Lords Sitting of 4 December 1956

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Swansea—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SUPPLIES TO AMERICAN-OWNED REFINERIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether refineries in this country belonging to wholly owned subsidiaries of American oil companies will be required to provide their supplies of crude oil from their own dollar resources.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK]: My Lords, the American- owned subsidiary companies which operate refineries in this country rely for their supplies of crude oil on the overall resources of their parent companies. In practice, this has meant that the oil has come almost entirely from the sterling area. In present circumstances these sub- sidiaries may be expected to draw more heavily on Western hemisphere sources. As they operate in sterling and have no dollar resources of their own they are subject to the normal operation of the United Kingdom exchange control and are therefore in the same category as any other United Kingdom registered oil company.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer, which I shall carefully study. Do I under-stand from his Answer that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it is the economic facts of the situation that make my suggestion impracticable, and not any lack of powers in Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that is correct. I am not absolutely
714
sure what is the suggestion to which the noble Lord refers; but we will certainly consider it if there is some suggestion which I have not seen at the moment.
LORD CONESFORD: The suggestion, whether or not it was practicable, was that we should not make extremely scarce dollars available to those who did not need them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That I accept entirely.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's Answer, may I ask him to give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will be on the look-out to see that the present difficulties do not mean that the American oil companies in this country obtain any undue advantage, to the detriment of British companies in the oil business?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We will certainly bear the point in mind, but at the present juncture I think our major consideration is to see that oil is supplied to this country as quickly and in as large a quantity as possible.

OIL SUPPLIES FOR U.S.A.A.F. STATIONS
2.38 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether the U.S.A.A.F. stations in this country have made provision to supply their requirements in petroleum fuels otherwise than from United Kingdom sterling and dollar resources.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, supplies of aviation spirit for United States Air Force stations in this country are imported by the United States Air Force. Other aviation fuels, including fuel for jet engines, and ground fuels are supplied by the United Kingdom distributing companies in the normal course of business and the payments made for these are a source of dollar income to this country.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can give the

715
House an assurance that all the fuel for the ground operations of the United States Air Force, or all fuel for the ground operations of the road transport of any of the United States Air Forces, will be subject to the same rationing principles as will apply to the civilian population of this country, not only when the supplies are drawn from the civilian petrol stations of this country but when they are obtained from the United States Forces' own supply?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance, though perhaps not absolutely in terms. What I can say is that they are making significant savings, both in aviation fuel and in fuel for ground use, and I am given to understand that it will amount to very nearly, if not quite, the same principle on which we are operating in this country.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I have asked this question on the spur of the moment and it may have put the noble Earl at some disadvantage. I should like the Government at the earliest possible moment to give the people of this country the assurance that American Forces do not draw their supplies for their own private motor cars from American Government resources on air stations and other military establishments. If they do so, I should like the Government to give the assurance that the American authorities will see that coupons are surrendered for the fuel, and also that all American Forces in this country, when they purchase their supplies from civilian sources here, will be subject to the same rationing as the British civilian. If the noble Earl cannot give me that answer and would prefer to make a studied reply, I will repeat the question again in the debate that is to take place to-morrow in your Lordships' House, when perhaps the noble Earl will be able to give the answer.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think that that question, asking for a number of details in regard to the American rationing system, is going a little beyond the Question on the Order Paper, but perhaps I should say that the point is very much in mind, and it is recognised in principle by the American authorities themselves.

R.A.F. PETROL SUPPLIES
2.41 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by what percentage have the petrol supplies to the R.A.F. for training purposes been reduced, and could not this type of flying be curtailed in order to make available more petrol for the essential civilian services of the country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, for the next four months the Royal Air Force is to reduce its intake of aviation fuel by about 30 per cent. This saving will be made possible partly by reducing stocks and partly by a 10 per cent. reduction in aviation fuel consumption by all Commands at home. The reduction in flying will be made by cutting out less essential tasks. The operational effectiveness of the force will not be materially affected. My right honourable friend does not consider that any further reduction in flying training, which might result in an unacceptable lowering of aircrew standards, is justified at present. The situation will be kept under review.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. may I thank the noble Earl for the sympathetic nature of his reply and ask him whether the cut which he has just mentioned is in force at this moment, or, if not, when it will become operative? Will the noble Earl also inform the House whether a similar, and perhaps an even greater, cut could be made in the road transport of the Royal Air Force? And would the noble Earl not agree with me that if there is one thing that will incense the public opinion of this country more than any other it is any wastage of petrol by the Services at the expense of the civilian population?
THE EARL, OF GOSFORD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question, I may say that the cuts which I mentioned became effective in the Royal Air Force as from December 1. As regards road transport vehicles of the Royal Air Force, which are not the subject of the original Question, I am in a

717
position to inform the noble Lord that at the moment there is a 10 per cent. cut and this is coming under review shortly. With regard to the noble Lord's last question on wastage, I can assure him that the Services are fully aware that all steps should he taken to avoid any possible wastage of fuel.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sure that all who are interested will be grateful to the noble Earl for the sympathetic nature of what he has had to say.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not know whether I have heard the noble Earl aright. Did he say that one of the measures which are being taken by the Royal Air Force is a reduction in the stocks of fuel? If so, did the noble Earl mean that the reserve stocks of fuel for the Royal Air Force in this country are being reduced, and is he quite sure, if that is so, that that is a thoroughly safe proceeding in the present circumstances?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the statement attributed to— that a certain percentage of the reduction in intake will be achieved by reducing stocks in hand—is correct. My right honourable friend is perfectly satisfied that stocks will not be reduced to a level which will in any way endanger the operation of the Royal Air Force.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the House have an assurance that in no circumstances will stocks be reduced below the proper strategic reserve?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will bring the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, reverting to the Question on the Order Paper, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that any suggestion of selecting Royal Air Force training for the purpose of particular economies would he regretted and would cause grievous misgivings both inside and outside your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks, I am sure will be my right honourable friend.

EGYPT
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, as the House was not sitting yesterday I was unable to make to the House the statement which was made by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in another place; but I thought it would be the wish of the House that a statement of this importance should be made here. Therefore I have taken the liberty of arranging to make it this afternoon. Before doing so, I should like to say how delighted we all are, in all parts of the House, to see the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, back. I know that he has had a bad time but he will have a very warm welcome from everybody.
This is what my right honourable and learned friend said:
"Last Thursday I was able to give the House only an interim account of my visit to the United Nations. I promised to speak more fully to-day when our conversations with the French Government had been completed. Since Thursday I have also been able to get further clarifications of the position from New York and we have been in touch with the Commonwealth Governments.
"Her Majesty's Government and the French Government hake now taken certain decisions. We are in complete agreement about them, These decisions follow upon the two resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 24th of November. The first resolution called for the withdrawal of the Anglo-French 'forces forthwith. But, as I told the House. Mr. Cabot Lodge, the representative of the United States interpreted forthwith' to mean a phased withdrawal. That was exactly the expression which we had used ourselves.
"The second resolution was equally important. It called for the early clearance of the Canal and the restoration of its use to international shipping, and entrusted the Secretary-General with the task of making tie necessary arrangements.
"Before commenting on these two resolutions I think it rig It to remind

719
the House of the broad framework within which the events of the last few months must be considered. In view of the debate next Wednesday and Thursday, I believe that this reminder may be helpful.
"For the last ten years we have been living with a worldwide struggle going on between Communism and the free world. The introduction of nuclear weapons has made a global war unattractive to the aggressor. The Soviet therefore has used the methods of political subversion from within and military pressure from without.
"The existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has halted the direct advance of Russia across Europe to the sea. But all the time there has been an open flank in the Middle East which Russia has been making a determined effort to turn. Certain factors have developed there to her advantage. There have been hostilities smouldering between Israel and the Arab States and the United Nations has so far not been able to solve that problem at all. The situation has been deteriorating rather than improving. At the same time. Colonel Nasser has come to power with his plans for the aggrandisement of Egypt and the subjection to his domination of the material resources of the Arab countries. The seizure of the Suez Canal was part of that design.
"The Arab-Israel tension has afforded opportunity for Soviet mischief-making. The large supply of Soviet arms to Colonel Nasser put him very much under Soviet influence. The Baghdad Pact gave a measure of security against direct Soviet penetration from the North, but the arming of Syria and Egypt was no doubt intended to turn its flank also.
"Let there be no misunderstanding. The situation was deteriorating. It was one which sooner or later was likely to lead to war. The only doubtful question was the scope or extent of that war. A general conflagration in the Middle East would have been disastrous for many countries, not least our own.
" It was against that background that on the 29th of October major hostilities began between Israel and Egypt.
"The French and British Governments decided immediately to intervene. We are quite sure that, by our timely action, we not only rapidly halted local hostilities, but forestalled the development of a general war throughout the whole Middle East and perhaps far beyond. I am sure that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the conduct of the Fighting Services who performed their task so skilfully and at the same time took great care to minimise casualties and damage. As soon as the two parties agreed to a cease-fire, we also gave orders to cease our military action.
"Our secondary purpose was to interpose a force to prevent the resumption of fighting. That is one reason why we made the request to station detachments in Port Said, Ismailia and Suez for a temporary period. The Prime Minister made it clear at the time that this would only be for a temporary period. Then on the 1st of November he stated that we should be glad if the United Nations would take over the physical task of preserving peace. The conception of an international force came into being and gained rapid support. We believe that the character and composition of the force will shortly make it capable of carrying out these obligations. I gave details of the build-up last Thursday. I will not repeat them. We have to remember that the strength of the force depends not only on its actual size but on the sanction that lies behind it. It is perhaps worth recalling that the position in Berlin has been held for ten years by a small force just because behind it lay the whole organised strength of the Atlantic Alliance. So far as the composition of the United Nations Emergency Force is concerned, the Secretary-General has made it clear that it is for his decision. With regard to its functions, these are in accordance with the Assembly Resolutions of the 2nd, 5th and 7th of November. The Secretary-General has also made it clear that it is for him and the Assembly to decide when its tasks have been discharged.
"Another vitally important result of our actions has been that the Russian designs have been exposed and dislocated. It is to be hoped that the

