Lords Sitting of 2 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BILL
Read 2a.

WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH FORCES FROM KOREA
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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To ask Her Majesty's Government whether notice was given to the Security Council that all British troops would be withdrawn from Korea, and, if so, on what date such notice was given; and whether they will state the numbers and nationalities of the International Force which will remain in Korea after the British withdrawal.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, notice of the proposed withdrawal of the United Kingdom Contingent was not given to the Security Council but was given on March 29 to the United States Government. That was the correct procedure, because it was the unified Command under the United States of America to which members of the United Nations were recommended by the Council's resolution of July 7, 1950, to make forces available. It is understood that after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom Contingent, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Thailand, Turkey and the United States, in addition to the Republic of Korea, will continue to maintain forces in that country. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to give details of the composition of such forces from other countries.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer.

INDIAN AND PAKISTANI PENSIONS
3.7 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: 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, with reference to the statement made in this House on April 19, 1955, by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, they can now give any indication of the date when the payment of the pensions under the Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma) Act, 1955, will be transferred to the Treasury of the United Kingdom.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in the case of India, the transfer of the payment of pensions to the United Kingdom Treasury took place with effect from April 1, 1955. The Government of Pakistan agreed in principle at the time to a similar transfer of the pensions for which they were responsible. Negotiations on the financial arrangements have been in progress since then, but have not yet been concluded.
The number of pensioners with whom these negotiations are concerned is approximately 1,100. In the meantime, while negotiations are proceeding, the pensioners suffer no material loss through the continued payment of their basic pensions by Pakistan. Pakistan pensioners receive, in just the same degree as Indian pensioners, the pensions increases which have been sanctioned by United Kingdom legislation and which are paid from United Kingdom revenues. The levy of Pakistan income tax on pensions paid by Pakistan may be a source of some slight inconvenience to the pensioners, but arrangements have been made to ensure that it does not also entail any financial loss to them: Her Majesty's Government make good to them any Pakistan income tax that they have to pay, provided, of course, that they take whatever steps are open to them under the Pakistan regulations, to minimise the amount of Pakistan tax which they pay.
Your Lordships will understand that Her Majesty's Government cannot force the pace in any negotiations with another Commonwealth Government. But I can also assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do everything

253
they can, so far as they are concerned, to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.

BRITISH SUBJECTS' LOSSES IN EGYPT
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in ray name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty' Government if they can now report progress on the question of financial compensation to British subjects expelled from Egypt for loss of assets seized by the Egyptian Government.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained in another place on April 11, is to secure from the Egyptian Government the restoration of British assets sequestrated in Egypt, or alternatively complete compensation for those assets. The Egyptian Government have still not replied to a Note from Her Majesty's Government, delivered by the Swiss authorities in Cairo on January 27, in which Her Majesty's Government called for the suspension of measures, including sequestration, taken against British subjects.
My noble friend might like to know that good progress has been made in the task of collecting information about British assets in Egypt, and it is hoped that this will largely be completed in two or three weeks from now. The figures of requests received to file statements, of statements actually received, and of statements tabulated, relating to private claims and the property of business concerns, are as follows: the number of forms issued is 3,470; of forms returned, 2,256; and of forms tabulated, 1,933 for private individuals, and 183 for business concerns. I think progress is being made and I hope that it will be completed in a matter of two or three weeks.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's reply does he realise that his statement that the tabulation will take only two or three weeks more will undoubtedly cause great satisfaction to the claimants, many of whom are in a very embarrassing position. They
254
cannot indefinitely "sponge on" their friends and relations, nor can they get indefinite credit from the banks. I wonder if I might ask whether the House could have an assurance that when this tabulation is completed, which we learn with great pleasure will be in two or three weeks' time, the policy which we were told by the former Leader of the House will then be formulated, will in fact be formulated with a view, I hope, to an immediate settlement of these claims.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on this Question I cannot go into policy; but when the claims are tabulated in two or three weeks from now, then, of course, it will be the Government's business very shortly after that to announce what the policy is.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the terms of the noble Leader's answers to-day will include those who are under grave disability, who have been the servants of the contractors looking after the British Government military stores in Egypt? What is the situation in regard to these people now, who seem to get no compensation or even employment from anywhere?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount would put down a Question to that effect, or I could convey the information to him, because I have not actually got it with me.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I suppose the Government realise the intense hostility and anxiety caused to these people, deprived of all their possessions. Is he in a position to say that at a reasonably early date—we have already been six months about it—they may expect a definite decision? Is that what the noble Earl implied by his statement to-day?
THE EARL OF HOME: First of all, we must realise that these things are immensely complicated. It is a matter of great human concern.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Yes.
THE EARL OF HOME: It naturally arouses all our sympathies and a great deal of emotion. The fact remains that

255
this is immensely complicated information. There is a great deal to be collected and tabulated, and I am afraid that it is bound to take time. As the noble Earl says, for once Whitehall has kept up to time, and it looks as though in two or three weeks' time we shall be in a position to have the claims tabulated, or very nearly so. After that, as I have indicated, we shall have to make up our minds what the policy should be. But we cannot make up our minds about policy at the moment.
LORD KILLEARN: May I get it clear? The two or three weeks is a definite date, I hope?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is our hope, too.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, your Lordships will recognise this Bill as one which was before this House in June of last year and which, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, had the unanimous welcome of the House. For lack of time it was not then possible for the Bill to proceed to another place before the Session ended, but it has now been reintroduced there and passed through all its stages without change, so that the Bill which is now before your Lordships is, for all practical purposes, identical with the Bill which your Lordships approved in 1956. In these circumstances, I feel certain that the House would not wish me to do more than to remind them in broadest outline of the effect which the Bill is intended to have.
The House will remember that the changes in the law to be made by the Bill are based on the recommendations contained in a Report presented to me by the Law Reform Committee in October, 1954. After a most thorough
256
examination of the law concerning the liability of occupiers of land or other property to invitees, licensees and trespassers, that Committee of eminent lawyers has come to the conclusion that the law should be simplified by the substitution of one uniform duty of care owed by the occupier to all his lawful visitors for the diverse classifications of visitors and duties which had evolved under the existing law.
I should like to add here a few words about this distinguished Committee and the invaluable work which they are doing. All of us who cherish the great heritage which this country enjoys in the Common Law and who wish to see this heritage preserved at its best owe a great debt of gratitude to the members of this Committee. Their selfless labours, carried out at a considerable sacrifice of time and energy, have by now, after the most careful examination of the problems involved, resulted in no fewer than five of these most valuable Reports. The work of the legislator who wishes to prevent anachronisms or distortions from marring the virtues of our Common Law is made incomparably easier by the Committee's labours.
Briefly summarised, the Bill deals with two separate, though related, subjects of liability for injuries suffered by persons entering premises: that is, the liability of the occupier on the one hand, and the liability of the occupier's landlord, in certain circumstances, on the other. I think most people nowadays would agree with the general proposition that an occupier of premises, as the person who has control over the state of the land or structures and who must be assumed to know that in the ordinary course of things various persons will lawfully come on to them, should take reasonable steps to see that such persons do not come to harm as a result of dangers which he causes or permits to exist there. It is the object of the Bill to make the law accord more fully with this general principle.
The occupier's duty under the Common Law may have originated in the recognition of some such basic principle, but in the course of time the courts have developed distinctions in the extent and nature of the duty which have become artificial and complex. As a result, injustice may at present result in certain

