Lords Sitting of 1 April 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  CIVIC RESTAURANTS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
COTTON INDUSTRY WAR MEMORIAL TRUST BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF DELINQUENCY.
2.36 p.m.
Lord HOLDEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the suggestion in the Press that the work of the Institute for the Scientific Treatment of Delinquency may shortly have to be discontinued through lack of funds; and whether in view of its growing importance in the cure of delinquents and the prevention of crime, His Majesty's Government would consider assisting the Institute with a grant from public funds.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the noble Lord no doubt refers to the recent letter in The Times appealing for voluntary support to enable the Institute for the Scientific Treatment of Delinquency to carry on their work. The Government are aware of the useful work done by the Institute in two directions; first, in the diagnosis and treatment of offenders of all ages, who are referred to the Institute by the Courts or are otherwise put in touch with it; and secondly, in arranging specialized courses of training for social workers and others. Payments from public funds are made to the Institute in respect of certain services
950
rendered at the request of Government Departments; for example, in arranging lectures for probation officers in training. I understand also that some of the Courts which make use of the services of the Institute have given donations from charitable funds which are at their disposal.
The suggestion of a subsidy from public funds for the general work of the Institute would, however, raise a number of questions requiring caref al consideration. There is the question whether State grants would result in the drying up of voluntary funds. There is also the question of what other organizations doing similar work would have an equally strong claim to assistance and, moreover, there is the question of the future position of clinics of this kind in relation to the National Health Service. While, therefore, I sympathize with the motives which have prompted the noble Lord to call attention to the matter, it is impossible for me on present information to give encouragement to the suggestion that there should be a direct grant from public funds for the general work of the Institute.

COAL IMPORTS.
2.38 p.m.
Lord DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the Prime Minister's statement in another place on March 12 last that coal would be imported from abroad if it was procurable, inquiries have been put to the Government of the U.S.A. and to the Government of the Union of South Africa as to the amount of coal that can be made available for export 'to Great Britain from those countries during the current year, and with what result.]
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, this matter is now under discussion with the Governments concerned. I am afraid I am not in a position to make a statement to-day, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power hopes to make a statement in another place tomorrow.
LORD DE L'ISLE and DUDLEY: Whilst thanking the noble Lord for his

951
reply, may I ask whether it would be possible to have a similar statement made in this House to-morrow?
Lord CHORLEY: Certainly.

GERMAN PRISONERS AND AGRICULTURE.
Viscount ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the very serious conditions existing in the agricultural industry they will consider delaying the return of German prisoners of war, reported to be leaving this country at the rate of 15,000 a month.]
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lord PAKENHAM): My Lords, His Majesty's Government do not consider it necessary to vary the arrangements for the repatriation of German prisoners of war, but arrangements are now being worked out under which German prisoners of war whom farmers are willing to retain and are able to provide with accommodation will be allowed to volunteer to remain here for a period as civilians.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Whilst thanking the noble Lord for that answer, and for the suggestion in it that a certain amount will be done in the direction I am seeking, I should like to ask the Government whether they are not impressed by the fact that the German nation is primarily responsible for the parlous condition in which we find ourselves to-day. Why is it that, whilst the Russians and the French are to be given until January, 1949, to send back all their prisoners of war, we should, in spite of similar necessity, return ours at once? We seem always to be setting an example to other nations without getting any quid pro quo. Our disarming after the first Great War is a very good example of this. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have taken notice of these facts in coming to this decision.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him for what period of time he intends that Ger-
952
man prisoners of war should be allowed to remain in this country?
LORD PAKENHAM: May I reply to the second question first? The arrangements are now under consideration and they have not been finally approved. It is suggested that in the first instance the contracts with Germans who elect to remain in the scheme would be for the period to the end of December, 1947, but that there should be a prospect of extension and that towards the end of the year a possible extension of contract should be considered in the light of conditions then existing. As to the supplementary question put by the noble Viscount, I would refer him to the debate in this House on February 12 last, when the whole matter was very fully discussed and a careful statement was made on behalf of the Government.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I suggest to the noble Lord that various things have happened since that debate? It is only within the last few days that we have learned that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has agreed that Russia, France and, I think, other countries shall retain their prisoners of war until the beginning of 1949. That has taken place since that debate, and consequently I put it forward as a new fact altogether.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932. COUNTY BOROUGH OF BARNSLEY ORDER: URBAN DISTRICT OF NORTHWICH ORDER: URBAN DISTRICT OF WARE ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Length of notice of meetings and of business thereat.
2.—(1) For paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and fifteen of the

953
principal Act (which, subject to the company's articles, provides that a meeting of a company other than a meeting for the passing of a special resolution may be called by seven days' notice in writing) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:— "
(a) a company's annual general meeting may be called by twenty-one days' notice in writing, and a meeting of a company other than an annual general meeting or a meeting for the passing of a special resolution may be called by fourteen days' notice in writing;"
(6) Where by any provision hereafter contained in this Act special notice is' required, of a resolution, the resolution shall not be effective unless notice of the intention to move it has been given to the company not less than twenty-eight days before the meeting at which it is moved, and the company shall give its members notice of any such resolution at the same time and in the same manner as it gives notice of the meeting or, if that is not practicable, shall give them notice thereof, either by advertisement or in any other mode allowed by the articles, not less than twenty-one days before the meeting:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this small Amendment was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, on recommitment but it was not then accepted. On reflection I think it is reasonable that it should be accepted. The effect of it is to allow a meeting of an unlimited company, other than an annual general meeting or a meeting for the passing of a special resolution, to be called at seven days' notice in writing, instead of the fourteen days' notice laid down for companies generally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("or, in the case of an unlimited company, by seven days' notice in writing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I said all I wanted to say on this point on the previous occasion, but I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the way in which he has met the reasoned case on this Amendment, as well as on a very large number of other Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment arises from a suggestion which emanated from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. I do not know whether it adds very much, because of course we cannot attempt to define what "appropriate" is. At any rate it is a signpost which points in the right direction, and I think it will be
954
useful to have these words inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, after ("advertisement") insert ("in a newspaper having an appropriate circulation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think these words will probably carry out what I wish, although I am not sure that they are an improvement on the words which come in Table A of the existing Act. I think "appropriate circulation" would probably mean the district, and it might also mean large enough to reach the shareholders in question. But there is, of course, a difficuay about defining it, and in the circumstances I would simply thank the noble Viscount for the step he has taken in this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Obligation to lay group accounts before holding company]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the only effect of the next Amendment is to show that the words "group accounts"—which I am sure, wisely, we do not attempt to define—is a term of art. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 13, Line 4, leave out ("group accounts dealing") and insert ("accounts or statements (in this Act referred to as ' group accounts ') dealing as hereinafter mentioned").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Fourth Schedule:
Amendments of Third and Fifth Schedules to Principal Act.
2.—(I) In the said Third Schedule there shall be inserted at the end of the entry relating to the vendors of property purchased or acquired or proposed to be purchased or acquired the words "except where the contract for its purchase or acquisition was entered into in the ordinary course of business or the amount of the purchase money is not material."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is really consequential on an Amendment to Clause 59 (2). I am not sure that we have got the final form of words, but I offer these to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, as an earnest of the fact that we have this point in mind, and are careful to see that we so word the Fourth Schedule as properly to marry it with the new provisions of Clause 59 (2).
Amendment moved—
Fourth Schedule, page 119, line 30, leave out ("or") and insert ("and there is no connexion between the contract and the company ceasing to be a private company or where").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of March 24):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should say that I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint this House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Companies Bill, is pleased to give his consent so far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House shall proceed therein as they shall think fit.
I hope it will be useful and not unduly tedious to your Lordships if before we finally part with this Bill I review briefly some of the provisions and the alterations we have made. Since this Bill was introduced on Second Reading the form and substance of the Bill has, in many important respects, been changed. We have been concentrating on isolated sections of the Bill and, I may use the well-known metaphor, we have so concerned ourselves with looking at particular trees that perhaps we do not now realize the shape of the wood we are leaving behind us. Several of your Lordships in various parts of the House have suggested that it might be useful, therefore, if I were to give a brief summary of the Bill as it now stands.
We have disposed of over 300 Amendments. The first point about which I would like to remind your Lordships concerns the position of nominee shareholders. I confess that when the Cohen Committee were appointed I was strongly in favour of this particular matter being reviewed, and I hoped that the whole business of nominee shareholders was once and for all to be done away with. But I confess that having read their Report—and in particular paragraph 78 —I was surprised to find to what a large extent nominee shareholdings were used for perfectly legitimate purposes. I wanted to do away with nominee shareholdings, largely because it had come to
956
my knowledge that directors of companies were themselves operating in the shares of their own companies in the names of nominees. I discovered, greatly to my surprise, that the Committee did not seem to think there was any impropriety in so doing. That evil has now been dealt with, in that the group of Clauses 35 to 39 of the present Bill deals, with that matter quite satisfactorily. But there remains, of course, the broad question as to whether or not the register of shareholdings should reveal the real ownership of the shares in all cases. The Cohen Committee shrank from that conclusion, but they accepted a compromise that in cases where a shareholder was an owner of more than 1 per cent. of any class of issued share capital it should be declared on the register.
I confess I have always had grave doubts as to whether any such compromise would work. I believe in this case it is either all or none, and by that I mean you must say either that there must be no nominee shareholdings at all, or the reverse. I think it will be very difficult indeed to calculate in any particular case as to whether or no the shareholding did amount to 1 per cent., and I am quite certain we should be in great difficulties if we were to attempt to define what constitutes a real ownership of the shares. I confess that when the Bill which carried out the Cohen Committee's recommendations was before your Lordships' House, I had grave doubts about those clauses. They have been criticized by noble Lords on the ground that whereas they would give a great deal of extra work to registrars of companies at the present time, they would not succeed in catching the sort of person we want to catch; he would almost inevitably find a loophole which would enable him to get through the net. On the discussion in your Lordships' House I came to the conclusion that the labour involved—and make no doubt about this—to re-write all the registers, would be very substantial. I came to the conclusion that that labour was not worth the resulting catch.
If I had been able to discover any satisfactory way of dealing with evasion I would have pressed these clauses upon your Lordships, but I confess that, having given great time and thought to this matter, I was unable to evolve any scheme which would have prevented it. Therefore, I thought that the sensible thing to