721
free world will use the breathing space that we have provided to frustrate them altogether. But there are serious dangers ahead in the Middle East. Although Russia has suffered a reverse she is seeking to tighten her grip upon Syria to restore her position. I believe that the whole free world will welcome the statement by President Eisenhower warning the Soviet Union of the dangers of intervention in the area of the Baghdad Pact Powers. We must also be watchful to see that Russia does not violate the Assembly resolution of the 2nd of November enjoining a ban on the delivery of military goods to the area of hostilities.
"Two important objectives have therefore been achieved. The war has been stopped and an international force has been put into position to prevent its resumption.
"There are, however, other important matters to which I must refer. The first and most urgent need for us and the whole world is that the Canal should be reopened and the freedom of navigation restored. Under the resolution to which I have already referred these duties have been clearly placed upon and accepted by the United Nations. The Secretary-General has entrusted executive responsibility to a team which includes men of the very highest calibre and worldwide reputation, such as Mr. McCloy and General. Wheeler. This shows that technical considerations have been uppermost in his mind. We have made it clear for our part that all the resources which we have been able to assemble will be made available to this team to be used as and how they may decide.
"I am satisfied from the discussions with the Secretary-General that he will press on with his task with the utmost speed and that every effort will be made to proceed without delay with the clearance of obstructions below Port Said, using all available equipment found necessary by the United Nations authorities. It is planned to proceed with the greatest possible despatch with the survey and diving operations which are a necessary preliminary, and that the actual work of clearance will begin as soon as technically possible.
"In other words, I am satisfied from the discussions with the Secretary-General and the assurances which have received from him that he will press on with his task without delay and that work will beg n as soon as technically possible and that its progress will not be dependent upon other considerations.
"The French and British Governments have come to the conclusions that the withdrawal of their Forces in the Port Said area can now be carried out without delay. They have instructed the Allied Commander in Chief, General Keightley, to seek agreement with the United Nations Corn-minder, General Burns, on a timetable for the complete withdrawal taking account of the military and practical problems involved. This timetable will be reported as quickly as possible to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Given good faith on all sides, it can be carried cut in a short time.
"In preparing this timetable, the Allied Commander in Chief has been told to ensure that proper regard should be had to the maintenance of public security in the area now under allied control. The United Nations Commander has been asked to make himself responsible for the safety of any French or British salvage resources left at the disposition of the United Nations salvage organisation. The Secretary-General has accepted this responsibility.
"In making a communication to the Secretary-General to this effect (and a copy will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT), the two Governments have again drawn attention to the treatment of British and French nationals in Egypt.
"Another matter of long-term importance is the future of the Canal. The position with regard to that is this. The Secretary-Genera] will promote as rapidly as possible negotiations on the basis of the following matters. First: the six requirements set out in the Security Council's resolution of the 13th of October. Secondly, the conversations between the Secretary-General and the Foreign Ministers of France, Egypt and myself in New York. And thirdly, the Secretary-

723
General's letter to the Egyptian Foreign Minister of the 24th of October, setting out a basis for the negotiation of a system to conform to the six principles and the Egyptian acceptance thereof of the 2nd of November. I believe we shall reach an agreement providing adequate guarantees that the six requirements will be met. Her Majesty's Government of course adhere to their view as expressed in the resolution voted on by the Security Council on the 13th of October with regard to the 18-Power proposals.
"Lastly, there is the question of a long-term settlement of all the problems in the area. I believe that our action has done a great deal to produce conditions in which progress can now be made.
"Israel should withdraw from Egyptian territory. We have said this repeatedly. With regard to the Gaza Strip, it is our view that Israel should withdraw from that also and that the Strip should be made a United Nations responsibility. I am sure that would be the best solution of a difficult problem. A just settlement of the refugees is an essential condition of a final settlement, together with agreement about frontiers, water schemes, and other matters. All this, I know, has been said before, but at the present time we have the knowledge that there is being stationed in the area a substantial United Nations Force charged with the duty of keeping the peace. That, I am certain, will contribute to the final settlement, which is the prerequisite of stability in the area.
"Therefore, I claim, that we have stopped a local war. We have prevented it spreading. The extent of Soviet penetration has been revealed. We have caused the United Nations to take action by the creation of an international force. We have alerted the whole world to a situation of great peril. We have created conditions under which there can be hope of wider settlements. Of course there will be heavy costs to bear, but they would have been far greater if our action had not been taken, and it is now for the United Nations and its member States to see that this opportunity is turned to good account."
Following are the communications referred to:
Communication from Her Majesty's Government and the French Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The two Governments take note that

(a) An effective United Nations force is now arriving in Egypt charged with the tasks assigned to it in the Assembly Resolutions of 2nd, 5th and 7th November.

(b) The Secretary-General accepts the responsibility for organising the task of clearing the Canal as expeditiously as possible.

(c) In accordance with General Assembly Resolution of 2nd November, free and secure transit will be re-established through the Canal when it is clear.

(d) The Secretary-General will promote, as quickly as possible, negotiations with regard to the future regime of the Canal on the basis of the six requirements set out in Security Council Resolution of 13th October.

2. The British and French Governments confirm their decision to continue the withdrawal of their forces now in the Port Said area without delay.
3. They have accordingly instructed the Allied Commander, General Keightley, to seek agreement with the United Nations Commander, General Burns, on a time-table for the complete withdrawal, taking account of the military and practical questions involved. This time-table should be reported as quickly as possible to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
4.In preparing these arrangements the Allied Commander will ensure:

(a) That the embarkations of personnel or material shall be carried out in an efficient and orderly manner,

(b) That proper regard will be had to the maintenance of public security in the area now under allied control.

(c) That the United Nations Commander should make himself responsible for the safety of any French and British salvage resources left at the disposition of the United Nations Salvage Organisation.

5.In communicating these conclusions the two Governments recall the strong representations they have made regarding the treatment of their nationals in Egypt. They draw attention to the humane treatment accorded to Egyptian nationals in Britain and France. They feel entitled to demand that the position of British and French nationals in Egypt should be fully guaranteed.
Communication from Her Majesty's Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
(A similar Note has been sent by the French Government,)
With regard to negotiations for the future regime of the Canal, Her Majesty's Government consider that, in addition to the six requirements set out in the Security Council

725
Resolution of October 13, account should be taken

(a) of the draft resolution submitted to the Security Council by France and the United Kingdom recommending the adoption of the I8-Power proposals or the equivalent thereof, which in their view represent the best solution;

(b) of the conversations between the Egyptian, French. and United Kingdom Foreign Ministers;

(c) of the Secretary-General's letter to the Egyptian Foreign Minister of October 24, and of the Egyptian acceptance thereof.

3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I first say a word of thanks to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for his kind welcome to me on my return to your Lordships' House after protracted medical treatment. The statement which the House has just heard is of tremendous importance, both to the House and to the country. Since the statement was made yesterday in another place by the Foreign Secretary, it has already been studied by my colleagues and by other Members of your Lordships House. I think it would be inconvenient, and even not desirable, that we should enter into a discussion of the statement at any length to-day, in view of the debate which is to take place in your Lordships' House next week. But I should like to say, on behalf of my colleagues, how much we rejoice at the fact that the statement means that British forces are to withdraw from Egypt without any serious conditions attached to that withdrawal. However late that decision has been made, we feel that it will bring relief to the anxiety, and perhaps to the divisions, which have arisen between many great sections of the people in this country. We shall look at the statement in more detail next week, when noble Lords in all parts of the House will give their praise or criticism for what they may regard as ineptitudes or mistakes in policy. I hope very sincerely that the decision which has been made by the Government will lead to great fruitfulness, and that the nation may have time to get together collectively to try to restore some of the damage which has been done by the incident which has occurred.
THE MARQUUSS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for what he has said. He will not expect me to agree with every word of it. I think we are withdrawing because the task for
726
which we went in has been completed. However, we can discuss that next week. I expect that your Lordships will wish to have some information about the plans we are making for the debate. We are proposing that the debate should be held on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Your Lordships will know that there was a Motion down on the order Paper for Wednesday, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, but he has been kind enough to say that he will postpone his Motion until Thursday. That will enable us to have two successive days, 'IA Inch I hope will be sufficient for our purpose.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. may I correct an omission from my remarks a few moments ago? I should like to associate all my colleagues and myself with the remarks of the noble Marquess in his statement in tribute to all our Services in this incident, all the more so as some of us felt that in their prolonged stay there since the cease-fire they were in a rather exposed situation.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess one question of fact? Neither here nor, if I am correct, in another place has any mention been made in regard to the breaking of the pipeline. Can the noble Marquess give us any information about what is expected to be done in regard to that?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I take it that the noble Load has in mind the Syrian pipeline. No; I cannot give him any information. That will be a matter not exclusively for. Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I gather that the debate will take place on a Motion to be moved by the Government. Could the noble Marquess say what will be the form of the Motion? Will it be substantially in the same form as the Motion to be moved in another place, or will it materially differ?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords. I think that it will be in approximately the same form. I feel that it would be inappropriate, in a matter of this importance, that the Opposition should put down a plain Motion asking whether there was any information about events in the Middle East, or some phrase of that kind. The Government have great acts of policy