257
circumstances, while in some others the rules of the law have to be strained to avoid anomalous results. I need only remind your Lordships of the categories of licensees and invitees into which the law has divided lawful visitors, with a lower standard of duty owed to the former and a higher to the latter, and of the unreal dividing line between the two, which is based on the material interest which the occupier of the premises has in the visitor's presence on his premises.
In the infinite variety of purposes for which people enter premises, it is often impossible to apply such a test satisfactorily, and anomalies result. I could give many illustrations of such anomalies. Perhaps a good example of the anomalous way in which the test of material interest may operate in quite common circumstances is this. Suppose that I had asked guests to a party and two of them are injured when a rotten floor-board collapses under them. If we suppose further that I had asked one of the guests with the intention of discussing some business proposition, and the other for purely social reasons, then, as the law stands, I should almost certainly be liable to the former but not to the latter. I do not think anyone would consider this result logical or satisfactory.
Moreover, not only has the classification of visitors become rigid and unsatisfactory, but the definition of the duties owed to them has also become inappropriate and confusing. It is usually said that an occupier owes towards visitors who are classified as invitees a duty to prevent unusual dangers of which he, the occupier, knows or ought to know, whereas towards visitors classified as licensees he owes only a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury from concealed dangers or traps actually known to him. The distinction between an unusual danger and a concealed danger or trap is a fine one, and your Lordships will readily see that it leads to uncertainty in the law. Nor is the distinction between dangers which ought to be known and those actually known as clear as might appear at first sight, because there are decisions to the effect that knowledge of a defective condition of premises, even where that knowledge is unaccompanied by any realisation of danger resulting from the condition, is
258
to be considered actual knowledge of the danger.
My Lords, it would be easy to multiply examples of the unsatisfactory nature of the present law, but I think the House will agree, after the few illustrations I have given, that there is a need for reform. The Bill, then, will replace the existing duties by a common duty owed by an occupier of land or property to all his lawful visitors, and that duty, as provided in Clause 2 of the Bill, will be a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there. In the absence of special terms made by agreement, there will thus be only one standard of care owed by an occupier to his visitors, and that standard will be the care which one would expect from a reasonable man.
I have already mentioned that the Bill also deals with the liability of a landlord to persons injured on the premises of his tenant. At present the remedy of a visitor for dangers resulting from defects in the premises lies only against the occupier. Although as between the occupier and his landlord, the landlord may bear responsibility for the state of the premises, the injured visitor has no right of recourse against him. In the result, an injured person who cannot sue the tenant, for instance because she is the tenant's wife, is deprived of a remedy; and where the visitor has his remedy against the tenant, the tenant will recoup himself by suing the landlord, and there is needless circuity of action.
The effect of Clause 4 will be to place a landlord who is responsible to his tenant for the maintenance or repair of the premises and has failed to carry out his obligations in the same position vis-à-vis visitors to the premises as if he were himself in occupation. In this way the Bill remedies an anomaly which has resulted from a line of decisions dating back to 1906, and which has long given offence to most lawyers practising in this branch of the law.
My Lords, I have tried briefly to explain the shortcomings of our present law on the liability of occupiers—its inflexibility, its complexity and, in some respects, its uncertainty. Inflexibility and refinements may bring about hard

259
cases and injustice, even where the law is not fundamentally unsound, for an injured person may have all the merit on his side and yet be unable to bring himself within a rigid and narrow classification. Uncertainty in the law tends to multiply litigation—which in itself is often a hardship to all the persons concerned—or to discourage injured persons from seeking redress which is properly theirs. The object of this Bill will be to make a limited but undoubtedly important part of our law less rigid and to remove from it some of the complexities and uncertainties with which it has become overlaid. It will codify the law in a way which accords more fully with the needs of the present time.
I hope that your Lordships will welcome this Bill and, by welcoming it, encourage the constant examination and review of our law, to make it clear that your Lordships believe that the law is something whose roots are deep in the past but whose branches are always burgeoning to give greater and better shelter to the present. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has told the House, this Bill came before us something like a year ago and was approved on Second Reading by all Parties. It has since been reintroduced and, I think, has passed through all its stages in another place without amendment. The noble and learned Viscount has briefly, in his usual clear fashion set out the principal points of the Bill, and I think it would be a matter of supererogation if I were to repeat all or anything that he has said. Of course, the principal point of the Bill is that it does away with all previous distinctions between invitee and licensee which undoubtedly resulted in great confusion and frequently in considerable hardship to injured persons, and sets up what the noble and learned Viscount terms a uniform or common standard of care which is to be borne by occupiers, and in certain instances by landlords, to all persons lawfully coming upon the premises. I am sure your Lordships will agree, therefore, that the Bill appears to clarify and improve the existing law.
260
I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill which has been so clearly explained by the noble and learned Viscount, but there is one question which has troubled a good many of us and which troubled many Members in another place. I should wish to make some reference to that matter, and to inquire whether it is not possible to see some provision made in the Bill to cover it. The point relates to the position of children who trespass on land and, in so doing, suffer injury. As your Lordships are aware, under the old Common Law trespassers could not recover damages for injury: no duty was there owed by a landlord or occupier to a trespasser. The courts have endeavoured to mitigate that view of the law by finding in appropriate cases, particularly cases involving children, evidence of licence, either expressed or implied or of tacit acquiescence which might amount to an implied licence and in some cases evidence of allurement of children—that is to say, their attraction by some object on the land—and thereby have been able to throw a special responsibility upon the occupier or landlord of the premises in question.
There have, however, been a great many border-line cases, and little children still continue to be injured, frequently very seriously. Where there is no evidence of allurement satisfactory to the court, those children cannot recover damages. If no alteration is made in this respect, that position will continue. There is much property which in some particular is, or may be, dangerous to children, and under the present law occupiers of such property are freed from liability and are not held responsible for injury to children who, from the very nature of things, play on the property. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Law Reform Committee considered this matter and recommended, by a majority, that there should be no change in the existing law; but I do not think any of us can be very happy to leave the case there.
The matter is, of course, a difficult one. The Law Reform Committee expressed the difficulty in these words:
"The difficulty here is to evolve an exception in favour of child trespassers which would in practice give them any substantial degree of protection without imposing too heavy a burden upon occupiers of land used for perfectly legitimate purposes."

261
That, of course, is the difficulty in making any alteration in the law. Nevertheless, I would submit that there is a great deal of difference between accidents of this kind involving adults and those involving children. An adult may well know and appreciate that he is a trespasser, whereas a child of tender years does not, and in the very nature of things cannot, appreciate that fact. In Clause 2 (3) (a) of the Bill it is recognised that an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; but that does not deal with the case of a child who is trespassing.
None of us would wish to put an unfair and what in some cases might be an impossible burden on occupiers to take steps to keep children away from every possible danger, but I would invite the House, and particuarly the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, to consider whether it might not be practicable to take a middle line and say that where an occupier has property of such a nature that it is both a danger and a temptation to children, he shall be responsible if he does not take reasonable steps to protect children, or at least to prevent them from entering the land on which the danger exists; and that in such cases children suffering damage might be enabled to recover compensation, notwithstanding that they were trespassing. Admittedly, such a clause would have to be very carefully drafted, and it is difficult to know how it would work out in practice; but I feel that some effort might be made to meet this very serious question.
If some clause of the nature I have indicated could be inserted in the Bill, it would amount merely to an extension of the principle of allurement, and to that extent would merely continue or extend the present tendency of the courts. In the absence of any such provision, it would appear not only that children will continue to be injured and deprived of compensation but also that occupiers will have no reason for taking care to see that there is no real danger to children. If some insertion such as I have indicated could be made in the Bill, there would be a motive for occupiers of land to take all reasonable steps to prevent children from entering upon land and conceivably being injured thereby. Subject to that point, to which I hope consideration will be given, we
262
on this side of the House approve of the Bill and hope that it may soon pass into law.
3.37 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, as I was not in this country on the last occasion when these matters came before the House, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words of welcome now and to concur in the tributes that have been paid to the Law Reform Committee. May I say, in passing, that another Report to very much the same effect has been made by the corresponding Scottish Committee, and I hope very much that we may look forward at an early date to the introduction in Parliament of a corresponding Scottish Bill.
I do not intend to deal with the contents of this Bill in any detail. The Bill is as well drafted as it is humanly possible to have it, but it is in the nature of things that any formulation into law, whether in the form of an Act of Parliament or in any other form, cannot be expected to give a clear solution of every problem that may arise in the future in this extremely varied field. I should not be surprised if, in a very few years' time, questions about the interpretation of this Act of Parliament came before your Lordships sitting in a Judicial capacity. Therefore I think it would be unwise for me, who take part in those matters, to make any comment upon the detailed proposals of the Bill. But one thing I feel I may be allowed to say—and I say it entirely as my own opinion. To my mind, the Bill to a large extent restores the Common Law against certain unfortunate decisions which have been given in the last half century or so, and the reason why it is necessary for this House now to deal with those matters is the existence of the rule whereby the House, sitting in a Judicial capacity, has no power to re-examine past decisions of the House.
There are in the Commonwealth a number of courts which have the power to re-examine their past decisions, sometimes by convening a larger Bench for that purpose. I would only instance the Court of Session in Scotland, with which I am most familiar. I have never noticed any ill-effects from the fact that the Court has that power; nor do I think anyone could say that there has been any tendency to use it too freely. Of course, the justification for the present rule is