957
do was to abandon those clauses in return for a right of inspection by the Board of Trade, powers which are very much more drastic than any powers the Board of Trade have hitherto enjoyed. These drastic powers should in particular serve to reinforce the clauses requiring directors to disclose their dealings, and they should enable the Board of Trade to deal with any cases where it appears to them that there have been undesirable transactions, and where investigation is therefore clearly desirable. The provisions must necessarily be experimental, and the Government will be able to judge in the light of their working whether further powers are required. So much for the nominee position.
Now with regard to accounts, I should like to make it quite plain that we have not departed from the proposals which are designed to secure that the accounts of a company must give a fair and true view of the state of the company's affairs, and of its profit and loss. Where there is a group of companies, the accounts of the group must give a fair and true view of the group and the profit and loss of the group. We have made no change in this drastic principle, but we have allowed more latitude—and I think rightly—to the directors, both in the details which they have to present and in their manner of presentation. The whole is subject to the scrutiny of the auditors, and so the law will ensure that shareholders shall get a fair and true view of the finances of the body of which they are members. The detailed requirements are set out in the First Schedule, which can be modified by Regulation. To guarantee the business community against arbitrary exercise of departmental power, it is now provided that Regulations making more onerous the requirements of the First Schedule will have to be affirmed by affirmative Resolution of both Houses' of Parliament. On the other hand, if it should be desired to ease the burden for the business community, particularly where action may have to be taken quickly, requirements can be made subject only to the right of either House to present an Address against them within the usual period.
With regard to accountants, we are placing grater responsibility by, this Bill on the accountancy profession than there is under the existing Act. It is most important therefore that auditors should be skilled. The clause which deals with the qualifications of auditors does not go so
958
far as some members of the profession would wish, and in particular doubts have, been raised whether under the clause as drawn persons might qualify as auditors who are not really skilled to undertake their duties. All I can say is that this Bill seeks to do no more than to carry out strictly the recommendations of the Cohen Committee. These recommendations go beyond the existing law, but a rule ordering all the profession can be made only in a Bill especially directed to that purpose. Such a Bill is being prepared by the accountancy profession.
As to exempt private companies, we have made the Amendment that an exempt private company may hold shares in another such company without the latter ceasing to be an exempt private company. This is subject to the stringent conditions laid down in the Third Schedule that individual members of any such group must in the aggregate not exceed fifty. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, as to a trustee holding shares for employees, will receive further consideration before the Bill reaches another place. Companies, whether they are of limited or of unlimited liability, may be public companies, private companies or exempt private companies. But in any case they must let the shareholders have all the accounts and in any case they must rely on the discretion and good sense of the shareholders not to publish them.
On the matter of the necessity for the disclosure of inner reserves, I have seen some criticism of the Amendment we accepted by which the Government are empowered to exempt companies of a class from having to disclose reserves. I do not think such criticisms are well founded. The obligation to disclose inner reserves is now introduced for the first time into our Company Law and we must proceed with caution. It has been represented to me with great cogency that national interests might be prejudiced by the requirement, and the Government so far concur that they consider that power should be taken in this Bill to dispense particular interests from this requirement. Any exemption will be subject to the stringent conditions which will be laid down from time to time by the Board of Trade. These conditions would certainly provide that where dividends are paid otherwise than out of current profits the fact will have to be disclosed in the accounts: and if it is a fact that all the

959
goods are not put in the shop window, the shop window must no be so dressed as to suggest that the financial position of the company is better than it really is. In any case these powers would be exercised only in the national interest.
With regard to special notice, I would say this. The Cohen Committee rightly made a recommendation to make it easier for shareholders to get rid of directors who did not carry out their duties satisfactorily, and they also recommended that over-age directors should not be retained unless there was some provision in the articles of the company fixing the age limit, or unless the term of office of such a director was continued by a special resolution of the company. The special resolution is, I think, a procedure more suited for matters such as changes in the constitution of a company than for such day-to-day or year-to-year matters as the appointment of directors. On the other hand, there is a danger that a snap vote may be taken to the embarrassment of directors and to the detriment of the company. This applies equally to the removal and appointment of auditors, a matter which was raised during the Second Reading discussion.
Therefore we have devised in this Bill something between the ordinary resolution and special resolution: special notice. The principle is that the simple majority rule should prevail in these matters but precautions should be taken against a snap vote or shareholders not being fully apprised of the matter at issue. Therefore, anybody wishing to any of these serious proposals is required to do so by special notice, whiCh_means giving not less than twenty-eight days' notice to the company. It is, however, subject to this important proviso that where an annual general meeting—requiring twenty-one days' notice—or an ordinary general meeting is called after the receipt of the special notice, the resolution which it is proposed to move can be moved at that meeting; but if a special notice is handed in after such a meeting has been called, the matter raised in it cannot be taken at that meeting. Questions were raised as to whether this affords sufficient safeguards against the risk of trouble and expense to which a company might be put if a disgruntled shareholder, anxious to air a grievance and to advertise himself, were to submit to the company twenty of
960
eight days' notice of a resolution which the company in turn-would have to send round to shareholders and which it was pointed out might involve the company in considerable trouble and expense. It was suggested that the matter might be looked at rather from the point of view of a Parliamentary election, where unless the candidate polls a certain proportion of the votes he loses his deposit.
It would be difficult to apply the analogy because it would be hard to discover what proportion of votes were cast supporting the shareholder's proposal, and I am doubtful whether we could work out a scheme on those lines. Moreover I am doubtful whether in practice a company would find itself involved in extra expense. The company would almost certainly have to circularize the shareholders, and in practice it would probably be that they would merely have put at the end of the notice the resolution from the disgruntled shareholder. I confess I think the matter needs further consideration, I think there is danger which we must try to guard against here, and this is a matter which is under examination. If we find some satisfactory way of dealing with it we will suggest an Amendment in another place. I need not say much about placing. We have done what we could to try and distinguish between an offer issued to the public and one which is a private issue, and we have made our proposals in regard to that matter.
I should like to say one or two words further about the retirement of directors, because I think there is some misapprehension about the proposals of the Bill in that regard. The general rule now in the Bill is this: that a director who attains the age of 7c will vacate office at the conclusion of the first annual general meeting after he attains that age. But this rule is subject la certain-exceptions, three of them being of a permanent and one of them of a transitional character. I will state first of all, if I may, what are the permanent exceptions to, or qualifications of, the rule. The first is this. A new director of 70 or more can be appointed, or an existing director who reaches the age of 70 can be continued in office, if his appointment is made or approved by the company in general meeting subject to special notice having been given of the resolution appointing or approving the appointment of the director and subject to this age being stated.

961
The second is that in the case of a company registered after January 1, 1947, the whole matter is subject to the company's articles, and the company can make whatever provision it likes on the subject of the retirement of directors. The third is that in the case of a company registered before the beginning of 1947, the matter is subject to any alterations of the company's articles made after the beginning of 1947. Changes in the articles made before that date are over-ridden by the clause, except that where the articles contain a provision for retirement of directors under an age limit or for preventing or restricting appointments of directors over a given age, the clause does not apply to directors to whom such a provision in the articles applies.
Now I come to the transitional provision. This is as follows: A director who is in office at the date when the section comes into force can remain in office, notwithstanding that he is 70 or more, but he will have to retire when his period of office ends or before the conclusion of the third annual general meeting after the section comes into force, whichever is the earlier date. Thus, for example, if the section comes into force on January 1, 1948, and the director is 70 at the time but his period of office does not end until March 1, 1950, he will retire then. So your Lordships will realize that a director having reached the age of 70, and the Bill then having the force of an Act, if he is due to retire in the ordinary way by rotation he then, of course, is subject to the provisions of the Act, and he can only be re-elected after the appropriate special notice has been given. I hope that that makes the matter plain, because I think it is desirable that business men should know what is proposed at the present time.
There is one other matter, and I think it is the last which I need mention specifically. It is with regard to the question of turnover. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, put forward an eloquent plea that the turnover of a company should be disclosed in the accounts. It may be that something of this sort will be required in the future, but the question which he has raised is by no means an easy one to decide. There is already—and will, under the new Bill, be far more—greater general publicity than there is in many other countries, and before accepting the proposal it would be necessary to make sure that many of the smaller and medium sized businesses would
962
not be adversely affected. The Government have not got closed minds on this matter and the whole question w ill be considered further with a view to seeing whether we ought to make any alterations on those lines or not. But I must warn the noble Lord that the matter is one which, as I know, bristles with difficulties.
I apologize for detaining your Lordships for so long in dealing with some of these detailed provisions. But your Lordships will remember that it is twenty years since the last Companies (Amendment) Act was before Parliament, and since that time there have been great developments in accountancy practice and great developments in relation to company organization. We have had to deal, in the present Bill, with many new problems of a most complex nature. This Bill goes down to another place not as my Bill and not as my Party's Bill; it goes down to the other place as a real contribution made by members on all sides of your Lordships' House in trying to work out a very difficult problem. It is to me, I confess, a matter of great personal satisfaction that, having dealt with and disposed of over 300 Amendments, we have not had a single Division on any one of them. I beg to move that the Bill be now given a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has added to the debt under which he has laid us during the long and fruitful passage of the Bill through this House by the very clear and agreeable summary which he has just given us. I am glad, for many reasons, to have been so closely associated with this Bill. I can claim the paternity of the Act of 1908 which has now been so much amended, and so rightly amended, and perhaps I may claim to be a godfather or one of the godfathers of this Bill. I said, when the Bill was introduced here, that I did not think there was any assembly or tribunal more competent to make a practical Companies Act than your Lordships' House. It contains all the experience, legal, business, commercial, financial and administrative, which is necessary for such a task, as well as representing, so to speak, the man in the street, the ordinary investor, and, possibly, in one