727
to justify, for which they hope to receive the support of Parliament; and in those circumstances, I think that what is required is a vote of confidence. We shall put down a positive Motion. Of course, it will be open for noble Lords opposite to take any action they feel inclined to take with regard to that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask whether the Motion will be so framed as to allow any noble Lord who desires to do so to discuss the problems of the Far East?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that that would be extremely doubtful.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords. without in any way committing any of my noble friends to supporting the Motion, may I say that we cordially agree with the method that is proposed of debating this matter on a Motion.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Time limits under ss. 12 and 13 of Patents Act. 1949
(2) The proviso to subsection (1) of section thirteen of the said Act of 1949 (whereby the comptroller is empowered to postpone acceptance of a complete specification up to fifteen months from the date of filing thereof, subject to the payment of a fee where the extension is beyond twelve months from that date) shall have effect subject to the following amendments. that is to say,—

(a) for the words "fifteen months from the date of filing of the complete specification" there shall be substituted the words "three months from the end of the period allowed under subsection (1) of the last foregoing section"; and

(b) for the words "twelve months from the date aforesaid" there shall be substituted the words "the end of the period allowed under the said subsection (1)";

and after subsection (1) of the said section thirteen there shall be inserted the following subsection: —
728
"(1A) Any reference in the foregoing subsection to the period allowed under subsection (1) of the last foregoing section is a reference to that period apart from any extension thereof."
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, to insert as a new subsection (1):
"(1) In subsection (3) of section seven of the Patents Act, 1949 (whereby the examiner shall make investigation whether the invention has been published before the date of filing of the applicant's complete specification) after the words "unless the applicant" there shall be inserted the words "within such time not exceeding six months as may be prescribed"."
The noble Lord said: The two Amendments which I shall move this afternoon have been suggested to me by the Council of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. I must tell your Lordships straight away that I am not a patent agent by profession, but I am an associate member of that body. These gentlemen are in close contact with those high up in industry, and with industry generally. They feel —and they have convinced me —that this Bill, without amendment, would be very harmful to industry. I think that I might well call this Bill "The Dilatory Applicants' Charter," or even "The Deliberate Delayers' Charter". A number of applicants for patents —a considerable number, I may say —are deliberately delaying the getting of their patents into order for acceptance, and publication shortly thereafter, in order to keep their competitors in suspense. If they know that they are going to have competition, it is much better for them to be able to say that they have a patent on the stocks so that competitors will avoid the area which they think the scope of the patent, as yet unpublished, will cover.
To show what this delay might mean, a senior member of the Chartered Institute tells me that he has some clients who have a laboratory where they are making considerable researches on a chemical line. It has been rumoured that their competitors have applied for a patent and they think that this patent may cover the line of research they are doing. They came to this gentleman and asked if he could find out what this was all about. He replied, "No; I am afraid that I cannot find out what it is all about for three or four years. In fact. all I can find out is the title of the application, and that is not very illuminating." The titles are usually very general, such

729
as "Improvements in Electric Motors", or "An Improved Process for Manufacturing Detergents," which tell the general public nothing whatsoever about the applications. So that these unfortunate people may go on working on this line in the laboratory to find, three or four years hence, that the whole of their research is abortive, because their competitors publish a patent which shows that they have been forestalled.
At present the Comptroller-General can use his powers under Section 6 of the Act of 1939 to deal with dilatory applicants, though it would seem, from the terms of Clause 3 of this Bill, that the Government are in some doubt as to whether he is, in fact, doing so. At present, at least some sanction can be put on the action of dilatory applicants, but by this Bill the Government take the matter entirely out of the hands of the Comptroller-General. The applicant has carte blanche to delay and fail to deal with the official letter, provided that his specification is accepted within three and a half years; that is, three and a half years from the date of the filing of the complete specification, and four and a half years from the date of filing the provisional specification. The object of this Amendment is to put a period on the answering of official letters. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1949 no prescribed period was allowed for, because t lie period in which a patentee had to get his patent in order was only twelve months, and that was considered too short a period to need any prompting from this section of the Act. This Amendment is proposed so that the whole process of getting a patent accepted shall be accelerated. I am fully aware that the Amendment, as it stands, cannot be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, because other Amendments will be required, particularly to Section 6 of the Act. However, I ask the Government to consider amending this Bill to deal with what I regard as a defect in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Cawley.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE. HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Cawley should regard this
730
Bill as a "Deliberate Delayers' Charter". I can assure him that it is nothing of the sort, and that it is far from the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give support to the point of view that he has rightly attacked. I share with my noble friend, as I hope I made clear during my observations on the Second Reading, the desire to speed up, so far as is possible, the patent procedure. If I thought that the Amendment he has put down would achieve that, I should ce7tainly give it wholehearted commendation. However, 1 am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend that it would achieve the object he has in mind. I do not think it would do anything to speed up the patent procedure, which we all desire to see accelerated.
As my noble friend has said, Section 7 of the Patents Act, 1949 (the measure which the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, introduced into your Lordships' House), provides that if the Comptroller considers that the invention claimed has previously been published in the United Kingdom the applicant must either satisfy the Comptroller that his claim has priority over the publication in question or he must amend his complete specification to the satisfaction of the Comptroller. The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be to require the applicant to do this within six months or less. His intention, I gather, that the applicant should have six months from the date of a letter from the Patent Office notifying the objection. The result of failure to comply would be that the Comptroller might refuse to accept the specification. By Section 81 of the Act of 1949 the Comptroller must, before he exercises his discretion adversely to any person, give that person an opportunity to be heard. Section 7 itself, as your Lordships may remember, gives a right of appeal to the Patents Appeal Tribunal from a decision of the Comptroller under that section.
The result would therefore be that, in each case in which the applicant has not complied within the six months, the Comptroller would have to offer him the opportunity of a hearing. Even if the applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity (which I should have thought was unlikely), the Comptroller, before taking the serious step of refusing a patent, would obviously have the case reconsidered by a senior member of the

731
examining staff, in order to satisfy himself that the original objections were well taken. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this would mean a great increase in the work of the staff of the Patent Office —and this at a time when that staff, as I pointed out in some detail a few days ago, is both under-strength and overloaded. It is interesting to note that a somewhat comparable provision was found in the legislation before the Act of 1949. It gave a great deal of work for no useful result, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dropped it out of the 1949 Act when he introduced it to Parliament. I have been looking at the figures, and they are quite interesting. The Comptroller's Annual Report shows that in 1938 7,500 hearings were appointed, the vast majority being occasioned by the existence of this sort of time limit for meeting objections which cited prior publication. But in the year 1955 —that is to say, after the 1949 Act there were a total of only 235 hearings. That is a great contrast: 7.500 before the war, and 235 under the present legislation. That, I think, bearing in mind the enormous pressure under which both the Patent Office and the patent agents and their clients are working, is something that we must take into careful consideration.
There is another objection to the Amendment: in practice. it is very seldom that the only objection taken to a specification is under Section 7 —that is, the "prior publication" section. In the great majority of cases, the examiner also raises objection on other grounds, such as insufficiency of description, ambiguity of claims, or claims for a greater monopoly than is justified by the invention described, all of which are equally fatal to validity. The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would, therefore, be that, although the applicant has only six months to answer Section 7 objections, he would have the remainder of the three-and-a-half years statutory period in which to answer others.
Another objection is that the Amendment would result in the lodging with the Patent Office of many ill-considered amendments to the specification, put in more with a view to complying with the time limit than with a view seriously to meeting the objections raised by the
732
examiner. This, in turn, would considerably add to the work of the Patent Office. Her Majesty's Government consider it wrong in principle to tie down applicants, on pain of losing their patents, to narrow time-limits at a time when they are legislating, in this Bill, to meet a situation created, in part at least, by delays in the Patent Office itself. I think we must work on the assumption that an applicant for a patent will normally seek to have his patent granted to him without prodding from authority. It is the applicant who should be doing the prodding, not the authority. The Amendment would do little to speed the publication of inventions and might, by increasing the burden on the Patent Office, as I hope I have shown it must inevitably do, greatly add to the delays.
I agree with my noble friend in what he is trying to do —namely, to speed up the whole patent procedure, which, after all, is the main purpose of our Bill: but I am afraid that his Amendment will not achieve that object and might even have the reverse effect. That, I think, is good reason for not accepting this Amendment. There is a bad reason for not accepting it. which I will give my noble friend to cheer him up: I do not think the Amendment comes within the Long Title of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, withdraws the Amendment, I should like to say a word or two. A discussion on the Patents Bill has a rather nostalgic attraction to me, and although in seven years, from 1949 up to now, a merciful Providence has wiped a lot of it out of my mind, I could not let this opportunity go without saying a word or two on the Amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin, who stepped into the breach when I was unavoidably unable to be present on the Second Reading of this Bill. He made an excellent point on the subject under discussion to-day, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, answered it. The thing that worries me— not about the Amendment, which I submitted to your Lordships during the discussions on the 1949 Act, and which I thought was a good one; and my opinion has not altered —is that we are now going through difficult times, because we are on the verge of one of