263
that it is supposed to lead to certainty in the law—a most desirable thing, if one can achieve it. But a good deal could be said to the effect that it has exactly the contrary effect. There is, indeed, some evidence of that in the Report of the Law Reform Committee. Possibly the classical example is that of the law of Workmen's Compensation, and it would hardly be too much to say, with regard to that branch of the law, that as decisions became more numerous, so the law became more uncertain.
This is not an occasion to develop this theme, but I felt that it might be appropriate to point out that the reforms which this Bill sets out to achieve are due not to any defect in the present generation of lawyers but to the way in which this House, in its Judicial capacity, is hampered by not being able to re-examine decisions given by our predecessors in entirely different circumstances. To my mind, this Bill will achieve very desirable, indeed one might almost say overdue, reforms. Therefore, as a lawyer I welcome it.
3.42 p.m.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, if I may be allowed, I should like for a brief moment to return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, with regard to the question of trespass by children on property. I regret to say that I have not followed this Bill very closely in its passage, but I have learned a little while listening to the debate to-day. The question of children trespassing is a very difficult one for owners of property. There are various categories of property on which children can trespass. No-one would wish them to come to any harm, but the prospect relating to the responsibility of owners which Lord Milner of Leeds has opened up might be regarded as almost frightening to such owners.
There are two categories of property which come particularly to mind. One is the bomb-damaged site in London—and, of course, it is always difficult to keep children out of such places—and the other is old ruins. I speak here not only with some experience but with some feeling, because I myself have taken considerable trouble to stop children from trespassing into old ruins, even going so far as to put up barbed wire to prevent
264
them getting in and crawling about on ancient ramparts, a fall from which would probably be fatal. But even that does not prevent them from getting in. Everyone realises that if a child is told not to go into a place, the first thing that he or she naturally wants to do is to go into that place. I should feel a little aggrieved if, after all the precautions I have taken, some injury were to befall a child and I were to be made liable in damages. I should not, of course, wish a child any injury, but I feel that the two instances I have given show the difficulty which the law can come up against with respect to compensation for occurrences over which the owner of the property can have no control.
3.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, perhaps it would not be inappropriate if I were to add my blessing to the Bill, and also my congratulations and a measure of thanks which I am sure we all owe the Law Reform Committee for the great amount of very careful work which they have put in. I was greatly impressed with the wisdom of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, because I know something of the difficulties that we in this House experience when sitting in a Judicial capacity. I would add only one other word about the other point—it may be outside the scope of this Bill altogether, for it is a Bill which deals really with people who are lawfully upon premises. But I think this problem of trespassers, particularly children, is an exceedingly difficult one.
The first case I ever argued in the House of Lords, when I was at the Bar (it was the only case which I ever had the honour of arguing before Lord Halsbury—I am afraid that shows how old I am getting), was a case of a trespasser. It related to a field in Durham. Miners had been in the habit of walking across this field to a station. There was no right of way; they had no right to go across the field, but it afforded a short cut to the station. The owner and occupier knew of this practice; he knew that the miners had for many years been in the habit of using that short cut. He had put up all sorts of notices—" Trespassers will be prosecuted "and all the rest of it. But that was all he had done. Then he put into the field a stallion, which was a savage animal. It was not that he put

265
it in with the deliberate intention of injuring anyone. Had he done so it would have been an easy case. But the stallion was in the field, and a miner, following his usual practice, used the short cut in order to go to the station. The stallion savaged him, and in consequence he suffered terrible injuries to one of his arms. I remember, as a young advocate, handing pictures showing the state of his arm to their Lordships who were sitting here. They were greatly impressed by the photographs, and I realised, having done that, that my case was almost won—indeed, it was won.
I think that the courts which have dealt with cases of this sort have been very ready to find licence. In the case which I have mentioned, the miners had been using this field as though it were a light of way, and the House came to the conclusion that the occupier had authorised them to go across it, even though he had put up a notice saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted". And I have no doubt that justice was done. The miner recovered damages for the loss of his arm, though he certainly was not using a right of way. The courts do imply a kind of licence in such cases.
With regard to other cases, especially those in which children are concerned—a class of case with which the Lord Chancellor and I are both very familiar—an obvious illustration which springs to one's mind is that of a roundabout. Those of your Lordships who are so fortunate as to have to do with children will realise that nothing is more certain than that a child will try to clamber on to a roundabout—you can put your wad of dollars on that—if it is in a place where children are about. Consequently, the law has evolved this principle of what I think is called allurement or enticement, and if you put up something which constitutes an enticement to children you must realise that children will go there, and you must take all reasonable steps to see that they are not injured in so doing. That is a sound principle. It would not be right that a man should be able to say: "After all, the roundabout was on my own land; there was no right of way; and that is that". That is not good law.
LORD DYNEVOR: Does the noble and learned Earl refer to a roundabout which has a musical instrument in it?
EARL JOWITT: I mean a roundabout with horses and some form of an organ which plays music. That is the sort of illustration I have in mind.
Then, again, the other day I came across a case in which a railway company had a railway line running through some land. There was no right of way, but there was an embankment. It was a sharp embankment, an ideal place to slide down. Children had been sliding down it, and the railway company knew that children had been so sliding, though, of course, they had no right of way: they had no right to slide down the embankment. A notice saying, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" might have been put up, but children would still have continued to slide down that embankment. As I understood it (I am afraid that I have not considered this point very carefully before), the proposition which Lord Milner of Leeds adumbrated was not that he would impose on the railway company, and people in a similar situation, any absolute obligation to keep children out. He did not seek to make them insurers, but he did say that they ought to take reasonable care, in view of the fact that they have something which is obviously attractive, or possibly attractive, to children, to keep children out. That may be an extension of the existing law; and if it is, I think that it is one which should be considered.
I believe that we have to hold a very difficult balance here. On the one hand, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, that it is hard to put on the owner of land an obligation to keep trespassers out. Trespassers ought not to go there at all. On the other hand, we are dealing here with children, who are, perhaps, in a rather different category. Children may suffer such frightful injuries that we should all desire to see, if we can, that the possible cause of such injuries is prevented. This matter may not be within the scope of this Bill—I am not sure that it is. It may be that it should be considered on some other occasion, but I strongly suspect that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has had occasion to think over this matter, as I have had, and that he has been rather worried about it, realising the difficulties and the necessity of holding the scales fairly between the owner of land, upon whom we do not want to place impossible and unreasonable obligations,