963
quarter of the House or another, an occasional plunger or two. After all, we want to consider all interests, but we should not have made the Bill anything like so good a measure as we have done if the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, had not given such an enormous amount of personal time and trouble to this work. He has been good enough to invite me and a few others to work with him, and I know how much labour has gone into this measure.
What I have just said also applies to the very wise advisers whose assistance the noble and learned Viscount has had—advisers from the Companies Department of the Board of Trade, the draftsmen, and the practical accountants—without whose help we certainly could not have recast these complicated schedules. I have had handed to me some statistics which I am afraid I can hardly read, but I gather that some tens of thousands of words have gone into these Amendments. As your Lordships know, 300 Amendments have been proposed, and nearly every one has been accepted, either in the form in which it was proposed or in a better form, as the result of our co-operating to make proposals more practicable. Moreover, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has just observed, we have not had a single Division.
I think it is a good Bill. It may require alteration here and there, but in a complicated matter like the practice of Company Law one must proceed by trial and error. I think it is convenient, particularly when we are laying down not hard and fast rules but general principles and model forms in the way accounts should be kept, that there should be an easy way of altering them if experience proves this to be desirable. It is a typically English way. In fact, it is the typically English Parliamentary procedure that has been followed: that of saying that if you want to make things easier you can do it by negative Resolution, but if you want to make things stricter then you must go to both Houses and get an affirmative Resolution—which is tantamount to an Act of Parliament.
Some of the matters which loomed largest in the nubile eye were not the most important. There has been much talk about this nominee business. Like the
964
noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I approached this problem with the idea that it might be a good plan to get rid of the nominees altogether. The Cohen Committee unanimously said that that would be quite impossible and would do more harm than good; it would interfere with a great deal of practical business, and particularly with the business of people who are abroad. I do not think we could have gone forward in the face of that, and I am quite certain that the sort of compromises which the Cohen Committee proposed are utterly impracticable. It is impossible to have a sort of halfway house; one has either to abandon the system of nominees or have some other way of doing it. May I respectfully say to the House that from my experience during the four periods when I was President of the Board of Trade I am quite certain that, in the interests of the general public as well as the general convenience of business, it is far better to give the President of the Board of Trade a wide general power of investigation on his own motion than it is to try and hedge round the whole administration of companies with a great ring of restrictions. In that way action can be taken quickly and where it is necessary.
What has been done with regard to accounts is also very English and very practical. We have laid down the principle that those who are responsible for the conduct of a company must tell not only the true story but also the full story. These accounts must be informative, but they need not be uniform. Indeed, if it were laid down that they should be uniform I believe that in many cases they would be singularly uninformative, because a variety of businesses cannot conform to a sealed pattern. What is done is that a theme is set with occasional variations. A true and a full story has to be told, but it has to be told in the form most convenient to the particular set of readers. That is very sensible and very practical.
Perhaps I shall take a more anxious view with regard to the removal of directors at the age of 70 when I approach more closely that climacteric, but they have had rather a good run for their money. I am not at all averse from saying that shareholders should decide whether or not they want to keep on such directors. There are some directors whom they would very much like to keep on but it would be a very good

965
way of trying to get rid of others with tact. It is sometimes very hard, because people say: "If we get rid of Jones we shall not be able to keep Smith." This is not because Smith likes Jones, but because of the great and collective responsibility which animates members of boards, as it also animates members of Governments, and enables them to hang together. I think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has been liberal, and probaby rightly so.
I hope the question of the removal of directors will be looked at carefully. I do not wholly share the view of my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, although I think it is a strong thing to have a resolution removing a director and I do not think we ought to pass that very lightly. On the other hand, it is right that there should be power in the hands of the shareholders to remove a director; if they wish to, on notice. But in the interests of the director, of the company, and of the general body of shareholders, it ought to be impossible to start purely frivolous motions. I offered the idea of forfeiting a deposit, and I do not think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was very convincing in his reply to it. Neither he nor I have to go through that form of election any more—but the point of not knowing how many votes have been cast is not a good point, because a poll can always be taken. I think there ought to be a deposit, though I do not pledge myself on the size. But if the motion is clearly frivolous, the director has been most unfairly attacked, the company put to considerable expense and the other shareholders to a great deal of bother and annoyance, then there ought to be some way of penalizing the person responsible.
With regard to the disclosure of reserves, as a general rule I am quite sure, on consideration, that they ought to be disclosed. There are cases where they ought not to be disclosed, but in that regard I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor: the test is entirely one of public and national interest, and nothing else. It is not a question of giving favour to this or that company or this or that type of business; the only exception should be where unquestionably it is in the national interest. And where it is in the national interest that there should be no dis-
966
closure, it is also in the interest of the shareholders of the company itself.
The difficulty in trying to make a great Companies Act that will be a charter, under which the business of the country is conducted for ten or twenty years (it is twenty years since we last reviewed the law) is that one has to steer between Scylla and Charybdis, between preventing, so far as one can, wrong things happening, and, at the same time, not handicapping normal decent businesses which form the great bulk of business. It is easy to make a case by quoting some particular fraud or rogue and say:"Let us try and put up a whole set of barbed wire entanglements which will prevent a fellow like that getting away, "but you probably do not catch that man, whereas you make the business of hundreds of other people quite impossible. The way to catch a man is by powers of inspection vested in the Board of Trade. Indeed the criminal law provides for such a position, if a man has done something wrong. That power of inspection, the power to be able to go into the company's affairs, will, I believe, be a much better way of catching a rogue. However much you legislate, you will not turn a bad investment into a good investment, nor a bad investor into a good investor. All you can do is to see that business is honourably and honestly conducted, and that the ordinary, sane, practical investor knows the state of his investments. I think we have succeeded in the Bill in doing that, and I believe we are sending from this House a fair and practicable charter which will serve both the interests of investors and the interests of English business in the years to come.
3.23 p.m.
LORDRENNELL: My Lords, may I apologize, in the first place, for not having been here when the Third Reading was introduced by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack? I was held up, I regret to say, by the traffic. I do not wish to follow the noble and learned Viscount into any examination of the Bill, and I can usefully do no more than say that I agree with everything he said. I agree in particular that this Bill reflects the greatest credit on your Lordships' House and on those who have taken part in it by the contribution of different ideas to a common end. That end has been achieved without any personal disagreement between any of the Parties who took part in the many debates, both in your

967
Lordships' Chamber and elsewhere. The result has possibly been one of the most valuable contributions by your Lordships —certainly during my very short experience in your Lordships' House—and it is one which is likely, so far as I am concerned, to remain a very living and a very real memory of what can be done by people who have all tried to make their utmost contribution.
The only two points in the Bill to which I think it necessary to allude are both points which the noble and learned Viscount has already raised. One of them is that of the nominee clauses, in respect of which, for better or worse, I was the protagonist in moving complete rejection, not because I found myself in any disagreement with the motives which prompted either the Cohen Committee or those who were responsible in the first place for drafting this Bill as to the objects to be achieved by those nominee clauses, but because I believed they would be wholly impracticable in the form in which they stood, or indeed, in any other form put forward in the course of the discussion which we had. I would like to say here and now that I believe disclosure of real ownership and control of companies is necessary and desirable. It is perhaps regrettable, but also perhaps inevitable, that this form of nominee holdings was adopted, but, it having been adopted, the methods for dealing with it which were presented in the first draft of this Bill were not methods which would, in fact, eliminate the difficulties which have arisen.
The second point to which I think it appropriate to draw attention is that of the form of accounts. I agree that the schedules have been made immensely wider, and far more practicable and able to cope in their present form with the manifold manifestations of human activity in companies. It is arguable whether any standardized form, even in the broadest possible terms, is really practicable. That we shall he able to see only after some years' experience of the operation of this Bill. Provision has been made for modifying the set-up in the schedules which have been presented to your Lordships' House. I am still doubtful about some of the clauses on the purely practical issue, though not indeed, as on the nominee clauses, on the objects which it is intended to achieve.
968
I would like to say, without any reticence and without any flattery, that the help, advice and assistance which we have received, not only from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack but from his advisers; the contacts which we have made with them, and the several and individual contributions made in the course of the presentation of the clauses in the Committee stage by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, have been of the utmost possible assistance to all of us, certainly to me, and I am profoundly and personally grateful for what has been done. I hope that the contact which has been established on these subjects, not only between those who took part in this Bill in your Lordships' House but with the advisers who have advised the Lord Chancellor, is a contact which may he maintained hereafter for the greater good of the community as a whole.
Your Lordships on the opposite Benches will perhaps forgive me if I say that I think this Bill is perhaps the most constructive and valuable of the considerable volume of legislation which has been presented in this Parliament to date. Noble Lords opposite may not agree with me, but I shall retain that opinion. But if that proves to be a worthy opinion, it will only be so because of the several contributions made to the Bill. I hope that this Bill will serve as a model for further Acts which will be passed by Parliament in the years to come and which will be threshed out and produced in the form of an agreed presentation for the greater good of the community of which we all form part.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to add a very few words. I need not throw any more bouquets in the direction of the Woolsack; it is sufficient to say that I think the noble and learned Viscount deserves the bouquets he has received. My noble friend Viscount Swinton, in a sentence which I thought required a little amendment, suggested that I was against the possibility of removing a director from his directorship before his term had expired. That was not in my mind at all, and I must have used very inaccurate language if he ever thought, in the various speeches I made on this subject, that I intended such a course. For about twenty years there