733
the greatest periods of competition in trade and industry that we have ever experienced. Does the noble Lord not think that the delay he proposes is too long?
The noble Lord who moved the Amendment did not press it, because he anticipated the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, by admitting that the drafting was all wrong. That, of course, is common form. Could the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, think of an Amendment to overcome the objection that I have to this particular clause? There arc three types of delay. There is the genuine delay; there is the deliberate offender, and there is also the delay which is brought about by difficulties. Are we serving the public interest in shutting out for four years anybody who wants to use one of these patents? There is the man who is anxious to have his invention patented. He wants to have that done as soon as possible, and he should be able to get over delay. But there is the other person, who knows very well that as soon as this invention is patented he may be subjected to demands for a patent of right. That is one safeguard that ran through the previous Bill that I feel more or less looked after the public interest —that of having these inventions open to them, with proper safeguards to the patentee, as early as possible. Does the noble Lord think that, on reflection, between now and the next stage of the Bill he could think of an Amendment that would lessen the gap between what the noble Lord who moved the Amendment wants and what is in this Bill?
That is my only point. If the noble Lord thinks it cannot be done, I quite understand the reasons he has put forward. But leaving the Amendment and accepting the principle that he has supported —that he does not want, and neither do the Government want, undue delay and that it is against the public interest to have undue delay —would the noble Lord tell me whether he thinks he could do anything upon mature consideration?
LORD MANCROFT: I wonder whether I might delay replying to that question until after I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, has to say on his next Amendment, because I think the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, are just as pertinent
734
to the second Amendment as they are to the first. Perhaps I could try to answer both points together.
LORD CAWLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.24 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This is a most curious subsection, and I do not know whether many noble Lords at the present moment know what it means. If I may have the indulgence of the House, I should like to explain it. Under Section 12 of the Act of 1949, the applicant for a patent had one year from the date of the filing of his complete specification to get it into order for acceptance for publication, and he could have a further period of three months. Under the proviso to Section 13, the same privilege was accorded to persons who had got their patents into order for acceptance before the lapse of twelve months. The point of this, so I am told, was to prevent the persons who got their patents into order in good time from being prejudiced by the publication of their patents, which would in fact prejudice independent overseas applications—that is to say, overseas applications not under international convention. This subsection extends the period of twelve months in Section 13 to three and a half years, or whatever other period is prescribed by the Board of Trade.
I am told that at the present moment, the average period from the filing of the complete specification to acceptance is about two to two and a half years. This morning I picked up four patents that happened to be on my desk, and I found that two filed in this country had taken one year and six months, and two filed overseas had taken two years and two months and four years and four months respectively. Under this subsection anybody who gets his patent into order in one year and six months wall be allowed to go to the Comptroller and say: "Will you delay publishing my patent, delay telling the public about it, for another two years? And if I pay an extra fee I shall be allowed not to tell the public about it for two years and three months. Of course, at the beginning of that period I should know what it contained, and I will watch my competitor building up his

735
business, producing the things which I know will infringe, and then, when he has really got going I can publish my patent and bring him toppling down." Of course, that is not done by reputable business men, but it is done by certain men who have no repute. This Amendment is designed —and there would have to be consequential Amendments —to prevent this abuse from taking place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Cawley.)
LORD MANCROFT: This is, I suppose, about as abstruse a matter as we can think of discussing; but there are two points we need to get quite clear in our minds. One is the point which the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made —namely, the desire for speeding up the procedure available to the bona fide applicant who wants to get his invention patented as soon as he possibly can; and the next point is the one raised by my noble friend Lord Cawley in his Amendment, which is the case of the man who wants to delay acceptance of his patent as long as possible in order that he may see what his competitors are up to and in order that his competitors may not see what he is up to. Let us try to see whether we can reconcile both of those within one provision of the Bill.
Let me deal first with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. As he has told us, the subsection which his Amendment seeks to delete amends the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 13 of the 1949 Act. May I just remind your Lordships, in as simple language as I can muster, of what that proviso does? It permits an applicant for a patent to request that the Comptroller postpone acceptance of his application —that means, of course, refrain from publishing it —until the latest date allowed by Section 12 of the Act for putting an application in order for acceptance. Since we are, by amending Section 12, increasing the period allowed under that section from a maximum of fifteen months to a maximum of three and a half or three and three-quarter years, we feel that Section 13 must be similarly amended so that the period specified in the two sections continues to coincide.
Let me try to simplify that a little. The effect of the Amendment would be to
736
allow the applicant to request that acceptance be postponed for fifteen months from the filing of his complete specification, but not longer. Since, given our present delays, it is extremely unlikely that any application will be in order in as little as fifteen months, the result would be that Section 13 of the 1949 Act would become a dead letter and would so remain until the delays were radically decreased.
A provision permitting an applicant to request postponement of acceptance of his application has been part of our patent law since 1939. Even then, it made statutory only a long-standing practice (which was not barred by the earlier Acts) of allowing this postponement if the applicant wished it. As the noble Lord, LordCawley, has pointed out, many years before the war firms who were interested more in concealing the results of their researches than in getting their patents granted quickly made a practice of asking for the maximum possible delay. The Departmental Committee (the Swan Committee) whose Report formed the basis of Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Patents Act. 1949, recommended retention of this right of the applicant to request postponement. The long and the short of it is that the Government feel that they would not be justified in changing the law on this point without a full inquiry amongst interested parties.
Although the withdrawal of the right to request postponement of acceptance may seem at first sight an attractive proposition, I do not think it would in most cases achieve the early publication of inventions, and for this reason. The applicant who wished the early grant of his patent would not in any case make use of his right; whereas the applicant who wished to delay publication would, if deprived of the right, as Lord Cawley's Amendment suggests, fail to take the necessary steps to put his application in order, by failing, for instance, to sign it until near the end of the statutory period. He would thus achieve exactly the same result by a different means.
We must go on allowing those who wish to postpone the publication of their patent to their competitors or the world at large to do so if they so wish. I find no very strong evidence that the moment has come to change the law. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, must have had the

737
same problem before him when he considered the 1949 Act, because the problem did not begin yesterday. I agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, that we must do everything we can to speed up the time available to those who do not want to postpone publication. I will not repeat all the arguments that I advanced on Second Reading, and particularly when I was answering the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. He asked very naturally what steps we were taking to speed up the procedure applicable to bona Me applicants. There have been suggestions, I know—I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not put down an Amendment: I thought he would —that we should cut down the period from four years to two years. This, I think, was what the noble Lord. Lord Silkin had in mind at one time. A result of that would be either a flood of imperfectly examined patents of doubtful validity or the becoming void of the majority of applications, because they could not be put in order in the time allowed.
We considered this matter carefully at the time. We discussed it with patent agents. We consulted the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, The Association of British Clambers of Commerce and the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation. We came to the conclusion that a reduction would not achieve what the noble Lord has in mind; and the procedure already decided en now in this Bill (that is, four years maximum), seems to us to be the practical answer. The actual period initially will he three and a half years and we think that this is the shortest time we can adopt at the moment, if we arc to do the work efficiently. To reduce the time to two years will not achieve it, nor will Lord Cawley's Amendment achieve it. The result of our negotiations has been to produce what is admittedly a compromise, but one which I think will work to the best interests of the person who wants his patent as quickly as possible and the other man who legitimately wants to keep his patent hidden from his competitors for as long as possible. I hope that with that rather wordy explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILW ORTH: I do not think the noble Lord need have apologised for his wordy explanation. I think it was most interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested to me that we put down an Amendment, but I am afraid that the stress of other events over the last week has been rather harassing for the Opposition, with their small numbers. That is why the Amendment was not put down. I see the noble Lord's point. I think it boils down to this: that in order to catch the delinquent, the man who is seeking to delay for an improper purpose, a purpose which we should regard as being against the public interest—
LORD MANCROFT: It has been legal for a long time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I know it has; but has the time arrived when that should be checked? Have the Board of Trade machinery to detect such a delay? Does the noble Lord think that it would be worth while detecting, or would the procedure be so cumbersome that many others would be penalised for the sake of checking the delinquent few? If the noble Lord can tell me that, then as we have now aired the subject I am willing to let it go. I must say that I think four years is a long time. The mesh is too wide. If the noble Lord cal tell me that after you have watched this machinery and seen its result, the Government will, if they think it necessary, introduce amending legislation for the safeguarding of the public interest. I am perfectly happy.
LORD SALTOUN: Weald the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, tell me one thing? If there is an application for a patent which has not yet been published, and a similar application for a similar patent is lodged, does the one that is already lodged take precedence, or what happens?
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has asked about as difficult a question as there is in patent law, namely the problem of priority. I could not possibly give an answer in under three quarters of on hour, and I should get it wrong then. It is a complicated question. All I can say is that much trouble is taken to sec that the proper application does, in point of fact, get priority. If I may now- answer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas

739
of Chilworth, I can give him this assurance. I will look again at the procedure and consider this rather technical point. I will see whether it is clear that the man who wants his patent quickly is not unnecessarily held up by those who do not want their patents in a hurry. That is a matter of procedure in the Comptroller's office which I will discuss with him. I will look at that point and endeavour to give the noble Lord an assurance in due course.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And would the noble Lord also look at the case where the Board of Trade or the Comptroller is quite satisfied that there is no legitimate reason against the publication of the patent? Because immediately it is published, it is open for anyone who so desires to apply for a licence under that patent, or, if the patentee refuses to grant that licence, to apply for a licence of right. That is my main burden of complaint. Surely, if the noble Lord can find out the one thing he can find out the other. As he rightly says, there may be plenty of cases where the application for delay is quite genuine There may be others where it is manifestly against the public interest. That is the thing I want to safeguard. as well as the first.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes I take that point, but I must sound this note of warning. In 1956 the intake into the Patent Office is likely to be something like 29,000 patents. If carrying out the investigations which the noble Lord suggests is going materially to add to the time and delay the work, we shall have to think again. I will certainly consider the matter in the light of what the noble Lord has said and see whether we cannot separate the sheep from the goats.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, will then have served a useful purpose in putting down this Amendment.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, in withdrawing my Amendment may I say that it was my intention that Section 13 should become temporarily a "dead letter," and I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is taking rather a jaundiced view of human nature by saying "Well, if we cannot prevent
740
people from delaying, then let us invite them to delay by Statute." However, I now beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported without Amendment.