267
and the natural fact that children sometimes do things that they should not do.
Several times during the last holidays I found myself in sympathy with the man who advised, "Find out what the children are doing, and tell them not to." One may be pretty certain that they will be in some sort of mischief, or up some tree where they ought not to be. This Bill, as I say, may not be the proper vehicle for clarification of this question, and I should not like to delay it, because I think it is an admirable Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to think that, among his many preoccupations, the Lord Chancellor will consider this matter to see whether or not the law needs clarification, simplification or extension in the case of children, to achieve an object which, I am happy to think, is the object of all noble Lords, on whichever side of the House they sit.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first express my gratitude to the noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they have given to the Bill and for the consideration that they have given to certain difficult points which arise, at any rate in connection with problems related to the Bill. I have considered carefully the difficult question on which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, have spoken—namely, the position of children, and it may be convenient for your Lordships, in view of the interesting and authoritative speeches we have had, if I try to expose the position as it is to-day and to adduce the arguments on either side, as I see them, and the grounds on which, I think, there are difficulties in finding a solution.
I am attracted by the third of the noble Lord's suggestions—namely, that this is a matter which should be considered on its own merits and by itself. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing on your kindness if I take a few moments to sum up the position as I see it. The present law is as follows. If the child is lawfully on the premises, the duty owed to it is in many cases higher than that owed to an adult visitor. For example, a warning which would be adequate for adults may not be understood by children; or a danger that is obvious to adults may not be apparent
268
to children. Children may wrongfully interfere with dangerous objects on the land and thus bring harm upon themselves; and, as your Lordships have already heard, if the object is an allurement, the occupier will not be able to escape liability by pleading the child's wrongful act, as he would in the case of an adult. Broadly, as regards the duty of the occupier towards children lawfully on the premises the Bill preserves the law on this subject and makes special reference to it in Clause 2 (3) (a), as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, pointed out.
If the child is a trespasser, the occupier owes no duty to the child except under the normal law of negligence, under which, as the noble and learned Earl pointed out, he may be liable to a trespasser for what are often conveniently called "activity dangers," and probably the noble and learned Earl's argument, in the case before Lord Halsbury might have been a little shorter if the judgment on this subject in Excelsior Wire Company v. Callan, decided in 1930, had been available to him. The test of trespass is the same for adults and children, and the mere fact that an occupier has on his premises a dangerous object alluring to children does not in itself make him liable to a trespassing child who meddles with it. But, of course, the presence of an allurement in a place where it entices children to trespass is an element which may aid the inference of an implied licence.
The arguments for improving the status of an infant trespasser can be summarised as follows. The first, with which we all agree, is that society has a special interest in the welfare of children. The second is that children of tender age are in need of special protection because they do not appreciate dangers. On that aspect of the matter, the noble Lords who have spoken possibly have in mind certain statements of the courts in the United States, which are very relevant to it. The third is that the occupier who controls the state of the premises has a moral duty to see that persons whose presence on his land it is reasonable to anticipate do not come to harm. It could be argued that it is not relevant to this duty whether a visitor comes lawfully or as a trespasser and that, as foreseeability is the test, the duty would be owed more particularly to

269
children who trespass readily and unwittingly. The fourth argument is that a licence to an infant should be inferred more readily from the mere fact of an infant's presence on the premises and the occupier's knowledge of his presence there.
I have tried to put dispassionately and fairly the arguments on one side. The arguments on the other side, I think, may be expressed in this way. First, society's interest in the welfare of children must be balanced against society's other interest: that the occupiers of property should be free within reasonable limits, to use their property without having regard to people who come on it unlawfully. Secondly—and here I quote the argument from a textbook, Salmond on Torts, which is well-known to my noble and learned friends who have spoken in this vein:
"In the long run, the humanitarian impulse which seeks to impose the duty to protect children on occupiers rather than on the children's parents or guardians may do more harm than good."
A great judge, Lord Justice Scrutton, quoted with approval this passage in Salmond:
"The duty of preventing babies from trespassing on a railway line should lie upon their parents and not upon the railway company."
The third argument is the difficulty of effectively excluding children from dangerous premises. That is very great indeed. As the Law Reform Committee said, in paragraph 80 of their Report:
"Adults can be warned off or kept out. Children ignore warning notices, even if they can read them, break through or climb over fences, and having done so, heedlessly involve themselves in any danger, however obvious, the premises may afford."
To impose a positive duty on occupiers to keep out children would be to place a premium on disobedience. The more children ignore warnings and flout obstacles placed in their way, the greater the occupier's duty to exclude them would become.
The fourth argument is that if special protection were to be afforded to infant trespassers, it would be necessary to fix an age limit and any age limit would ex hypothesi be arbitrary. Fifthly, if reasonable anticipation of the likelihood of entry is to be the test, it is impossible in logic to distinguish between lawful and unlawful visitors. There are attractions in imposing a duty towards all-comers
270
on this basis, but a change of the law in this direction might have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences. Much would depend on the extent to which the courts would expect occupiers to anticipate the visits of trespassers, and on the extent to which they decided it was reasonable for the occupiers to take any positive steps, other than perhaps warning of potential dangers, to make the premises safe. I think it must be realised that greater burdens would undoubtedly fall upon the occupiers, and that they might well become intolerable.
Then one adds to the other arguments the finding of the Committee in paragraph 80—and I think as we are considering this point it would be right to read the whole paragraph—who say:
"So far as adult trespassers are concerned, we think the law is satisfactory, and we do not recommend any change. It has been suggested that the decision in Edwards' case may bear harshly upon child trespassers in cases which, on this view, common humanity demands that they should not be left without a remedy. The difficulty here is to evolve an exception in favour of child trespassers which would in practice give them any substantial degree of protection without imposing too heavy a burden upon occupiers of land used for perfectly legitimate purposes. Uses involving no danger to any rational adult may be fraught with peril to children. Adults can be warned off or kept out. Children ignore warning notices, even if they can read them, break through or climb over fences, and having done so, heedlessly involve themselves in any danger, however obvious, the premises may afford. The majority of us are therefore satisfied that, as in the case of adult trespassers, no change should be made in the existing law. We would perhaps add that this does not apply any disapproval of the decision in the case of Lynch v. Nurdin."
In that state of the arguments either way, I agree with the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt: that it would be unfortunate in this Bill, against the background that we have, to introduce this new aspect of the matter; and I believe that it would be wrong to do it without consideration focused on this point. However, I will certainly give the noble and learned Earl the undertaking that I will give further attention to it. I have occupied this portion of your Lordships' time to-day in the desire that those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject might care to write to me, at your leisure, giving your views on the relevant weight of the different arguments. That is why I have given all the arguments, whether the

271
strength of some of them commends itself to me or not. I think that is the best way to leave this difficult point. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have mentioned it. If I may add one personal word, as an ex-Minister for Welsh Affairs, and on my own behalf, I have the happiest memories of going over the ruins in Lord Dynevor's property, to which he referred, and I hope that they will stand for as many centuries as they have stood already, and without accident to anyone at all.
I will now pass to the most interesting point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid. First, however, I would say this: I think this is the first opportunity your Lordships have had of welcoming my noble and learned friend back to your Lordships' House after the distinguished services which he rendered to his country by his work on the Constitution of Malaya. I am sure that all your Lordships would like me to express not only your welcome to Lord Reid on his return, but your congratulations to him on the work he has done. My noble and learned friend raised the question of the Scottish Report. On this all I want to say is that I have consulted my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate on this point, and he is considering the Report. However, as my noble and learned friend will realise, it has only recently been published, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable public and professional reactions to it to emerge and be weighed up. As Lord Reid, above all people, will realise, not only does the Scottish law in its origins differ from the English, but the Committee expressly say that they desire a separate Bill for Scotland. From his past experience as a Scottish Law Officer, my noble and learned friend Lord Reid knows the difficulties that result from attempting legislation in a matter of this sort—involving the Common Law of Scotland—by a Scottish Application Clause. It is a matter which is much more suitable for a separate Bill and, as I said, my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate is considering the point.
My noble and learned friend Lord Reid made some interesting suggestions, when he said (and I do not think his assumption of the mantle of Elijah was in any way unjustified) that we should probably find that this Bill had to be considered
272
by the Courts, and even by your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity. But I think he will agree that it does make a considerable advance in the law—indeed, he said that. He would not expect me, on this Bill, to go into the wider question of whether your Lordships' House, in its Judicial capacity, ought to be bound by previous decisions. I hope that he will not regard it as undue levity on the part of a colleague if I remind him that although the House of Lords, sitting Judicially, cannot reverse its own earlier decisions, it can distinguish them, and has done so on innumerable occasions in the legal field.
I hope that I have dealt with the points, which are very important points and should be dealt with at much greater length. But your Lordships have already been kind over the amount of time you have allowed me to allocate to myself, and I hope that I have examined the points sufficiently for your Lordships now to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TELEVISION MAST NEAR RHOOSE AIRPORT
4.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to permit a second television mast to be erected near Rhoose airport in view of the fact that, rising approximately 1,150 feet above sea level, the mast will be an undoubted hazard to aerial navigation, will have a considerable psychological effect on air crews and passengers and will increase flying costs, thus being a deterrent to the use of the airport by civil aircraft; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Motion on the Order Paper to-day because the decision of the Government in this matter has important consequences for South Wales and also implications which are far wider than those of South Wales.
This airport, Rhoose, is the airport which serves Cardiff and South Wales: in other words, rather more than half the population of Wales is accommodated by this airport. In 1951, it had become apparent that there was a great need for a commercial airport of international