969
has been a section in the existing Act of Parliament under which directors are removable by an extraordinary resolution. What shocked me, when I read this Bill in its first stage, was the notion that a mere ordinary resolution, without any special form of notice given in respect of it, proposed by one mischievous or disagreeable shareholder, could result, if there was a badly-attended meeting, in a director being removed from office.
The probability that the fact that a man was being removed from his office as director would he widely advertised or known in a particular district made it no better from my point of view. The question of removal has this peculiarity. I do not know of anybody occupying any position of importance in the whole of our economy being removed without any reason given, or without any suggestion that he has been guilty of an impropriety either in public or in private; but in this case a mere resolution might be moved removing a director. I think a director should only be removed if there is some widespread belief among the members of the company that his continuance in office is quite wrong. That is why the extraordinary resolution under the existing section, which insists on a three-fourths majority, has worked well in practice.
I think have stated before that it has worked well because that section has been practically a dead letter, and unless a director became known as having done something wrong or having been dishonest or convicted of some offence in the past, nobody ever thought of an extraordinary resolution. Accordingly, in my belief it is only in a handful of cases, at the most, in the thousands of companies which exist in this country that such a resolution has been moved at all. I am afraid I remain absolutely convinced that the clause as it stands is unwise.
Although I must admit that I am not very easily converted in a matter with which I have been concerned for fifty years, that is not what gives strength to my idea; it is the fact that the bigger institutions in this country concerned with the matter (the Law Society is one and some of the federations are others) have urged me to raise this question in the House and to maintain it to the best of my power. I do earnestly hope that when the Bill comes before another place this clause will be so altered that mere dislike, mere prejudice, or some fancy of that sort
970
or perhaps a feeling that a particular director is hostile to the interests of somebody who chooses to move such a motion, shall not be at the bottom of a resolution being put forward. As I say, I believe all the big institutions of the country connected with matters of this sort agree with me on this point. I hope that your Lordships will not take it amiss—since the matter was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—that I should repeat what is my view. With regard to the rest of the Bill, I may say that I moved a number of the 300 Amendments which were before your Lordships' House. I succeeded on some and I failed on others. I am not quite sure what my record is, but I think on the whole, with the exception of the point which I have mentioned, I may feel that on those in which I failed there were reasonable grounds for their not being accepted. So, wishing good luck to this Bill, which I believe on the whole is a great improvement, I must support the present Motion.
3.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his very careful review of the provisions of the Bill which is now leaving your Lordships' House. I feel that this will go a long way towards clearing up a lot of doubts and misapprehensions, particularly those caused by the elimination of the nominee shareholding clauses. I think perhaps the very wise words which the noble and learned Viscount has used will satisfy quite a lot of the critics who have been so critical about removing those clauses from the Bill. I am also deeply appreciative of the kind and encouraging things which the noble and learned Viscount said in his concluding passages. I am most appreciative of the phrase which he used about my advocacy of the Amendment which I placed before your Lordships for the inclusion in the First Schedule of a provision for the disclosure of turnover. I can only regret that my advocacy was not sufficiently strong to stir in the breasts of noble Lords the same approbation as it did in the editorials of all the financial newspapers of the country. Perhaps that has brought enlightenment to the noble and learned Viscount's advisers. I have always had the impression that the noble and learned Viscount's heart was never in his refusal to accept my Amendment, so

971
perhaps on the passage from your Lordships' House to another place he may be able to convert his advisers and guide them into the path of rectitude and enlightenment.
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)BILL. [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.— (Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Resolution agreed to, and ordered: That a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

AIDS TO AIR NAVIGATION.
3.41 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what is the present position with regard to meteorological and air navigational aids, including F.I.D.O. and radio and radar; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a moment if I submit a small personal explanation as to how it is that this Motion comes before your Lordships' House today. In the latter part of last year we had a discussion in this House about the necessity for the continuance of petrol rationing, and it was explained by His Majesty's Government that it was necessary to continue to ration petrol because of the dollar expenditure which was involved. At about that time there was a run of bad accidents in the air, and there was considerable agitation in the Press that something should be done about it, particularly in the direction of the extension and use of F.I.D.O. installations. F.I.D.O. installations, of course, depend for their operation on an enormous amount of petrol, and as the motor world had been told that it could not have more petrol because of the dollar expenditure involved, it seemed that further con-
972
sideration might be able to be given to the F.I.D.O. question.
Accordingly, I gave notice:
"To ask His Majesty's Government: How many F.I.D.O. installations are now operational in the country; how much they have been used in the last year; what fuel is required for use in a F.I.D.O. installation; what is the fuel consumption per hour when in use; what is the cost of (a) Installation; (b) Operation per hour; whether it is intended further to extend the number of such installations in view of the shortage of dollars, and improved radar and radio equipment."
That question was placed on to the Order Paper, but on the first occasion on which it was due to come up the noble Lord, the Minister of Civil Aviation, was unfortunately not able to be in his place, and I had to postpone it. On the second occasion when it arose the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, indicated that he might be able to make an important statement of policy if I would draft my question in the form of a Motion. Of course, I was only too delighted to do what I could to help, and so it is that the Motion appears in its present form on the Order Paper.
Since the time when I put my question on the Order Paper I have discovered a little more about F.I.D.O. than I knew at that time. I will return to that matter in a moment or two. I do not want to pose as being in any way an authority on air questions. I have, as a matter of fact, always been extremely interested in the air. I was one of the people who saw the first aviator fly the circular mile outside Paris, and I attended every aviation meeting in the early days of flying, when it was a remarkable thing to see an aeroplane in the air. I was one of the unfortunate spectators on the occasion of the death of the Honourable C. S. Roe, whose name is a household word in this country to-day. Apart from that, my interest in the air is merely as a passenger. I only wish the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, could be here to-day to hear me, because he would no doubt be thrilled to think of me, arming myself with my minute piece of chewing gum and stepping on board an aeroplane in trepidation of what might happen. I have been a very frequent passenger in aeroplanes belonging to many different countries, both in war-time and peace-time.
We have recently had, as we all know only too well, an appalling series of air crashes, but I submit, from the point of view of the passenger, that we must adopt

973
a balanced judgment in these matters. It must be remembered that there are occasional runs of bad luck, just as there are runs of good luck. Whenever there is an air crash the Press treat it as being of good news value; it it written up in all its lurid and grim details, and we are told every little thing about it; but we must not forget the great number of aeroplanes which now fly, compared with those which flew in earlier days, and we must bear in mind the enormous number of miles which are flown in perfect safety. While accidents are to be deplored, and while, from the point of view of potential passengers, we must do everything we can to avoid them, we must not be thrown off our judgment by a series of crashes such as we had at the end of last year. We should bear in mind the number of crashes which unfortunately take place on our roads and remember that we do not use our roads any the less because of the great number of accidents on them. One does not have to get into an aeroplane in order to be killed. I think we must look at it from that point of view.
It seems to me, speaking from the point of view of the passenger, that quite a number of these very serious accidents in the air are avoidable. As I see it, there are several dangers which air traffic encounters, the first of which is the danger of colliding with high ground. There are deplorable accidents caused through aeroplanes running into high ground, and that has happened frequently. I am sure that we all can recall a number of accidents which have taken place in that way. Then again, aeroplanes run into moisture-laden clouds and suffer from icing; that is another danger. Then, there are the dangers of running into other aircraft, the dangers of taking off and, particularly, the dangers of landing in conditions of bad visibility.
As to aeroplanes running into high ground, it seems to me that in these days of modern inventions it ought to be possible to fit aircraft with some better means of detection than they have been able to use up to now. There are various systems which can be fitted—and indeed, which have been fitted—and it seems to me that if better means of detection could be used it might help to reduce what appears to be a rather unnecessary type of air crash. As to the question of moisture-laden clouds, icing and the like, better meteorological reports—a continu-
974
ous series of meteorological reports—would be of help. As no doubt did your Lordships, I read the evidence given at the Stowting inquiry recently. I thought it was an extraordinary thing that an aeroplane could leave this country for Bordeaux and that it should not find out until it arrived there that the cloud base was only about 200 or 300 feet.
That is not the only instance of that sort of thing. I have here a newspaper report in which it is said—this apparently occurred towards the latter part of last year—that an aircraft left Brussels for Northolt, and that on arrival over Northolt it was sent by Northolt control to Croydon because the weather conditions at Northolt were too bad. On arriving at Croydon, and having failed to land because the S.B.A. (which, I presume, means the Beam Approach System) was not working, the aircraft flew back to Northolt. Back at Northolt, contrary to Northolt's original instructions, it started to make an S.B.A. approach to the aerodrome, but gave it up because the Northolt S.B.A. was out of action. It was then sent by Northolt to Manston, but conditions there were too bad for Manston to accept it, and so the aircraft returned to Brussels, where weather conditions were bad but where a Radio Range let-down was accomplished. It was apparently a B.O.A.C. machine, which had been fitted out in America with this type of gear, and so it managed to get down at Brussels. What one would like to ask is why Northolt did not know that Manston was impossible for aircraft? If I had been in the aircraft I should have hated to fly backwards and forwards and then to have to go back to Brussels. I should have been terrified.
On another occasion an aircraft bound for Northolt had to return to Brussels, after having been kept in the air over south-east England for more than an hour between about nine and ten o'clock on a very unpleasant night. On that occasion the S.B.A. was not in operation at Northolt, and let-downs were attempted on the Range and M.F. Beacon there. Diversions were being made to Croydon and to Manston, but when the aircraft got to Mansion the S.B.A. was not working there. It seems to me that, whether it was due to failure of instruments, or to lack of liaison between the various air stations, considerable danger was caused to the aircraft concerned. Fortunately,