AGRICULTURE (SILO SUBSIDIES) BILL
3.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in the White Paper which the Government published after the last Annual Review we stressed the need for making more good quality silage, and said that we should be seeking the necessary legislative powers to enable a scheme of grants towards the construction of silos to come into operation this autumn. The purpose of this Bill is to fulfil that undertaking. It is part and parcel of the Government's policy of developing the production of home-grown feeding-stuffs and, in particular, encouraging the better use of grass. By this means we hope to reduce the need for imported feeding-stuffs and so save foreign currency. I am sure the House will appreciate the importance of that aim, especially at the present time.
Making silage is one of the best ways of conserving grass and fodder crops economically, and of saving bought-in feeding-stuffs. Although the technique is by now well established in this country, its progress in recent times has been slow, and there is still plenty of room for improvement. If silage is to be made by reliable methods, which are especially important in an unreliable climate such as we have, a certain amount of capital outlay is necessary, and this may often deter the smaller farmer. That is why we decided to work out plans, in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union, to give financial help for the construction or improvement of silos. We intend to associate this financial aid very closely with the general work of our advisory and

741
technical services. In that way we should be able to ensure not only that the silos are properly built, but that the silage is efficiently made and that beginners can be helped to avoid the mistakes which are quite often made. Farmers who are already making silage will also be able to get grants towards the cost of additions or improvements to their existing silos.
The Bill itself is merely a short enabling measure, authorising Ministers to make subsidy Schemes which will require Parliamentary approval. The Bill as it stands applies to the United Kingdom, although a scheme under the Bill can be made to apply either to part or to the whole of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has already for some years been operating a scheme under its own legislation. They intend now to join in with us. We hope to table the first Scheme as soon as this Bill has received the Royal Assent. Meanwhile, to save time, we have already invited farmers to start submitting their projects for silos and I am glad to say that there has been a ready response. This will enable the Agricultural Departments to get on with the preliminary work of examining projects and advising farmers. Although these projects may be approved, no payments will, of course, be made until Parliament has approved the Scheme.
For your Lordships' convenience I have placed in the Printed Paper Office a copy of the Schedule of the rates of subsidy which we shall be seeking power to pay under the first Scheme, together with the main conditions. The Scheme will have certain novel features, which we think will simplify administration and also benefit the farmer, to the extent that he will be able to use his own labour without affecting the size of the grant. That should be particularly helpful to the smaller farmer. We propose to pay standard rates of subsidy for the various processes and component parts involved in the construction of silos. The total payment will thus depend on the dimensions and materials used, except that there will be a maximum grant per farm of £250, and of that total not more than £125 will be paid for unroofed silos. The rates of; subsidy are calculated to cover roughly 50 per cent. of the cost of moderate, but adequate, methods of construction. In each individual case we shall need to satisfy ourselves that the silo is properly constructed and of the right size to meet the needs of the farm.
742
I think your Lordships will find that the Scheme is highly flexible, while at the same time ensuring that sound methods of silo construction and silage making will be used. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL. OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that silos have a distinct advantage over the earlier business we had this afternoon. in that they are more familiar to most of your Lordships than patents and far less controversial than the Government's action in Egypt. I do not suppose that anyone will quarrel with the two main purposes of the present Bill, which has been presented by the noble Earl opposite with his usual clarity and brevity. I am reversing the order of these purposes because I think that, from the point of view of their importance, nine is right. The first, I take it, is to save imports. We all know that animal feeding, stuff are an expensive item in our annual import programme. By producing more fodder at home, as I hope we shall do under this Bill, we shall certainly cm down our total payments for these particular imports; and, as the noble Earl pointed out, this is particularly urgent at the present time, because, on account of events in Egypt, we shall have even greater difficulty in balancing our foreign payments. This contribution, small as it may be to the saving of imports, is therefore even more desirable new than it was a short while ago, and w e very much hope that, with the help of this Bill, the I knowledge that they are strengthening the national economy will encourage small farmers to make more silage than they are making at the present time.
The other object of the Fill, which was also emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, is to increase the prosperity of agriculture by the better use of grass; and, after all, grass is a crop which we can grow most easily and satisfactorily in the humid, temperate climate that we have, in the British Isles. As all your Lordships are aware, there are other ways of improving the management and use of grass, and I feel sure —and I think the noble Earl will agree with—that there is still enormous scope for improvement

743
in both these directions. But conservation of grass for winter fodder, more particularly when the hay harvest is always so uncertain, is undoubtedly one of the best ways.
This is an enabling Bill, and certainly it is right that when a Minister makes Schemes under a Bill they should be subject to Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses. I was going to ask the noble Earl (but I shall not do so as he has answered my intended question in the course of his speech) whether he expects to be able to present his first Scheme in time for farmers to get on quickly with the work of preparing silos for next year's grass season. I am very glad to hear that there will not be a moment's delay and that the Minister intends to present a Scheme as soon as this Bill has become an Act of Parliament. I am still not quite clear whether farmers will have to wait until a subsidy Scheme has been approved by Parliament, or whether they will be authorised to start work on their silos as soon as the Minister has sanctioned detailed plans for improvements to existing silos, or for new construction. I feel sure the noble Earl will agree that we cannot afford to waste any time if we are to get more grass conservation next year.
Whether, in practice, this Bill —which is based on the two admirable principles to which I have just referred —will do more good than harm will, I believe, depend on how it is applied. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the grants will be paid only to the efficient dairy or livestock farmer, or whether it will also be paid to some of the large number of inefficient marginal producers, those with either too little land to get a reasonable return or with land which should be producing something else. Everyone wants to help the small farmer, for he is one of the most hard-working members of the farming community. If, as the Minister said in another place, not more than four small farms out of every 100 are making silage to-day, it is clear that more silage should be made on those small farms than is being made at present, and that those who can make a success of this work should be encouraged to do it. But this Bill seems to fail to draw any line between the small farmer who is an economic asset to the industry and the one who is a liability: and if a man is a
744
liability surely it is not right that he should be kept going out of public money.
The recent Government White Paper on a long-term policy for agriculture makes it a condition for payment of grants towards capital equipment (and here I quote the words of the White Paper) that:
"farm units are economic, or could be made so with the improvements proposed."
A similar condition is attached to grants made under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, but no condition of this kind appears to have been attached to the payment of grants under this Bill. Judging from what the Minister said in another place, the Minister would require to be satisfied by the applicant, the farmer who is applying, only that a particular silo for which a grant is sought is suitable for the farm and will be properly constructed. I gather from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, that that is, in fact, the only requirement.
I wonder if he is aware (he may well be, for he knows more about these matters than I do) that a recent survey of the Eastern Counties showed that two-thirds of farms of between 20 and 50 acres, and one-third of farms of between 50 and 100 acres, failed to produce for their occupants a gross income of more than —500 a year. If this is typical of small farms in England near sea level, small upland and hill farmers must be doing far worse. The existence of these uneconomic holdings is recognised in the White Paper, and for the first time grants will be made under the White Paper towards amalgamation schemes. The fact is that we have too many small holdings whose size makes it impossible for their occupiers to earn a reasonable living for themselves and their families. Surely these people should be encouraged to go in with others to form larger units, or at least to co-operate with neighbouring farmers to share in the use of silos and other expensive equipment. If these uneconomic producers are to be propped up by grants given under this Bill, perhaps the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, could explain in rather more detail the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to eligibility for payment of this subsidy. With that important qualification, I should like to make it perfectly clear that we on this