273
standards in this area. The decision had to be taken whether to do nothing at all—which was the desire of some, and important people at that—or whether Pengam Moors, the existing airport for Cardiff, should be improved at a cost of some millions of pounds, involving the alteration of the course of the Rumney River and other matters of like importance; or, thirdly, whether an entirely new airport should be constructed or acquired in the vicinity of the capital of Wales.
I was the Minister at that time. I decided, first of all, that it was necessary to have an airport for South Wales, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would agree, with his experience, as he has just told us, as Minister for Welsh Affairs. I also decided that Pengam Moors was not a practical possibility, first of all owing to the fact that the alteration of a river is always something which strikes a certain amount of trepiditation in my heart, secondly, it was on moorland, subject to flooding by the sea, and, thirdly, at best the aircraft would have to climb pretty steeply to get away from the airport in order to overcome the chimneys of the adjacent works. The Welsh Civil Aviation Consultative Committee then suggested to me that we should look at an abandoned Royal Air Force airfield at Rhoose, some nine or ten miles from Cardiff. We went out there and found it in a poor condition, with a large number of bombs stacked on the runways, and buildings in an extreme state of dilapidation—as I say, it was abandoned and disused. However, from an aviation point of view, except for one feature, it was likely to be a suitable airport for civil aviation if the necessary money and time were spent upon it.
The Government of the day agreed that Rhoose should become the airport for South Wales and that the necessary facilities should be given to the Ministry to put this work in hand. It was put in hand. As I said, there was one disability, and that was that four and a half miles away from Rhoose was the television mast at a little village called Wenvoe. This mast was 1,170 feet above sea level, or somewhere about 1,000 feet above the level of the land. It was away to the north-east. I, with my advisers, considered this matter, and eventually
274
decided that as there was just one mast, which, after all, was there already, and there was nothing we could do about it, we should have to accept it; and due warning was given. The British Air Line Pilots Association, one of the trade unions or professional associations concerned with aviation, also considered this point, and, as it now appears, they accepted this hazard for the same reason that I did—in other words, it was there. The S.B.A. procedure—that is, the procedure for aircraft coming in to land—was based on, and took account of, the mast.
In October, 1952, the airport was opened by the then Government and by the representative of the then Minister of Civil Aviation, who at the time was Mr. Lennox-Boyd. After that, the airport developed rapidly. There has been a steady increase in services and traffic, and now regular services are flown between the airport and Ireland, London, Manchester, Paris and the Channel Islands, and the whole prospects of the airport are, or were until recently, bright, and business was increasing at a satisfactory rate. The users of this airport are Cambrian Airways, which is the Welsh private aviation line, to the extent of 45 per cent., the Irish Line, Aer Lingus, which is a user to 25 per cent., and others who make up 30 per cent.
Into this happy scene there came not an atomic bomb but a television bombshell, because the I.T.A., commercial television, proposed to erect a television transmitting station at a nearby spot at St. Hilary Down, which is four and a half miles away to the north-west of Rhoose. So there is Wenvoe to the northeast, and St. Hilary Down to north-west. Their proposal was, and is, to erect this television mast to serve the transmitting station, 1,150 feet above sea level and some 950 feet above the level of the airport—almost the identical height to the television mast erected at Wenvoe by the B.B.C. The Independent Television Authority are opening a station to serve South Wales and the West of England, and the sole programme contractors are a company which shelters coyly under the initials T.W.W. Limited. I cannot say more than that, because I do not know what the initials stand for; but those are the initials under which they were registered.
In November, 1956, Cambrian Airways, the main operators, heard that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation had given consent for the erection of this mast by I.T.A. That was a decision without any consultation with them, and they found that this mast would lie only thirty degrees off the line of the approach to one of the runways. Cambrian Airways then got into contact with Aer Lingus, and to their surprise found that this was the first time that Aer Lingus had heard of the matter at all and no approach whatsoever had been made to them, who are 25 per cent. users. Both the users, as may be expected, objected strongly to the proposal, and so did the British Air Line Pilots Association which, as I mentioned before, is the professional organisation of the airline pilots. There were other objectors as well.
On December 13, 1956, in your Lordships' House I raised the question in the course of a Motion by my noble friend Lord Winster. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 200, col. 1145]:
"It would hardly seem credible to most of your Lordships that, one side of the airport already being affected by the B.B.C. mast, on the other side of the airport, straight in line with the north-west south-east runway the Government are now permitting the I.T.A. to erect another mast which will be 1,150 feet above sea level. This has caused consternation to the users of the airport."
Later, I said (col. 1146):
"I believe that the Government should concentrate on making Rhoose a really worthwhile airport."
That was to counter the suggestion that it should be moved somewhere else.
As a result of protests, possibly in your Lordships' House, possibly, as I have said, made to officials of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, a meeting was held on January 7 of this year, when representatives of the two airlines, of the Airline Pilots' Association and of the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation, met Sir Arthur Le Maitre, who is the official in charge of the airfields of this country on behalf of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. They again protested to him and made the objections that I have made, and many others. As a consequence of some or all of these things, a public inquiry was decided upon by the Minister. It was held by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on March 7 of this year. The
276
objectors at this inquiry included Cambrian Airways, Aer Lingus, the British Air Line Pilots Association, the British Independent Transport Association on behalf of the commercial independent operators, the Glamorgan Aviation Flying Club and the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. So there was a pretty formidable band of objectors, objecting, of course, from many different points of view, but all objecting.
Some may cavil at a Government inquiry affecting a matter in which the Government were interested, in which the judge, the jury, the "cunning old fury", counsel for the respondents and the chief witness were all the servants of the Government. I am not cavilling at that to-day, but I am cavilling at this: first, that the inquiry was held not before, but after, the Government's decision was taken. That seems an odd way in which to have an inquiry. The result, in fact, was a foregone conclusion, because it was held after the Government had decided to announce their decision. It was very difficult to see how any Government could go back on it once it had not only been decided but announced.
Secondly, not content with weighting the court, the Government weighted the evidence, for the officer who conducted the inquiry, after all the objectors' witnesses had been heard, called an official of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation as a witness, not to provide facts but to comment on the evidence produced by the other objectors. This he did in what the objectors, or some of them, thought was a highly tendentious manner, giving evidence which was regarded by the objectors as misleading to the court.
Thirdly, the objectors were not allowed to cross-examine this witness, Mr. Osborne, on his evidence; it had to be accepted. As I say, he being the last witness, no one was able to controvert him. I suggest to your Lordships that the normal and proper procedure would be to call upon the Ministry's representative to state the facts at some period during the inquiry and then to submit himself to cross-examination. It was no part, I suggest, of the duty of the Minister's representative to comment upon the evidence of the objectors' witnesses, and still less was it right that he should not have been submitted to cross-examination, as I am informed was the