975
nothing much happened, but the fact still remains that an advance in radar and radio equipment, together with a tightening-up of the reporting of meteorological conditions, might do a great deal to help in cases like that.
With regard to the question of aircraft colliding in the air, when I have been a passenger in an aeroplane I have never been particularly frightened about that. I have always been full of admiration for my pilot and have never sensed that I was in any special danger from the risk of collisions. It does seem, air control being what it is, that this danger is not at any rate an exaggerated one. With regard to aircraft taking off, and so on, accidents are due to engine failure, and it is probably largely a matter of maintenance. But it is a question that should not be and, I know, is not, neglected by those concerned, least of all by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Then we come to the question of landing under conditions of bad visibility. As I told your Lordships, I have frequently been a passenger in aircraft, and on one occasion last year I had to go to Paris. I flew to Paris in a foreign airplane. We left Croydon under fairly good weather conditions, and we expected that the passage would take about a couple of hours or an hour and three quarters. When we crossed the French coast the cloud seemed to close in, and by the time we arrived over the Paris area there was thick cloud below. Of course, I could not tell what wireless signals the pilot was receiving, but I could see that conditions were rapidly becoming very difficult. It was five hours before we landed at Paris, and I imagine the pilot had to do something because no doubt his petrol was getting a bit short. We took a dive down below the clouds, and the next thing I saw was a hill in front of us, and up we went again. We missed the hill, and we missed all the high tension wires which one finds around Paris. We went up again, circled round a few times, and then came down and "made it." But it was not a very happy experience.
There are ways of getting aircraft down, and I want to refer to one or two of them. If the noble Lord, in the course of his reply, could tell us a little about them I think it would do a good deal to reassure many of us, especially if we know
976
that some of these methods are to be used. One method that can be used is the Ground Control Approach System, which I believe was used a lot during the war by the R.A.F. and thought very highly of by them. We know from our papers that it was used at Prestwick, and we know it is now being used at Heathrow. I should like to know whether it is the policy of the Minister of Civil Aviation to encourage the use of the Ground Control Approach System and, if that is so, how it compares with such a system as F.I.D.O., or something of that sort, for getting aircraft down under conditions of bad visibility.
Another system which can help in getting aircraft down I understand is called Distance Measuring Equipment. I should like to know what are the chances of this system, and whether the Ministry of Civil Aviation think that an extension of it will help. I have heard in connexion with the installation of this system that the reason why more use has not been made of it in this country up to now is that there is a certain difference of opinion upon wavelengths. I understand that this system depends largely upon having a standardized wave-length, and that America has one view as to what the standardized wave-length should be and this country has a very different view. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but it would be of considerable interest if we could be told a little more about that.
There is another system called the Approach Control Radar. I do not know whether it is proposed to use this system, or extend its use. I understand there is a further system called the Teleran System, and of course there are several more which I have not mentioned, but I do not want unduly to weary your Lordships with all these things. I want to know which system the Ministry of Civil Aviation favour at the present time, and which of the systems it is the intention of the Ministry of Civil Aviation to develop so far as they can. I should also like to know whether the Ministry have all the scientific assistance they require for the development of these systems. One would like to be reassured that there is an expert team of scientists—"Boffins," I have heard them called—working in a back room somewhere with wet towels round their heads, thinking how they can further develop all these things.
We come next to the F. I.D.O. system. I told your Lordships earlier that I had been able to find out a few particulars with regard to this method. I understand that the F.I.D.O. system at Manston, for instance, when working under full pressure, consumes 470,000 gallons of petrol an hour—the noble Lord will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong. I am also told that at Manston, at full pressure, it costs £15,000 an hour when in operation. If my figures are correct, your Lordships will see that to land six aircraft an hour in those conditions would cost each aircraft £2,500. F.I.D.O. also requires an enormous number of tanks to contain the petrol which has to be used, and it needs a considerable personnel to maintain it, and so on. If these figures are anywhere near correct, they are far in excess of anything I have ever imagined. My idea of the expenditure of fuel was 80,000 gallons an hour, and I saw a letter, I think from the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, published in the Daily Telegraph a long time ago, stating that it was only 40,000 gallons an hour. The Minister of Civil Aviation, no doubt, has all the figures at his command, and I hope he will tell us what it really costs to run the F.I.D.O. system. I would like to know what the relative merits of the F.I.D.O. system are as compared with some of the other methods I have mentioned. I understand that with a cross-wind the F.I.D.O. system is not very satisfactory from the point of view of the pilot of the aircraft trying to land.
I have said as much as I wanted to say, and probably too much, but, as a passenger, I would like to know a little more about these things, and to be assured that if the S.B.A. system is being used at Northolt, Croydon, Heathrow, Blackbushe and Hurn, it is kept in a reasonable state of preparedness, ready to go into action at any moment. I do not like the idea of aircraft arriving over these aerodromes under very bad conditions, quite unable to do anything about it because the system normally in use is out of action for some reason or another. I am a tremendous believer in air traffic. I want to see it expand, I want to do everything I can to support civil aviation in this country, and the use of aircraft and airliners; but one must remember that when people read a probably exaggerated list of casualties, and read those little paragraphs in the papers such as I have mentioned they feel a little uneasy, to put
978
it mildly. One does hope that the Minister will probe all these matters to the bottom.
There was another case where two aircraft came in to land at Heathrow. One was told not to land, but none the less did land down-wind, and met the other coming up-wind on the runway, and they only just avoided a crash of a very serious nature. In a case like that, does the Ministry of Civil Aviation take any action? There you have the case of a pilot being given definite orders not to land, yet he disregarded the instruction and did land. He landed down-wind, which is a rather hazardous performance, and very nearly met the other aircraft; there were only a few feet between them when they came to rest. One hopes that in a case like that the Ministry of Civil Aviation takes action. We would like to have a rough idea what they do, and what happened in that particular instance. I have not given the Minister notice of this question, so I suppose he will not be able to answer it to-day, but I would like to know in due course if that sort of thing is dealt with by the Ministry. In any case I hope your Lordships will forgive me, for I did not intend to put down the Motion in the form in which it appeared on the Order Paper; but having put it down in that form I have tried to do my best to deal with it. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information on the few points I have raised I beg to move for Papers.
4.4 P.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I think the noble Earl who introduced this Motion has given very ample arguments in favour of examining what can be done in order to make civil flying safer and more reliable. I must say that, from his point of view, it is rather fortunate that he had to postpone his Motion, because at the time it was originally put down there had been such a series of crashes in the fog that it would probably have been difficult to persuade anybody that it would be a mistake not to continue with a well-proved system like F.I.D.O. instead of waiting and hoping for something better. For many years now I have been trying to persuade the authorities that the simplest way of dealing with bad visibility on the airfields is to clear the fog off the runway. I personally very much hope that the Minister will not allow himself to be deterred by anything that has been said

979
from using the method of doing this which was used in the war. Thousands of bombers were successfully landed in bad visibility by this means, and very many hundreds were certainly saved from disaster.
I know there is a great deal of prejudice against this method on the part of many persons who do not have to fly in foggy weather. I cannot help feeling that this may be the residue of an understandable resentment on the part of certain people who said, early in the war, that such a device would not work, and who are now naturally not too pleased when they find their predictions falsified by the event. Two arguments are employed against this method. In the first place we are always told—at least we have been told for the last six years, and the noble Earl again suggested it to-day—that we are just on the point of getting infallible radio aids which make it unnecessary to clear the runways. This argument was pressed very strongly some five years ago when Mr. Churchill first asked for experiments to be made on these lines. That was five years ago, and still we have not got safe and foolproof radio aids. Although the Americans have been working hard in this matter it was only in January or February that at least one machine, trying to land in the fog by radio methods in California, crashed with great loss of life.
Even if foolproof radio methods were available there would be reasons for not relying on them entirely. In the first place, only if it is carrying the right sort of instrument can a machine land by radio in bad visibility, whereas any machine, without any such device, can land on an airfield if the runway has been cleared of fog. If we were to rely on radio aids in every machine it would involve us in considerable expense, not to mention loss of useful load, and so on. Moreover, to use radio aids requires a great deal of practice and experience. Every pilot would have to be trained in the use of radio aids, and since some of them—among them, I think, the G.C.A.—require a great deal of conversation with the ground, either all pilots would have to learn the languages of the airfields at which they were going to land or the personnel at those airfields would have to learn the languages of the pilots. These radio methods are not at all simple.
980
Radio aids for navigation are, of course, invaluable and will always be used—methods corresponding to the L.O.R.A.N. and Gee as we used them during the war. But when it comes to fixing your height to within a couple of feet it is extremely difficult to use these radio methods. After all, how do you measure height from the ground? You send out a radio signal and measure the time it takes to return. The signal travels at 186,000 miles a second, so that to get the distance right within a couple of feet requires very considerable accuracy in your measurement of time. In fact, one does get them fairly accurate, and within a few hundred feet or so they are invaluable. Here one must distinguish between two different aspects of the matter. There is the aspect of getting on to the air-fields. You can fly down the beam or be talked down. Even before this you have to settle the question of bringing in aircraft in the right order and direction, and seeing that they do not collide with one another. This was one of the things which Bomber Command had to solve before it could use these methods at all. It can be done, and I hope will be done, but it does depend to a great extent on very close international co-operation and liaison, and that, I suspect, will be a considerable difficulty when you are dealing with a subject like civil aviation which operates all over the world. None of these things brings you right down to the point of landing, the actual moment when you have to pull back the stick. As to this, in the last resort I maintain that all pilots would far rather see the ground than have any radio aids or any other aid to gauge their height accurately.
Then what about the possibility of the radio aid failing, owing to a technical fault? The noble Earl himself gave innumerable instances of radio aids not working. If the radio aid does not work, not only does it render it ineffective; it makes it positively dangerous. For this reason alone all the pilots I have ever met would rather clear the runway and land in the ordinary manner than rely upon some elaborate new method. The second argument always brought forward when this matter is discussed is the question of expense. It must be remembered that F.I.D.O. was developed in war-time, when cost did not matter and when regularity and safety were the first considerations, but these things have been very

981
much improved since then. I believe there is a special station in California at a place called Arcata—a landing aids experimental station. There, American engineers have developed methods which have cut down the cost of landing by this method to one-sixth. By using high pressure diesel oil they have brought it down to a cost, not of £2,5oo for each aircraft—as I think the noble Earl said—bud to £20 for each aircraft. I think chat the figure for F.I.D.O. he gave, £2,5oo for each aircraft, is quite out of relation to the realities. The Americans have got it down to £4 a minute for running this and it used always to be considered in the Royal Air Force to be possible to bring down a machine in five minutes. The installation is expensive, but not so very expensive when one considers the sort of sums that are spent on airfields. The figure of £37,000 has been given as the cost of installing F.I.D.O. at one major airport.
EARL HOWE: Does that include merely the piping system or does it take in the tankage as well?
LORD CHERWELL: I should not think it refers to the piping system only. The figure was given as the total cost. But tankage will not be a terribly serious matter if the quantities of oil can be reduced, as is claimed.
In my view, if civil flying is to be a success the first essential is safety and the second is regularity of service. There is only one thing more unpleasant than to be kept hanging about on the ground, sometime, for days, for the fog to clear, and that is flying round and round in the air searching for an airfield on which it may be possible to land. And, quite apart from the unpleasantness of such happenings, what about the cost to the passengers (usually in a hurry and with a number of important appointments to keep) of being kept waiting—sometimes for days—beyond their proper time, and perhaps having to be diverted suddenly to some distant airfield, hundreds of miles from the one at which they wanted to land, because of fog, and having to be brought back by train or some other method to their proper destination?
My dilemma is this, and I would like to put it to the noble Earl. If he takes the view that aircraft are frequently troubled by fog then, surely, the need for some device which overcomes this
982
handicap is paramount. If, on the other hand, he holds that it happens comparatively rarely—as indeed is true—then the cost of turning on F.I.D.O. on those rare occasions when it is essential would be negligible. I reckon that an extra sixpence or, at most, one shilling in the £ on the fares would cover the expense, even in a country which is so subject to fog as Great Britain. After all, nobody complains of the cost of installing lighthouses, lightships or fog signalling to safeguard ordinary traffic, although it would work out at a very high price if the whole cost were reckoned against the few journeys on which the signal was essential to save life. The cost of the Trinity House service all round the coasts of Great Britain, if it were set against the few occasions when it is absolutely essential, would seem to show that it is extremely expensive. It seems to me wrong to object to an extra 2 per cent. or even 5 per cent. on aircraft fares to ensure that the service will be safe and regular. Fares must conform to safety standards—not vice versa.
Now that industry is being exhorted to turn over from coal to oil, nobody can pretend that it is impossible to secure the necessary fuel for F.I.D.O. I do not think, therefore, that we need be anxious lest the use of this method of saving life might materially prolong the period of petrol rationing. I hope that nothing which I have said will be construed as opposition to the fitting of the best radio devices for ordinary air navigation and bringing aircraft in to land. All I resist is the failure to use such a well-tried device as F.I.D.O. now, in the hope of finding an effective radio substitute some day. If we go on losing men and machines at the present rate, and holding up planes, sometimes for days at a time, it will be the ruin of civil aviation. In my youth, when I was taught German, I was made to read a play called Nathan the Wise. I shall listen to the Minister of Civil Aviation with some interest to see whether this title is entirely irrelevant to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I feel that we should thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising this question to-day. It is, in my view, a very fit and proper question to put to the Minister. Although, in the main, it is technical in