745
side of tine House strongly support this Bill and shall do our best to facilitate its speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
3.56 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, as I advocated, during a debate on agriculture, that there should be a grant towards the construction and roofing of silos, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words about this extremely good little Bill. I am certain that it will be of great benefit, not only to farmers but to the country as a whole. As the noble Earl who introduced it has already said, more of our output must be produced from home-grown feed. Our main object should be to substitute home-grown for imported feed, whenever possible, and there is no better way of doing this than by making more feeding silage.
Unfortunately, it is true to say that, at any rate up till now, silage-making has played a much less important part in this country than in many other countries enjoying an advanced system of agriculture. I believe that to-day only about 7 per cent, of farms in this country make silage; yet our need to make silage, and thus reduce imports of feeding-stuffs, is probably greater than that of any other country. In my part of the country, farmers have great faith in turnips. Many of them wend a lot of the winter burrowing under the snow trying to find turnips. But as they are good farmers, and also Aberdonians, I have little doubt that they will make the greatest use of this grant, and I can assure my right honourable friend the Minister that more silage will be made in the North-East of Scotland this coming season.
Besides being very welcome to farmers, this Bill is also most acceptable to landlords and townspeople. For the landlord, it is a small injection into farming of capital which, although long overdue, is none the less very acceptable. It means, too, that townspeople will in future be able to see how the money is being spent, for they will actually see the silos being built. In another place, this Bill received some criticism. The cry went up that once more large-sized and medium-sized farms were being helped, but that nothing was being done for the small farmer. That is just not true. Even the marginal land farmer should be able to get 4 tons
746
of grass to the acre, and in the conditions it has been laid down that the smallest silo eligible for the grant will be one of 20 tons capacity. That means that the farmer would have to cut 5 acres of grass to qualify for a grant; and one cannot possibly call a farmer who cuts 5 acres of grass a medium-sized farmer: he is undoubtedly a small farmer
I am glad to see that there is nothing rigid laid down in the conditions about the actual design of the silo. It is left. to the farmer's ingenuity, and if he wishes he can get an expert to advise him from the National Agricultural Advisory Service or from one of the agricultural colleges North of the Border. There are to-day too many inadequate silos, and I welcome the fact that this Bill makes provision for improving existing silos. Inadequate silos mean loss of feeding value. This loss of feeding value is not just loss to the farmer; it is also probably loss to the country, because feeding-stuff has to be imported to make good the loss. Roofing new and existing silos in the wetter areas will undoubtedly be of great advantage. The agricultural colleges in Scotland have found, through experiments, that where silage is covered with a proper roof the drying of the matter content is probably about 17 per cent. better than when silage is covered with earth or some other such mat trial. Neither the farmer nor the nation can tolerate this loss in the future. The sooner this excellent little Bill passes all its stages, the better. If farmers are to make more silage next season, they must begin planning their silos now.
4.3 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about this Bill, which I think is quite an excellent measure and one which will bring about a different feeling amongst smaller farmers. Your Lordships will remember (those who indulge in farming will know) what a tremendous gamble there always is in regard to hay. Really one needs to make only enough hay to give to the calves. No doubt some of your Lordships will remember how, two or three years ago, particularly around the district where I live, we had to burn all the hay which we had tried to make. We never got a chance to get it at all, That meant a very severe loss to us all—I was one of the sufferers.

747
Just to show your Lordships (though many of you know of it already) the seriousness of this matter, let me say this. I have a friend whom I put down as one of the biggest, most responsible and most intelligent farmers in the country. He has anything from 2,500 to 3,000 acres under the plough. He milks about 200 to 250 cows a day. He said to me the other day: "If I had tried to feed my stock on hay, and had never gone in for ensilage, I should have been in the bankruptcy court now." He went on: "Of course, people said to me, when I began to produce silage in a big way: The milk will taste; the nourishment will not be there as it would be when the cattle are fed on hay That is absolute nonsense". My friend finds that the milk produced now is of just as good quality as when he used to feed his beasts on hay; and the production per cow is just as good. I feel that this is one of the most useful pieces of legislation with regard to farming of which I have ever had experience in Parliament. I wish the Bill every success, and I congratulate the Government on evolving the idea on which it is based.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I have only just entered the House, as I was detained by work in my own county this morning. But I do not like to remain silent when such a topic as this is under consideration, particularly as I have found, as my noble friend who has just sat down has found, the enormous value of making silage. I make silage now to a much greater extent than I ever made hay. And I do so with a feeling of security, for I know that, whether we have rain or shine, there will be —if it is properly made —an ample supply of food with a high-concentrate protein value which can be fed to the cattle. I should like to express my endorsement of the view put forward just now by my noble friend Lord Forbes, to the effect that silage, whether made in a concrete silo or a pit silo, if it is properly covered has a very much greater concentrate value than if it is merely compressed with an earth covering.
I am one of those, I am sorry to say, who thoroughly disapprove of subsidies if they can be avoided. So I am sorry to hear that there is to be a further instal-
748
ment of Government subsidies. How long the long-suffering taxpayer will put up with heavy subsidies for the benefit of our most vital industry, I cannot, of course, say. But I feel —and I cannot refrain from saying so —that, if this measure is intended to be for the benefit of the small farmer, neither subsidisation nor any other form of Government assistance can be of anything like the economic value to him of agricultural co-operation as practised in other civilised countries. It is of very slow growth here. In the other countries (the ones with which I am most intimately acquainted are New Zealand, on the one hand, and Denmark, on the other) one finds that the co-operation is universal and exhaustive. It is applied all through husbandry operations; and, incidentally, in neither of those countries are Government subsidies required, for the people in the industry are able to stand upon their own feet and work out their own economic salvation, not as the result of Government control but of what I have always liked to describe as mutual control, operating through properly organised agricultural co-operation.
Following the recent announcement of a grant for the capital equipment of farms (due, in the main, to the increasing impoverishment of landowners during the last half century. which has made them wholly unable to supply the necessary capital equipment required for up-to-date agricultural processes) I made bold to contribute a letter to this morning's issue of one of our chief agricultural journals, the Farmer and Stockbreeder. In that letter (I know that my views may meet with a good deal of criticism), I expressed my great appreciation of this capital grant towards the provision of up-to-date equipment, and my hope that the excellent example of countries like New Zealand and Denmark will be followed, and that farmers may be induced to strive much harder to work out their own economic salvation than they can possibly do by continually groaning and moaning over their grievances. I trust that your Lordships will forgive this rather hasty contribution to the debate. I am sorry that I was not here to hear the opening speech of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn.
4.12 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, it seems that this Bill has received a better reception in your Lordships' House than it did in

749
another place, where doubts were expressed about its utility and its effectiveness in the agricultural situation. I expect that in bringing forward this Bill the Government have realised, apart from the fact that it was promised in last February's Review of Prices, that it is possible to increase the output of silage. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that at the moment progress was slow, and that is borne out by the figures which have been quoted. He also said that there was room for improvement. I am wondering whether the small farmers, who seem to be catered for by this Bill, will be willing to do the job.
The subsidy is a selective one, payable to only a small percentage of farmers, and I hope that, when the Bill becomes law, the Government will take steps fully to inform the agricultural industry that it corers every kind of silo. Many people think in terms of an ugly erection amidst old-fashioned farm buildings; and certainly I should be sorry to see the countryside inflicted with a large number of white towers such as we have known in the past. The information set out in the record which the Minister has made available in the Printed Paper Office should be made clear to the agricultural community. If a small farmer realises that he can construct, at a small expense, a silo sufficient for his purpose, and can receive a grant up to 50 per cent. of the amount of his outlay, I think we shall find that more silage will be made. With all respect to those noble Lords opposite who have spoken, I myself am inclined to be a "hay man": I prefer sweet-smelling hay to the smell of silage. In regard to the smell, I would suggest to the Minister that, when sites for silos are suggested in or around villages, the amenities of the people who have to live there when the farmer is cutting silage should be considered, because the smell is not at all acceptable.
The Bill shows one new departure which I think we can accept —that is, that the small farmer is to be paid for his own labour in erecting a silo. It has already been pointed out that an increase of ensilage, would save imported feeding-stuffs, and to-day that is more important than ever, because it is certain that in the coming summer the price of foodstuffs will rise, imports will lessen. If we can increase home produce, it will be to the advantage not only of agriculture but of
750
the national economy as well. I notice that the Bill is to operate for a period of three years and that the estimated subsidy is £200,000. Is that the sum for the whole lifetime of the Bill, or is it the annual amount? I should like to know what is in the mind of the Government about what will happen at the end of three years. Will the subsidy go on, or will it finish?
My noble friend Lord Listowel referred to the payment of grants to inefficient farmers. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that anyone who constructs a silo with the consent of the Ministry and their approval as regards site and materials will receive a grant, on the understanding that he will make silage in that silo, whether he is a first-class farmer or any other class of farmer. The Bill does not lay down what kind of silage he should produce, whether ordinary roughage or first-class silage. If a farmer constructs a silo, then he will receive payment from the Government I welcome the Bill. Anything which is likely to improve home production is acceptable to us on this side of the House. I hope that. as a result of this Bill and the publicity given to its provisions, the Government will be satisfied that the industry is making good and that the greater home production sought will be forthcoming from the farmers.
4.20 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate to this afternoon for the warm welcome they have given to the Bill. If I may say so, there appears to be a much greater understanding of the Bill in this House than there was in another place, particularly in regard to the small farmer. I welcome the fact that all noble Lords who have spoken fully appreciate the benefit that this Bill will be to the small farmer. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me whether farmers who have projects approved can proceed with the work before the passing of the Bill. The answer is that as soon as a project is approved they may proceed, subject to the small gamble that the Scheme might get thrown out by your Lordships' House.
The noble Earl made a point or, the question of uneconomic holdings. I have a certain sympathy with what he