277
case. The Government's representative, in their own court, before their own officer, in their own cause, was a privileged witness. Quite apart from the merits, I think this is a very poor business altogether. It is a matter which calls for the attention of Parliament. It smacks of a Star Chamber. I, for one, should like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to look into this matter, because here it seems to me that justice has neither been done nor has it been seen to be done.
The Minister's second decision—it is the same decision, of course, repeated for the second time—was conveyed in a letter dated March 21 to the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. The upshot of this as your Lordships can imagine, was to grant permission for the proposed development, subject to certain minor conditions as to lights, access and amenities—not amenities at the airport but amenities of the buildings around the mast. In his letter the Minister said:
"What had been represented was that the proposed site was near the safety limits as defined by I.C.A.O. standards "—
that is, the international body which deals with these matters—
"and that because the margin was small the proposal should be rejected. It seemed to the Minister "—
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): Who said that?
LORD OGMORE: This is from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is a letter dated March 21, 1957, signed by J. L. Palmer on behalf of the Minister, to the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. It says:
"What had been represented was that the proposed site was near the safety limits as defined by I.C.A.O. standards and that because the margin was small the proposal should be rejected. It seemed to the Minister that if he accepted these standards—as he must, on the evidence and on the advice available to him—he must accept them without qualification. It had been contended further that, while the mast might be an acceptable hazard by I.C.A.O. standards, there remained the consideration of the psychological effect on pilots and passengers and because of the costs in extra flying time resulting from the more complicated approach procedures, there would be discouragement of the use of Rhoose. The Minister could not accept these contentions as being decisive. At the same time the Minister appreciated that the introduction of a hazard, albeit an acceptable hazard on technical grounds, should be avoided if at all practicable; and he recognised the
278
anxiety which had been expressed by pilots concerned with airline operations at Rhoose. He had, therefore, examined the suggested alternatives to the Independent Television Authority's proposal."
He does not seem to think very much of them.
My Lords, protests were made as a result of this second decision—or the same decision repeated for the second time—and I myself, in your Lordships' House on April 3 last, raised this question; and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, replied to me. I said then, in a supplementary question [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 1023]:
"My Lords, as the Minister has said, this is a hazard which will have a deterrent effect on the use of the airport."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, no Minister said that. Perhaps I should read this passage, because it is of great importance that we should not have any misunderstanding about this matter.
LORD OGMORE: May I say that I am quoting what I said in your Lordships' House. If I was wrong in what I said then, the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will no doubt correct me. I should have thought there was not much doubt that the Minister did say that it will have a deterrent effect, from what I have just read. However, that is a point of argument and no doubt the noble Earl will argue it later. This is what I said:
"My Lords, as the Minister has said, this is a hazard which will have a deterrent effect on the use of the airport and will mean that the users will be put to extra expense. This is the Welsh Television Authority and I again ask: is there no place in South Wales except quite near to the airport—it is only a mile or so away—where this television mast could be put?"
The noble Earl, Lord Munster, said:
"My Lords, I have replied to the noble Lord twice, and this time I will give him an emphatic answer: it is in the negative; there is no other place."
The British Air Line Pilots Association also protested. In fact, they went so far as to issue a statement to the Press. It is rather an important one, and I should like to read a relevant passage in it. This is what they said:
"The existing mast at Wenvoe in itself constitutes some danger to air navigation "—
that is the B.B.C. mast to which I have referred.
"If it is intended to make Rhoose the centre of Welsh aviation—all interested parties hope

279
that it is—then reasonable steps should be taken to reduce the number of obstructions in that area. The Association opposes the erection of additional hazards to air navigation in the promixity of any airfield, therefore it is considered that Rhoose is a test case because similar hazards might one day be proposed for other airports. The flight path of aircraft using the East-West runway already has to be distorted away from St. Athan R.A.F. Station, which means that aircraft taking off from Rhoose will have to pass close to the proposed mast.
"The Association has not just considered this as a parochial problem applicable only to its members who operate in South Wales. The subject has been studied by pilots who operate between the principal international airports and who fly all types of modern aircraft. They are all of the opinion that even although I.C.O.A. says the mast would not be a danger, the presence of two masts within five nautical miles of any airfield is unacceptable."
Cambrian Airways, as I have said, are the main users of the airport, and they also wrote to the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation a long letter giving their reasons in detail for objecting to the decision, and ending up in this way—I quote the Managing Director:
"I can only repeat that I consider this new television mast at St. Hilary, if erected, will constitute a real obstruction and danger to aircraft in the air. The proposal should be resisted at all costs."
My Lords, those are what I would call the informed views of the people who are, after all, using the airport.
I come now, quite shortly, to the technical objections to the decision. First, there is the hazard to navigation. That is undoubted. No one denies it. Although the noble Earl tried to make a point about it a moment ago, I think that no one really denies that. The Ministry have not denied, nor can any commonsense person deny, that a mast 1,150 feet above sea level and 4½ miles from an airport, when there is already another mast 1,150 feet above sea level and 4·5 miles from the airport, must be a hazard to navigation. There is no question about that. The only question is whether it is an acceptable hazard.
The Minister shields himself behind the I.C.A.O. conditions. The mast is half a mile outside what is called the defined area—an area within which obstructions are not permitted. Of course, according to the conditions, masts can be erected, provided they are half a mile outside the defined area, all around the airport. Trying to get into the airport would be like playing "musical chairs". No pilot
280
would ever use an airport where there were masts all around it. Yet according to the conditions that could be so. There is nothing in the I.C.A.O. conditions to stop them setting up such masts—at least, so I am advised. Anyway, the objectors say that this tolerance is too fine; and as the tolerance is too fine we have to ask ourselves whether it is an acceptable hazard—whether we should ask people to fly into the airport with this hazard as it is proposed in its vicinity. Those who want to cover up a wrong decision say, "Yes, it is acceptable". Those who stake their money in commercial television also say. "Yes, it is acceptable". Those who have to stake their lives and their living in aircraft say, "No, it is not acceptable". The matter is as simple as that. I would ask your Lordships whom you would rather believe—the chairborne or the airborne; the people who have to risk their lives in flying aircraft under these conditions, or those who have not.
I return now to later comments, made in a letter to me from the British Air Line Pilots Association, dated April 18, 1957. The Association then said this:
"When this subject was first considered by the Association's Technical Committee there were present pilots who flew Constellations. Argonauts, Hermes, Pionairs and Viscounts. All those pilots, who have had considerable experience in operating from all types of airfields, agreed that the proposed mast at St. Hilary was unacceptable to the Association. Therefore, it can be seen that the matter has not been considered only as a local problem because the implications could apply to any airfield. We consider that this could be a test case because a mast might be prepared within four miles of London Airport."
Then the Association went on to say:
"It might be suggested that at Rhoose the number of aircraft movements is small when compared with London Airport and that, therefore, it is of less significance which justifies its being hedged about by tall obstructions. We are opposed to such a philosophy."
The reply of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to the British Air Line Pilots Association is this:
"I do not think any useful purpose would be served by trying to compare the situation at London Airport with that which exists at Rhoose. The traffic volume is entirely different, which means that in examining the London Airport case one would have to take into account the complex air traffic control pattern which arises from the use of many different runways, In fact, I think that wherever one put a mast within five nautical miles of London Airport it would be bound

281
to lie within the approach or overshoot pattern to one or other of the runways. This, however, is not the case at Rhoose."
That is the Minister's view, and, as I say, it is not acceptable, either to the commercial firms using the airfield or to the Association representing the pilots who fly the planes which use the airfield and who fly planes using other airfields, because they feel that this is a matter which has significance far beyond Rhoose itself.
The second bad effect of this decision is the psychological one. As I have explained to your Lordships, we now have a triangle. We have this enormous mast to the north-east; we have the proposed mast, equally high, to the north-west, and at the apex of the triangle there is the airport at Rhoose. That is bound to be a spectacular hazard. It has been hard work to get the development of air traffic going in South Wales, first because, until now, we have never had a decent airport, and secondly, because a few years ago there was a dreadful disaster a few miles away, at an R.A.F. airfield at Llandow. Supporters of the Welsh team had come back by plane from the international Rugby match at Dublin and the plane crashed in the course of landing, with dreadful loss of life. It was one of the most terrible air disasters of all time, and in a place like South Wales, where everyone seems to be either related or to know everyone else, that was a dreadful setback to the development of civil aviation. To erect a hazard of this kind just at this time is bound to have a great psychological effect in delaying the expansion of air traffic.
Then there is the extra expense. Cambrian Airways tell me that already, because of the B.B.C. mast at Wenvoe, they are put to extra expense of £6,000 a year in flying time alone, and the amount will, of course, be infinitely greater when the St. Hilary mast is erected. Then there is the effect on users of the airport where alternatives are available. Aircraft operators coming in in bad weather will avoid this airport if they can, and will go on to Bristol or other airports available to them.
In conclusion, I must say that I cannot believe that no alternative site is suitable. The Television Authority have the whole of South Wales and, so far as I am aware, of the West of England, available, though I believe it is hoped the site will be in
282
South Wales—I would say nothing on that score, but let us confine it to South Wales, a not inconsiderable area. There is no shortage of humps and bumps in South Wales, for it is full of hills and mountains. Why on earth have they to pick a hill only 4½ miles away from the only airport in South Wales? So far as I am aware that question has never been answered. When I raised this question in your Lordships' House last March, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, simply said that it was not possible to do otherwise, but he did not say why it was not possible, and I know not why. I have never heard any reason why it is not possible to site the mast elsewhere, and I would beg Her Majesty's Government to rescind the decision and preserve uninterrupted access to the airport, apart from the Wenvoe mast already there.
Failing that, as very much of a "second best," and only if no other course is open, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to see whether they cannot adapt one mast to serve both stations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I believe that that has been done, or is contemplated, elsewhere. If that were possible, obviously it would be much better than having two masts. Nevertheless, I would ask that before finally closing the files, Her Majesty's Government should check on the question of alternative sites, as I am sure that none of us is satisfied on that point. We cannot believe that there is not some nice, snug little hill somewhere in South Wales which could accommodate this mast equally well as St. Hilary Down. I beg to move for Papers.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is a distinguished Welshman, and Wales could not have a case, which I know greatly interests them, better put for them or put by someone who speaks with more experience in the realm of civil aviation. I should, however, like to disentangle one or two elements in the story which the noble Lord has told, and if I recapitulate it in some detail it is only for that reason.
The noble Lord is quite right in saying that it was when he was Minister of Civil Aviation that initially the decision was made to transfer the airport for South Wales from Pengam Moors to Rhoose; but at the time when that was done, as