983
nature, I think there are a number of quite definite principles involved which can be put squarely to the noble Lord, the Minister of Civil Aviation, in order to get his views on them and to ascertain if they are, in fact, under consideration at the present time. I am afraid that I do not share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about "Boffins." I think that "Boffins" should exist. But civil aviation should depend on equipment on which "Boffins "have completed their work. Until that point is reached commercial civil aviation should have nothing to do with it. Until then it is a matter for a specialist. But there are certain very general proposals I should like to put, with which I think the noble Lord, the Minister, will agree, and I would then like to examine how far they are being applied, and to see what is being done with regard to them.
First, with regard to radio aids: these should be universal in application. They should be ready and available for use to the maximum extent; and they should be operated to the optimum standard of efficiency. I am afraid that I must put forward some examples in which it appears to me that these principles are not being pursued with the burning enthusiasm which I submit they deserve. I know that it is very easy to quote examples but I suggest that it is necessary, for in what other way can one point an argument to show that apparently the matter about which one is talking has not reached the stage which it might have done? Consider the matter of universality. I believe it is correct that in normal employment, civil aircraft for commercial purposes, operating in Europe, have to carry something like twelve radio sets. That is an enormous number—far too many I should say. Apart from other considerations, it involves great weight and many complexities. By standardization and other means it should be possible to bring about reductions in both these respects. I would like to ask the Minister what is being done with the enormous quantity of surplus war equipment, which might be used in this connexion? Is it being made available to provide a common stock for use over the airfields of Europe?
Another question which I would like to put to the noble Lord is this. Has he succeeded in obtaining any practical measure
984
of agreement in these matters at the conference which is being held in Montreal at the present time, under the name of P.I.C.A.O.? Speaking as a humble member of the public, I must say that it does not seem to me that P.I.C.A.O. speaks with that still small voice of clarity that all can hear, and which I, for one, would very much like to hear. I must say that I have found it very difficult to find out what exactly has been in the minds of those who are taking part in that conference.
Now, a word as to availability. In this connexion, I would like to refer to the S.B.A. equipment which is now being installed. This system is certainly seven years old, and I imagine that it was in operation before the war in substantially the same form as at the present date. But yet we find that so far as civil aerodromes in this country are concerned (I think that I am correct in saying this) only five are equipped with S.B.A. Why should they all not have been so equipped? There must have been hundreds of sets available during the war, and in use, for almost every aerodrome, operational and training, was equipped during the war with one of these sets. I will give a concrete example in the case of Edinburgh. In the early part of 1946 the Under-Secretary of State promised that that aerodrome should have a high level of priority in this matter. It was promised that the installation should be completed in May, then in October, then in February and then in April. I understand that the aerodrome is still not equipped—I am very glad to note that the Minister indicates that is not correct and I am very pleased to hear it. I understood that that aerodrome still had not got that equipment. But to return to what I was saying: I do suggest there can be a much bigger urge forward in the installation of equipment which is already available.
Now I come to yet another matter—that of G.C.A. equipment. This was moved from Scotland to England, and recently it was stated in another place that it was moved for weather reasons. It seems odd to move a thing on account of weather conditions in January. The weather in January can normally be anticipated within certain narrow margins and, in actual fact, the flying weather in January was exceptionally

985
good. In the course of moving this installation, or rather in moving the men who operated it, two things were discovered. First, that the equipment left behind was not in working order. It had been neglected, and it took some time to put in working order. Secondly, it transpired that the Minister who wished to use this G.C.A. equipment had no personnel to operate it, and for that reason was bound to employ Royal Air Force personnel to do that work on his behalf. I would ask the Minister whether he has got a crew to-day who can operate a G.C.A. set, and if not, how many crews has he under training, and how many G.C.A. sets will he be in a position to operate, if at all, in October?
And now what is the standard of operation of equipment that is available? I do not want to say very much about this country—I think on the whole it is fairly good—Out I will quote one rather serious lapse that occurred in the course of the electricity cuts which took place during the last two months. It has been brought to my notice that two pilots were coming in on the S.B.A. beam when the beam faded on account of an electricity cut which was imposed locally. I think in both cases the aerodromes had auxiliary plant, but in one case it took thirty minutes to get the auxiliary plant going. I have brought this up for this reason; safety in flying means thinking at least half an hour ahead of every possible event, and if you do not think ahead automatically then, inevitably, sooner or later you will find yourself in difficulties.
I would like to refer shortly to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about the difficulties overseas. It is obvious that there are considerable diplomatic and other delicate points that cannot be dealt with easily, but it is none the less true that in international aviation there is an obvious community of interests between the nations for the provision and maintenance of good service. I would therefore like to ask the noble Lord what arrangements, if any, exist at the present time for ensuring that suitable channels are available for making representations to countries overseas with regard to hitches or difficulties which may be experienced in the ordinary methods of communication by air.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has said. At the present time there is no sign that we have reached radio blind landings. We cannot
986
alter the weather in this country, and it affects all forms of communication. Certainly it affects flying, and I would like the noble Lord to say that he recognizes that it affects flying, and that no effort is being made at the present time to fly in spite of the weather. Most young pilots reach the stage when they inevitably try to fly in spite of the weather, but they very, soon learn, as all pilots who live learn, that they cannot fly in spite of the weather. I am going to quote one instance which fills me with a certain measure of apprehension. I have seen an instruction from one of the Corporations that they regard the limitations of flying visibility as being 50 yards for take-off, and zoo yards for landing. I suggest that that limitation is much too fine, and might be multiplied fourfold, or even tenfold, with very great advantage. I would ask, if I may, what progress is being made towards the universal application of radio aids? How far has the noble Lord been able to go in making available those aids which already exist, and what steps is he taking to ensure the adequate standard of operation in these aids themselves? What we want is jam to-day, and not jam tomorrow. Too long have radio aids round the corner been held out as carrots to the pilot, while comparatively little has been given to him in the sphere of civil aviation to-day.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, I am greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the courtesy he has shown me in the first instance by adjourning the question which he had on the Order Paper some weeks ago, and I must express my sympathy with him for the fact that on two occasions his Motion has been postponed—on the second occasion, by his courtesy to allow the debate on India to take place. I have been greatly interested, and much instructed, by what has been said by the noble Earl and other noble Lords this afternoon. Let me say at once that I have no pretensions at all to being a technical man. I approach these problems, like the noble Earl who moved this Motion, from the point of view of a passenger of long standing, and also as one who has to apply his lay mind to these problems in the situation of the Minister responsible. I bring no technical knowledge to bear on them, but I hope to bring

987
a modicum of business understanding, common sense, and application. Anything I say to your Lordships must be deemed to be an intrusion by me into realms in which I have but little technical knowledge or understanding.
Let me say at once that, from the outset of my appointment as Minister of Civil Aviation, I have made safety the key note of my administration. I agree with what has been said, and I underline it; safety must be our supreme consideration if we are to create and maintain the confidence of the public in civil aviation. Apart from the skill of the manufacturers of the aircraft and of the air crews, there is no greater contribution that can be made to safety than adequate provision on the ground. I would adopt for myself, in regard to the provision for safety, the old Cromwellian maxim: "Neglect no means". That is, indeed, the motto of my Ministry in this respect.
The responsibility for the ground work rests upon my Ministry. It is an immediate, operational and executive responsibility, in contradistinction to the actual flying of the aircraft, which does not fall within the province of my Ministry. I am determined that British civil aircraft and foreign aircraft that come to this island shall have the best ground provision made for them that foresight, hard work, prudence, and, so far as is necessary, expenditure can provide. This ground organization is a very large and complex matter. It does not consist merely of aerodromes themselves, but includes all kinds of things like meteorological forecasts, reporting services, a complicated air traffic control system, an extensive system of land-lines and point-to-point radio for rapid communication between aerodromes or traffic control stations, meteorological offices, radio communication between aircraft in flight and stations on the ground, and also the adequate systems of radio navigational aid which have been the main burden of the speeches made this afternoon.
There are different kinds of aid. There is the Runway Approach Aid, there are the Aids to Short Distance Navigation and Long Distance Navigation, and there are the Aids for Air Traffic Control. But, when considering the development of all these various aids, and others, we must always remember that there is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, pointed
988
out, an economic limit to the size and weight of equipment that can be installed in any one aircraft. This makes it infinitely desirable to avoid any unnecessary variations in the types of ground aid providing the same service, and it underlines the desirability (which I know the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is aiming at) of achieving international standardization of these aids in the interests of practical economy on the ground and in the air.
This standardization is one of the most important objectives of P.I.C.A.O.—the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization—and if the still small voice to which the noble Earl referred has not yet spoken with great precision and clarity I hope that the time is not far distant when it may do so, and will then illumine discussion and action. This country is certainly playing a full part in the deliberations that are taking place in Montreal currently with regard to this very important matter. P.I.C.A.O. has made a recommendation for standardization. It has recommended the adoption of a system known as the Instrument Landing System—sometimes known as I.L.S. But that, of course, can only become effective internationally. It is the international aspect that one must bear in mind. It is not merely an insular matter, because we fly overseas and foreign aircraft fly into these islands. We must have standardization and universal application. This I.L.S. will be installed when sufficient equipment is available. I.L.S. gives a pilot guidance, both as to the direction of approach to a runway and for the path along which he should descend for landing.
Military versions of this I.L.S. equipment are installed at two civil aerodromes in the United Kingdom. They are known as S.C.S.5I, and they serve aircraft on international services. Other additional equipment has been ordered but it is not likely to be available for standardization for some time to come. Meanwhile, we in the United Kingdom are proceeding, as an interim measure, to equip more aerodromes with the Standard Beam Approach —the S.B.A. to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred—and with the B.A.B.S. system—B.A.B.S. being Beam Approach Beacon System. S.B.A. gives a pilot directional guidance for landing and also indications of his position when passing over marked beacons before reaching the runway, while B.A.B.S. is a radar system giving the pilot directional