751
has in mind. We certainly want to encourage the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings into larger units, but I feel that this Bill is not the right instrument for that purpose. The object of this silo subsidy is primarily to help the farmer to make more and better feeding-stuffs, independent of the weather and haymaking. I am sure that we should all like to make more hay. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, may be able to control the weather in his part of the country, but those of us who live more to the West have greater difficulty.
LORD WISE: I have always been most fortunate.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, that our advisory officers will not recommend any elaborate work on something which, at the moment, we should class as an uneconomic holding, but I think it would be unwise to put express conditions such as he proposes into a Scheme such as this. The advisory officers will, however, bear in mind the general economy of the farm when they are considering the silo.
I should like to say how delighted I was to hear my noble friend Lord Bledisloe speak this afternoon. It never seems right to discuss anything to do with agriculture without hearing a few words from him. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was worried about getting the information over to the farmer. I can assure him that we are doing, and shall continue to do, everything we possibly can to bring it to the knowledge of all farmers. He will appreciate that there are a certain number of farmers whom it is difficult to contact, but we are doing all we can. There is already a pamphlet available to farmers. I think that, by and large, the publicity which this Bill has received so far has been good, and I have no reason to think that it will not reach virtually all farmers.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Wise, feels that the making of silage these days necessarily involves a considerable amount of smell. I am under the impression that it is possible to make silage which does not smell —at least, not to any great extent, and certainly not enough to disturb the neighbours.
LORD WISE: The noble Earl should come into my district some time.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: All I can say is that the noble Lord's neighbours should call in the advisory service and get a little further instruction in the art of silage-making. I can assure him that the use of tower silos will be assisted only in exceptional circumstances; as a general rule this assistance is not for them. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, made two other points on which I should like to enlighten him. The first was with regard to the £200,000. If he will refresh his memory on the White Paper, he will see that that sum was to deal with the period for the remainder of this year, and has no effect on the future. He also said that the Bill was going to be in operation for only three years. I would point out that it is not the Bill which runs for only three years, but the first Scheme. In any event, I think it is probable that we should want to modify the Scheme by that time in the light of experience. From the words of my noble friend Lord Teviot, I feel that he looks upon ensilage for the cow in much the same spirit as he looks upon wholemeal bread for the human.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
4.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the powers of the two Airways Corporations to borrow, from the existing limits which were set up under the Act of 1953. This is, in fact, the third time, since the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, that Parliament has been asked to authorise an increase in the capital facilities of B.O.A.C. And the limits have been increased from £50 million in 1946, 60 million in 1949, when it took over the authorised capital of B.S.A.A., to £80 million in 1953, and it is now proposed to raise this figure to £160 million. It is the second time that the British European Airways limit will have been increased, from £20 million in 1946 to £35 million in 1953, to the figure of £60 million proposed in this Bill.
The reason why this is necessary is twofold. First, the last ten years have been a period during which air travel has

753
expanded very rapidly, and we have every reason to believe that expansion will continue for some years to come. To meet expansion, and to replace aircraft as they become obsolescent, practically the whole fleets of both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. wll1 be replaced by 1962–63. Of rather over fifty aircraft, which B.O.A.C. are operating to-day, it is intended that all will be replaced by nearly half as many aircraft again, bigger, faster and more expensive. The position is very much the same with B.E.A., though the replacement may not be quite so complete, as they have already partly re-equipped themselves with more modern aircraft.
Secondly, the two Corporations will have not only more aircraft to do their work, but considerably more expensive aircraft. And, indeed, it is probably true to say that aircraft on similar routes will, over a period of fifteen years, cost anything from three to four times as much as they did. For instance, Boeing 707 will cost about five times as much as the present aircraft we have flying the Atlantic —the Boeing Stratocruisers.
This is, of course, strictly an enabling Bill, by which Parliament authorises the increase of capital of both the Corporations. The Bill, however, does riot of itself permit the Corporations to use the powers except with the consent of the Treasury. That means, in effect, that the amount or, cash to be advanced to the Corporations will be a matter of agreement yearly 'between the Treasury and the Corporations themselves. The House will also notice subsection (2) of Clause I which enables B.O.A.C., should they so desire, to borrow either from the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, or from the Export-Import Bank of Washington. This is an enabling power which may be necessary and the Corporations may wish to use, particularly in the purchase of Boeing 707 aircraft, the initial delivery of which they hope will commence before the end of 1959.
This is a considerable expansion of borrowing powers, and I feel I ought to give some short explanation of how it is made up. So far as B.O.A.C. are concerned, expenditure during the next five years on aircraft which have been, or will soon be, ordered, amounts to about £127 million. if you add to this figure £10
754
million to £15 million for other capital expenditure, it gives a figure of £140 million in five years. The present borrowings amount to £60 million, which gives a total of £200 million. After allowing for sums raised internally, B.O.A.C. look like requiring a total borrowing power of about £160 million. This leaves a margin which may be necessary for contingencies and the purchase of additional DH.118s. As I have stated, details of these borrowings will require Treasury consent.
B.E.A. have ordered, or have an option on, aircraft amounting to £52 million in value. Allowing £13 million for additional capital expenditure, it brings B.E.A.'s additional requirements to £65 million. Present borrowing are £16 million, showing a total requirement of £81 million. After allowing £25 million for sums raised internally, it gives a total requirement of £55 million against the figure of £60 million shown in the Bill. That margin has been deliberately left, and, indeed, envisages the possibility that B.E.A. might require jet aircraft, if they can find aircraft to suit their requirements, and also helicopters.
This is a big step, and by agreement with these measures I suggest that Parliament will be showing two things. They will be showing, first, the confidence they have in the Corporations; and, secondly, the importance which they Attach to the work which is being carried out. Although these aircraft are much more expensive, their operating cost should be substantially lower, and accordingly it will make it possible for airlines to offer reduced fares and thereby to reach a wider market. It is now ten years since the Act of 1946 was passed Both Corporations have ceased to receive any subsidy, and last year they operated with a profit after covering all expenses, including that on capital. Although we cannot assume that in this highly competitive business they will necessarily make a profit every year, we can take encouragement from this result and offer our warmest congratulations to all those who have played their part in achieving it. But, having said that, I do not wish to be taken as saying that we are satisfied with the percentage of world traffic which the Corporations are carrying. We are not. We believe that it should be higher, and the steps which we are now taking

755
are intended to have material results in achieving this objective. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. — (The Earl of Selkirk.)
4.34 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I rise to give a welcome to the Bill. Its provisions are obviously needed, first, because owing to inflation the ceiling has had to be raised —through the years money buys less and less; and secondly, because, as the noble Earl has said, new aircraft will be needed soon by the Corporations, and aircraft are becoming ever more elaborate and ever more expensive. Indeed, in a few years' time, when the large supersonic transport aircraft are ordered, the figures will go up astronomically, and I can quite see that the noble Earl, or his successor, whoever may be in office at that time, will be coming to this House for a much larger increase than the present one.
The third reason for this Bill is that we have to buy aircraft from the dollar areas. I particularly commend this aspect of the Bill. The noble Earl will remember, even if the rest of your Lordships do not, that a few months ago we had a debate in this House on a statement by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in which he laid down the maxim that the air Corporations should "buy British and fly British." I am glad that he now realises that, to be competitive, the airlines must buy the best machines and the most suitable machines for their purposes, wherever those machines are made.
There is no nationalism in the air —and that is a very good thing, because if we did have the "Buy British" maxim, then others might be tempted not to buy machines from us. Only this morning there is a report in the Press that Lufthansa, the German airline, are buying seven to nine Vickers' Viscounts for delivery in 1958, in addition to the many Viscounts that have been bought by other airlines in Canada, America and on the Continent. We have recently seen that Rolls Royce have received an order for 2,500 turbo-prop engines, most of which will be going abroad, a large number to the United States and Canada. Only to-day in the Press there is an item of news that North East Airlines, an
756
American Company, are buying five Britannias, to cost more than £6 million, for delivery next autumn, and that B.O.A.C. have released some of their Britannias for the purpose. This shows that it is ridiculous for us, of all people, to talk about nationalism in the air.
This virtual doubling of the borrowing powers and the Treasury guarantee— upon which, unless I misheard him, I did not hear the noble Earl say very much —should lead us to ask serious questions in this House. We are entitled to be told where it is expected that the airlines are going in the next few years, with the money made available to them and with the Treasury guarantee. Where is the British aircraft industry going? At the present moment hardly any airlines in the world make a profit, when overheads, contingencies, replacement of capital and so on, are taken into account, even on the present capital structure of the airlines. What is the future prospect for repayment of these loans? I think we ought to have some indication of how the debtors expect to repay the amounts they are now asking leave to borrow.
I think it is fair to say, as the noble Earl has said, that there is a prospect of considerable expansion in the air in the next few years, and the recent unfortunate situation in Suez and Egypt has not in any way lessened the prospects for aircraft, as regards both freight and passengers. In fact, it is true to say, I think, that the blocking of the Suez Canal, and the difficulties connected with it, will presumably be experienced for some time to come, and will have a considerable effect upon aircraft, passenger and freight markets. Moreover, freight, in any case, is expected to increase by about 60 per cent. over the next five years. It seems to me that there are limitless opportunities for the air Corporations, for both freight and passengers, if they can get one thing right —that is, price. There is an enormous potential market for air travel if it is brought within the scope of people who desire to use it —that is, the ordinary man and the ordinary woman. In the air, so far as the passengers are concerned, we are to some extent in the same position as the motoring industry was before Henry Ford put his T.1. model on the roads. The aeroplane is still the vehicle of the very well

757
to do. It has not as yet touched the mass of the population and for one reason and one reason only— the price.
I would ask the noble Earl this question, because it affects very much the Corporations' ability to repay the amounts they will borrow: are the airlines looking at the problem from this point of view? Are they looking at the service they provide as a product, like any other commercial product? Here is a vast untouched market. Here is a product which is required. We can sell this product in the market providing we get the price down. It is a simple matter. The noble Lord. Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, has, no doubt, often faced this problem in his business, and many others of your Lordships have also faced it, and have solved it. Successful businesses have been able to get down the price of the product so that the people who desire it can buy it. That, simply, is one of the important problems of the aircraft industry, as I see it. I am not sure that they are solving it because I am not sure that they really see themselves as selling a product. Air travel is a new thing, arid they do not realise that it is now, to a large extent, on the same basis as the business of a bus company. You have certain services, you want to sell the seats for those services and you must get down to it and make the services available to the people who require them.
This leads me to the further question: are the Corporations developing the right kind of machines for this traffic? We has e heard from the noble Earl about the vast expense of the new machines —I think he said their cost is seven times as great.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Five times.
LORD OGMORE: Five to seven times the cost of the present machines, although those machines will, in fact, carry only double the weight, and presumably they will not carry double the passengers.
THE EARL ON SELKIRK: But they will go faster.
LORD OGMORE: As regards this "fast" business, I am not sure that the airlines—if this is the view of the airlines —are not attaching too much consideration to speed. After all, when we get up to a speed of several hundred miles an hour, it really does not matter to anyone whether he is going fifty miles an hour
758
faster or not. That is my view. But the expense entailed in the effort required to enable him to go 50 or 100 miles per hour faster is enormous. It is the same in regard to sea travel. We all know that if you push up the speed of a ship by ten knots, it means a fantastic extra expense. Similarly, if you expect the aircraft to go 10,000 ft. or 20,000 ft. higher and 200 miles an hour or even 100 miles an hour faster, then there is an enormous increase in cost. I have wondered for some considerable time about that. The interjection of the noble Earl shows what is being thought in those circles. I am rather worried whether they are not going for ever more expensive, faster, higher climbing and higher cruising aircraft, and, by so doing, are making the cost of the service so ex pensive that hardly anybody, unless he is supported by business, can afford to take advantage of it. I have just been to Lagos in West Africa. I think the return fare was £240. That is a considerable sum, and the fares for other places of that sort of distance away are similar. With present-clay taxation and the difficulty of saving any money at all, it means that, unless you are going out on business, as, indeed, I was, it is practically impossible to go by air to various parts of the world, however much one wishes to do so.
There is one further point. Even if we have the money for these aircraft —the dollars which are going to be borrowed from the Export Bank, guaranteed by the Treasury, and the money which presumably wilt come out of sterling assets —will it really be of any use if the Corporations cannot get the pilots? I was rather perturbed to see in The Times to-day an article from the aeronautical correspondent, to this effect:
"Britain is faced with a serious shortage of civil air transport pilots. British European Airways need 30 for immediate training in readiness for the next summer season British Overseas Airways require 150 over the next, two years as well as navigators and a limited number al' engineer officers. It is estimated that over the next three years the total requirement for British air transport, including the independent companies, is approximately 250 pilots.
"Having `combed' the United Kingdom thoroughly, both Corporations are now having to seek recruits in the Dominions. B.E.A. have been advertising for pilots in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.…
"After a year's intensive advertising campaign in Britain, B.O.A.C. have now reached the stage at which the response is negligible, and se they are advertising in Australia. The

759
corporation's additional pilot requirement is equivalent to one-fifth of their existing staff of 748 pilots, of whom 45 are also navigators. A B.O.A.C. spokesman told your Correspondent: We really need as many pilots as we can get.'
"To some extent the present shortage of civil transport pilots is a consequence of the fall in the number of men leaving the R.A.F. and Fleet Air Arm."
That is rather a disturbing position, and I am wondering whether the industry —it is not only the Corporations, of course, because the charter companies are also concerned —have not really fallen down in making the necessary provision for the supply of pilots, especially when they must have known that the supply of pilots from the R.A.F. was going to dry up with the virtual coming to an end of the short service commission or, at all events, with far fewer men taking up the short service commission. That is one point upon which I think much will depend: much will depend upon whether the airlines are able to use the money they arc now going to borrow, in the best possible way. I would ask the noble Earl to give us some indication whether, in fact, a really thorough campaign of recruitment is being carried on by the air Corporations. I should have thought that it was a matter for the industry as a whole rather than for the air Corporations, because the charter companies will need pilots just as much as will the air Corporations. The noble Earl said a word about helicopters and about the spending of some of the money by B.E.A. on helicopters.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is provisional.
LORD OGMORE: So far as civil aviation is concerned, I have felt that the helicopter position has been disappointing. In a country like this, one would have expected helicopters to be developed to a much greater extent than they have been. We have a dense population. For that reason we have airports at some distance from the towns, so that often it is quicker to go by train than to go out to an airport, take an aircraft and then land at the outskirts of the town to which you are going. At first sight—I must say that some years ago it was my first sight —the helicopter would seem to be particularly suitable for this country, but for some reason it has never
760
developed. We hear what a great help helicopters have been in carrying men back from the battlefield in all theatres of war, particularly recently in Suez. Wounded men were taken by helicopter straight back and in about twenty minutes were in hospital in the fleet carrier outside. In military and naval operations the helicopter is being used more and more, with tremendous effect, with a great saving of life and so on; yet in civil life we hardly ever see the helicopter at all. There used to be one that occasionally buzzed over, or near, our Chamber on its way to the South Bank, but even that one, for some reason, possibly because of objections on the part of some of your Lordships, seems to have disappeared; and to-day we hardly ever hear or see helicopters at all. Perhaps the noble Earl can give us an indication of what has happened to them. With those comments, I support this Bill and commend it to your Lordships.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? I was a little puzzled by one phrase that he used. He said that this was an enabling Bill, and that all expenditure by the Corporations would have to be authorised annually by the Treasury. Surely that cannot be correct. Surely, the Corporations' policy must be stretched over a much longer period than annually? Must not the Treasury authorise an expenditure for a longer period in the future than merely a period of one year?
4.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords for what they have said. May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, shortly? The programme is agreed over a much longer period. I can give the noble Lord the details of it broadly, but this is a matter which has recently, under the Finance Act, been brought under rather closer Treasury control, with a view to ensuring that, if and when the Corporations wish to issue stock, they do so at times which are convenient to the Treasury, bearing in mind the whole situation in the money market. I think the noble Lord may rest assured that it would be impossible to do this other than annually.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has dealt with a number of subjects, and with

761
a great deal of what he said I am in agreement. I wonder whether he would mind if I leave the subject of pilots until our debate next week. I have not looked at that matter recently, and I would rather speak more authoritatively than I can at the moment. Perhaps I may do the same with the question of helicopters. I myself recently, when I was in Korea, went up in a helicopter belonging to the American Army, and I was greatly impressed with the facilities which it presented there.
I agree with the noble Lord that the Corporations must have the best aircraft if they arc to compete effectively in world conditions —I do not think the importance of that can be over estimated. I entirely agree with him there. But I do not think the noble Lord. in saying that, meant to say that we were buying nothing but American aircraft.
LORD OGMORE: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thought not, although the noble Lord did put some emphasis on that matter. But he knows very well, if I may just repeat it, that the whole of B.E.A. is equipped, and will be equipped, with British aircraft; and of the future purchases of B.O.A.C. something like 80 per cent. will be British aircraft. With all its difficulties. and occasional failures, the British aircraft industry is still producing a large number of successful aircraft.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Earl will remember the debate we had not long ago. I said then, and I repeat, that the airlines mast be able to buy the best aircraft and the most suitable for their purpose. wherever they are made. If they are made here, so much the better
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I feel that is undoubtedly the case. I also find myself in agreement with the noble Lord in that respect.
He also asked a question about the commercial airlines not having enough commercial sense. I have asked myself that question, and I am never entirely satisfied what is the right answer. either here or elsewhere. We must all remember that, within certain limits, the inter-
762
national airlines of the world, not only those here but all airlines, are in a slightly privileged position, became nearly all countries regard international airlines as privileged organisations to some extent. I think that is a fairly world-wide basis. It may he that they do not have enough commercial sense to seek art new traffic. At the same time, it is fair to say that a great deal has been done in this respect. There is the introduction of tourist traffic. which I am told will be carried quite a bit further in a year or two, particularly on the Atlantic route. I do not think it is true to say that aviation to-day is the perquisite of the well-to-do. At present a great deal of immigration, and movement of all sorts, is carried out, not at a high standard of service but at relatively low fares. I agree that these companies should be commercial in their outlook, but I certainly should not leave the impression that the standard set by the two Corporations in approaching their work is any less commercial than that of any ether country.
I never can find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord on the subject of speed. In my opinion, speed is a fundamental advantage in flying. It is not just a question of travelling 100 miles faster or slower: if you ask a passenger whether he would like to take two hours or six hours to get to his destination, such is the lethargy of human beings that almost all of us would say six hours. That, I am afraid, is true of everything. But when it comes to flying the Atlantic, we shall be reducing our passage time between New York and London, when the new aircraft come into operation in 1960–61, from between fourteen and eighteen hours to about seven to nine hours, and that means to gay that one aircraft can make exactly twice as many journeys as an aircraft at the present time. That is an enormous economic advantage. It means, in fact, that the aircraft can do much more work than is possible at present. I have not gone in great detail into the calculation of increased traffic, but we believe that there will be increased traffic, judging both by the development in recent years and by the prospects for future years, and it is with that in mind that we think that the proposals in this Bill are necessary. I am

763
grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the welcome which he has given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the. Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
4.57 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at two minutes before five o'clock.