283
the noble Lord has said, the B.B.C. already had the mast at Wenvoe and the airfield to which he has made a great deal of reference—St. Athan—was in operation. Those things were already present when that happened and, if I may humbly say so, I believe that that decision was absolutely right. Rhoose is much the best site in South Wales for an airport and it is greatly to the advantage of the area that the airport should be there. I would only add that we see no reason to-day why it should not be developed to meet the fullest needs of aircraft likely to use it at any time in the foreseeable future.
May I give your Lordships some details? The airport has been developed with two runways, one of 4,500 feet, the other of 3,200 feet, and the latter is being extended. It is conveniently situated to serve the whole of South Wales. The airport is equipped with the Standard Beam Approach system which, in time—and this is rather important—will be replaced by Search Radar Decca 424, which is going to make a great deal of difference in the area. There is a V.H.F./D.F. set installed on the aerodrome and normal airfield control. Passenger handling at Rhoose is carried on in temporary wartime buildings but they are being modernised for the Empire Games which will be held next year, and we hope that there will be a much improved access road to Rhoose also. I believe that co-operation with aircraft control at St. Athan is entirely satisfactory, and the Royal Air Force do not use St. Athan a great deal.
One problem which has arisen and which I want clearly to isolate from that which we are discussing to-day is this: the I.T.A. were anxious to find a site in South Wales and, in fact, were bound by Statute to do so, so that a great body of people in South Wales and much of the South-West of England could, if they were so minded, choose their transmission. Siting involves a certain number of technical points. One of them is that if there is already a mast for the B.B.C. the other mast must not be nearer than two miles nor further than five miles. The reason for that is that if the two masts were too close together, the signals from one would affect those from the other; while if the second mast were too far
284
away, all the recipients of transmissions would require extra aerials, to be able to tune in to each transmitter.
St. Hilary Down was selected after a most exhaustive search. The I.T.A. then applied to Glamorgan County Council for planning permission. The Glamorgan County Council had the usual consultations with the authorities apparently responsible, and the I.T.A. published their intention, so that everybody knew of it. The matter was referred to the Departments and authorities concerned and no objections were received. Glamorgan County Council were on the point of giving planning permission, and it is true to say that it was just at this point that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation had representations made to him by the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation and other interested parties. In order to bring this matter to further consideration, it was necessary for my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to call in the planning application—that is to say, he called it in from the Glamorgan County Council in order that the matter might be thoroughly examined at ministerial level. The matter was then examined, and I would add a little to what Lord Ogmore said in this connection.
The Welsh Advisory Council did meet a senior official of the Ministry. The Chairman and a member of the Council also met my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. So they had a full opportunity of putting their case before the inquiry was held. My right honourable friend was not satisfied that there were technical objections. However, in order that this feeling should be fully met and an opportunity given for stating views as fully as possible—and because there was general interest in the subject—the Minister of Housing and Local Government authorised a local inquiry to be held in public. I would emphasise that there was an assessor at that inquiry, Air Marshal Sir Alick Stevens, a very distinguished Royal Air Force Officer. His report necessarily was in front of, and his views were available to, the inspector who held the inquiry.
I have explained the sequence of events to make it clear that every effort was made to allow full expression of the views of the interests concerned. In fact, nothing was suggested to the effect that

285
this was being done in a hole-and-corner way. The fact was that the matter was fully ventilated.
LORD OGMORE: Is it not the fact that the Minister arrived at a decision, and the decision was announced before Aer Lingus and Cambrian Airways were informed of the proposal at all? That is what they say.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The position is clear, I think. The Minister was asked by the Glamorgan County Council whether he had any objections. He said, "No." But as a result of objections afterwards received from aviation interests, the Minister of Housing and Local Government called in the planning application and said, in effect, "The Government will take this up and look at it again." Of course, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation had previously reached a conclusion, but when he heard of objections he said, "We should like to look at it again and hear representations by parties interested, to see whether there is anything we have overlooked." As I have said, the Welsh Council met senior officials; they met the Minister in person, and a local inquiry was held in public. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, called this "Star Chamber" procedure. I think: that in Tudor days they would have been well pleased with this sort of procedure, if they could have had it.
The noble Lord also said that the Government were an interested party. The only interest the Government had was that Rhoose Airport belongs to my right honourable friend.
LORD OGMORE: The Government were interested in supporting the decision which they had arrived at before taking the opinion of the people who were vitally concerned.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Government had taken a provisional decision. They nevertheless said, "We will call it in and have another look at the matter". It was taken in to be looked at again. I really do not think the noble Lord can accuse the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation of deliberately exposing air passengers in this country to unwarrantable hazards. The noble Lord knows from his own experience the feeling that there is in the Ministries. He knows that they are acutely conscious of the very
286
heavy responsibilities which they necessarily carry.
Then the noble Lord made some remarks about witnesses. May I say a word about Mr. Osborne? Mr. Osborne is a pretty experienced man. He is himself an airline pilot. Here I am going a little beyond the official approach, and I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate it. Mr. Osborne drew up instructions himself. They were submitted to the Department and approved by the Department, and he spoke from those instructions. He was, in fact, giving views which he himself held. The noble Lord also raised the very old chestnut about cross-examining Government witnesses. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, well knows that it is indeed a very old chestnut which has been going about for years, and it is even now being examined by the Franks Committee. I do not want to go into this question—no doubt there is a lot to be said on both sides—but I think the noble Lord knows that in fact it is more or less standard practice that when a Government official gives evidence of fact he is not generally cross-examined. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing. I think it was a very forthright statement which this witness made in answering points which had been raised.
May I take them up myself? I see they were mentioned in the Minister of Housing and Local Government's decision letter. Four points were specifically raised by opponents of the Scheme. They were: first, that it was a danger to aircraft without radio; secondly, it was a danger in the case of engine failure on take off; thirdly, it was an added danger in cases where aircraft took off from St. Athan; fourthly, it would add to flying time and consequently to costs. I think the noble Lord will agree that these were in fact major points which were raised at the inquiry. I should like to deal as reasonably fully as I can with each one.
I would reply to the first by saying that in this year, 1957, if you fly without radio and do not work out your course pretty carefully beforehand, and do not check your position by map reading, then the country is full of danger to you—all sorts of danger. There is, for example, Daventry; there is Kirk o'Shotts; there are the Welsh Mountains. Of course you have to map read all the time in all

