
Mr. Frederick Willey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put this point to him. He

581
talks about resources. The resources we are talking about are people qualified to become teachers. If these people are not to be recruited to become teachers, may I ask what they are to become? These are the resources about which we are concerned. When projecting the future I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House what these people will become who qualify at school to take examinations which in turn qualify them to become teachers if they do not become teachers. This is a question of resources. We are not concerned with bricklayers building new schools, and so on; we are concerned with people capable of doing this work doing other work.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is important that the growth in teacher supply should match the educational opportunity that is available. I might ask the right hon. Gentleman what would become of those who were trained to be teachers if we increased the supply of teachers when there were not the employment opportunities for them to fill.
Mr. Willey rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have more figures to give.
Mr. Willey: I think that we have time to deal with this point. Obviously, the provision of more teachers is of high priority. We can decide that there are greater priorities because there are other professional demands upon people who might otherwise qualify to become teachers. It is useless to talk about resources at large if we are to use them for this, that, or the other. We are talking about people who take higher education and whether they become teachers or something else. There is obviously a demand for teachers. The hon. Gentleman says that we are to use the resources in other directions. It is for him to tell the House in what other directions he will use those resources.
I raise the matter specifically because we have the the Robbins Report on the expansion of higher education. There is no question but that we have matched the demand for technological and scientific needs. I think that there is a patently obvious social demand for a greater number of teachers. If the hon. Gentleman says that we can meet it with other resources, then I suggest that he is under
582
an obligation to tell the House what those other resources are. In other words, what are the two A-level people going to do if they are not to teach?
Mr. Speaker: That was a long intervention.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hesitated to give way to it. Although it was long, it added nothing new to the right hon. Gentleman's original point. This is a question of balancing educational needs, balancing the need for an increased number of teachers against other needs in the education service. I cannot go into a debate about the whole general employment and provision of jobs policy of the Government in the few minutes left to me.
To return to my point about matching the supply of teachers with the opportunities for employing them, the output from training of newly-trained teachers is projected to fall from about 45,000 in 1975–76 to about 42,000 in 1976–77 and thereafter to about 34,000 in 1980–81. The output of trained graduates has been assumed to increase to about 18,000 in 1980–81, by which time the output of non-graduates and new style three-year B.Eds, is expected to fall to about 12,000. The output of four-year B.Eds, is assumed to level off at about 4,500 by the end of the decade. The point that is still for discussion is what exact proportions these categories will have. The views of employers must carry great weight here.
The remaining substantial element in recruitment is the re-entry of former teachers, mainly married women. The rate of re-entry is projected to increase, on the basis of present trends, from about 14,000 in 1973 to about 18,000 by the end of the decade. These teachers, who bring with them maturity and, in many cases, experience of bringing up their own children, are of great value to the schools and widely esteemed by employers. They may perhaps be of special help in staffing the expansion of nursery education.
These projections point to a total recruitment by the end of the decade of about 50,000 teachers a year. Precisely what annual recruitment will be needed by then will be determined in part by the wastage from the teaching force, another major area of uncertainty. There are seen to be different wastage rates for

583
different categories of teacher. Within each category, there are different rates for different age groups. It is impossible to predict with certainty whether the elements in this complex pattern will change, and, if so, in what way.
Even if one assumed that the intrinsic rates would remain the same, the overall rate would be affected by changes in the age composition of the teaching force and in the mix of different kinds of teachers. We have to make the best possible estimates of future wastage on the basis of the information that we now have, and then we must be prepared to revise them as later information becomes available.
Allied to the problem of wastage is that of teacher turnover, to which the hon. Gentleman devoted some attention—
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I cannot give way.
Mr. Spearing: Answer the points.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will endeavour to do so.
Of course there are staffing problems in schools and there are particular staffing problems in London. We are concerned about them. Present evidence suggests that authorities in London find it relatively easy to recruit staff, but this is coupled with a higher than average number of probationers and a high rate of turnover.
Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister please give me a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will not keep back figures which should be made available to calculate projections, and that she will initiate a realistic investigation into teacher turnover in schools?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very willing to give the assurance that my right hon. Friend will give any figures that she considers necessary—
Mr. Spearing: Ah!
Mr. St. John-Stevas: —for intelligent and well-informed public debate on this subject to the House and, through the House, to the country. Of course she will.
584
But what I cannot undertake is that she will give figures that might be misleading and which cannot be firmly based on fact. What is needed now is to establish some of the basic facts—what is the turnover in particular schools and areas—and, so far as is practicable, to establish true motives and the reasons that individual teachers decide to move, in London and elsewhere.
In educational terms, the most significant aspect of turnover is in relation to individual schools, and on this we have no information at present. My right hon. Friend is therefore proposing to consult the parties concerned within the next two weeks about the practicalities involved in conducting a sample survey of schools during this coming summer term to obtain information about the extent of the turnover during the current year. I hope that that will do something to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking all the action that we can in this respect, and that this is much more than a hypothetical scheme, as he seemed to imply, but is also a practical proposition which will be pursued to its conclusion, subject to the consultations which are now taking place being successful.
I have indicated the broad outlines of the pattern which my right hon. Friend foresees for the development of teacher supply policy over the next few years. There is nothing sacrosanct about the details of this pattern. The target is determined, but there is a great variety of possible routes by which that target may be reached. The details of the itinerary may well need to be changed as the addition of later information progressively throws light on the uncertainties. But uncertainties in this field will always persist. Therefore, planning must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate them.
Finally, I return to what I think was the basis of the hon. Gentleman's charge, namely, that the Department is not providing adequate statistics upon important matters. I hope that I have shown by the statistics that I have given tonight that that charge is not true.
Furthermore, it was an integral part of the proposals which my right hon. Friend set out in the White Paper that she would establish a national forum in which she would obtain the advice of all

585
the many interested parties on the discharge of her central responsibilities for teacher supply and training. She has already sent out details of the machinery which she proposes to the other partners in the education service and has invited them to make nominations for appointment to the new Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers envisaged in paragraph 97 of the White Paper. Most of the interests concerned have expressed themselves as content with her proposals, but some of the teachers' associations have expressed doubts both about structure and about representation. My right hon. Friend hopes that, nevertheless, it will prove possible to set up the advisory committee in the fairly near future, and she is considering the representations which have been made to her. The relevance of this in the present context is that it has always been the intention that the Department would seek views of the advisory committee on the projections and assumptions which inevitably underlie the White Paper and, indeed, that this would be one of the first matters which would be laid before the committee.
It is still my hope that this can be done, as many of the assumptions cannot but involve judgments on which it is quite possible and legitimate for different people to hold different views. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman and, per-
586
haps, some of the teachers' associations, believe as I do that there is much to be gained by an element of participation in the planning of teacher supply over the next 10 years, I suggest that the best contribution which he can make, and the best next step that can be made, is to get the advisory committee established and working. That seems to me a much more fruitful way of proceeding, rather than making accusations of obscurantism to my right hon. Friend, who has been punctilious in giving figures to the House which are based on fact, not only in debate but in answering Questions which the hon. Gentleman has tabled.
Mr. Spearing: I had to ask those Questions.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is a very good Member of Parliament and had to ask the Questions which he put down in the past. No doubt he will continue to table similar Questions in the future. However, I hope that in tonight's debate some of his fears, if not all of them, have been allayed.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.