989
guidance and a continuous indication of his distance from the beacon. At present there are eleven civil aerodromes equipped with S.B.A.—soon to be increased to forty—and there are five installations of B.A.B.S., with two more being brought into operation.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to G.C.A.—Ground Controlled Approach —as did the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I am not going to enter into the controversy which arose some time ago as to the movement of G.C.A. to London from Prestwick, and I do not think that the noble Earl raised the question with the idea that on this occasion I should do that. But, as a matter of fact, when the installation was at Prestwick, I did have an opportunity—the first I had—of seeing how it worked. I must say that I thought it was a miracle, the way that aircraft could be "talked down" on to the runway. On the particular instance when I was there the pilot was "picked up" by radio telephone; he did not know anything of G.C.A.; he had never heard of it before; he was told to act in accordance with the instructions given to him by telephone and he was "talked down," from a good many miles away, on to the runway at Prestwick. When I went to speak to him afterwards he said he had never heard anything like it, and had never thought it conceivable that there should be a means of bringing an aircraft down on to the runway by mere speech to the pilot, provided that the pilot implicitly obeyed the directions given to him. It was to me a most illuminating experience.
G.C.A. has been installed at London Airport, and the Royal Air Force, which hitherto alone has been operating G.C.A., has provided a crew for the training of civil crews. There is one crew training now, and other crews are to complete training by October. Subject to recruitment, and the final negotiations for training facilities from the Royal Air Force, the training of the second and third crews will be completed this year—always provided that we are able to recruit the necessary numbers. I will come to the question of recruitment in a moment. Apart from the G.C.A. equipment, to which I have referred, there is a network of such equipment operated by the Royal Air Force in various installations throughout the country so as to give the maximum geographical cover. The more important of these installations are already avail
990
able for use by civil aircraft in emergency, and arrangements are in hand to make all G.C.A. installations available to any aircraft in distress. The problem of helping the pilot to touch down on the runway, following an approach in bad visibility, is being actively pursued by the development of runway and approach lighting systems — intensive lighting systems—which will enable the pilot to establish visual contact with the ground at the earliest possible moment during his approach. Real progress is being made in this direction.
In this connexion, let me say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said in his speech, that the pilot does require to see the ground. I was told, for instance, with regard to G.C.A., that if there were no human pilot—merely an automatic pilot—you could safely bring your aircraft down on to the runway. But there is a psychological aspect involved, which inhibits a human pilot from surrendering himself entirely to the use of the aid. He must see the ground. There are a variety of Short Distance Navigational Aids. Throughout the kingdom there is a medium frequency direction-finding service provided by an organization of seventeen ground stations, grouped in chains of three or more, and several of them providing a service on two radio channels. I do not think your Lordships would desire me to explain how they work, because it would obviously occupy the attention of your Lordships too long, but I may add that short-range direction-finding stations, used for local homing and air traffic control purposes, arc also installed at twenty-four United Kingdom aerodromes, and will eventually be installed at over fifty.
Apart from these ground direction-finding stations, there are eight medium frequency radio beacons on which aircraft equipped with direction-finding loops can take their own bearings, and an additional twenty-nine beacons are to be installed. There are also ground radar beacons, known as Eureka, on which suitably-equipped aircraft can "home" and obtain an indication of distance from the particular beacon worked. Eureka beacons are installed at six United Kingdom aerodromes, and will be installed at four more. Then there are three radio ranges, each providing an aircraft with guidance along any of four tracks, being maintained at Prestwick, Northolt and Bovingdon, and

991
others are contemplated at Valley Aerodrome, at Dorking, and possibly at St. Mawgan. Finally, in this connexion we are retaining in operation three chains of Gee stations—to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, referred—covering most of England and Wales; and the United Kingdom cover is being extended by the installation of a new chain in Scotland. We are also offering assistance in the extension of Gee cover in Europe. This Gee system is a radar navigational system developed during the war, and used on a large scale by the British and American Air Forces, by which aircraft suitably equipped can ascertain their position rapidly and accurately anywhere within the coverage provided by the ground stations.
Then there are long distance navigational aids. There are high-powered ground radio beacons used with airborne direction finding equipment, long range direction finding stations, and two systems known as Standard L.O.R.A.N. and Consol, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, referred. Standard L.O.R.A.N. is a radar aid by which suitably equipped aircraft can ascertain their position at considerable distances over the sea, though its daylight range is poor over land. The Consol beacons are radio beacons providing similar information but at greater distances over land, and requiring only ordinary communication receivers in the aircraft. The United Kingdom is increasing the number of high-powered ground radio beacons on the Commonwealth trunk routes, and is operating one of the L.O.R.A.N. stations in the organization for the North Atlantic. A Consol beacon is in operation in Northern Ireland, and we may provide them elsewhere in British territory for the Atlantic routes. The United Kingdom is also operating and re-equipping three of the long-range cathode-ray direction-finding stations providing a service over the North Atlantic, the North Sea and Northern Europe.
Special equipment is required for this vitally important matter of air traffic control, in connexion with which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to a near collision at Heathrow, where the aircraft almost collided on the runway. I have not been able to trace the actual facts, but I believe that a foreign aircraft came within the circuit uninvited, and alighted
992
without recourse to the Air Traffic Control. It came there as a gentle stranger, nobody knowing it was there, because it had taken no notice of, or evaded, or not been in communication with the Air Traffic Control.
EARL HOWE: Had you any radar at Heathrow to spot it?
LORD NATHAN: I can only tell you the position as I understand it: that the aircraft arrived within the circuit unknown. The radar equipment, as I understand it—I speak purely as a layman—scans a certain area, and if it should not be scanning the particular area from which the aircraft came in it might escape notice. Broadly speaking, I understand that that is the explanation in that particular case. We have search radar equipment known as Approach Control Radar Mark III X installed at the London Airport. This is designed to give the position of aircraft at distances up to twenty-five miles from the airport, the distance being dependent on the size and the altitude of the aircraft.
I must refer to what I know the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has in mind, and that is the problem of implementation. What we desire to do is to provide aircraft with the most comprehensive facilities for safe and regular operation. But the implementation of the proposals is liable to delay for a variety of reasons, some of which are quite outside the control of my Ministry and, indeed, outside the control of the United Kingdom. For example, quite apart from the question of the development and production of the necessary equipment, there is the all-important factor, to which reference has already been made, of the availability of radio frequencies on which the various aids will be operated. There is shortly to be a Convention of the International Telecommunications Union, and it is hoped that a satisfactory allocation of frequencies will be made at that Conference.
But it must not be forgotten that now, in contradistinction to war time, there are many other interests besides civil aviation that require radio frequencies, and we cannot yet be certain that civil aviation will in fact be granted all the frequencies it requires. There is another difficulty, which applies to the S.B.A., to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred in connexion with some delay at Prestwick (it

993
certainly happened at Renfrew) in securing sites for the installation of the equipment, because this has often to be installed away from the aerodromes but in particular relation to the runways on the aerodromes. It is difficult sometimes to find suitable sites and, when you have found them, to obtain them either on lease or by purchase. Moreover, in some cases the production of equipment must be dependent on further developments and modifications to existing types. Production itself depends in this matter, as in others, on the availability of material staff and manufacturing sources.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The point I made was that S.B.A. equipment was in universal use in war-time. There was no question of producing new equipment. It has been in use, on and off, for seven years.
LORD NATHAN: All the S.B.A. equipment for which we can obtain suitable sites and for which we can obtain the manpower for operation, and so on, certainly is being and will be used. My anxiety to use this equipment to the utmost is no less than that of the noble Earl. There is a great deal of development work to be done, and for that I rely upon the Minister of Supply, upon whose shoulders, indeed, I have placed a very heavy burden, amounting at present to some seventy or eighty projects in the radio development field in which I have a whole or part interest, ranging from major items, such as complete navigational and air traffic control system, to small items of an ancillary nature. It is sometimes asked why civil aviation does not use exactly the same devices as were employed by the R.A.F. for military purposes. In fact, certain new techniques and systems originally developed to meet military requirements are already in use for civil aviation, but a great deal of scientific and engineering effort is essential to adapt them to their new role. Certain systems—I think this is sometimes forgotten—which admirably filled the military operation requirements are costly, according to civil aviation standards (I am not speaking now of money), in weight of airborne equipment and in operating staff who fill the aircraft and on the associated ground stations. Furthermore, our action must be taken within the framework of standardization agreements arrived at internationally.
994
I would add that, together with other difficulties, there is the difficulty of securing adequate numbers of the right staff. For training purposes my Ministry maintain a training school at Croydon which provides aeronautical conversion courses for qualified radio operators, and which is to be extended to deal with conversion courses covering wider radar systems. New staffs are recruited by means of public advertisements and through the Ministry of Labour. But let me say that the results have been disappointing, particularly in certain grades, such as teleprinter operators. I frankly admit—I regret it—that the recruitment of additional staff is by no means the least of the considerable difficulties which confront us in our efforts to increase and improve our ground services to meet the expanding needs of civil aviation. I shall welcome the assistance of members of your Lordships' House and others who may be able to attract recruits into this field of work.
EARL HOWE: Could the noble Lord say whether women are employed?
LORD NATHAN: There is no reason at all why women should not be employed. I have not given details of the various equipments at each of the airfields, but let me say at once that London Airport is, as I think I have mentioned previously, the most lavishly and the most comprehensively equipped of any airport in any part of the world. It has a larger range of aids of one kind or another. For the help, as I hope, of noble Lords, I have prepared (and I am very ready to hand it to any noble Lord who is interested) a schedule showing the aids at every United Kingdom airport, together with a glossary of the terms used for the benefit of those who are as little acquainted with some of the technical phrases and terms as I am myself. I will readily make that available to noble Lords, for whose assistance it has been prepared.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask the Minister whether those are all manned or whether staff is still lacking to man them? Before he sits down, would he tell us what the shortage of staff is? Is it hundreds?
LORD NATHAN: The shortage to which I was referring was, in particular, the shortage of new entrants for training. The