287
weather conditions if you have not got radio. In bad weather conditions you would not be allowed into some of the congested areas, such as London Airport, at all. I really do not think we can base our modern flying pattern on standards suitable for aircraft flying without radio aids and in bad visibility.
Now as to engine failure on take off. That is always an extremely unpleasant experience. If the noble Lord has ever had it himself he will probably not forget it. The circumstance here is that the aircraft has a funnel increasing in width from 2½ at the threshold to 5 miles at 6½ miles from the end of the runway. If it is broadly able to maintain its course in that funnel, it is safe. If it needs to go outside the funnel, then, frankly, I am bound to say that the aircraft is out of control and will run into all manner of hazards. As the noble Lord is aware, cutting an engine on take-off is a regular part of the training of pilots of civil aircraft at the present time. The noble Lord did not say very much about liaison with St. Athan. I am given to understand that that liaison is entirely satisfactory. If it were not satisfactory it would be very dangerous. But it is no more dangerous by reason of this mast. The noble Lord said something about adding to flying time. I noticed that the flying time he seemed to think would be added was based on references to the mast at Wenvoe, which was in place, of course, before Rhoose became an airport at all.
LORD OGMORE: I am afraid the noble Earl must have misunderstood me. I gave figures from one of the operators showing what the extra flying time due to the Wenvoe mast was. I think that the extra expense would be much greater if the St. Hilary mast was in place.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is pure assumption. The Wenvoe mast was there in any case. I take the view that the St. Hilary Down mast is going to make no difference at all. As the noble Lord is aware, there is no such thing as a standard pattern for landing at airports. Every one has its own procedure and Rhoose is no exception. There is no reason at all why there should be any delay. In the normal way aircraft go straight in to land at Rhoose without even a circuit, except in circumstances of
288
congestion. When we come to congestion at an airport, then we do get delays, particularly when the weather is bad, and the amount of money wasted in delays is very considerable. But that does not happen unless the weather is bad, and the mere existence of a mast at St. Hilary Down should not make any difference. My approach to this matter is that the difficulty of finding a site for the I.T.A. mast is completely irrelevant to the issues—
LORD OGMORE: That does not agree with the Minister.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thought that the noble Lord was not correct in quoting the Minister as saying that this would cause a hazard which would have a deterrent effect. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Munster said that it was a hazard.
LORD OGMORE: The Minister in question was the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have read what the Minister said with great care and this is what he said:
"What has been represented is that the proposed site is near the safety limits…"
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, at the foot of my copy—we may have different paged copies of course—what the Minister says is this:
"At the same time the Minister appreciated that the introduction of a hazard, albeit an acceptable hazard, on technical grounds should be avoided if at all practicable and he recognised the anxiety which had been expressed by pilots concerned with airline operations at Rhoose. He would therefore examine suitable alternatives to the I.T.A. proposals."
There he is admitting by implication that there is a hazard and also, what the noble Earl now says is something entirely irrelevant, the proposal of an alternative site.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: He says that it is an acceptable hazard. There is hardly an airport in the world which has not to accept some disadvantage. If we go to London Airport, we see a great big gasometer right in the flight path of one runway.
LORD OGMORE: It was there before.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree; but it is a hazard which, in point of fact, is contrary to international standards. What is being done in Wales is not contrary to

289
the standards. For that reason I do not think that the noble Lord is justified in saying that the Minister regards it as a hazard. It is an acceptable hazard. What I say is that the difficulty in finding a site for the I.T.A. is irrelevant, and I am interested to see that that is exactly the view of the I.T.A. themselves. This is what they say:
"It is emphasised, however, that if it were now decided that the mast would be a source of danger to life, your Authority would not wish to pursue the proposal."
We could not have a franker or more open statement than that: if it is a danger to life, stop it. I think that that is a fine attitude to take up, and it is important.
Speaking more technically, if we apply the extreme standards in the most difficult case of all, when full allowance is made for an aircraft which fails to land and has to go round again, the demands which the International Civil Aviation Organisation make are fully met. These are that from the end of the runway there shall be a funnel symmetrical about the extended centre-line on a base 2½ miles wide at the threshold increasing to width of five miles at a distance of 6½ miles. In this area there will be no significant obstruction. Another condition has to be fulfilled, which I will read out:
"Anything which may endanger aircraft on movement area or in the air within the limits of the horizontal and conical surfaces should be regarded as an obstruction and should be removed in so far as practicable."
If I may interpret this, it means within a circle of 16,000 feet from the centre of the airport, and the mast at St. Hilary Down is 25,000 feet away; so that it is well outside that limit.
The point I have sought to make is that Rhoose will be capable of development and there need be no restriction on any foreseeable use in future. The noble Lord has cast some doubt on whether the International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations are sufficient. May I remind him that these were drawn up by agreement between most of the Governments in the world and that in framing our instructions for our own representatives we took the advice of the British Air Line Pilots Association, and I am not aware that they have ever objected to these agreed standards. If the noble Lord takes extreme cases, then every mountain and tall building constitutes some form
290
of obstruction if aircraft go out of their designated path; but he will be aware that not long ago we discussed the importance of keeping aircraft in their designated paths, because if they go outside, then they will fly into all kinds of hazards. Let me emphasise that the limits set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation cover extreme cases and should be regarded as sufficient for what is intended.
The noble Lord has raised the question of having one mast instead of two. I think that he will agree that if that double mast were placed at Wenvoe it would be fatal to the airport and the question would arise of asking the B.B.C. to go somewhere else. I should not be sorry to see that, because I think that that mast is something of a disadvantage. However, the arrangement for a marker beacon on this mast, of which the noble Lord is aware, enables aircraft coming in to know when they are over the mast, and to ensure that they have passed it before following the beam down. This arrangement has worked extremely well, and I am not aware of any complaints having been made at all. As for the other mast at St. Hilary Down, I do not think that it is in any way a hazard for normal airline operation.
It is for that reason that I am anxious to reassure the noble Lord, if I can, that this matter has had the most thorough examination, and that it is the determination of the Department to see that it is properly developed. They have a big responsibility there, which they have to fulfil. I do not think the noble Lord need be particularly concerned over this matter, and I do not believe that when the airline pilots come to look at it again they will regard this mast as being any serious disadvantage. I know that the noble Lord has given quotations indicating that they are a little worried, but, quite frankly, as a pilot, one would naturally like to see every mast in the country removed. However, with good air traffic control—and particularly the Search Radar installation which will cover all approaches—I feel confident that when the pilots have looked at this matter again they will not feel there is anything to cause them anxiety.
I have endeavoured to explain this subject as fully as I can, but I must say this: having examined the matter, I do

291
not think my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in consultation, of course, with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, could have come to any other conclusion. I am sure he was right in giving planning approval. I do ask the House to believe that this matter has been approached with one consideration only in mind; that is, to ensure that the airport, which is State-owned, and for which, therefore, we all carry responsibility, is up to the essential standards required for proper commercial operations. I am confident that Rhoose Airport is of that standard, and that a great future lies ahead of that airport, as well as of other airports in this country. I think it is a pity to cast doubt on the safety of our commercial air services. People have to make these decisions about them, and those decisions are made with the fullest possible knowledge. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will look carefully at this matter again before making further suggestions of danger. I do not believe this is a case where the risk of danger to commercial aircraft is any higher than (shall I say?) the danger at London Airport.
5.13 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to reply to me. Whether he has given a good reply or not is another matter, but I am grateful to him for his trouble. I am not altogether convinced by the argument of the Government. I think that in this, as in so many other cases, time will show. The noble Earl says he hopes that I will not raise questions of safety, because of the commercial aspects of the matter. But it is not I but the commercial operators, the pilots who fly the aircraft and the Welsh Civil Aviation Advisory Council, who have raised the points and the objections. I feel that it was essential that we should have had this debate to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite agree with that.
LORD OGMORE: If the whole of what is, in effect, the flying community of South Wales are up in arms—as indeed they are: it must be stopped at all costs, say the main company—it is only right that they should have this opportunity of
292
having their views stated; and I felt it my duty to bring the matter before the House to-day. We have now had the Minister's reply on behalf of the Government, and we can study it. If it is the irrevocable decision of the Government to permit this mast to be erected, then we can only hope that the future will be as bright as the noble Earl has indicated. If not, then, in a quite literal sense, the blood of the pilots, the crews and the passengers of aircraft which may be endangered as a result of this mast will be upon the heads of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before moving the Adjournment of the House, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we have the Shops Bill in Committee on Recommitment on Tuesday. There are a great number of Amendments, and I am sorry to say that it has been necessary to arrange, through the usual channels, that we shall sit late that day and continue the Sitting through dinner.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL
Reported, without amendment.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.

MARINE SOCIETY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past five o'clock.