995
systems which are set out in the list to which I have referred as being already installed are, of course, systems which are in operation. I want now recruits for the future, both in the limited fields and in the more extended fields, in order that we may expand the facilities we are offering. We are of course entering a period when old systems have to be maintained and when agreement on new systems has yet to be reached. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has emphasized—rather in contradistinction to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I agree with him—that this blind landing in zero-zero conditions is always round the corner. I like to have something this side of the corner and I have therefore embarked, in association with the Minister of Supply, upon a research into the situation of F.I.D.O. at the present time. There has been despatched to the United States an inter-departmental Mission for the special purpose of exploring the position there. The leader of the Mission is Mr. E. G. Walker, whom Lord Cherwell will no doubt remember as having taken a leading part in the provision of F.I.D.O. during the war. Mr. Walker will have the assistance of Mr. A. C. Hartley, who also took an active part in that work during the war. I think it may be assumed that we are taking the appropriate steps to inform ourselves as to the situation in the United States, although possibly some of the statements which have been made and which have gained currency here with regard to what has been happening in that country may be a little on the optimistic side as matters stand at present.
I must answer some specific questions which have been put to me by noble Lords regarding F.I.D.0. F.I.D.O. is available at two aerodromes in this country. They both belong to the R.A.F. but they are, of course, available for use by British civil aircraft in emergency. One of them is at Manston, and the other, which is at Graveley in Huntingdonshire, acts as a stand-by for Manston, having replaced Woodbridge for the purpose at the beginning of this year. During the year 1946 the installations at Manston and Woodbridge were used for training and practice purposes, and there were no occasions when aircraft had to use them because diversion elsewhere was not practicable. The fuel used in these installations is 70-octane petrol. The fuel consumption depends on the length of the runways to
996
be cleared and the heat output required to disperse the fog at the time. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave certain figures which surprised me. I think he mentioned 470,000 gallons per hour.
EARL HOWE: At full pressure.
LORD NATHAN: And £15,000. My information is this. The runway at Manston is 3,000 yards long, and, in round figures, the consumption of fuel varies from 105,000 down to 32,000 gallons per hour, depending on the actual heat output required. The corresponding consumption for Graveley, where the runway is 2,000 yards long, varies from 74,000 down to 10,000 gallons per hour. As to cost, the capital cost of the installation at Manston was £150,000 and that at Graveley £60,000. As to the cost of operation, based on the figures of fuel consumption I have given the cost of operation per hour would vary from £3,650 to £1,050 at Manston and from £2,600 to £350 an hour at Graveley. The R.A.F. do not at present, I understand, propose to extend F.I.D.O. installations beyond the aerodromes which I have mentioned. The present policy in general with regard to landing in fog is to divert aircraft to aerodromes which are not fog-bound. On the civil side, the installation at Blackbushe is being reconditioned and I expect to have it available for trial purposes next month, although the strength of the present runways would make it impracticable to land neavy aircraft there except in emergency.
I have stated in your Lordships' House before—and I repeat it—that I have, I cannot say more than an open mind, but a perfectly friendly mind towards F.I.D.O. Perhaps I need say no more than that I find myself, speaking for myself, in agreement with the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in that respect. I should, however, make it quite clear—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will not dissent—that F.I.D.O. cannot be considered in isolation but must be considered in relation to radio navigational aids for runway approach and also aerodrome lighting. I would emphasize what I believe to be the cardinal feature—namely, that quite apart from the scientific possibilities of blind approach landing in zero-zero conditions, there is no doubt the knowledge that a F.I.D.O. installation is available at

997
an aerodrome has an encouraging psychological effect on pilots flying in bad weather and also, I would add, on passengers flying in bad weather. Our task is to provide, and co-ordinate, the aids which enable a pilot to locate the runway, to approach it, and finally to land on it in really bad weather. We shall proceed with our investigations, and as soon as the Mission have returned and reported I shall be in a better position to make a more definite statement than I am on this particular occasion, as your Lordships will understand.
EARL HOWE: Before the noble Lord finishes, could he say whether any system of radar detection is anticipated which can be fitted in the aircraft itself?
LORD NATHAN: The noble Lord rather anticipated me. I did feel that it was due to the noble Lord that I should perhaps answer briefly one or two specific questions put to me.
LORD CHERWELL: Before the noble Lord finishes with regard to F.I.D.O., can he say how the rate per gallon is arrived at in working out these figures? Of course, he does not count the tax on the petrol or anything like that.
LORD NATHAN: I cannot give the breakdown of the figure to the noble Lord, but I would willingly let him know how the figure is calculated.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Lord will agree that if you could use diesel oil there would be a considerable improvement in the cost.
LORD NATHAN: I have that very much in mind, and that may be a solution to our problems. That is obviously a matter into which the Mission will inquire.
LORD GIFFORD: Before the noble Lord passes from F.I.D.O., knowing his very strong views about safety, I should like to ask for an assurance from him—we have heard a lot of talk about the expense of F.I.D.O.—that where a question of an emergency landing is concerned no question of expense will enter into the matter at all.
LORD NATHAN: I have always said that economic considerations in regard to civil aviation are secondary to safety, which at all times, and in all circumstances, must predominate. The noble
998
Earl, Lord Howe, asked me about steps being taken for detection devices in aircraft, and 1 made it my business to furnish myself with some information on the subject. The Ministry of Supply have placed a development contract for about six airborne radar sets to give warning to aircraft of potentially-dangerous ground and dangerous turbulent cloud. This is all very interesting and rather important, because we are in a new sphere and it is a very complicated problem. It is hoped to develop from these sets a device which will give warning of potential collisions with other aircraft. We are working on collision-warning devices, whether for dangerous cloud, 'high ground or other aircraft, as the result of operational requirements first indicated by Transport Command. Observers from my Ministry and one of the Corporations have participated in Transport Command trials in cloud-warning equipment. Towards the end of the year, other equipment will be available for trial in a Corporation aircraft in respect of ground warning, so the matter is in hand and I hope the developments will be satisfactory.
The noble Earl asked about D.M.E. This was discussed at P.I.C.A.O. in November of last year, following demonstrations, both in this country and in the United States, of various D.M.E. equipments. Currently, British civil aviation can use the R.A.F. Rebecca carried on aircraft, and Eureka, the small beacon from the ground which can give distances measuring up to 100 nautical miles. The distances have to be read off the face of a cathode-ray tube and we do not find that so convenient as the pointer and dial presentation at which my Ministry and international specifications aim.
With regard to the Teleran system—which I must confess, in spite of the fact that I am gathering together a gradual knowledge about these things, was new to me—that is a combination of television and radar. The Teleran system was examined by the United Kingdom representatives in the United States and Canada during October and November of last year. The present position is that although the scheme has been extensively worked out, I hope that in July my Ministry may be invited to send experienced observers to preliminary practical demonstrations of the system. I cannot say anything about it until we know whether the theory will develop into practice. There is no

999
P.I.C.A.O. recommendation to introduce this very embryo, though enterprising, scheme as a standard of air traffic control in congested areas.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Can the Minister tell us how it works?
LORD NATHAN: For the sake of greater accuracy I have provided myself with a booklet upon the subject, which I will gladly hand to the noble Lord. It is a combination of television and radar. The noble Earl also asked me as to the adequacy of scientific aid to develop all the various systems. This is a matter very dear to my heart. I believe in the "Boffins," and I think it is very important that we should have the best scientific assistance working all the time.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I never said we should abolish the "Boffins." I do not want to fly with the things they are playing tricks with, that is all.
LORD NATHAN: Side by side with the use of the systems and instruments which we have, and which have proved themselves, with the use of all scientific knowledge we must all the time be developing new methods; and that is the system I am pursuing. My Ministry are in close touch with the R.A.F. Establishment at Farnborough, and also the establishment at Malvern. I am proposing, in regard to radio, for instance, to set up a specially scientific highly-qualified committee, and I am glad to say that not only have I Sir Robert Watson Watt as a consultant, but I also have an offer—which I have accepted—of the assistance of the radio industry to enable us to establish longterm plans for the development of radio in connexion with aircraft. In addition, I am proposing to arm myself with a chief scientific adviser of the highest professional eminence, whose name I will not give until the appointment is confirmed. I hope to have him by my side to guide my uninstructed mind in all these ramifications in worlds which are new to me.
I hope that I have dealt faithfully with at least some part of the questions which have been put to me, and I hope that I may have been able to give some information to noble Lords in the same way as I have received information and instruction from them.
5.8 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would wish me to thank the
1000
noble Lord for the extraordinary care and courtesy with which he has endeavoured to reply to every point that has been raised by every one during this debate. To me it has been of enormous interest, and I feel very much reassured. I shall be still more reassured when he is able to tell me that Blackbushe, Manston and the other place—I forget its name for the moment—are all run on diesel and not on 70-octane petrol. To burn that petrol in this way is a great shame. With regard to the glossary which the noble Lord mentioned, I hope I shall be one of the favoured few—or the many as the case may be—who will be able to get it. It will be of great interest to me. With regard to recruiting for the various devices to which the noble Lord has referred, I cannot help feeling that it has not been sufficiently publicized. I cannot help feeling that if more publicity were given to the need for getting recruits for working all these various devices, they would be forthcoming in greater numbers than hitherto. Finally, I can only thank the noble Lord again, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Lindsay of Birker be added to the Select Committee.
Moved, That Lord Lindsay of Birker be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.10 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to take this opportunity of reminding your Lordships that we shall meet to-morrow at 3.45 p.m., instead of the usual hour of 2.30, the reason for the change being that beyond an introduction and the three starred questions there is no business on the Order Paper before the Royal Commission at 4.15 p.m. After to-morrow, there will be a purely formal meeting of the House at 11 o'clock on Thursday morning, April 3, for the purpose of receiving two Bills which are expected from another place and giving them a First Reading.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from: That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill:
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock.
Read, and agreed to.

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read 1a.
MOLD GAS ORDER.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow.