Lords Sitting of 19 December 1963

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

HEAVY LORRIES IN TOWN STREETS
2.5 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to impose restrictions upon the hours during which heavy commercial lorries will be allowed to use the streets of our cities and towns.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, any general restriction upon the movement of heavy commercial lorries would have serious implications for industry. In towns, where speeds for all vehicles are severely restricted, the delays imposed upon private cars by heavy commercial vehicles are not such as to warrant discrimination against the latter, having regard to the wide economic consequences involved.
LORD BOOTHBY: But, my Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that if these very heavy commercial vehicles are allowed to crawl over the streets of our towns and cities at all hours of the day and night traffic within the next two or three years will grind to a halt?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, just as much as I realise, as is envisaged in the Buchanan Report, that if private cars containing one person per car are allowed to fill the streets, then industry too will grind to a halt.
LORD BOOTHBY: Why do you not deal with them both?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is in course of action.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, world the noble Lord care to prophesy, because it would be a great to relief to all of us, and tell us what is being done to deal with these problems by way of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby? He evidently knows. He had better tell us.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that is the key to a fairly lengthy debate. If the noble Lord cares to put it on the Order paper, I shall be delighted to deal with it.

IMPORTS OF FRENCH BEEF
2.7 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they endorse the Written Reply by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to a Question asked in another place on Friday last, December 13 [Hansard, col. 131), in which he wrote that the present total prohibition on health grounds of imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from France should now be lifted and arrangements made at once accordingly; if so, whether the resulting effect upon the price and subsidy of our home beef products can be estimated, and whether it is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage and allow imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from a country in which foot and mouth disease was very prevalent recently.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, the lifting of the prohibition, on health grounds, of imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from France followed very thorough investigation of the animal and public health aspects of that country. We were satisfied that the foot and mouth situation had improved to the point that, given the extremely strict safeguards required concerning each consignment to be imported, there would be no justification in maintaining this ban. On the question of the effect on the price and subsidy of our home beef products,

373
the reply by my right honourable friend, to which the noble Lord has referred, went on to say that the amount to be imported during the period to March 31, 1964, will be up to 500 tons. We do not expect the marketing of home-produced or other imported beef to be affected by this relatively small quantity. Average supplies for the first quarter of the year from all sources (home and imported) have, over the past three years, been about 310,000 tons and the impact of 500 tons is therefore unlikely to be significant.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his lengthy reply, may I say that the present situation, or the possible situation which will arise, in regard to this importation is creating great unrest among the agricultural industry? May I put one or two additional questions to the noble Lord? The first one is this. Can he state when the last importation of uncooked French beef came into this country? how many years ago was it? And can he say whether or not the importation of this uncooked beef will mean a heavy subsidy by the French Government to their producers? Can he also give us any information as to what that is likely to amount to? Further, can he inform us whether the Commonwealth have been consulted in regard to this particular action on the part of Her Majesty's Government? Furthermore, will the noble Lord be able to give us an assurance that after April 1 next there will be no further importation of French beef into this country on a basis which would be detrimental to the interests of British farming?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will try to remember those questions. The first is very easy because I do not know the answer and I cannot give it without notice. The second question related. I think, to a form of dumping which the noble Lord envisaged. Well, of course, we do not know. We cannot tell at what price French beef will be coming into the country; it is early days to be able to say. But, of course, the noble Lord knows that there are powers under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, which would enable us to cope with that after April if it happened; but we have no reason to think it will happen. We have not,
374
to the best of my knowledge—and I may be corrected here—informed the Commonwealth countries or the Commonwealth suppliers because, as the noble Lord will realise, this is simply an animal health and food health issue. We have no right to keep out imported food on health grounds unless these grounds can be justified, which they can no longer be.
LORD WISE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the agreement after April 1 next will not he detrimental to British farming?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the French Government are seized of the importance we attach to our market not being disrupted. We are in continual touch; and if action detrimental to our market should occur, then talks would be resumed at Government level.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any existing foot and mouth disease in French cattle to-day?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, virtually none. They have instituted a slaughter policy.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: From what date?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Very recently. The slaughter policy is fairly recent; but the figures of the reduction of foot and mouth outbreaks in France are very impressive. To pick out one figure at random, in October, 1960, there were 508 outbreaks; in 1963, the corresponding figure was two; and the comparative figures are, in fact, similar. They give the same impression. There were some months in which there was no outbreak at all. The success the French have had in bringing foot and mouth to an end has been very impressive indeed. The present situation does not justify us in condemning them under the animal health regulations.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to make sure, when cattle are slaughtered for this purpose in France, that they do not reach here as uncooked meat? Is not this part of the beginning of a new policy for the Minister of Agriculture? The French Government are members of the

375
Common Market, I take it; they will operate the taxation of food put round all the Six countries. What are the conditions of our exports of meat to France in relation to the free import the Government are giving to their meat here?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as I have explained to the noble Earl's colleague, until now these imports of French beef have been kept out by animal health and food health regulations. When this ban is no longer justified on a basis of animal health or food health, we certainly cannot misuse these regulations; and I know that the noble Earl would not expect or wish us to. The only new thing is that the French have overcome their animal health problems. As regards the means we have of knowing the conditions in French slaughterhouses, I referred to this in my substantive Answer. The regulations are so elaborate and complete that it would take too long to relate them to the noble Earl now, but I will gladly inform him of them afterwards. They are very complete indeed.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what about the second part of my question about free import here? What rights have we to put free imports into any of these Six countries of the Common Market? Why cannot we send meat free to France, as we are allowing her to do here?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the question relates specifically to animal health and food health regulations and I am answering that question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that only a week or so ago complaints were being made from the Benches on my left about our export of lamb to France? Is it not also a fact that we must look at the interests of the consumer as well as of the producer in this matter?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government
376
had to some extent satisfied themselves about the state of slaughterhouses in France or, at least, that the regulations were very good indeed. As a result of a visit to France some years ago, when I inspected slaughterhouses, I found that their regulations were wonderful but their observance of them did not stand up to inspection. Have the Government really gone into this aspect of the matter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was inspecting slaughterhouses from which meat was to be imported into England. This does make a difference, because in point of fact the standards insisted upon by us are higher than the standards insisted upon by the French authorities for meat supplied within France.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether any British veterinary inspectors or public health inspectors will be present to look at these animals, or must we rely entirely on French inspectors for this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure about the detail of this. But we do send people over to inspect the abattoirs from which meat imported into this country will come.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that in our importation of meat from the Argentine we have our own very well-qualified inspectors to make sure that we are kept free of foot and mouth disease from that country, would it not be strongly advisable, in the interests of our animal health in this country, that at any rate in the initial stages we should take the same precautions in France?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I would give the noble Lord the same answer as I gave to his noble Leader. I would gladly go over with him the regulations that we have agreed with the French authorities, under which meat which is to be sent to this country has to meet certain standards, and I think that they will satisfy him. They are really too long to read out to the House at this moment.

USE OF SALOX RED ON MEAT
2.19 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the composition of the preparation known as Salox Red; what proportion of meat sold for human consumption is treated with this or similar products; whether there is any requirement that meat so treated should be labelled to inform the purchaser; and whether it is intended that the treatment of meat in this manner shall be prohibited.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, Salox Red is one of several proprietary preparations containing sugar, ascorbic acid and nicotinic acid which have been used by butchers to maintain or restore the fresh appearance of meat products. Inquiries I have made suggest that these preparations are not used extensively. There is no specific requirement for the labelling of meat so treated, but any pre-packed meat must declare its ingredients on the wrapper. The Fool Standards Committee have now advised my right honourable friend that they consider that the treatment of meat with such substances deceives the customer as to its freshness and may in some cases mask deterioration of it. Together with the Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee, they will be giving further consideration to these substances and the implications of their use, including the possible dangers to health, and they recommend that meanwhile the practice should be suspended. My right honourable friend accepts this recommendation and proposes, acting jointly with his right honourable friend the Minister of Health, to make regulations accordingly. The Food and Drugs Act, 1955, requires the interests concerned to be consulted before such regulations are made. This will be done.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the Answer he has given, which is a good deal more forthcoming than that his colleague gave in another place a
378
few days ago. Would it not be correct to say that these substances are also used as ingredients in a great many other foods, and that that aspect also deserves consideration?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in answer to one comment of the noble Lord, I think I ought to point out that it was only the day after my right honourable friend answered a similar Question in another place that the Food Standards Committee took it into consideration, and, therefore, I am able to give a more forthcoming reply than he was able to. It is quite true that at least one of these substances occurs in other foodstuffs: in fact, in bread it is obligatory. But everything depends on the quantity. It is suspected that in certain cases these colouring matters may have been used in a harmful quantity and had ill-effects on people.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether these regulations require Parliamentary approval, and, if so, when we can anticipate their being laid?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, they do not require Parliamentary approval; in fact, I am virtually certain that they do not. On the other hand, the Minister is bound by the Food and Drugs Act to consult the interests concerned before such regulations are brought into force.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication when these regulations will be issued?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, not in terms of time. But I can assure the noble Lord that no time whatever will be wasted.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I am sure we all congratulate my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch on having extracted this Answer from the Minister, may I ask whether this indicates a change of policy, and whether, at last, the Government will prevent the addition of what are known as additives to our food? Is the noble Lord old enough to recall that before the Clean Milk Act, which has been of such tremendous value to this country, criminal people—farmers and distributors; but only a minority, of course—added brown material to milk, together

379
with water, to make it appear more creamy? It took many years for the Government and the public to rise up and denounce this practice. Although the Minister has made a small concession to-day, still, every noble Lord here in each meal that he has eaten to-day has consumed some colouring material, some material put in for the process of preservation, of an unknown quantity and an unknown quality. Can we therefore ask the Minister whether he will take further action to go forward and prevent this really criminal adulteration of our food?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I feel fairly certain that I have led a rougher life than the noble Baroness and eaten more extraordinary things than she has in her time. I must tell her that this does not represent anything particularly new. We act on the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act. When a case of this kind is brought to the notice of my right honourable friend, he, as I have explained, has to refer it to the Committee; they give an opinion upon it, and then he, as he is also bound to do, approaches the interested parties. He is in this instance, as I have said, determined to act as soon as possible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the inquiry to which he referred will be confined to Salox Red, or will it cover other possible substances that may be used to disguise the true nature of the products? I have in mind, for example, the production of a palace blue to disguise the condition of the Conservative Party?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, so far as the last substance mentioned by the noble Lord is concerned, there is no need of it at all. As regards the first part of this question, we have other substances in mind, and if there are any on the noble Lord's list that are not on ours, and he will communicate with me, I will do my best to see that they are passed on.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that this state of affairs discloses some lack of precision in the Food and Drugs Act: that substances can be used in food which are found to be deleterious, and then have to be banned?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. It seems to me quite right that when a matter of this kind is brought to my right honourable friend's notice he should be bound, as he is by the legislation, to refer it to the interested parties.
LORD HAWKE: But somebody has to be poisoned first.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making two statements at a suitable moment after 3.30, the first one on pay for Members of another place and allowances for Members of this House, and the second on a memorial for the late President Kennedy.

ADEN
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: whether there will be laid before the House this afternoon the same statement as is being made in reply to a Parliamentary Question in another place concerning the present position in Aden?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I understand that my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire will be making a statement some time after half past three.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES: SCOTTISH PEERAGES
2.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE) rose to move, That there be referred to the Committee for Privileges the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, proof of matriculation of arms before the Court of Lord Lyon King of Arms, being arms appropriate to a Peerage in the Peerage of Scotland, may properly be accepted as sufficient evidence of entitlement to that Peerage for the purpose of issuing a Writ of Summons to this House in right thereof.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with this Motion, but a difficulty has arisen on which I. think it advisable—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that the opinion of the Committee for Privileges should be obtained. As your Lordships know, under the Peerage Act all holders of Scottish Peerages have the right to receive a Writ of Summons to this House. One of the very important duties of the Lord Chancellor is to issue on behalf of the Crown Writs of Summons to Peers to attend this House. The Lord Chancellor of the day is under obligation, both to the Sovereign and to this House, to issue a Writ only if he is satisfied that the person claiming it is the holder of the Peerage in question. If I were to issue a Writ to someone who is not a Peer, and that person were to sit in this House by virtue of the Writ, the effect would be to create a new Barony by Writ, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that every Lord Chancellor must take the greatest care not to do that. My predecessors and I have, therefore, always demanded strict proof of entitlement from a claimant to a Peerage who desires the writ to be issued to him on the decease of the previous holder.
He is required to produce the necessary evidence and all the relevant certificates of birth, marriage and death to establish that he is the nearest heir to the Peer who last sat in this House in the right of the Peerage in question. If this proof is adduced every time a new heir succeeds, it is not, in most cases, at all difficult for the claimant to establish his title, since he is unlikely to have to go back for more than one or two generations in order to trace his succession from an ancestor who himself proved his right to receive the Writ. There are cases where the claimant has to prove his descent from a remote ancestor, but they are exceptional. Your Lordships will, however, be aware that, until the passing of the Peerage Act, 1963, no Scots Peer has ever been summoned by Writ to this House in the right of his Scots Peerage. The sixteen Representative Peers of Scotland were elected by the whole of the Scots Peerage and their election was certified to the House by the Lord Clerk Register; no Writs of Summons were issued. Those Scots Peers who are also
382
Peers of the United Kingdom do, of course, receive Writs of Summons, but not in the right of their Scots Peerages, so the Lord Chancellor has never been furnished with proof of entitlement to a Scots Peerage.
As I have said, it is my duty to issue a Writ of Summons to a Peer of Scotland. Not only are the rules which have governed the devolution of Scots Peerages very different (for example, there is no co-heirship between daughters, and a surrender and re-grant with a new destination was permissible) but also Scottish Peerages are of very considerable antiquity. They all date back to before the year 1707, and some are very much older.
My Lords, I am most anxious to avoid putting any Scots claimants to a Writ of Summons to great inconvenience and expense in proving their claim. As there is nothing to constitute what the lawyers call "a good root of title" corresponding to the receipt of a Writ of Summons to this House, it may be necessary to require not only proof of the original grant of the Peerage but also of descent so as to establish that the claimant is, in fact, the holder of the Peerage. I have been anxious to find some other way in which the claimant to a Scottish Peerage can establish his claim in order to avoid the expense and trouble which such a procedure would involve.
I have thought it proper—and I hope your Lordships will agree—to issue Writs of Summons to those who have sat in this House as Representative; for this House by admitting them has recognised them as Peers. I have also thought it right to issue Writs of Summons to those who have established that they are the heirs of former Representative Peers, that is to say, I have treated sitting as a Representative Peer as a proof of that good root of title. In some cases the right to a Peerage has been confirmed by this House after proceedings before the Committee for Privileges: a case in point is that of my noble friend Lord Dundee, and in such cases no difficulty arises.
There remain, however, a number of Scots Peers for whom these forms of proof are not available, including some who already sit in this House by virtue of inferior or less ancient English or

383
United Kingdom titles, and who may desire to be summoned in their superior rank, or in the right of their more ancient Peerages of Scotland. It is my duty to refuse to issue a Writ of Summons if the claimant's right to one is not clearly established. It is then open to the claimant to petition Her Majesty, and, as your Lordships are aware, such claims may be referred to the Committee for Privileges, which is traditionally the authoritative body for the determination of Peerage claims, including claims to Scottish Peerages.
My Lords, if I refused to issue a Writ of Summons to any Scots claimant, the matter might come before the Committee for Privileges. Such a claimant might rely, and rely only, on the fact that he held a certificate of the Court of Lord Lyon King of Arms that the claimant has matriculated his arms as a Peer. In Scotland the right to bear arms is a legal right over which the Lyon Court has jurisdiction, and if the claimant satisfies the Lyon Court that he is the holder of a Peerage, then he is entitled to add to those arms insignia of nobility appropriate to the Peerage. If I understand the position correctly, Lord Lyon issues his certificate only if the claimant can prove strictly his descent from the last person who matriculated the arms in question and the devolution on him of the Peerage.
If the Committee for Privileges held, on a claim based on matriculation, that the fact that the claimant had matriculated the arms of a Scottish Peerage was proof of entitlement to a Peerage, then that would be a precedent to which I should have to have regard. But without a decision by the Committee for Privileges on this issue, I am sure it would not be right for me to issue a Writ of Summons where the claim is based on proof of matriculation of arms. To do so would be a departure from the practice of my predecessors, in that I should be acting on another's authority and without examining the evidence myself. But if matriculation can properly be accepted as a good root of title (and your Lordships will appreciate that I am not seeking to express an opinion on that point), then it will avoid putting the claimant to an ancient Scottish Peerage to the inconvenience and expense—which may be considerable—of establishing to my
384
satisfaction not only the grant of the original Peerage but of the fact that it has devolved on him or her.
My Lords, a very considerable time would elapse before a test case by a claimant basing his claim on matriculation would come before the Committee for Privileges for determination, and it is to avoid that delay, and to avoid the expense to which such a claimant would inevitably be put, and with the object of securing the opinion of the Committee for Privileges on this question that I am moving this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be referred to the Committee for Privileges the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, proof of matriculation of arms before the Court of Lord Lyon King of Arms, being arms appropriate to a Peerage in the Peerage of Scotland, may properly be accepted as sufficient evidence of entitlement to that Peerage for the purpose of issuing a Writ of Summons to this House in right thereof—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.37 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the leaders of all the Parties in the House have had an opportunity of consultation with the Lord Chancellor on this matter, and I believe it can be said—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will speak for himself—that we are in broad agreement with what the noble and learned Lord has said this afternoon. I think the only right thing to do is to have this matter considered by the Committee for Privileges, so that the question of the authority upon which the Lord Chancellor acts can be established without possible criticism afterwards.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has said, and to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his courtesy in consulting both of us in this matter. When this question was first put before us it bristled with difficulties, but I confess that my first reaction was that if a Member of your Lordships' House (to quote fairly recent instances, like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who established a very old Barony, or our noble friend the Earl of Dundee and other noble Lords) has been put to great

385
trouble and expense, it seemed to me unreasonable that Lords with perfectly good title from the other side of the Border should not take the same steps and the same trouble to establish their position. But as the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, in many cases their titles go back into the very distant past. They have been noble and respected titles for centuries, and it would not only be a great trouble and expense but, I think, ignominious for them to have to prove a very ancient title which was accepted in both countries.
In that case, although I think there is a possibility of accepting Lord Lyon's certificate of matriculation as proof, there is a possibility that that is not perfect entitlement. We have the safety valve, so to speak, of the Lord Chancellor's veto if he is not himself perfectly satisfied that it is a good claim. Therefore, in taking an intermediate course, I think that, as this is a matter which arises once and for all and will never rise again, it will be only just and generous of us to take the easiest line for those Scottish Peers who are so well established in their own country.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have the greatest respect and the greatest confidence in the Committee for Privileges, and I do not seek to oppose this Motion in any way. But many of my colleagues have been rendered very uneasy by this, and I hope that, as I am not a Member of the Committee for Privileges, your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes while I explain their feelings on this matter.
If I fall heir to an estate in Scotland which is hereditary, I have to be served heir to my predecessor. I take an action in the Court of Session to prove that I am the rightful heir, and the Court exacts proof just as meticulously and painstakingly as does a court in this country, in the South. If I lay claim to a Scottish Peerage, the only difference is that I go to the Court of the Lord Lyon. I do not go to the Sheriff Court. The Lord Lyon is just as meticulous in the proofs that he demands; and the establishment of that proof is just as difficult. I should like to say that, with the Lord Lyon, this has been so for 600 years and more. For at least that time Scotland has had
386
one great export—probably a greater export than any other: the export of men. The point of the Lyon Office was to label a man who was exported, and people used to go to the Lyon Office and get what was called a birth breve, which established exactly who they were and their position in Scotland; and these birth breves were accepted currently all over the Continent.
Let me give two brief examples. The first is Loudon, who became a Field Marshal in the Austrian Army in the eighteenth century, and had a Hapsburg princess given to him in marriage after she had been refused to an Austrian Count who was considered not good enough; and the second is the King who was the greatest King in Europe at the time, Louis XIV of France, wanted to confer a favour on his great Minister, Colbert, and Colbert asked to be made a Marquis. The King could not do that because Colbert could not establish a pedigree, so they decided to go to Scotland and see if they could find a family which would father Colbert. They did find a family—though it was not, I hasten to say, the family of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. The matter was held up because the Lord Lyon said "No" and stopped it. He said: "I will not sully my fair name by acknowledging a pedigree of this kind" The great King had to be satisfied, and therefore they had recourse to Parliament. Parliament settled it, and order the Lord Lyon to register the pedigree or something of that kind. But that shows the way in which the Lord Lyon has acted for hundreds of years.
If I go to the Lord Lyon and establish my pedigree it is not a very expensive matter. It does not cost a great deal, and if' the Government, or the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, were to wish to be more secure he could instruct the Lord Advocate, who is a member of the Government, to take action, probably, I suppose, in the Court of Session, to reduce that decreet of the Lyon Court. That would not be, as I say, a very expensive procedure and one would get certitude that way.
I do not say for a moment that we should not refer this matter to the Committee for Privileges, but that is the kind of thing we are referring to it. There is, however, another matter which bears

387
upon the subject, and that is this question of the election of the Peers who vote. I am sure the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will bear me out on this: that from the very beginning Peers' elections in Scotland were attended with a very great deal of difficulty, and I think the reason was that the Lord Lyon and his Court were not brought into the arrangements for Peers' elections. They were put under the Lord Clerk Register, without any reference to the Lord Lyon; and I believe that even the Lord Clerk Register, who is sitting here, will agree that the Lord Lyon is privileged to be present at a Peers' election only by invitation: he has no right to be there. For that reason, in the old days people used to go up with their friends and claim Peerages, and claim to vote.
I remember Lord Rutherford as a case in point, though I do not think that that Peerage exists to-day. If my memory serves me (and it is a long time since I read the authorities), those cases were brought to the Committee for Privileges here and so settled. But I am quite sure that for a long time past actions of that sort have not taken place because I am quite sure that, before I was allowed to vote in a Peers' election, I had either to be acknowledged by the Lord Clerk Register, who knows me, or, alternatively, produce a decreet of the Lord Lyon Court to show that I am a proper person to vote. That has always been the safeguard there.
Therefore, I think there are two difficulties ahead of us. As your Lordships know, it is not possible—and we have been told this on so many occasions by the greatest authorities—for your Lordships, or any power in the State, to annul a Peerage. The great thing to avoid, it seems to me, is that anybody who is properly entitled to a Peerage should fail to get a Writ of Summons; because the one thing that made me, at least, vote for the Peerage Act was that I did not want anybody in future to be held in a prison, as I have been held all my life in prison and I did not want Her Majesty any more to have what I might call Stateless subjects, as is the case if there is a Scottish Peer who has no seat in Parliament; who cannot go to the Commons and can have no place in the
388
Lords, and who is, therefore, like a Stateless person. The great danger which lies ahead of us, I think, is that if anybody who really is a Scottish Peer fails to receive a Summons, we are then reproducing one of the great defects which it was one of the most statesmanlike objects of passing the Peerage Act to abolish.
I have finished what I have to say on this matter. I have been so long, because I know that the Committee for Privileges will give this matter very careful and wise attention, and I felt it right to put before your Lordships the kind of question they will have to consider and the kind of question for which they will have to find an equitable solution.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I listened with great care to my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, and I realise that he has decided to refer this important matter to the Committee for Privileges. We may have thought in Scotland that we had a constitutional procedure for making sure of the claimants to Peerages, and there may be some disappointment among Scottish people that some of our names have not been readily acceptable. However, I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor has examined this matter with very great care, and I acknowledge that he is moving this Motion not only for the benefit of the House but also for the benefit of Peers, present and future.
2.49 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may reply shortly to what has been said on this Motion, I am grateful to the noble Duke for what he has said, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for the information he has given your Lordships about the Lyon Court. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have said nothing which could in any way be interpreted as a reflection upon the Lyon Court in the discharge of its jurisdiction. The point is this. The Lyon Court deals with the matriculation of arms, the right to carry arms. We in this country have the College of Arms, and a person who claims to be a Peer can go there and seek to establish his right to carry certain arms, with the insignia of nobility for those arms. No Lord Chancellor has thought it right or proper to accept

389
the ruling of Garter upon the question whether anyone is entitled to sit in your Lordships' House. That is one of the difficulties involved.
I considered, of course, the second question touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, as to whether one could regard proof that someone had voted in an election for a Representative Peer for Scotland as proof of entitlement to a Scottish Peerage. I was at one time somewhat attracted to that idea, but then I found this passage in Appendix H of Volume XI of The Complete Peerage, and it is headed "The Election of Scottish Peers". It says this:
"Since the union of England and Scotland in 1707, Scottish peers, as such, have not sat in the House of Lords, but have elected a fixed number of themselves to represent the Scottish Peerage therein. This has made it possible for any person who may claim an extinct or dormant title to which he or she has no right, or cannot prove a right, to assume such title with impunity. Such soidisant peers can even vote, and have often voted, at the election of Scottish peers. If there is no rival claimant, the vote might not be challenged; if there were two rival claimants, they might, and sometimes did, both vote; which shows the absurdity of putting forward the fact of a soi-disant peer having voted as an argument in favour of the validity of his claim."
That may be right, or it may not I simply do not know. But, having read that, I felt that I could not rely on proof of voting as sufficient evidence of entitlement to a Peerage. I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's Prerogative and interest as far as it is affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 21 [Restrictions on sales of seeds of unindexed plant varieties]:
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD: moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(2A) Where any person makes, or proposes to make, arrangements under which some other person uses seed under the control of the first-mentioned person for the purpose of increasing the first-mentioned person's stock, or of carrying out tests or trials, and under which the whole of the material produced, directly or indirectly, from the seed, and any unused seed, becomes or remains the property of the first-mentioned person, subsection (1) of this section shall not applyߞ

(a) to a sale, or offer for sale, of the seed by the first-mentioned person to the other person as part of the arrangements, or

(b) to a sale by that other person to the first-mentioned person of seed produced, directly or indirectly, from that seed."

LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the two Amendments standing on the Order Paper in my name are related, and with your permission I propose to deal with them together. They match the Government Amendments to Schedule 2, to which your Lordships agreed at Report stage. Under the Bill as it stands it is an offence under Clause 21 to sell seed of a new variety until it has been indexed, and under Clause 22 it is an offence to sell seed of a new variety until it has been independently tested and a report issued for the benefit of farmers and growers. But while breeders and seedsmen are waiting for their new varieties to be indexed or tried out, they may want to build up stocks of seed prior to commercialisation. If they do not have enough land of their own, this may mean entering into multiplication contracts with growers. As I explained to your Lordships when I introduced similar Amendments to Schedule 2 at Report stage, these contracts may involve a sale from the seedsmen to the contract grower, and vice versa.
Under the Bill as it stands, any such sale would be illegal and this might prevent such contracts being made. This would be illogical and accordingly the purpose of the Amendments, which do not affect the principle of the clauses, is to exempt these contracting operations

391
from control under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Performance trials and reports for new varieties within a section of the Index]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment movedx2014;
Page 23, line 26, at end insertx2014;
("(6) Subsection (4) of this section shall not apply to any sale or offer for sale of the kind described in subsection (2A) of the last foregoing section, and subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to the use of seed for the purpose of carrying out tests or trials.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, since the debate on the Adjournment last night I have been looking further into the matter of the Third Reading of this Bill. I fear there has been some misunderstanding. Let me say at once that I feel that I must bear a large measure of the responsibility for this and I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the House, and in particular to those noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage of the Bill. Perhaps I should confirm what I said last night: that there was information about the Third Reading of this Bill being taken to-day, but it was in fact only on one Paper and that was not generally available to Mem-
392
bers of your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is quite correct to say that the majority of noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage were not in possession of the information that the Third Reading was to be taken to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Earl. It was unfortunate. I suspect that it was thought that this was a small and very unimportant Bill, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I am sure, would agree it is one of the most important measures. I think that in his desire to be helpful he also inadvertently misled us in offering to consider matters; that suggested that there would be considerable time for further amendment, and it is really too late to do very much. The fact that the Government were not prepared to accept our Amendments did not mean that the House might not still wish to put them, if only on Third Reading. I am afraid this Bill will go to another place without our having done our work on it as thoroughly as we should. None the less, we appreciate the amende the noble Earl has made.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Continental Shelf Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's Prerogative and interest, as far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill, I should like to deal with certain points that were raised in Committee. If I misled noble Lords opposite I am extremely sorry. I shall be careful in future not to be too forthcoming. I think the real error was caused because when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on a specific point my answer was taken as a general point. I am sorry if I misled any noble Lord.
Since the Committee stage we have been giving further thought to the numerous suggestions made both by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend Lord Merrivale for improving this Bill. In the limited time available—and I agree it is limited, but this Bill is

393
urgent; it is very important—we have been able to reach a final conclusion on only some of the points. The others give rise to technical problems which still need further and perhaps somewhat prolonged examination, and I think in many cases noble Lords will realise that a prompt answer—by prompt, I mean within a week or two—would not be possible. I assure your Lordships, however, that the points they have raised, and other points I have mentioned, are being taken most seriously.
I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about civil law. When Orders in Council have been made under Clause 3(2), the civil jurisdiction will be complete for the areas concerned. Before any licences are granted the area will have been covered by an Order in Council—of this I can assure the noble Lord. Therefore I can visualise no circumstances arising in which a licensee's employees would not in practice have the protection of the civil law. As regards the criminal law—this is rather complicated—I am afraid I cannot at this stage add to the rather lengthy prepared statement which I made during the Committee stage. This is a most technical legal matter, and I suggest that we must proceed rather cautiously. We think that the present provisions are adequate, but we are keeping an open mind on the subject.
The position is this: where any provision of an existing Act the breach of which creates an offence can, having regard to its subject matter, apply to an installation on the shelf, then it will be applied automatically and without the necessity for any order extending it; and the penalties specified in the Act as regards the United Kingdom will apply to the offences being committed on the shelf. Under this Bill as it stands, we shall not have power to apply any Statutes, or parts of Statutes, at the Government's discretion, and we think that to ask for such a power, which would have to be virtually unlimited, is really going too far. Any gaps which come to light while the Bill is going through Parliament, and before it is enacted, can however, be filled. I hope I have made that point clear.
The Acts that the noble Lord mentioned, such as the Factories Acts, and so on, where they apply, can be made
394
to apply to an installation on the shelf. They will apply in exactly the same way as they would apply in the United Kingdom. That is not to say, for instance, that the whole of the Factories Acts would necessarily apply to something on the shelf, because they might not be applicable. But this is not something that the Government will do piece by piece; this is something that will happen automatically. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, during the Committee stage particularly mentioned the Mines and Quarries Act. I realise how important it is that miners should have adequate protection, but we do not think there is any difficulty in this particular matter. I am advised that the Mines and Quarries Act will apply to a mine even if it extends from the land to a point beyond the territorial waters. In practice, of course, a mine cannot go under the shelf unless it does in fact start from land.
We have looked again at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about escapes of oil. I am sorry to have to say that we do not see how this provision can be tightened up without its becoming quite harsh and unreasonable. We have followed the wording of the Act which deals already with oil, and in every case it is a question of fact. The only defence to that is if something has happened—if I may put it in layman's language without being too specifically quoted—which is beyond the power of prevention by the people who are undertaking the works. Even then, even if it is beyond their power to prevent the accident that has happened, it is a defence only if they take immediate steps to rectify the defect. This, again, is a matter of fact and not of law.
I hope that I have dealt with the main questions that were raised in Committee. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had a little doubt in his mind about the civil law. I am advised by legal advisers that there is not the slightest doubt that the installations will be covered by the United Kingdom civil law. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Derwent.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has, I am quite sure, done his utmost to be helpful in the extremely limited time that the Government have allowed him, and now that we are on Third Reading it really is not proper to discuss what ought to go into this Bill. It is worth reiterating that potentially it is of the most tremendous importance, representing, as it may do, an extension of areas under our own control for exploitation of tens of thousands of square miles—indeed, we agreed that we could go out into the middle of the Atlantic—at depths where already there is drilling going on. We mentioned earlier "Operation Mohole". This, therefore, is of tremendous importance. It is unfortunate that we are being rushed with this Bill, due either to the Government's Election intentions or because they have a guilty conscience. As we mentioned before, they are the twenty-second country to ratify, and it is of the greatest urgency that this Convention should be ratified and brought into effect.
I am still not happy, and it is a pity we have not had more time to consider some of the legal aspects. Naturally, I accept the noble Lord's assertions about the civil law. I take it, therefore, that the Amendment that I tried to move was really unnecessary and that the Bill covers it, and that if somebody suffers injury, even though no Order in Council has been made—the noble Lord has said they will make an Order in Council to designate an area—once it is made, it will be possible for someone who is injured through negligence to have recourse under the Common Law to an action for damages. I take it that this is quite definite.
On the other questions, of the application of the Factories Acts and the Mines and Quarries Act, I was not quite clear when the noble Lord said that a mine will always start from land. He said that a coal mine will always start from land, even though it may tunnel outside territorial waters. I should have thought that as techniques develop it is conceivable that it might not in every event start from land. Therefore it would be in the same position as an oil well.
396
The position with regard to the Factories Acts is still obscure. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible that there will be installations which will not be a factory within the meaning of the Factories Acts, and I should have thought it desirable—indeed, it could have been done in this Bill—to amend the Factories Acts to make installations of these kinds that will come into existence subject to the Factories Acts or to certain provisions. I take it that this point will again be further considered before it comes before another place. I am sorry that there is nothing written into the Bill—I apologise for saying this on Third Reading, but I think it unavoidable in the circumstances—to require the Government to make such orders or regulations as are necessary to provide for the safety, health and welfare of those who do this work.
I would deal only with one other clause in the Bill, and that concerns oil pollution. I do not entirely agree that it follows that the provisions in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act which are appropriate to ships are appropriate to oil installations. The circumstances under which a blow-out might occur are quite different from the situation in regard to a ship, and the penalties would of course be laughable in relation to the damage. They would also be laughable in relation to the loss the oil company would sustain, which one recognises to he another sanction in these matters.
Apart from that, we certainly welcome the Bill. I am sorry that it is going to another place without your Lordships' House having done the work on it which it should do, and I do not doubt that in another place they will have to take note of this fact. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Lord personally, and I hope that he will not consider that because he has tried to be forthcoming and has got into difficulties it should be a reason for not continuing to assist us in these matters.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful. I should just like to say one more word about the question of oil. What it comes to is this. We will go on having a look at this oil question, but there must be some defence when there is no fault, and can be no fault, attaching to the oil company owning the installation. There are circumstances

397
which arise when that happens. We think that that defence is sufficiently guarded by the words we have borrowed from the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, but we will have another look at it to see if we need to strengthen it. This is one of the things to be looked at again. I must repeat that we must have some defence when there is no fault attaching to the company concerned.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The London commission areas]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment to take account of the adjustments of London commission areas which may be made by Order in Council under Clause 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("following provisions of this section") and insert ("provisions of section 3 of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1)(e), to leave out "northwest London" and insert "Middlesex". The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember the discussion we had on Second Reading about the use of the name "Middlesex". Your Lordships will remember that the five London commission areas are designated in the Bill by their geographical description, northeast London area, south-east London area, and so on. I invited your Lord-
398
ships to express some views upon the question of the retention of the name "Middlesex" in relation to north-west London area, which in fact succeeds the area of the County of Middlesex. As your Lordships will remember, I expressed sympathy with the views of those who wanted that name retained, and I think the suggestion that it should be retained met with general approval from both sides of the House. This Amendment implements, I think, the wishes of the House. The effect of the Amendment will be that the name "Middlesex" will attach to the commission of the peace, the court of quarter sessions, the magistrates' courts committee for the northwest area, and also to the custos rotuiorum and the under-sheriff. I ought perhaps to mention that there is a consequential Amendment to Schedule 4, page 38, line 8, where the expression "Middlesex' is to be inserted in place of the expression "north-west London"
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("north-west London") and insert ("Middlesex").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I support this Amendment; and, indeed, it was supported in principle by my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself, and by other noble Lords in various parts of the House. I think the Amendment is good. There is one related point that I should like to raise. I think it is agreed that the county should be mentioned wherever possible, and I am wondering whether on Report stage there could be a further Amendment so that the quarter sessions for the existing County of London should be named London, instead of inner London—which is a rather dreadful, undignified sort of word, as if it were a parish of London; whereas it really is London, at any rate now. Under the London Government Act we are to have, if the Act comes into operation, an Inner London Education Authority. This is a terribly undignified term. Would the Lord Chancellor not think about it to see whether what he has done in the case of Middlesex could not be done also in the case of London? If there is a geographical county of Middlesex surviving the London Government Act, I presume there would be a geographical county of London. If he will look at this point not unsympathetically, I should be greatly obliged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only point on which I part company from the noble Lord is this. The effect of the Amendment I am moving is not to retain a geographical county of Middlesex. The county of Middlesex will disappear as a consequence of (I hardly dare mention it) the London Government Act. Therefore, I could not agree to the use of the word "county". The observations made by the noble Lord about the use of the expression "inner London" certainly receive from me most sympathetic consideration. I find it difficult, and I have spent some time in finding suitable names for the other areas now designated geographically.
The difficulty about using the word "London" in relation to one of the four remaining areas is that it might make it look as if, in a sense, it were the main area for the whole of London—that is to say, for instance, the quarter sessions for the whole of London. And one does not want that. I shall be happy to consider any suggestions the noble Lord cares to make to me. I believe that, in a way, it is much more attractive to refer to these quarter sessions by some geographical name, like Middlesex or London—rather than to refer to them as the north cast or south-east area or something like that. As I say, there is a difficulty in finding suitable names, but I should certainly like to consider it. And if the noble Lord, with his knowledge of London, and perhaps his knowledge of London place names, cares to help me in finding suitable names, I shall welcome his assistance.
LORD OGMORE: As one of those who urged the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to take this course, I should like to thank him for agreeing to the suggestion of those of us who on Second Reading supported the name of Middlesex. I welcome this decision.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to raise one point, and I apologise to the Lord Chancellor for not having done so before. In view of what he said about taking some of these things into consideration, I would put to him a point that has been raised with me. It is that, instead of calling a very important area that belonged to a county which still exists—I refer to Essex—north-east London, it should be called the Metropolitan
400
Essex Board, or Essex Division, or something of the kind. We have been pretty badly treated in other directions with regard to the new status of Essex, and it is a great pity, when we are losing great tracts like Ilford and Walthamstow, that the name of Essex should be entirely left out. As a resident of Essex, I feel that the representations made to me are worth considering.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be glad to consider any representation to this end, because I do not think there is any controversy about the matter. I do not think I should like the words "Metropolitan Essex"—they are very long—and I do not want to see any confusion arising with people going to the wrong place, such as to the Essex Quarter Sessions in London, instead of to the Essex Quarter Sessions at Colchester: I think that is where they sit. But I should like to look at that. I was wondering whether, for instance, it might be acceptable to the people living in the North-East area to call the quarter sessions up there which we hope to have—as, for instance, the Ilford or Walthamstow Quarter Sessions—by some territorial designation, even if it is not associated with the county of which it forms a part. I should like to consider that, and I should be glad to have a talk with the noble Earl about it to see whether we can find some suitable names. I do not like the "North-East Area", the "South-East Area" and the rest of them, but I cannot at the moment think of anything which does not have some objection to it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must try to think of some other variation to submit to the Lord Chancellor. I will try.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Proceedings and jurisdiction of quarter sessions]:
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment ensures that a legally qualified chairman of a London commission area may be directed by the Lord Chancellor to sit alone when dealing

401
with the case of a person committed as an incorrigible rogue from a magistrates' court to a court of quarter sessions for a London commission area. I explained on Second Reading why I was seeking to take power under this clause to authorise a legally qualified chairman to sit alone on cases committed for sentence or order or committed for trial. This unfortunate category—there are not many of them—was unfortunately left out, and this Amendment makes it possible to deal with this case as well. I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("or with") and insert ("persons committed to the court under section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I do not oppose this Amendment. I am rather surprised that this and so many other Amendments have to be incorporated in the Bill. There are 32 Government Amendments. I should have thought the Government would have thought of most of these at the time the Bill was drafted. I imagine that there has been in this Bill, as in many others, a sense of urgency, not only to get the Bill before us but to get it on the Statute Book. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain why it is that this Bill requires so many Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It just shows how reasonable the Government are. I have heard the noble Lord on many occasions say, if not in this House in the other House, how unreasonable the Government are in not amending their own Bills. This Bill was produced and presented for consideration, and we sought to give regard to all sorts of facts in relation to it, in a pure spirit of sweet reasonableness. I think the noble Lord really should not chide us for seeking to give effect to proposals that have been made for the improvement of this Bill. That, after all, is what Parliament is for. After a Bill has been read a second time, the Committee stage is held with a view to securing improvements in the Bill, although one sometimes must admit that Amendments which would not improve it are tabled and have to be rejected.
LORD SILKIN: I will judge the noble and learned Lord's reasonableness when he comes to deal with the Amendments of the Opposition. I am sure he will be reasonable with his own Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Composition of juvenile courts]:
3.25 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I am very glad to hear from the Lord Chancellor that he has a completely open mind and is anxious to improve the Bill; though I do not think he really answered the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Silkin. This is an Amendment on which I hope he will be receptive and will be willing to think again. The Amendment proposes to omit subsection (3) of Clause 12 of the Bill, and in order to refresh noble Lords' minds I had better read the subsection so that they will know what it is about.
"(3) The functions of the Secretary of State under the said Part II with respect to the nomination or selection of the chairmen and other members of the juvenile courts shall he transferred to the Lord Chancellor, and accordingly for any reference to the Secretary of State in paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 of the said Schedule 2 there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord Chancellor."
First of all, I think it is the case in the Provinces that the members of the juvenile court elect their own chairman. I believe that was stated in the Second Reading debate by the Lord Chancellor, and by my noble friend Lord Champion. Therefore, the first question that has to be answered is: why should not the juvenile courts in Greater London choose their own chairman instead of his being chosen by the Lord Chancellor? The next point is that I am still not convinced that it is right to transfer the function of appointing the members of the children's court panel and the chairman of the children's court from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor. I know that we have a Home Secretary who is sometimes weak and sometimes sticky, but why he is running to abandon this function to the Lord Chancellor, I do not know. I know that

403
the Lord Chancellor has a persuasive style—at any rate, he has it very effectively when he likes to exercise it—and I am sure he has exercised it with the Home Secretary, but I think it is a pretty poor Home Secretary who has surrendered on this point, and a very weak one on this occasion, although he is somewhat unwisely obstinate on other occasions. Therefore, I am sorry about that, because I think the Home Office is the better Department for this job.
My reasons are as I stated on Second Reading, that the Home Office is the Department which deals with the Children Act and which has a wide variety of functions in respect of deprived children, children out of control, children without parents, children with parents who do not properly look after the children who therefore get into trouble, and some other functions in respect of children, too. The Home Office deals with the approved schools into which some of the children have to go, and with borstals which deal with young people who are perhaps little more than children. This gives the Home Office a considerable experience of children and of their needs and habits—some of them good, some of them not so good, and some of them bad. So I should have thought that the Home Office was the better Department to make these decisions and appointments.
It may be said that the Home Office is the police department as well, but I think that is irrelevant, because the Home Office does not actually administer police functions, except through the Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Area. I do not think that has much to do with the point, because if that were so the House ought to deny to the Home Office any functions other than police and prisons, which, I think, for reasons I gave before, would be thoroughly bad and would make that Department a Ministry of the Interior on the Continental model, instead of the Department very much concerned with and conscious of the need for civil liberty which it is to-day.
Surely the Lord Chancellor is not doing badly already. He got something from the Home Office which he would not have got from me. I was sounded, when I was Home Secretary, and I said,
404
"No". That was by my late noble friend Lord Jowitt, who also had persuasive manners, as a Lord Chancellor ought to have. I was asked then to give up the recorders and stipendiary magistrates, but I said I thought it was a good thing that these offices should be in the hands of more than one Department, and I held them. However, my successor, my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, bowed to the persuasions of Lord Jowitt (which I can quite understand: it was arguable), and so the stipendiaries and recorders went to the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor has the whole of the appointments of the justices of the peace, anyway—and this will be part of his case. He appoints the justices of the peace, and I do not want to quarrel about that. But he has not hitherto selected from among those justices of the peace the members who should sit in the children's courts or the juvenile courts, or the chairmen of those courts. I should have thought he has done very well in the judicial line as regards appointments of one sort or another, and I do not see why he should take this function from the Home Office—a function which I really believe to be more appropriate to the Home Office, having regard to its various functions affecting children, than it is to the Lord Chancellor.
After all, these children's courts are very human institutions. They are not easy to run. They deal with some very subtle and difficult problems; and I think it is desirable that the Minister or the Department responsible for selecting the justices, not justices ab initio but justices to serve upon the bench in children's courts, and the chairmen, should be the Minister or Department which deals with children in somewhat analogous matters. Therefore, I hope very much that the Lord Chancellor, having regard to what he has just said in reply to my noble friend Lord Silkin, will show how reasonable the Government are in having an open and a receptive mind, and that he will be good enough to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (3).— (Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, has also sought to put forward a very persuasive style—if I may say so, somewhat more persuasive than his speech on Second Reading, when he accused me of "empire-building" and things of that sort and was, I thought, rather rough with me. Of course, nothing of the sort was justified. I am sorry, but on this occasion, despite the noble Lord's persuasion, to accept this Amendment would not be an improvement, and I should like to deal fairly fully, if I may, with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord. I agree with a great many of the arguments, but in my view they lead to entirely the opposite conclusion. For instance, I agree with him that it is a very good thing that the Home Office should not just be a police department, and that it should have other functions. But that really is not in issue here. I think it would be a great pity indeed if certain functions in relation to children which are now exercised by the Hone Office were taken away from them. But that, again, is not in issue here.
If I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think that, both in his speech to-day and in his speech on Second. Reading, he was rather under a misconception as to what really is the change which is now being proposed by this Bill. The noble Lord, in his Second Reading speech, put forward the line of argument—and I think he really put it forward again to-day—that, because the Home Office has these duties in relation to children (and, of course, duties in relation to the police and prisons), it should therefore have the function in Inner London, and in Inner London only, of selecting which magistrates should sit in the juvenile courts—because it is only in Inner London that the Home Secretary exercises that function to-day. The fallacy of that argument is really this. If it is well-founded—the Home Office, after all, is responsible for approved schools, borstals and prisons—then surely the Home Office should be responsible for the appointment, not only of stipendiary magistrates and recorders, as they were, but of all magistrates and of all judges and chairmen of quarter sessions. I know the noble Lord did not think so when he was Home Secretary; but it was
406
because, in the past, Parliament thought it right that, while the Home Secretary exercised this responsibility in relation to prisons, approved schools, borstals and children, he should not also appoint those who had to discharge the judicial duties of trying cases, that Parliament decided to transfer to the Lord Chancellor of the time (and, as the noble Lord has said, this happened in the days of the Labour Government) the appointment of recorders and of stipendiary magistrates.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It shows my open-mindedness that I thought the Government, on balance, and only on balance, were wrong to do so. But the noble Lord has now asked: why should the Home Secretary, in the case of Inner London, have a position that he has not got elsewhere? But it is the noble Lord who is proposing that the Home Secretary should have a position in Greater London which he has not got outside—namely, the appointment of chairmen of juvenile courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not that responsibility outside, I quite agree, but I have the responsibility, not only for appointing all magistrates but also for removing unsatisfactory ones from the bench; for prescribing the rules of procedure, both in the juvenile courts and in the adult courts; and also for prescribing what courses of instruction should be undergone, both by magistrates in the adult courts and by those who are going to sit in juvenile courts. That has been, and still is, the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor over the whole field; including Inner London. It really is an anomaly that there should be this overlapping between the two Departments just on the simple question of the appointment from magistrates of those who should sit in juvenile courts in Inner London. The fact that, at the moment, that power remains with the Home Office does, I think, lead some people to gain the impression (indeed, I was not at all sure that the noble Lord, himself, on the occasion of his Second Reading speech, was not rather under the impression) that the Home Office would have something to do with the actions of those juvenile court magistrates.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to hear the noble Lord say, "No"; but that is one effect that the retention of this power by the Home Office might well have: the idea that these juvenile court magistrates, appointed by the Home Office, have in some way a link with the Home Office. It was that line of reasoning, the desire to break any impression that there was such a link, that led to the transfer of recorderships and stipendiary magistrates.
The present system is, of course, that I appoint the magistrates, and if I do not appoint them the Home Secretary cannot put any magistrates in the juvenile courts. In fact, of course, there is an Advisory Committee on which representatives of the Home Office and of my Office sit, with other people, to make recommendations with regard to magistrates in juvenile courts in the Inner London area. I propose to ask the Committee to continue to function, and I shall welcome their advice. All this Bill does is to avoid unnecessary duplication: it does not change the procedure radically. Members of the Committee may remember that the Select Committee on Estimates in another place for 1962–63 recommended that the Home Office and the Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's office, should take immediate steps to reorganise the present division of responsibilities between the three Departments concerned with the administration of the criminal law, with a view to rationalising its administration and rendering more effective the methods of bringing the criminal law up to date. In reply to that, the Home Office said this, among other things:
"It is proposed to take the opportunity of the Administration of Justice Bill to effect some adjustments between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and of the Lord Chancellor "—
and this is one of the adjustments.
I would say—and I know that the noble Lord takes a great interest in good administration—that it really was bad administration to have this duplication of responsibility in this very small and limited field. I should have thought, on the broad principle, that a clear line should be drawn between the responsibility for the appointment of those who are going to exercise judicial functions, in whatever courts, and responsibility for
408
the treatment of offenders, dealing with children, and so on, which is the responsibility of the Home Office. I do not know that I can add to the argument by prolonging it. This matter has been carefully considered. For the reasons I have given, we think that the change made by the Bill should be made, and that the Amendment which is designed to restore the status quo should be resisted.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I follow the noble and learned Lord's arguments, but I do not agree with them. Clearly, outside what is given the undignified designation of Inner London, at any rate, the chairman of the juvenile court is appointed by the members of the court. Would not the noble and learned Lord give similar power in the so-called Inner London that the courts there should appoint the chairmen? Why should he want to take it out of their hands?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly not at the present time. I say that clearly to the noble Lord. The noble Lord will know that the lay magistrates in the Inner London area have very limited powers—I think I referred to this matter in my speech on the Second Reading. They really deal with very minor offences.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because that has been the system; with the stipendiary magistrates dealing in the same area. Your Lordships will remember that under the recommendation of the Aavold Committee, which has been accepted, the lay magistrates will be sharing with the stipendiary magistrates in the Inner London area the responsibility for discharge of nearly all the magisterial functions. That will mean that the lay magistrates in London will acquire the experience and knowledge of their brethren outside Inner London. But one cannot claim—and I am sure they would be the last to claim—that they have as yet the experience of dealing with those cases which their brethren have had. That is the reason why one finds the exception which now exists in Central London. It is only because of that that this power has

409
rested, up till now, on the Home Secretary. That is the answer to the noble Lord's question.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I do not want to continue the argument, since we want to be expeditious; but if the argument of the Lord Chancellor is that, because their powers are less in Inner London than outside, therefore that is the reason why the Lord Chancellor, and not the courts, is to appoint, I should have thought that strengthened the case for allowing the courts to appoint their own chairman.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not, I think, an issue on this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: As a magistrate in London, I feel certain that most magistrates—and I am not speaking for them all—would prefer the proposal in this particular clause and would be against the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. I feel myself that the more
it is apparent to all that there is a distinction between the Judiciary and the police, the better. Of course, the Home Office is very much associated with (and naturally so, because it is responsible for) the Metropolitan Police; and I feel that it is preferable to let the clause stand as it is in the Bill. It would be a retrograde step to carry the Amendment. The one point I would make is that the Lord Chancellor—or his successor, if he is not still in office—should look at the whole question in a year or two's time, because I think that in a short time the chairman of this particular juvenile bench should, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, be selected in Inner London by the members of that bench, just as he is elsewhere.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Taylor, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merthyr, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Meston, L.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Bethell, L.

Furness, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Carrington, L.

Gosford, E.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L.

Greenway, L.

Moyne, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Ogmore, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Rea, L.

Cowley, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Saltoun, L.

Craigton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ironside, L.

Somers, L.

Daventry, V.

Jessel, L.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strang, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Upjohn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

MacAndrew, L.

Willingdon, M.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 12 agreed to.
House resumed.

M.P.s' REMUNERATION AND PEERS' ALLOWANCES
3.55 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The statement is as follows:
"The remuneration of Members of the House of Commons and salaries of Junior Ministers were raised in 1957, and at the same time an expenses allowance was introduced for Members of the House of Lords. The basic salary of a senior Minister has remained unchanged since 1831.
"After consultation with the leaders of the main political Parties in both Houses, we have decided that the time has now come for a fundamental review of the remuneration of Ministers of the Crown and of Members of the House of Commons and also for the reconsideration of the allowance for Members of the House of Lords.
"Her Majesty's Government have therefore appointed Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Mr. H. S. Kirkaldy and Professor W. J. M. Mackenzie to be a Committee with the following terms of reference:—
"To review, and to recommend what changes are desirable in, the remuneration of Mr. Speaker, Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons and also the allowance for Members of the House of Lords, having regard to their responsibilities, to the place of Parliament in the national life and to the changes which have taken place, since the existing emoluments were fixed, in general standards of remuneration, and to the increases in expenses borne by Members of both Houses in the discharge of their duties.
"The Committee will, of course, take evidence from whatever sources they wish, but in order to assist them in carrying out their task, Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the other Parties, have appointed an Advisory Panel with which the Committee will be able to consult and from which they will be able to obtain advice on Parliamentary matters.
412
"The following have agreed to serve on the Advisory Panel: Lord Tweedsmuir, Chairman, Lord Champion, the honourable Members, Sir Hendrie Oakshott, Mr. Arthur Tiley, Mr. G. H. Oliver, Mr. Hervey Rhodes and Mr. Donald W. Wade.
"The Government consider that the Committee should be asked to report as soon as possible after the General Election and that whatever action seems appropriate in the light of their Report should then be taken without delay."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making that statement. I think, at this stage, it is best not to comment on it.
LORD REA: My Lords, I would also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his statement. It is interesting that many matters which brook no delay" rest for a long time, and one of these matters seems to have rested since 1831. I must congratulate the Government on bringing so many urgent matters forward at this particular moment, for some unknown reason. There is one other comment which I hope I may be allowed to make. We are a friendly Parliament in both Houses. It is interesting to me that both the larger Parties have one Peer and two Members of another House on the Advisory Panel, whereas the smaller Party at present has only one Member of the other House on the panel.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is hoping for better things at the next Election.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope that we shall implement the Life Peerages Act.

DETAINEES IN ADEN
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary has just answered in another place a Question of which he had Private Notice. The Question put to him was as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will name the three men now charged in connection with the public outrage in Aden, and what steps he has taken to obtain the release of other detainees against whom no charges are being made?"

413
My right honourable friend replied:
"No charges have yet been preferred. The answer to the second part of the question is, No."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not know what is the origin of the information which the questioner in the House of Commons put to me this morning, but he said that he had obtained information that three men were being charged. Has any inquiry been made since Notice was given of the Question? I think that Notice was given fairly early this morning, and one can get pretty quick consultations. I do not need to comment further, unless we can be told whether we are likely to have information on the point l have put before the end of to-day's Sitting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am in some difficulty, for the simple reason that I had no information that any such question was going to be asked or that the noble Earl was going to make any inquiries until just a few minutes before 1 o'clock. My noble friend the Duke of Devonshire unfortunately has a very important engagement, and I can only say that the Question was tabled by a Member of the noble Earl's Party in the House of Commons and that that was the answer of my right honourable friend. I am really not in a position to say—I hope the noble Earl will understand—what, if any, communications have passed between Aden and this country this morning. I am able to say that, so far as I am aware, that is the present position. I am sorry I cannot give the noble Earl any more information on the particular point he has asked.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I want to make it clear to the noble and learned Lord that there was no intention on my part to be discourteous. I approached both the usual channels and his Secretary midmorning this morning, and I understood that he was engaged in the Cabinet and had another important appointment afterwards before he could reach this House. But reference was then made to the Commonwealth Office, with the help of the officials of the Lord Chancellor, so I do not understand why the information has not been communicated to him before now. It seems to me that there
414
would have been time, from the time that Mr. Bottomley in another place had given Notice to raise this Question, to communicate with Aden, and for Par-Parliament to be informed before the Christmas Recess begins whether the suggestion is true or untrue that a charge has been made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was not in the least complaining about the noble Earl's action; I was merely seeking to explain why I was not in a position to answer his supplementary question, which related to communications between Aden and this country taking place this morning. Indeed, I have been supplied with ample notes on many matters, but that does not happen to be one of them. No charges have yet been preferred. I can tell the noble Earl that quite positively. I do not think I can say any more which will give him any information in answer to the specific question he put. I do not know how many of those now detained will be charged with offences, or, indeed, when such charges will be preferred. I can well imagine, in view of the noble Earl's interest in this matter and having regard to the situation in Aden, that charges will be preferred with the least possible delay.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am particularly anxious that that should be done, because, through the courtesy of the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire, I have received a copy of the Emergency Regulations, and there are one or two points in the Regulations about which we ought to get further understanding. If the noble Duke is not available at the end of this cross-questioning, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see me about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall be only too glad to discuss with the noble Earl any points he has on the drafting of the Regulations, a copy of which, once again, I have had supplied to me only a few moments ago. They are, I understand, Regulations made after the bomb outrage, and in the course of the bomb outrage the chief draftsman suffered some injury, so there may be some drafting defects. I have had no opportunity yet of considering the Regulations. When I have finished with the Administration of

415
Justice Bill, I shall be only too glad to discuss the matter with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as it is evident that a large number of persons are detained in Aden, and as the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire has already promised us further information about that, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he would convey to the noble Duke two further questions? First of all, are the Government satisfied about the conditions under which certain persons who are detained are being held in prison in one of the States of the Federation? Secondly, what is the reason why persons who are residents of Aden are detained in one of the States, and not in Aden?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot answer the second question, but with regard to the first question I can say that there have been wild reports that the detainees have been maltreated. The British medical officer visited them and has reported that there is no truth in these stories. It is unfortunate that there should have been the need to detain these people, but I do not know whether your Lordships have, by any chance, seen something which was broadcast to Aden, when the workers in Aden were urged on November 25 to carry arms and to use them in Aden. Then, on December 10, the day of the incident, it was broadcast:
"This is not the last bomb. Our brothers in the South are prepared to throw over bombs, and will do so in Britain herself if possible."
In these circumstances, there was a real need for emergency measures and to detain certain individuals.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY MEMORIAL
4.5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, on December 5 the Prime Minister made a preliminary statement in another place about a National Memorial to President Kennedy, and I think your Lordships would like me to read a statement that he has made to-day in another place. It is as follows:
"Further discussions have now been held with the right honourable gentle-
416
man the Leader of the Opposition and with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party"—
that is, in another place—
"and with their agreement Lord Franks has been invited to be the Chairman of a small committee to consider the suggestions that have been and may be made and to recommend what form a Memorial might take. It seems right that we should reach agreement on the form of a Memorial before an appeal for funds is launched.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister intends to have further consultations with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about the membership of the committee and arrangements for an announcement will be made as soon as possible. Lord Franks is at present abroad on a private visit but will embark upon this task immediately on his return to this country in the New Year.
"Any communication in connection with a Memorial should be addressed to the Secretary, The President Kennedy Memorial Committee, Cabinet Office, Great George Street, S.W.1."

THE CASE OF MR. HERMAN WOOLF
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the Home Secretary is making a statement in another place concerning the case of Mr. Herman Woolf, and I should like to repeat it to your Lordships, using my right honourable friend's own words. The statement is as follows:
"On the instructions of the Commissioner of Police a thorough investigation was carried out by Detective-Superintendent Axon, whose report I have studied with great care, together with some further information which I requested.
"There have been two grounds of concern about this case. The first was that, although Mrs. Woolf had reported to the poice that her husband was missing, she received no information about him until after his death. This occurred through a failure of coordination within the Metropolitan Police organisation for which the Commissioner has already expressed his

417
deep regret. The procedure for dealing with inquiries about missing persons has been reviewed, to safeguard against any similar failure in future.
"The second ground of concern was whether Mr. Woolf, after being knocked down by a car, might have received any further injuries during the time when he was at West End Central Police Station. For my part I would have welcomed the holding of a fresh inquest at which any such allegations could have been tested; and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General gave his authority for an application for a fresh inquest to be made to the High Court. On November 13 the Court, to whom all the information in the hands of the police was made available, refused the application. In delivering judgment the Lord Chief Justice said that the evidence before the Court fell far short of enabling the Court to say that there was any real risk that justice was not done at the inquest.
"From my own study of Detective-Superintendent Axon's report and of the statements which he took from every available witness, I am in much doubt whether further inquiry will throw any fresh light on what happened. But in the circumstances of this case, with its tragic end, I am anxious that no possible point of doubt should remain unresolved, if further inquiry can resolve it. I have therefore decided to set up an inquiry into the actions of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the case of Mr. Herman Woolf, from the time of the road accident in which he was involved on November 10, 1962, until the time of his death in the Atkinson Morley Hospital on November 23, 1962. Mr. Norman Skelhorn, Q.C., the Recorder of Portsmouth, has agreed to hold the inquiry, and the Secretary will be Mr. W. Middlemass. Any communication about it should be addressed to him at the Home Office. I shall publish Mr. Skelhorn's Report."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful for this statement. On the first point, it is odd that Mrs. Woolf, who notified the police that her husband was missing, should not have been told that
418
he had met with an accident, and had died, or been informed at the time of the inquest. It seems almost inconceivable that administration should have broken down in such a way as that. The statement gives no explanation of the breakdown, and one would like to know a little more about it, if the noble Lord is able to give it. On the second point, again it is very strange that, after the Lord Chief Justice had decided that there was no ground for reopening the inquest, the Government should now decide that there is one because there is an element of doubt. I make no complaint about that, and I think we must await the result of the further inquiry.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I add that of course there was a very serious failure of co-ordination inside the Metropolitan Police? That we know. I do not think I will say any more about it, because that may well be one of the matters which the inquiry will look into as well, and that report will be fully published.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that that will he looked into?—because it is not included in the statement as one of the terms of reference. If it will be, I am quite satisfied.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, may I repeat a sentence in the statement, when my right honourable friend said:
"I have therefore decided to set up an inquiry into the actions of the Metropolitan Police…from the time of the road accident in which he was involved "—
that is, from the beginning. I think I am right in saying that that covers it.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appointment of justices' clerks and other officers]:
LORD DERWENT: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the principal chief clerk for the Inner London area, who is appointed by the committee of magistrates under Clause

419
15, is to assist the chief magistrate in the day-to-day administration of the magistrates' courts in the inner London Area, which the latter is to carry on under Clause 13(6). This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Aarvold Committee. The Aarvold Committee pointed out that the committee of magistrates could deal with only broad matters of principle, such as conditions of service and staff complements and individual cases of special importance. It recommended that the chief magistrate, and under him the principal chief clerk, should be responsible for day-to-day staff management, and for deciding the many questions which it would be impracticable or inappropriate to refer to the committee itself. The committee also thought that the principal chief clerk should be the channel of communication between the chief magistrate and the chief clerks of the integrated court service, and would convey decisions of the committee of magistrates to the chief clerks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) The principal chief clerk shall assist the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate to perform the latter's duty under section 13(6) of this Act of carrying on the day to day administration of the magistrates' courts in the inner London Area.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD OGMORE: There is one point I wish to raise, and I think the appropriate time to raise it is now. I have had some consultation on this, and I have given the Lord Chancellor notice. I do not want to put it down as an Amendment, because what I should like is to get an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that the Government will carry out this portion of the Aarvold Report. The question arises under paragraphs 112 and 113 of that Report, and to refresh your Lordships' memory I will read them. Paragraph 112 says:
"We recommend that all the full-time staff of both the metropolitan magistrates' courts and the lay justices courts should be offered employment in the integrated service at salaries not less than those they are receiving at present."
420
Paragraph 113 says:
"It has been represented to us, and we agree, that such an offer should be on a 'no detriment' basis. By this we mean the same basis as that specified in another connection in paragraph 40 of the Scheme of Conditions of Service agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services, which is repeated in substance in paragraph 28 of the Conditions of Service recommended by the National Joint Council for Justices' Clerks' Assistants. This reads as follows:
'Where an officer under his previously existing contract of service is receiving a higher salary or would progress to a higher salary than that applicable to the current grading of his post under this Scheme such higher salary or progressive higher salary shall be preserved in his case, otherwise the Scheme shall apply in its entirety.'
"We also accept the interpretation added to this paragraph which reads:
'Where a higher salary or a progressive higher salary under a former contract of service is preserved the officer is not entitled to any temporary benefit which may be afforded by the salary scale applicable under the Scheme to the grading of the post'."
Those are the two paragraphs of the Aarvold Report in question. I understand that those London justices' clerks who are affected have taken the matter up with the Home Office, but I think it is desirable to have the views of the Lord Chancellor on this matter. I hope he will be able to give us an assurance that under the provisions of this Bill there will be no detriment in salary so far as applies to the officers concerned.
There is also the question of the word "may" in Clause 24(2) of the Bill. Those officers concerned would, of course, prefer this provision to be mandatory and not permissive, and that the word "may" should be "shall". The Lord Chancellor is well aware of the position as I have explained it, and it would be of great satisfaction to those concerned if he could give us an assurance on this point.
LORD DERWENT: Perhaps as this is partly a Home Office matter I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord. I have had the best legal advice on the word "may" from my noble and learned friend, who says that it is the proper use of the word "may" in a Bill of this kind. What the noble Lord was really saying was this, if I have understood him aright, although I was not quite clear. He was wondering why the provisions in this

421
Bill about the protection of the interests of existing courts' staff were not as specific as the same sort of provision in the London Government Act.
I will tell the noble Lord why we have chosen the form of provision and words in this Bill. There are two reasons. The first is that we are dealing with a problem different from that dealt with by the London Government Act. Our task, although it relates to fewer people, is more complex, and we are dealing with one authority, the committee of magistrates, over whose decisions—and this is important—in respect of conditions of service the Secretary of State has complete control. He has power under Clause 15(5) to confirm, to modify, or to refuse to confirm, the determination made by the committee, and is not, as in the other case, dealing with an authority over whose decisions there is no comparable control. This task is rather more complex, because while under the local government reorganisation officers transferred at least continue to be governed by local government terms, we are concerned in the case of the integrated courts' staff with what will be for one or other element of the staff a radical change in terms, since the committee will have to decide whether the metropolitan or the lay conditions of service shall apply to the integrated courts' service.
Our second main reason for making only general provision for the protection of existing staff is that we are still considering, with a view to having fairly full consultations with the staff associations, how their interests can best be protected. All I can do at this stage is to say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is conscious of the need to ensure the protection of the interests of the existing staff, and will, after the series of consultations which have already started, be prepared to consider amending the Bill when it is possible to describe with precision what, if any, further protective provision is required. At the moment we think our powers are adequate because it is up to the Home Secretary to confirm the terms of service, and he is bearing this very much in mind. That is why we have had a comparatively general provision as to how this is to be looked after.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and I feel that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the various interests concerned, will arrive at a very satisfactory solution.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Juries]:
4.22 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the costs of jurors at the five London quarter sessions, which under subsection (7) are payable out of the general fund of the Greater London Council, are to be chargeable only on the London boroughs and not on the City of London. The reason for this is that the City of London justices will not commit cases to the London courts of quarter sessions, since the original quarter sessions jurisdiction for the City will continue to be exercised by the Central Criminal Court, and the City quarter sessions will continue to exercise their appellate jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 15, at end insert—
("(8) Any sum falling to be defrayed by virtue of subsection (7) of this section out of the general fund of the Greater London Council in respect of jury service at the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area shall he chargeable only on the London boroughs.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21-30 agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Chairman of County and District Council not to he Justice of the Peace ex officio
".Subsection (5) of section 3 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that the chairman of a county council shall, by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for the county) and subsection (5) of section 33 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that a chairman of a district council shall, by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for any county in which the district is wholly or partly situate) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 which stands in my

423
name. I think I should at the outset explain that the general principles governing and surrounding this Amendment apply equally to the next Amendment, No. 8, which also stands in my name. Therefore, if I take a little time in moving this one I shall hope to be able to be short indeed in moving No. 8 I do not think that I should advise your Lordships to read this Amendment, but rather to read the sidenote of it, which I think puts the matter quite succinctly:
"Chairman of County and District Council not to be Justice of the Peace ex officio"
I think I should begin by reading to your Lordships an extract from the evidence of the County Councils Association to the Royal Commission on the Justices of the Peace, which sat under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord. Lord du Parcq, and which reported in 1948. The Royal Commission saw fit to print this extract in the main body of their Report:
"The Association entertain no doubt that, if any approach is to be made to the ideal that only the most suitable persons are appointed to the commission of the peace, then chairmen of county, borough, urban and rural district councils should cease to qualify for admission to the list merely by their assumption of these offices. The qualities which enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of justice of the peace, added to which there is the point that in many areas the office of chairman is a matter of rotation rather than of distinctive merit. In any event, if a chairman of a local authority is suitable for appointment as a justice of the peace, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office."
I am authorised to say that the County Councils Association to-day stand by that statement which they gave to the Royal Commission. And the Royal Commission say: "We agree with that statement."
In paragraph 156 of their Report the Royal Commission say:
"One of the arguments used against the retention of the local government ex officio justices is that they hold office such a relatively short period that they cannot gain sufficient experience of magisterial work to be useful as justices."
Later in the same paragraph the Royal Commission, having considered some statistics with which I certainly shall not weary your Lordships, conclude:
"These figures are not precise, but they show quite clearly that an ex officio justice
424
(who is not also a justice named in a commission) has little chance of gaining much experience in magisterial work."
The Royal Commission, again in the chapter dealing with the summary of their main recommendations, say this:
"In appointing justices the paramount consideration is the person's fitness for the discharge of judicial duties."
Finally, in paragraph 351 of their recommendations, they say:
"Chairmen of county councils and of urban and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio."
We could not have it more clearly stated than that by a Royal Commission. Perhaps it is not surprising that upon the strength of those recommendations the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merthyr, thought fit to move an Amendment in the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill, 1949, when it was in Committee before your Lordships, in identical terms with the Amendment which I am moving at this moment. In the course of moving it, the noble Lord said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 164, col. 1039]:
"If a man is thought to be the type who would make a good magistrate, there is nothing in the world to prevent his being appointed in the ordinary, proper way, and it is quite unnecessary to bring him in by the back door because he holds some other office."
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, speaking from his vast experience in these matters, agreed and said this [col. 1046]:
"If, as in many cases, they are excellent people of the kind that my noble friend"—
he was referring to the then Lord Chancellor—
"wishes to retain upon the bench, by all means let the Lord Chancellor put them on the bench. Let them be magistrates like all the other magistrates. Let them avail themselves of the new system of training. Let them take their duties as seriously as the great majority of magistrates are now taking their duties. But let us on all accounts, so far as we can, keep politics off the benches, at any rate in this direct form of political election being the road to a place on the bench. Let us keep the judiciary and the Legislature separate."
My Lords, the next speaker in that debate was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, then, of course, in office as Lord Chief Justice, who said [col. 1047]:
"I feel that the administration of justice will be helped to a very great extent if he ex officio justices disappear. By all means,

425
if they are men of judicial habit and of judicial thought, let them be put upon the bench by the Lord Chancellor in the ordinary way; but I submit that it is most undesirable that merely because they hold an elected position in local government they must necessarily be considered fitted to take part as justices of the peace. I hope the Committee will in this matter cordially support the Royal Commission Report, which think is of the greatest possible importance."
Then Viscount Maugham, in a speech of only fourteen lines in all, said [col. 1049];
"I should like to say, as I have had some experience as Lord Chancellor, that I agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice."
By now your Lordships may be wondering what the Lord Chancellor of the day, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, would have to say in reply, and I only hope that in quoting to your Lordships a few extracts from his speech I am doing justice to his argument, because, of course, that is what I wish to do. The noble and learned Viscount said [col. 1053]:
"But your Lordships, I think, have lost sight of one feature. It sometimes happens that during the time the mayor or chairman sits there ex officio it is discovered that he is very good. And this is a source from which we not infrequently get magistrates. A fellow comes along and is seen in action, and it is decided that he is well worth having. When his year comes to an end—I agree that it is often only a year—they tell me that the fellow has been very useful and proved himself, and I make him a magistrate. I get to know of his capabilities and his capacity solely because he is an ex officio. That point has not been mentioned but it is important. Of course, some of the ex officios are not fit to sit."
Later down the same column the noble and learned Viscount says this:
"I do not think I should he prepared to say, from my own personal experiences, that I could lay down a priori that the ex officios are worse than the others."
Your Lordships can judge for yourselves the strength of that argument. But what I do not understand is this. If you are going to superimpose upon the ordinary system of selecting magistrates by appointments by the Lord Chancellor upon recommendation, why do you select in particular the chairmen of local authorities? There are surely dozens of groups of people from whom you could make selections who would reveal, some of them, excellent qualities as justices of the peace. You might say that all senior officers of the Armed
426
Services upon retirement shall be ex officio justices for a limited period.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why?
LORD AIREDALE: You would very likely find that among them there would be revealed some excellent justices, as well as possibly some very poor ones. I am not suggesting that you should do that. I am saying you might just as well do that as appoint the chairmen of local authorities. You might do this with chartered accountants upon attaining the age of 45. You might say that recipients of the O.B.E. shall be given a trial period as justices of the peace to see how they get on. Why you should select chairmen of local authorities I fail to understand.
However, the noble and learned Viscount went on [col. 1053]:
"I feel, however, that there is a real point of substance in the fact that they are there for such a short time. To my mind that is a great difficulty. If we are successful, as I hope we shall he, in getting some scheme of training going, I should not feel justified in asking anybody who is to sit for only a year to undergo a course of training such as we contemplate for the others."
We now have a course of training for justices, but it is not yet, I believe, compulsory. I understand that the Magistrates' Association are pressing to make it compulsory and that the Association are very sure that compulsory training for magistrates is going to come.
The noble and learned Viscount went on [col. 1054]:
"… if I had to look at it solely from the point of view of the administration of justice, I am not sure that I would not vote for the Amendment. But we must not lose sight of the other aspect—namely, the position of local government."
And this is, I think, perhaps the part of this speech which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will be interested in, and this is the final excerpt from this speech which I desire to read, It continues the local government aspect. The noble and learned Viscount said [col. 1055]:
"We feel that at the present time we should not do something which would be regarded. rightly or wrongly, as a further blow against local government."
and he concludes:
"I think this is typically a matter upon which your Lordships ought to decide and

427
tell us what line you consider we ought to adopt."
Your Lordships considered and divided: for the Amendment, 23; against it 24. And what your Lordships have to decide, I think, this afternoon is whether after these intervening years your Lordships think that the same decision should be come to, or whether the scale should not he tipped the other way. I do not think it can be said that the duties of magistrates have not become more complex in these intervening years. As a very rough yardstick of this I might perhaps mention Stone's Justices Manual. In 1950 the two volumes numbered, I think, nine pages short of 3,000, and the number has now in the 1963 edition reached 3,358 pages. There is the matter for your Lordships to decide. Is there still a proper place on the Benches for ex officio magistrates, untrained, exercising their functions for one year? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I think I should like to say just one or two words on this. I suppose in strict logic it would be difficult to resist this. The only thing I would ask from a logical point of view is why the noble Lord does not go the whole hog and deal also with mayors and lord mayors, who are in exactly the same position
LORD AIREDALE: I deal with mayors in my next Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: No. The county boroughs and lord mayors of cities are not dealt with, and it would leave them in exactly the same position as ex officios. The noble Lord should also go one stage further and deal with the City of London, but he has not got the courage to do that. I really do not feel that there is any harm in the first citizen of an area being on the Bench ex officio. I think it is a good thing. I think it adds to the dignity of the authority. I am bound to say that the analogy of the Army or the chartered accountants organisation is quite irrelevant. This is a civic function which is being performed, and I think there is a lot to be said for the first citizen of the area being represented on the judicial body.
428
But there is one other point—namely, that, in practice, being a magistrate involves not only sitting on the bench but signing documents for all kinds of people who are in difficulty. I remember in the old days one of the big tasks was to sign statutory declarations for people who had lost their pawn tickets, and all sorts of documents of that kind. It is a great convenience to know that you can go to the Town Hall and find the mayor, who as a rule is in a position to sign documents of this kind. This is not a matter of outstanding importance; it does not affect the administration of justice greatly. In practice, I doubt whether the mayor or the chairman attends much in court—he has much too much work to do—and I think this little bit of dignity that you give to the chairman of a district council is all to the good. If we have a Division upon this, I shall be one of the 24 and support the clause as it stands.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, one gets the idea that there is a superficial case for these two Amendments, which are closely allied, but I would point out that the Royal Commission's recommendations and their views also contain something which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has omitted to mention. If I may be allowed to do so, as these clauses are so closely bound up together, I would refer particularly to the second Amendment, which is No. 8, and direct attention to that in relation to the whole question.
After examining the whole position, the Royal Commission took the view that special considerations should be applied to the mayor. Their views and recommendations on this point were contained in paragraphs 158, 159 and 160 of their Report. Following the Royal Commission's recommendation, Section 2 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, made these provisions. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state them, because they are relevant to what is being proposed to-day. First of all, in view of the fact that they said the mayor deserved special consideration, they provided that a mayor of a borough should not be a justice of the peace for the borough ex officio during, the year next after he has ceased to be

429
a mayor; secondly, that where a borough has no separate commission of the peace the mayor should be justice of the peace for the county but not for the borough; and thirdly, that where the borough has a separate commission of the peace the mayor should be a justice of the peace for the borough but not for the county.
The effect of Lord Airedale's new clause—that the mayor of a borough should not be a justice of the peace for a county—would be to deprive the mayor of a borough not having a separate commission of the peace from being a justice of the peace ex officio during his term of office for the county in which the borough is situated. This goes a good deal beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and creates an artificial and, I suggest, unnecessary differentiation between the mayors of non-county boroughs, depending quite fortuitously on whether or not the borough has a separate commission of the peace.
As the Royal Commission pointed out in their Report, the office of mayor
"is the symbol of the corporate character of the borough. The duties of a justice in maintaining order are oder historically than his duties of adjudication, and mayors have had for centuries the special responsibility for the keeping of the peace in the boroughs; that responsibility is ultimately dependent on his position as a justice."
In those circumstances, and with those words of the Royal Commission, the position of any mayor as a magistrate should. I suggest, not be interfered with unless overwhelming arguments can be adduced in favour of the change, those being arguments which were not brought to the notice of the Royal Commission who went so thoroughly into the whole question of justices ex officio. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not accept these Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for reminding your Lordships of a good deal of what was said in the course of the debates in your Lordships' House in 1949. I listened to him with some anxiety lest he was going to quote something that I had said on these points during the passage of the Bill in another place. The anxiety is owing to the fact that I
430
simply have not had time to look up what I did say. I am sure that I said something upon this measure, and whatever I said then—I hope it agrees with what I am going to say to-day—expressed my sincere conviction at that time; and what I am going to say to-day expresses my sincere conviction to-day.
One can make a fairly strong theoretical case for the Amendments moved by the noble Lord. He put the argument most persuasively. In fact, of course—I shall not spend much time upon it—as my noble friend behind me has just pointed out, his Amendments do not accord with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They recommended—and to this extent he is in agreement—that the chairmen of county councils and urban and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio.
LORD AIREDALE: May I interrupt to say that that is precisely the object of this Amendment. The mayors come into my next Amendment, and I have not really outlined my arguments upon that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to hear that, because I thought the noble Lord had and that we were really discussing them both together, although, of course, the Motion has to be put separately. But may I pray in aid, in my argument on his first Amendment, the fact that the second Amendment in the noble Lord's name asks your Lordships to go contrary to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was that the mayor of a borough without a separate commission of the peace should continue to be a justice ex officio of the county in which the borough is situated. Of course, the Amendment of the noble Lord does not deal at all with the mayor of a borough with a separate commission of the peace.
As I say, in my view a pretty persuasive argument could be advanced in support of the noble Lord's two new clauses; and the noble Lord was persuasive. But I feel one ought to be extremely careful before making changes of this sort in a relationship between the magistracy and the local authorities which has continued for many and many a year. I am not by any means convinced that there might not be serious disadvantages for both local authorities and the magistrates if

431
there were a complete separation between the two. The theoretical case is, I think, a powerful one. But since 1949, and indeed before it, what evidence is there that the appointment of these particular ex officio justices has led to a lower standard in the administration of justice than would otherwise have been the case? Since I have held my present office I have seen no evidence of that. But what I have seen is that on a number of occasions these individuals, who have, by the process of becoming chairmen of local authorities, become ex officio magistrates, have found it most interesting work, and they have been ready, willing and keen to carry on with it after their term of office. Indeed, we have secured through this some very useful recruits to the bench of magistrates.
That being the case, one has to weigh against it the possible disadvantages in some instances. But the noble Lord was not able to support his case by giving any instances where carrying on with the present practice had led to things occurring which should not have occurred. I feel that, although in theory a case can be made out for the changes proposed by the noble Lord, it would not be right to accept either of his Amendments (I am dealing with both, for although he now says that he has not fully argued the second, I have considered it carefully) in the absence of cogent evidence that the continuation of the present practice is doing real damage to the administration of justice. For those reasons, I would invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment and to take the same course if, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord still desires to present further arguments with regard to it.
LORD AIREDALE: I am very much obliged to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for saying that there was a superficial case in what I had put forward. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, called it a theoretical case. I think that the Division in 1949 of 24 to 23 votes shows that your Lordships, in those days at any rate, thought there was something rather more than a superficial case.
432
As to my next Amendment, concerning the mayors, which I propose to move shortly, I shall explain to your Lordships that that Amendment goes a little way beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But I should not like your Lordships to think that the subject matter of this Amendment, which deals with the chairmen of local authorities, does not follow precisely the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission with regard to these local government officers. I shall not press this Amendment to a Division this afternoon. I think it would be proper for me to remind your Lordships that if any of your Lordships thinks that the Amendment should not be withdrawn, it is open to him, when the Question is put "Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this Amendment be withdrawn?", to indicate your displeasure. So, with that reservation, I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.53 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, after Clause 30 to insert the following new clause:
"Mayor of Borough not to be Justice of the Peace for a County.
. Subsection (8) of section 18 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that the Mayor of a non-county borough shall during his term of office be a Justice of the Peace for the county in which the borough is situate) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I promised in moving the last Amendment that I should be short in moving this one. I can now be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has really made my speech for me. I need only point out that this Amendment goes a little further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission who stated:
"The special position of the mayor does not require that the mayor of a borough with a separate commission should be a justice of the peace,".
And in the next paragraph the Commissioners' Report said:
"If the borough has no separate commission for the peace the mayor should be a county justice ex officio, and if there is a separate commission he should be a borough justice ex officio and a county justice ex officio,".
My Amendment, as I say, goes further. It removes mayors as ex officio county justices whether the non-county borough has its own separate commission of the

433
peace or not. That is the difference between the principle behind my Amendment and the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I wish to say only a few words on this Amendment. The arguments both for and against appear to be the same as those on the preceding Amendment. My noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out that neither of the Amendments dealt with the position of the mayor or lord mayor of a county borough or a city. I think the noble Lord might have told us why he is going to leave the mayors and lord mayors of county boroughs and cities in a position whereby they can remain on the bench, whereas mayors of non-county boroughs or chairmen of county and county district councils cannot. It seems to me to be illogical.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in regard to the second new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I welcome the speech of my noble friend Lord Silkin on this point, and the position on this particular Amendment was admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. As was pointed out, the Act of 1949 carries out the recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to this particular aspect of ex officio members of a bench; and, so far as I know, no arguments were submitted to the Royal Commission to justify a change in the position. The Act did away with the twelve months after the year of office. I also welcome the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who put the position admirably for those of us who have our roots very deep in local government, because we know what this means for local government. I hope that the same procedure as was adopted on the other new clause will be adopted on this one—unless the noble Lord withdraws it without any qualification.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be discourteous of me not to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in reply to his examination of precisely what this new clause does. It does not accord with the recommendation of
434
the Royal Commission, as he has made clear; and, for the reasons I advanced—perhaps not too prematurely—on the last discussion in regard to the last new clause, I feel that I ought to advise your Lordships to press the noble Lord to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and withdraw this particular proposal. I feel confident that there will be no objection to that course.
LORD AIREDALE: I am again grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I should be sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Burden, at any time, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Chairmanship of bench of magistrates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, designed to dispose of a doubt raised by the County Councils Association who fear that the clause as at present drafted might exclude from election as chairman (and from voting at such an election) a person who is a justice, both ex officio and by reason of his name being on the commission of the peace. The Amendment makes it clear that no one who is a justice by virtue of having his name on the commission is excluded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16, after ("not") insert ("by reason only of his being a justice of the peace by virtue of that office)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1.—[The Central Criminal Court]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to paragraph 2:
"Greater London Council
Chairman of the Greater London Council Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I beg to move this Amendment. The part of Schedule 1 which we seek to amend deals with the ex officio judges of the Central Criminal Court. Under the Schedule they are the Lord

435
Mayor of the City, the Aldermen of the City, and various other judicial officers. We seek to add to those mentioned the Chairman of the Greater London Council and the Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council. We discussed this matter at some length on Second Reading, and I have some hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may see his way to meeting us on this Amendment.
It is not suggested that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council will actually act as members of the court, any more than the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen do. I recognise, and for the purpose of this Amendment I am not going to challenge, the position of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London in the court in their own area. But, after all, their position is ceremonial; it is a matter of status and dignity; and I should have thought that, at a time when we are setting up the Greater London Council, with jurisdiction over a very large area, and with a population of 8 or 9 million, it would be right to confer upon the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of that great authority, as it is going to be, at least the same amount of dignity, prestige and status as is given to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London.
The Greater London Council will be incurring a share of the expenditure in running the Central Criminal Court. There was some argument as to what proportion. Whatever that proportion is, I think it has been added to by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord to Clause 20, so that some additional expenditure will be incurred. But the fact is that the Greater London Council will be contributing towards the cost of the administration of justice at the Central Criminal Court.
Finally, the Central Criminal Court, although it is situated in the City of London, will have jurisdiction over the whole of Greater London, and it seems right that the chief citizens of the Greater London area over whom this court will have jurisdiction should be recognised in an ex officio capacity as members of the court. I think it would be a gracious thing to do. It would give great satisfaction to the Greater London
436
Council when it is set up. I should like to see the Deputy Chairman of the Council added as well, but we do not know whether the Greater London Council will, in fact, appoint a Deputy Chairman, although the London County Council has one. The Deputy Chairman is usually a member of the Opposition and, as I imagine that the first Greater London Council will be a Labour Council, the Deputy Chairman would therefore be a member of the other side and we should have no objection to adding him as an ex officio member. But it depends upon the Council whether it has a Deputy Chairman.
I feel that the words in the Amendment would add to the status and dignity of the Greater London Council. And since the Council will contribute to the expense of this court, whose jurisdiction extends over the whole of the area, it is right that representatives of the Council should be on the court. For these reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see his way to meeting us on this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("Greater London Council
Chairman of the Greater London Council
Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid I cannot meet him with regard to this matter. Our last two discussions have been upon the question of the abolition of those who, ex officio, engaged in the administration of justice, and the noble Lord and I agreed to resist attempts to abolish. Now the noble Lord is seeking to enlarge the number of those who would be entitled ex officio to exercise judicial functions—and they are very high judicial functions. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which this Amendment seeks to amend, reads as follows:
"The ex officio judges shall be the holders of the following offices"—
and then they are set out. Some might argue that it is an anomaly for this Bill to name the Lord Mayor of the City and the Aldermen of the City in that paragraph. But their association with what is now the Central Criminal Court is of very considerable antiquity. They never sit, but I think it would be a great

437
break with tradition to sever the link between the City and the Central Criminal Court. Therefore, although it is an anomaly, I should not myself be in favour of eliminating the Lord Mayor and Aldermen from paragraph 2.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I hope he understands that I was not proposing to eliminate them: I was proposing merely to add the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the new Council.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate that. But I was going on to say that retaining ex officio officers, who have been there for many years, is quite a different thing from adding new ones. Your Lordships will bear in mind that the Chairman of the London County Council is not and never has been an ex officio judge of the Central Criminal Court; nor has his Deputy; nor has the Vice-Chairman. That is what we are being asked to do and I should be very much against it. It would be creating an anomaly.
The argument is put forward on the basis that they never would exercise judicial functions. But I am against putting them into the paragraph when it is quite novel and when they will never, so it is said, exercise judicial functions. It is argued that one should do this to enhance the dignity, prestige and status of the Greater London Council. I do not believe that the Greater London Council, with all its responsibilities, duties and authority, will really have its dignity enhanced by inserting the names of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Bill.
Then it is argued that they ought to have their names included because, after all, the Greater London Council will pay something towards the expenses of the Central Criminal Court. I dealt with the expense that the City is incurring in relation to that in the course of my Second Reading speech, and I have down a later Amendment (I think it is the next Amendment) which seeks to define with precision the liability of the Greater London Council to contribute to the expenses of the Central Criminal Court. Your Lordships will see that that is confined to,
"The remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the Court, and any
438
expenses incurred in the provision and maintenance of office machinery and stationery for the office of the clerk of the Court".
That is the contribution which is now being made by the London County Council. I do not myself think that the argument based either on expenditure or on status is well-founded; and while, in a way, it is difficult for me to resist this Amendment, realising, as I do, the likelihood of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council being members of a Party which supports the Government, I none the less feel sure it would be wrong in principle, and I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: What has politics got to do with it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord did not hear the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who assumed that only the Deputy Chairman would be a member of the Party supporting the Government. The noble Lord missed that slight interchange. There is nothing serious about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the Amendment which defines the precise liability of the Greater London Council to contribute to the expenses of the Central Criminal Court, instead of leaving it, as in the present paragraph 16, at large. The new formula is based, broadly speaking, on the present division of financial responsibility between local authorities and the Corporation of the City. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 45, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
("16. The remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the Court, and any expenses incurred in the provision and maintenance of office machinery and stationery for the office of the clerk of the Court, shall be defrayed by the Greater London Council.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Just one sentence. This, of course, is in flat contradiction to the attitude of the Lord Chancellor on the last Amendment, moved by my noble friend. This is imposing a charge on the Greater London Council, and at the same time it is, on the last decision, denying any

439
representation to the Greater London Council. The Lord Chancellor ought to have dropped this Amendment and, as the City is going to have all the representation, let the City pay. This is monstrous. It is what led to the American Revolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope it will not have such serious consequences. But, in fact, the London County Council now pay for the stationery, the maintenance of office machinery and the remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the court, and it is only right that the Greater London Council should follow the good example set by the London County Council in this respect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Superannuation of Chairmen, etc., who have been Stipendiary Magistrates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that the amount which the contributing authority will have to pay to the Greater London Council in respect of the superannuation of its stipendiary magistrate who has been promoted will he the superannuation he would have earned at the date of the promotion if he had then retired in circumstances entitling him to superannuation. I hope I have made that clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 9, leave out from ("had") to ("on") in line 10 and insert ("on ceasing to hold his last office of stipendiary magistrate retired from that office")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Adaptation, Amendment and Modification of Enactments]:
LORD DERWENT: Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 adapts references to Bow Street Magistrates' Court in enactments relating to extradition and other matters. These enactments require certain unusual types of cases to be heard only at Bow Street. The advantage is that uniformity of procedure can be assured. Paragraph 3 as at present drafted would allow such cases to be heard at any magistrates' court—of which there may be more than one—in the petty sessional division in which the chief magistrate sits. The pur-
440
pose of this Amendment is to ensure that such cases are heard by a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate sitting in the same court as the chief magistrate—namely, the present Bow Street or any court which might succeed it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32. line 41, leave out ("for the same petty sessional division") and insert ("in the same court-house ")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: Paragraph 20(2) of this Schedule applies Section 112 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to courts held by Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. The effect of this is that the clerks of those courts, which have hitherto been governed by separate enactments, are enabled to charge the same fees as those charged in magistrates' courts elsewhere. At present the fees charged at the magistrates' courts in the City of London are prescribed under a local Act power. The City have asked that they, too, should be brought into line with the rest of the country so far as magistrates' courts' fees are concerned, and this Amendment achieves that purpose by applying Section 112 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to magistrates' courts held at either of the Justices' Rooms of the City. There is a consequential Amendment, No. 29, which I will move later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 7, leave out ("courts held by metropolitan stipendiary magistrates") and insert ("magistrates' courts held by metropolitan magistrates or held at either of the justice rooms of the City").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I should like to congratulate the Minister of State, Home Office, on having been rescued by the Lord Chancellor from the judicial obscurity—indeed, expulsion—which was formerly imposed upon the Home Office, in the sense that they were not fit to have anything to do with courts of law. I think the Minister of State, Home Office, is to be congratulated that the Lord Chancellor has evidently repented of the slur which he cast on the Home Office, and is now very grateful at having the assistance, the able assistance, of the Minister of State, Home Office.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment effects verbal amendments of the County Courts Act, 1959, consequential on the provisions of Clause 5(2), which increases from 80 to 90 the number of county court judges and increases from two to three the number of judges who may be assigned to a county court district in Greater London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 43, it end insert—
("THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1959
22A.—(1) In section 4(1) for the word 'eighty' there shall be substituted the word 'ninety'.
(2) In section 4(4) for the words there shall be two judges for a district' there shall be substituted the words for a district wholly or partly situated in Greater London there shall be two or three judges (whichever is specified in the direction) and for any district not so situated there shall be two judges '.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: The effect of this Amendment is that any chief clerk—and not just the senior chief clerk—of an Inner London petty sessional division may act as clerk to the betting licensing authority for the division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 19, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—
("26. In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, in paragraph (a) of the definition of 'clerk to the appropriate authority', the reference to the magistrates' court committee shall include a reference to the committee of magistrates.")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional Provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, fine 8, leave out ("North-west London") and insert ("Middlesex")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: If I may, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together, as they both deal with the same point. Under Clause 8, subsection (8), the clerk of the peace for a London commission area is to be, by
442
virtue of his office, clerk of the standing joint committee for that area. These Amendments are drafting Amendments to make it clear that the "caretaker" clerk for a London commission area is to act as clerk of the standing joint committee for the area until the clerk of the peace for the area is appointed—that is, in the interim period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 39, after first ("The") insert ("acting")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 41, leave out ("committee is appointed") and insert ("peace is appointed for that area").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: May I speak to Amendments No. 20 and 21 together? They are drafting Amendments and make it clear that the juvenile court panel and the chairman of juvenile courts for the Inner London area act also for the City, as provided by Clause 12(1) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, after first ("area") insert ("and the City").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, after second ("area") insert ("and the City").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT had given Notice of an Amendment to add to paragraph 9:
"(4) A member of a juvenile court panel for one or more petty sessional divisions of a county adjoining Greater London appointed under arrangements mentioned in paragraph 8 of this Schedule shall hold office until 30th October 1967."
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move this Amendment at this stage. I will explain why. After considerable research it has been found that October has 31 days. I will move the Amendment in the correct form on the Report stage, as well as another Amendment in a different part of the Bill which also seems to have got October wrong.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Who found out? Was it the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office?
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment necessary because the person appointed to supervise the juvenile courts for the Inner London area and the City will not necessarily be a senior chief clerk but may be a chief clerk. Clause 15(1) says that if more than one chief clerk is appointed to the juvenile courts the committee of magistrates is to designate one of them the senior chief clerk. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 41, line 7, leave out ("senior").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that paragraph 10(2) of this Schedule which relates to the caretaker clerk for new petty sessional divisions applies not only to the new petty sessional division in Greater London but also those in the fringe counties.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 17, after ("6") insert ("or 8").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
5.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may, I will deal with Amendments 25 and 27 together. They are both Amendments making a repeal in the local Acts relating to the parish of Merthyr Tidvil and the borough of Salford, the repeal being a provision no longer necessary because the requirement is now covered in general terms by Clause 28(1) of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Vict. c. xliv.

An Act to provide for the more effectual execution of the office of a justice of the peace within the parish of Merthyr Tidvil and certain adjoining parishes.

In section 5 the words from 'but such person' to 'qualification'")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: The Bill as drafted at present has partial repeal of Section 7
444
of the Vestries Act, 1850. This Amendment deletes that partial repeal because the Vestries Act is to be repealed by an Order made under Section 84 of the London Government Act, 1963. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 26, at end insert —

(41 & 42 Vict. c. lv.

The Manchester Division and BoroughofSalford (Stipendiary Justices) Act 1878.

Section 7.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment to give the correct Short Title of the Metropolitan Police Courts (Holidays) Act, 1897. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 52, after ("Metropolitan") insert ("Police").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is consequential on Amendment 14 to which the Committee has already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 49, line 33, at end insert—

("1 Edw. 8 & 1. Geo. 6. C. xlv.

The City of London (various Powers) Act 1937.

section 36.")

—(The Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment deletes the repeal of Sections 397 and 398 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944. These sections were repealed by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 49, line 46, column 3, leave out ("Sections 397 and 398").—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment to do away with the definition which is replaced by Schedule 3,

445
paragraph 4, on page 32. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 49, line 49, at end insert —

"11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 26.

The Local Government Act 1948.

Section 121(9)")

—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is quite a simple Amendment, but not so easy to explain. The Amendment repeals subsections (10) and (11) of Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, which refer to orders made under subsection (9) of Section 11. In other words, subsections (10) and (11) of Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act are consequential to subsection (9) which is repealed in the Bill. So this Amendment is consequential to that repeal of subsection (9). I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 50, line 7, at end insert ("to (11)").— (Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This is consequential to Amendment No. 14, to which the Committee has agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 50, line 35, leave out from ("and")to end of line 37 and insert "(9)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment repeals paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, which interprets existing provisions relating to buildings and land for the Metropolitan stipendiary courts. The repeal is consequential on Clause 17 of this Bill, which supersedes these provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 51, line 44, at end insert ("in Schedule 2, paragraph 19").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, after a somewhat delayed take-off due to conditions which to me were slightly foggy, I think in moving that the Bill be read a second time that we can deal with this short Money Bill itself quite briefly, though the background to it will take a little longer. As your Lordships know, the Air Corporations raise new capital by borrowing from the Government. Most of the money they borrow is used for capital purposes, such as the purchase of new aircraft, but I must make clear that this Bill is not concerned with borrowings of that kind. It is concerned only with borrowings for the purpose of financing deficits incurred on revenue account.
The Air Corporations Act, 1962, authorised the Minister of Aviation to lend, and the Corporations to borrow, for this purpose, subject to two limitations. First, the powers were limited to the period ending March 31, 1964. Secondly, they authorised such lending and borrowing only if the accumulated deficit on revenue account did not exceed £100 million in the case of British Overseas Airways Corporation, and £10 million in the case of British European Airways. The purpose of the present Bill is to extend these powers for a further two years to March 31, 1966, and to increase the figure of £100 million in respect of B.O.A.C. to £125 million.
Your Lordships might first ask why B.E.A. have been mentioned in this Bill at all, in view of the fact that they are now doing so well. The answer is that they have been included as a precautionary measure. In fact B.E.A's deficit has been held well below the £10 million limit I have just mentioned. It stood at £2,400,000 at March 31, 1963. Results this year are very encouraging and it now appears that by the end of this financial year almost all of the deficit will have been paid off, and that B.E.A. will be well set on a further series of profitable years. Therefore, the Bill does not propose any increase in the figure of £10 million, only that the period should be extended from March 31, 1964, to the same date in 1966,

447
even though, as we see it to-day, it is unlikely that it will be necessary to make use of this extension.
This House has so often heard praise of Lord Douglas of Kirtleside that it is difficult to find new ways to express it. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will not wish to let this occasion pass without a further word of tribute to him. Under the fifteen years of his leadership B.E.A. have built up a reputation for safety, service and efficiency second to none. We shall all be sad to see him go. I think, if I may say so, that the manner of his going is typical: he is leaving at the end of a year that promises to be one of record prosperity for B.E.A., with the promise of more good years to follow, largely as the result of his excellent work in the past, and with the favourable prospect of the Trident coming into service next year. This promises to be a very good aircraft, which should bring added success and profit to B.E.A., as well as prestige and export sales to the British aircraft industry.
I now come to B.O.A.C. In the sixteen years since it began its commercial operations, B.O.A.C., like B.E.A., has earned a reputation for safety and service which is likewise second to none. It has held its position as the second largest long haul airline in the world; and in 1962 it raised its net contribution to the balance of payments to £20 million; while in the last ten years it has almost trebled its traffic and revenue. But even with all that, by March, 1963, it had built up a deficit of some £80 million. The losses go on and the total will rise to about £85 million by the end of the current financial year, of which some £50 million, well over half, were brought to account in the year 1961–62. These figures are formidable and Parliament is entitled to know how they have arisen. That was why my right honourable friend recently presented a White Paper analysing the losses and setting out his proposals for putting the Corporation on to a sound footing. The story of the growth of deficit is fully set out in that White Paper, and I also have no doubt that many of Your Lordships have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in another place. I do not, therefore, feel I need spend any time in taking your Lordships through this story yet again.
448
Incidentally, I might point out that B.O.A.C. is by no means the only airline suffering financial difficulties of this kind. Faced with the same kind of problem, at least three of the leading world airlines—Trans-World Airlines, Scandinavian Airlines and K.L.M.—have each had to undergo a major reorgansation within the last three years. The underlying reasons for all this were the same. World conditions have become more difficult. The introduction of the large jet made propeller fleets prematurely obsolete. More capacity, coupled with a slower rate of growth than was earlier hoped for, has resulted in many cases in unprofitably low load factors. Competition is growing. There is pressure, on the other hand, for lower fares. Bigger sums of money are at stake and the financial risks are greater. All these things have underlined the need, in the minds of Governments and airlines alike, for a surer financial return and for a more robust attack on management problems.
I want to come on now to the suggestion that has been made more than once—and probably will be again to-day —that Government interference has been a major cause of B.O.A.C.'s difficulties.
LORD LINDGREN: Hear, hear!
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord says, "Hear, hear!" but there is no evidence to support this. The noble Lord can have his turn. He has his name on the list of speakers. I should like to make my speech in my own way, if he does not mind. There is an inevitable interplay between Government policy and the commercial interest of the Corporation, but only twice in recent years has B.O.A.C. acted against its commercial judgment because the Government said so.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if no interruptions are going to be allowed? Is the noble Lord laying down a special rule?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, noble Lords are quite at liberty to interrupt, but whether I deal with the interruption at the time must be at my discretion. Does the noble Lord wish to say something?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to be rough, we will

449
have a rough and tumble when our turn comes.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not want to be rough. I had hoped that the noble Lord would wait until I had taken my theme a little further, and then, if he wished, I would have given way to him. The last thing I should like to be accused of is "playing it rough". I wanted to mention these two exceptions before the noble Lord had interrupted me. The first exception was in 1957, when the Government requested B.O.A.C. to make advance payments to the Brisol Aeroplane Company in respect of certain 13ritannias, to give the Company the necessary financial relief and breathing space to enable it to solve, as it eventually did, the technical problems that were holding up completion, so that B.O.A.C. got the aircraft.
The second, and more significant, instance was the Corporation's agreement for the management and operation of Kuwait Airways' services, with entitlement to a share of any profits and responsibility for losses. That agreement was negotiated in 1958 and expired in May, 1963. While it lasted, the Corporation sustained losses amounting to 1,400,000. B.O.A.C. was unwilling on commercial grounds to enter into that agreement. The Government insisted that the Corporation should undertake this venture in order to help a friendly State, and authorised them to mention the circumstances in their next annual report. In both cases B.O.A.C. sought, and obtained, the Government's formal recognition that they were acting in the national interest. It seems to follow that B.O.A.C. were aware that this was the proper course for them to take in cases of this kind, and that if they had believed that similar considerations applied to other decisions the same thing would have been done. I am proposing to pass on from that point, unless the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has anything that he wishes to put in.
LORD LINDGREN: No.
LORD CHESHAM: I pass on to the alternative charge—namely, that the Government have not done enough, and have allowed these deficits to grow. The evidence does not support this charge
450
either. As long ago as 1955 the present Chief Secretary asked the Air Corporations, with their auditors, to draw up principles for amortisation of their aircraft, because he was not satisfied about the way they were being dealt with at the time. In 1957 the Minister of the day warned the Corporation that in his opinion their charges for depreciation were inadequate. In 1959 we had the Select Committee. In 1961 there was an inquiry into B.O.A.C. investments in associated and subsidiary companies in the Middle East. That was disquieting. Also in 1961, following the White Paper, on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, the Ministry of Aviation started discussions with the Corporation to see what financial target they could achieve. It was through these investigations that the true scale of the deficit came to light, and it became obvious that drastic measures would be needed to put matters right. Plans were discussed, but no agreement was reached.
In 1962, therefore, the present Minister was faced with the decision whether to hold a public inquiry into B.O.A.C.'s affairs or to have a private investigation by outside consultants. He thought—and quite rightly, in my view—that the Government should settle their own policy, rather than get an inquiry to do it for them. The right course, he decided, was to check the facts he already had, from his Department, from previous inquiries and from the Select Committee, and then to arrive at his own conclusions. As we all know, Mr. Corbett was appointed to check the facts, and the Minister's conclusions are set out in the White Paper.
That brings us to to-day, my Lords, and provides the final touch to the background of the Government's proposals.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask which particular facts were in doubt which had to be checked? I wonder if he could just expand that.
LORD CHESHAM: It is difficult for me to itemise a catalogue of facts, if that is what the noble Lord is after.
LORD SHACKLETON: A couple will do.
LORD CHESHAM: I would say that, for one, there was the question of depreciation. There was the question of (I

451
may need to expand this later) the financial control; and there was a certain amount on the engineering and maintenance side. I hope that will be enough for the noble Lord. I should have thought that it would be enough to make anybody think seriously at the time.
LORD SHACKLETON: Certainly enough for you.
LORD CHESHAM: Now, my Lords, I should like to come on to the question of the need for changes of management. Over the last few years a good deal has been done to improve B.O.A.C.'s efficiency in the fields of engineering and maintenance that I have just mentioned. But there is still a great deal more to be done. Your Lordships will see that the Corporation's average costs are shown in the Annex to the White Paper to be higher than other airlines concentrating on long-haul services, and it is essential that we recognise the fact that the cost levels of the most efficient airlines will increasingly set the standard to which the level of fares and freight rates will be related. If the Corporation's costs are any higher than they need be, whether because of the aircraft they operate or for any other reasons, it will inevitably affect their financial viability. The reason for bringing in new blood at the higher levels is not, therefore, simply to correct weaknesses of the past, but also to arm B.O.A.C. to meet the difficult problems to be expected in the future. As I have already said, competition may get even keener. There is likely to be this continuing pressure for lower fares. Costs of materials and labour may well go up. But what is beyond doubt is that a vigorous new drive is needed to cope with it all. The Government certainly could not stand by and watch mounting losses and mounting problems without doing everything in their power to strengthen B.O.A.C.
My right honourable friend then proceeded to discuss his conclusions and proposals with the Chairman of B.O.A.C., whose appointment was due to expire in July next year. My right honourable friend told him that his view was that the Chairman ought to take on some of the duties that now fall to the Managing Director. Sir Matthew Slattery said that he did not
452
himself feel disposed to attempt this double task. In the circumstances, the Minister decided to appoint Sir Giles Guthrie, and Sir Matthew Slattery thought it in the best interests of the Corporation for the change to come sooner rather than later. He therefore suggested that he should go at the end of the year and that Sir Giles should take over on January 1, 1964, and this my right honourable friend accepted.
When the Minister told Sir Basil Smallpeice of his intention, he offered to retire in order to facilitate the reallocation of responsibilities, and that offer was accepted. This is all made very clear in the exchange of letters which has been published. Perhaps I should say again, for the Record, that these changes are by no means a reflection on the abilities of either Sir Matthew or Sir Basil, both of whom have given valuable service to B.O.A.C. in a very difficult period.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I again ask what the noble Lord means by "by no means a reflection"? Does he mean "no reflection"?
LORD CHESHAM: A trick of words. I had not attributed any particular significance to the words that I used. If there is any doubt on the matter and it will clear the noble Lord's mind, I am quite happy to say "no reflection".
LORD LINDGREN: If the noble Lord now agrees that it is no reflection, can he give us the meaning of his previous words, in which he said that the reason for the new appointments was to correct weaknesses on the part of B.O.A.C. and to enable them to meet the difficult problems of the future? When he says that there have been weaknesses to correct, is that not a reflection on the management?
LORD CHESHAM: Not, I think, in the sense that I used the second words to which the noble Lord refers. In a sense, it is. But I still think I was correct in using both sets of words. I do not think, either, that that is any reason for me to depart from what I said about the reflection on either of those two gentlemen. Sir Giles Guthrie, who agreed to become Chairman as from the beginning of next year, is a man who combines great

453
financial ability with enthusiasm for aviation, and I am confident in saying that he will prove a fine leader of B.O.A.C.
The question of a merger between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. is something that has often been mentioned, but it is not the belief of the Government that it would help B.O.A.C. to solve their immediate problems. The Government, however, think that efficiency can be improved by closer collaboration between the two Corporations, and accordingly the Chairman of each Corporation will be a part-time member of the other. Already there has been an instance of this kind of collaboration in the recent announcement of the pooling arrangements for the route to Israel—that is, if I can say that without having to resign.
During the coming year Sir Giles Guthrie will be preparing a plan for making B.O.A.C. financially sound, as my right honourable friend has requested. Your Lordships may ask why any further plan is necessary in view of Mr. Corbett's inquiry and all the other consultations my right honourable friend has had. The answer is that consultants are only advisers to Ministers, and Ministers are in the position, so to speak, of being bankers or sponsors, if you like, to the Corporations. The task of putting any organisation on a sound financial basis surely must rest squarely on the management itself.
The Government are sure that it would be wrong and illogical to deal with the question of the accumulated deficit until a plan for the future has been produced. It may—and I have said this before—well prove necessary, or it may not, to ask the House to agree to write off the deficit, but this should be a matter for consideration at the same time as the plan comes forward. In the meantime, the present Bill is a stepping stone in the right direction. It will enable the Corporation's deficit to be financed pending the measures of reconstruction. That is all I ask your Lordships to-day. B.O.A.C. is basically, I think we are all agreed, a very fine airline, and I am sure all your Lordships will join in wishing Sir Giles Guthrie and the Corporation well in the task that is ahead of them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Chesham.)
5.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think we obviously start on one point on which there will be agreement, although there is almost a monotony in the repetition of it; that is in paying tribute to British European Airways. It is rather fortunate, from the point of view of narrowing and clarifying the view (at least, I hope so), that in our House this will not be a general debate on the merits or demerits of nationalisation. We are agreed that British European Airways have been very successful. There are factors other than personal factors, although one pays tribute to those personal factors in this success. We have analysed this before—the success of the various aircraft, the Viscount being a steady performer, and so on. Certainly it is satisfactory that it is a Member of our House who has led this Corporation so successfully.
We are confronted with a pretty sorry business when in either House of Parliament the Government spokesman makes a speech such as we have heard regarding B.O.A.C. with a praise so faint as not to be praise at all. He got as far as saying that they were by no means to be condemned, or words to that effect; or that there was no reflection on them. And yet we had a story which did not explain the factors. I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, of any blame for not going through the whole of the story again, because it is only a year to-day since he went through it, in a similar way. It was December 19, 1962, that we had this very same debate. But the atmosphere seems to have sharpened a bit, and it is right, if we are to agree to pass this Bill, that we should examine responsibility.
I think our first criticism would not be criticism of the Government for interfering with B.O.A.C.—although there are specific criticisms we could make—but of apportioning blame to B.O.A.C. and concealing their own part in certain aspects of it. When the blame takes the form of the words that were used last year by the Minister of Aviation in another place, then I think we are entitled to condemn the Government. I make no apology for again referring to something for which no apology has been made. Last year the Minister of Aviation said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 666, col. 814]:

455
"What I cannot accept so easily is that the depreciation in the value of the Corporation's aircraft fleet has only been fully revealed this year. This is not a situation which has come up upon us in the night. It has been building up for two or three years past; and in any business efficient management must call for a clear understanding…".
If there is one thing that must have been known to the Government all these years, it was the state of the finances of B.O.A.C. If there is one thing in which they were directly concerned, it was in the presentation of the accounts.
Once again I would draw attention to the rather curious switching in the attitude of Ministers on this matter. This year we have been told (because in fact it was necessary to tell another place) that the Minister concerned himself only with the form of the accounts. Yet last year we were told by the noble Lord himself that it was not only the form of accounts, but that it was the Minister's concern that the Comets should not be written down too fast. This is more than the form of the accounts. He may have been justified in objecting to the Board's proposal that this major amortisation should be put straight into the balance sheet instead of going through the profit and loss account. If there is one thing this makes clear, it is that the Government have known this all along.
One of our major criticisms would also be that they have dallied, and that the Minister must have been aware of these facts (after all, he had the Corbett Report long ago) for a long time. I should like to know whether there is any way in which the Minister can reveal what was said to us in the Corbett Report with regard to the Government's position in all this. I fully accept that the Government must be entitled to call on consultants and advisers, and there is probably much to be said for not having a public inquiry. But the fact is that all we know—and this must give rise to grounds for suspicion and criticism—is what appeared in the White Paper. I confess that I know no one who has seen that Report: I am told that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. himself, Sir Matthew Slattery, has not seen it. I should like to ask the Minister specifically what comments were made in the Corbett Report with regard to the Government's part in the commercial and other policies of B.O.A.C.
456
This aspect is important, because in another place the Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 685 (No. 15) col. 909]:
"I do not think it is entirely in keeping with our constitution, which provides that the Government's job is to govern, that every aspect of what the Government do should be studied in detail by the Opposition."
Noble Lords opposite may have some strange ideas about what the rôle of an Opposition is. They will perhaps soon have an opportunity of finding out for themselves. But if there is one thing that an Opposition should do, it is to study in detail; and it would seem to be a weakness in our constitutional situation that we have no means of getting at this particular part of the facts. We have pressed the Government to publish whatever recommendation might be made, and even to summarise the findings; yet we have no exact information. The noble Lord said that the task of the Corbett Committee was to establish the facts. I asked the noble Lord what facts, and he was unable to tell me what they were. I should like to establish certain facts, too. I should like to know whether there are some statements in the Corbett Report which reflect on the Government. There is enough trouble caused. It is no good pretending that there is not a crisis of confidence. It is no good pretending that the exchange of letters between Sir Matthew Slattery or Sir Basil Smallpeice and the Minister make the situation clear. They make it clear only if one deduces what is concealed in these letters; and we are handicapped.
We do not have any Committee system such as the Americans have. Members of the Board of B.O.A.C. are themselves debarred from speaking publicly on this matter, but we know enough to be aware that there has been a crisis of confidence. I suspect that the board of B.O.A.C. themselves have demanded an apology on certain of the matters the Minister has said. We know, because all of us have friends in B.O.A.C., not necessarily at board level, and they tell us there is a deep mortification and, indeed, anger in B.O.A.C. It is no good the Government thinking they can do that sort of thing without damaging the morale of a body of this kind. B.O.A.C., like any great undertaking, depends greatly on its morale

457
and its esprit de corps. I do not know what representations have been made on this subject; but one thing that is clear is that there was confidence in the present management, and that Sir Matthew Slattery, especially, had acquired the support of that great Corporation. This seems to me to be the only explanation of the reluctance of members of the board to co-operate, as the Minister wished, in resigning at this moment. One would like to know why the Minister wanted them to resign—indeed, this really is the burden of our complaint.
We grant everything the noble Lord has said about losses: they are there for us to see. There may have been errors, though the part of the Government in this matter is difficult to establish. We know that the Board of B.O.A.C., in the rather loose terms in which their responsibility was laid down, regard it as their duty to serve the British interest broadly. In fact, previous Chairmen have sought to have their responsibilities more clearly defined. It will be a very sad day when nationalised industries, or any public body—or, indeed, I would say, private body—wait for a directive from the Government before they do what is their national duty; but this is something the Government have achieved. They have made it abundantly clear that any public body of this kind, before it does anything which the Minister suggests is in the public interest, must, in fact, have a certificate exonerating them from doing their duty.
Before Sir Matthew Slattery was appointed three years ago he was asked, among other things, to produce a plan to improve the efficiency of B.O.A.C. and I am sorry that the Minister did not reveal all the facts of the extent to which there is an improvement in efficiency. I would say that it was very unfair for him to reveal only the present situation with regard to the operating cost per ton-mile, or whatever figures he gave, or the passenger load factors without drawing attention to the very great improvement that has taken place recently. We know that these figures are available. They have been given publicly. I think it would have been fairer if the Minister had given some of the available figures of recent months.
458
There has been much criticism in the past of B.O.A.C.'s engineering costs, but we know that since 1958 they have come down from about 12d. per ton-mile to little more than 4d. Indeed, to-day, they are lower than those of many other airlines, including British European Airways. There may be reasons to account for this, but what is abundantly clear is that the B.O.A.C. position, in regard to efficiency and to all those tests which are properly applied to efficiency, has been improved enormously in recent months and years. Improved savings have been made in engineering costs only this year.
I should like to turn for a moment to the Corbett Inquiry. Certain of their conclusions have been illustrated in the White Paper. I understand that the inquiry by Associated Industrial Consultants was all part of the Corbett Inquiry. Mr. Corbett asked them, I understand, to make an investigation for him; indeed, it was indicated in another place that this information was being given to the Chairman and the Board of B.O.A.C. They have mentioned that a possible saving of £4 million is obtainable on the engineering side. I shall be interested to know whether that was Associated Industrial Consultants' own plan or was B.O.A.C.'s own plan; because any consultants who go in are bound to work these facts out with them. We know perfectly well that B.O.A.C., under Sir Matthew Slattery and the present Board, had in hand many of the changes and improvements which are now to be put into effect under the new management. It is, moreover, a relatively weak management—and I stress this, because any new management coming in, when slaughter like this has taken place, is bound to take some time to get into a position where it can really affect matters.
Why are we to have another plan? Why is the policy which I presume the Minister has wanted to be put into effect over the last few months not been put into effect now? We can only conclude that the Minister has decided that some thing of a dramatic nature has to be done, and that in such circumstances the easiest thing is to say, "Sack the lot". I think this is a very sad day. I think we are losing certain people of very great value. This is no reflection on the new Chairman of B.O.A.C., when I say

459
that we are, in fact, losing a quite outstanding man, who might well have continued for several years, aided, as necessary, by additional staff.
We have been told something in the White Paper about the Controller's Department. Is it conceivable that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. might also have had similar views? Did it really call for Mr. Corbett to investigate this? One suspects that the trouble with B.O.A.C., as with so many subjects—defence for instance—is this perpetual change of Minister. We have seen Minister after Minister, each determined to make a mark. Now we are coming up to a particularly awkward deadline, a General Election, and we have a Minister who has to produce some sort of gesture to postpone the writing off of the £80 million that has been lost, and who hopes either to be back with time to solve the problem or to leave it to the other side to tackle.
There are other criticisms one could make of the Government. There is the position with regard to independence. I do not want to initiate too much discussion on independence. The situation there may or may not have contributed very much to the B.O.A.C. weakness. The B.O.A.C., under its present Board, has some very considerable achievements to be proud of. Labour relations, which at one time were not good, are probably as good to-day as anything to be found in this country. And I would only ask the Minister that he contrives to persuade his right honourable friend to give us a bit more information about this subject; to do something, if that be possible—and it may not be possible—to undo the damage that has been done to B.O.A.C. by certain remarks, one of which I have quoted, and in future to pursue the national interest rather than this particular Government's interest.
6.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this is a sad Bill for all of us who are interested in civil aviation and in the health and well-being of the two great Corporations. It increases the borrowing powers to finance the deficit of B.O.A.C., while B.E.A. powers are left unaltered, and it extends the period for accrual of deficit in B.O.A.C. It discloses a serious situation with these staggering, mounting deficits. For many years I
460
have been interested in civil aviation and the development of civil aviation and flying, not only among the Corporations but among other aircraft operators, and in private flying—of which there is far too little for various reasons—and in those circumstances, looking at it purely objectively over the years, I cannot help feeling that the Government must take a considerable amount of responsibility for the situation.
I believe that so far as B.O.A.C. are concerned the root cause of the problem has been that the Government have never been able to make up their mind as to what they wanted B.O.A.C. to do. In the first place, they were expected to maintain British prestige in the air as the major long distance British carrier —almost the only one, or among very few of them, I think. They were expected to fly British aircraft. Your Lordships may remember that seven or eight years ago we had a great tussle over this when Mr. Watkinson became Minister of Transport and issued the edict that B.O.A.C. must fly British. We got him away from that idea. Then, they have been expected to prove British aircraft in service. In the United States to a large extent new aircraft are proved in conjunction with the Air Force. Here, B.O.A.C. have had to spend vast sums in proving, aircraft. Take the first Comet for example; take the Britannia and all the trouble it had. Great sums have had to be expended in that way. Then they have to publicise these aircraft. I should like to know what the original Comet cost in publicity alone. I know that Sir Miles Thomas went on an extensive tour of the United States and elsewhere for this purpose at great expense to the Corporation.
Moreover, they have to be competitive. The Government, rightly or wrongly, are constantly giving licences to independent airlines in competition with them. That may be quite a good thing. I am not arguing against competition; I believe in it. But that is another aspect in which the Government see B.O.A.C. Then they have to face competition very often on existing routes which they have pioneered. They have to face competition from independent airlines and from new Commonwealth airlines which are springing up. Again, they are excluded from trooping contracts. The Minister to-day told us in how many cases the Government had

461
to give them a direction. In how many cases have they had to do things outside their own commercial judgment? I would like to know how many trooping contracts B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. would have if they were allowed to apply. They are not allowed to apply. Then they have to provide V.I.P. aircraft at short notice, at great expense—£20,000 to turn an aircraft around. No ordinary airline would have to do that. They have to take on unremunerative services, such as in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, which B.E.A. have to do. They have to take on some highly unremunerative partners all over the world. Finally, they have to make both ends meet, taking one year with another, after paying depreciation and interest charges et cetera, et cetera.
Some or any of these things may be quite in order. I am not against them. Taken one by one, many are in order. The fact is they are incompatible. We cannot insist on an airline doing all these things at one and the same time, and I believe this, more than anything, is the real difficulty B.O.A.C. have been put into. If the Government would tell them exactly what they were expected to do and how they were expected to do it without any incompatibility between the various rôles they are expected to undertake, I believe this situation would be cleared up.
I do not care who this learned gentleman from the City is, this chartered accountant on the Board, and how many Mr. Corbetts they get. It does not matter. This is not an accountancy issue at all and the Government are quite wrong in thinking it is an accountancy issue. It is not. It is a ministerial issue, it is a Cabinet issue if you like; it is a political issue. How do you want these Corporations to act? It does not matter if you have all the chartered accountants in the City of London, they could not make a ha'p'orth of difference, because it is not a matter for chartered accountants. We have far too much reliance on chartered accountants in these days, and in my opinion they are by no means always the best people to advise on policy. They are all right to look at the petty cash and see if anyone is fiddling the accounts, but in my opinion they are by no means the best people to advise on policy.
462
I want to take the next point. It is all very well getting this issue into the political field and having arguments on nationalisation and all that, and having great fun. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was quite right to-day when he said we do not want this issue to become a nationalisation dog-fight in this House; it would be most unfortunate. In fact, we have to think of the people who are handling these aircraft in the air; we have to think of the staff, and I do not think it does them a bit of good. It is a highly nerve-racking business, as we all know, with these great aircraft, in view of their speeds, the speed of landing, the speed of take off, the angle of take-off because people in Uxbridge do not like noise, and all the rest. We are imposing enormous responsibilities and burdens on these young men. I do not suppose men have ever had these split second responsibilities before. At the same time, that their career should be at the mercy of a Party dog-fight is, I think, disgraceful and despicable, and we should take this question right out of the dog-fight altogether.
I am going to quote from Flight International, the official organ of the Royal Aero Club. It is not a political organisation; it is the official body. This is said in the issue of November 28:
"The B.O.A.C. leaders are cast aside on the basis of evidence which, since it is known to the Minister alone, they cannot answer. Some may feel this is a most disagreeable political act. Sir Giles inherits a difficult personal task. His first preoccupation must be for B.O.A.C.'s morale. He has to win the confidence of an airline which has suffered the deranging experience of witnessing the political immolation of a leadership in which it had great confidence."
That is what the Government have to answer—not any financial situation at all. Those are the people I am afraid for. It is the morale of the pilots, the engineers, the navigators, the people who control these great airlines that we have to think about.
The B.E.A. Corporation is much better placed. They have a much denser population to serve. They have been fortunate with aircraft, especially the Viscount and the Comet, and now we hope that the same situation will apply to the Trident. Also, as has been said, they have been fortunate in the personality of Lord Douglas of Kirtleside,

463
who certainly would not stand any nonsense from a Minister or anybody else. This shows the great importance of choosing the right man to be chairman of bodies such as these. I should like to join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, because I believe that in any Corporation, firm or industry there must be one man above all who can impress his personality upon that organisation. There is no doubt about it, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside has done that.
So I would urge the Government to give a clear lead to B.O.A.C. and to get away from all this muddle. In my view they have wonderful Corporations here from the flying point of view. I do a fair amount of flying, and I never fly anywhere in the world other than with B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. if I can possibly help it, and if they fly on those routes. I think we have a great asset here. They are magnificent Corporations; they really do the job splendidly, and I do not think we should do or say anything that would in any way upset their morale.
There are some changes that I should like to see. First of all, there is this supersonic race into which we are apparently going. I believe that that should be a long time ahead; but if, for prestige reasons, the Government believe that it is necessary for us to go into the supersonic aircraft era, then I do not think one single penny of the expense of it should fall on the Corporations. If it is necessary for our prestige—though I doubt this myself; I think it is a sort of threadbare plan—it is the Government's responsibility. If they think that it is necessary for British prestige—if the people in the Solomon Islands will not think so much of us if we do not get this great supersonic aircraft first in the air—then let them do it; but let them pay for it. Do not let any of the charge fall on B.O.A.C., as I strongly suspect that it will otherwise do, with the result, unless we are careful, that there will be a mounting deficit, and Lord Chesham, or his successor, of whatever Party, will come here and put the blame on B.O.A.C. So I give fair warning now.
Then I suggest that we should be careful about allowing competition on scheduled air routes. B.E.A. and
464
B.O.A.C. have to fly all the year round on scheduled air routes. If a licence is given to an independent airline, they take the cream, because they fly only at certain times of the year. This applies to some of the new Commonwealth airlines that are cropping up. I think it is highly unfair. Last year I went to Uganda. I went out to Entebbe in a Britannia, which has seats for about 100. Eight of us were going out there. I came back in a Comet from Nairobi. At the start we were one more—we were nine. Before we reached London we had dropped one or two off and we were about seven. That is the sort of thing that happens in the off-peak season. B.O.A.C. have to fly and B.E.A. have to fly. They cannot do that sort of thing and have the cream of their traffic taken away from them.
Secondly, I would think that there is need for administrative economies, not so much individual but joint. Why is it not possible to have joint services, joint facilities and joint offices? For instance, in London there are various offices for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. There is one large air terminal at Victoria for B.O.A.C., and there is a large traffic terminal at Cromwell Road for B.E.A. This latter is an enormous affair. It has just been built. Unfortunately, there was a fire there in the first week. It has been quickly renovated; Cromwell Road is, I may say, in many ways a much more convenient place than Victoria. Why cannot the Cromwell Road terminal serve both Corporations? There are several other things like that. I should have thought that the catering and the medical services could be joint services.
Finally, there is a suggestion that the Boards should be joint. That idea is worth pursuing. I know there are things to be said for it and against it, but I think it is well worth pursuing to see whether we could not have a joint board and gradually get into the way of having a single Corporation. I think that this is only a question of time. I firmly believe that in time we shall have one single Corporation to cover the whole field; I think the pressure of events will force that in time. As, in my view, that is inevitable, I think it would be well to start to meet the inevitability by means of this joint Corporation.

465
That is all I have to say. I feel that it is most unfortunate that this kind of mounting deficit has come about, but I want to express my confidence and that of my Party in the future of these two great Corporations, which have had such a magnificent past and will have an equally magnificent future.
6.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in your Lordships' House, and it was not without a great deal of thought that I decided to make my maiden speech today. As some of your Lordships may know, I have a great interest in aviation, being a pilot for over ten years, and I hope I may be treated with your usual indulgence. In considering this Bill, which is to give more money to B.O.A.C., perhaps we should consider some of the underlying causes why this money is needed.
There has been criticism in the White Paper of the management of the Corporation, implying that the Corporation's management has been negligent or even incompetent. From a study of the annual accounts of B.O.A.C., one might conclude that some of the difficulties have been caused by operating the wrong aircraft at the wrong time. I do not wish to suggest that these aircraft were inherently unsuitable for the Corporation's routes, but I believe it to be true that a large amount of development flying was necessary with some of the types of aircraft, and I do not think that this should normally be regarded as the proper work of an air transport undertaking. In addition, delays in the introduction into service of these types—I am thinking in particular of the Britannia—meant that, from the economic point of view, they had a short life and a high depreciation had to be allowed for, due to competition from more modern aircraft operated by other air lines. Again, we might consider whether routes which are operated for political reasons and may not be profitable commercially should be operated without some form of subsidy.
Moving from the particular problems of B.O.A.C. to the problems of commercial air transport generally, I wonder whether some of the underlying reasons for poor load factors—the problem of
466
too many seats chasing too few passengers—are not that the ordinary man in the street is not flying sufficiently often. I myself feel that possibly this is not due entirely to the economic reason: high fares. I believe it may be high fears. It may not be possible to lower fares very much, but certainly we should do all in our power to make air transport as safe as is humanly possible. I do not wish to suggest that airlines which are members of IATA are unsafe—indeed, they have the highest safety record of any airlines in the world—but what matters is what the ordinary man in the street feels. His ideas are coloured by aircraft disasters. If 50 or 100 people die horribly in a few moments in one crash, this makes a much greater impact on his mind than equally horrifying statistics of road accidents to a few people in many individual crashes. One has only to visit any airport departure lounge to notice an air of tension; whereas most people awaiting a train or bus do not normally exhibit fear.
I believe we are far too complacent about safety and the need for more rapid development—the introduction of better equipments and procedures. In this country the air traffic control services are doing a magnificent job, but they would be the first to agree that the existing equipment is rather inadequate when one takes into account the considerable growth in air transport which has occurred during the last decade. New equipment and organisation is coming along, but it may be several years—I am told possibly five to ten years—before it is fully implemented. In the meantime there may be a gap which a little more forethought some years ago could have prevented.
Whatever may be the case in this country, there is no doubt whatever that abroad there are large areas of the world in which jet aircraft are operating where the facilities are totally inadequate for their safe operation. It has been mentioned by the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators that as much as 80 or 85 per cent. of some of the aerodromes throughout the world are not adequately equipped. This, of course, is not the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, while the situation exists there is a serious risk of disasters occurring which would not have occurred if the correct equipment

467
had been installed and operated by properly trained personnel. It may be worth while for the Government to consider whether they could provide further technical assistance, possibly on favourable terms, to some of these countries, because I believe lack of finance may be the main reason why the ICAO recommendations have not been implemented.
It is a sobering thought that if no improvement in the existing safety rates occurred, the number of headline accidents per unit period of time increase in proportion because of the increase in the volume of aviation. At present in scheduled air transport in ICAO States about 800 deaths per annum occur, equivalent to about one fatal crash per fortnight. If aviation grows by 8 per cent. per annum (which is less than the past rate of growth) in twenty years' time there will be one fatal crash every three days. That is an appalling thought. To take a specific example of the difficulties of operating these high-speed modern aircraft, the Boeing 707 and 720 aircraft have now flown over 3 million hours. This has been done by approximately 350 aircraft. But of these air craft one-seventh—no fewer than 55—have suffered accidents involving substantial damage. In 13 of the 55 accidents the aircrafts were totally written off. I trust I have not taken up too much of your Lordships' time in advocating greater efforts to improve safety in air transport, but I believe airlines will have arrived as a means of transport only when the ordinary man in the street boards an aircraft with a tranquil mind.
Returning briefly to B.O.A.C. and the problems of the associated companies, I do not think it is entirely fair to blame the Corporation for the post-war political trend. The transformation of the Empire into an independent Commonwealth naturally has meant that the new countries have wished to operate their own airlines, with an inevitable reduction in the amount of traffic which is carried by the Corporation. Again, criticism of the lack of financial control by the Corporation over wholly-owned or majority-controlled subsidiaries may not be completely fair. A financial requirement of drastic pruning of staff to make operations commercially profitable could be a political impossibility if the
468
country concerned was about to achieve independence. I put forward Trinidad and the British West Indian Airways as an example. Nevertheless, considerable losses have occurred; and it may be useful to consider whether there are any off-setting advantages which have accrued from the associated companies. I believe there are, particularly to the aircraft industry of this country.
To take some examples, Middle East Airlines have bought 7 Viscounts and 4 Comets, worth (including spares) over £10 million; British West Indian Airways have bought 8 Viscounts worth £3 million; Kuwait Airways have ordered 1 Comet, 2 de Havilland Tridents and 3 BAC IIIs. The total value of these aircraft and engines and other aircraft and engines which have been sold abroad must be at least £23 million. This is a not inconsiderable sum. It is also true that but for the commercial and technical assistance given by B.O.A.C. these sales might never have occurred.
In conclusion, my Lords, I wonder whether we should take a leaf out of the Americans' book over the question of the development and the proving of new types of civil aircraft. In the United States of America the Boeing jet tanker flew for some years with the United States Air Force and was proven as a successful aircraft before its successor, the Boeing 707, was produced for the airlines. Perhaps if we in this country could get the Royal Air Force Transport Command to do likewise, we might find that B.O.A.C's operations in the future would be more profitable. Finally, my Lords, I know that all those engaged in civil aviation in this country will take great comfort from your Lordships' considerable interest in their problems and hope for their successful future.
6.40 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to compliment the noble Marquess on his maiden speech, a well-informed and excellently delivered speech. I understand that the noble Marquess has Irish associations, and it might perhaps have been better had my noble friend Lord Longford been the first to congratulate him, because with his associations with Ireland he may no doubt have been a little more eloquent. But, certainly, he would have been no more sincere than I am in

469
paying a compliment to the noble Marquess on ale excellence of his speech. One would have liked to say this in any event, but I say this more earnestly because I agree with everything that he has said.
It was very fitting indeed that a pilot should speak in this debate. There are many of us who think we know something of civil aviation from a general association with one section or another of it, but there are few of us who can claim actual personal experience of the responsibility of having his own life and the lives of others in his hands as a pilot. It is very fitting, indeed, that we should have heard the noble Marquess speaking on the question of safety, because what he said in his speech was really fundamental. The function of any form of transport—road, rail or sea—is to move goods and people with speed, safety and regularity; and unless there is safety, neither speed nor regularity is of any avail at all. It is the meat in the sandwich. It is therefore very fitting indeed that the noble Marquess should have made his maiden speech in the way that he has done. We hope that we shall hear him on very many more occasions, not only on civil aviation matters, but on other matters with which he is associated.
I am glad that I was able to start on that happy note. My noble friend Lord Shackleton who opened, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has already spoken, seemed to want to try to turn this debate into one of high moral tone. But, quite frankly, I do not feel in the mood to speak in a high moral tone, when taking into account the deplorable action of this Government in regard to civil aviation matters and, in particular, those associated with B.O.A.C. If I lay great emphasis on what I say to-day it is because of the disgust that I have for the Government, and particularly the present Minister in his handling of the present situation.
No matter what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, might say, the White Paper is a criticism of the chairman, the Board and the top level management of B.O.A.C. I do not agree with that, and I shall try to show why during my speech. But let us assume for the purpose of argument that it is correct. Who is responsible?—the Government. They
470
have been in office for thirteen years. They have been the persons responsible for the appointment of the Chairman of the Board, and the directors on the Board. They have been responsible for the day-to-day association of the Minister, and his officials within the Department, with the various sections of the three airlines.
Let us see what the position is. The inefficiency is in the Government. We have had seven Ministers of Civil Aviation in the Government's thirteen years. I am not going to tie myself to that figure; it is certainly no fewer than seven and I can give the names of seven, but I may have forgotten one or two. There have been nine Parliamentary Secretaries. Civil aviation seems to be dealt with by this Government almost as haphazardly as defence. However can there be continuity of policy when in fact they are changing Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries every five minutes—or, if not every five minutes, certainly every other year?
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, paid a very fine compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and I am glad to join him in it. But may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—and I hope he will rub it in to his colleagues in the Government—that in 1951 when the airlines were handed over to this Government they were in good heart. If anything has gone wrong it has been since 1951. As regards B.E.A., the Chairman was appointed during the lifetime of the Labour Government—the same Chairman and the same Board. One of the reasons why I am bitter is that the Tory Party is not sincere in regard to nationalised undertakings and their operation. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in another place, I had to defend the action of my noble friend Lord Longford—Lord Pakenham as he then was—against cries of "jobs for the boys" from rows of Tory M.P.s. when the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, was appointed. It is music in my ears to hear a Tory Minister getting up here after thirteen years and having to say, "Grand fellow. The best we have ever had in the Ministry. No one could have done better." They did not say that in 1951.
And what about the Chairmen who have been appointed in B.O.A.C. by this Government? What about the Boards

471
that have been appointed by this Government? The Government are now coming to this House and saying, "We appointed inefficient people to do the job, and we have not been able to carry it out." Can the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, not look at his own Ministry? The Tory Government use the nationalised industries as just pawns in a game. What did they do in 1951? They amalgamated the Ministry of Civil Aviation with the Ministry of Transport. Within the Ministry of Civil Aviation there were really first-class civil servants, expert in every degree of airline operation, aerodrome operation, the general arrangements in regard to safety, air traffic control and the rest. It was a first-class Ministry with a first-class technical staff and first-class administrative staff. What did the Tory Government do? They said, "We cannot have this, so we will amalgamate the two Ministries and put everybody who knows anything about civil aviation in to deal with the railways, shipping and the rest", and of course the day-to-day function of the Ministry itself, which was to keep in touch with the various sections in both Corporations, suffered.
It is no good for the Minister to say that the Corporations did not inform the Minister of their problems in regard to finance. My noble friend Lord Longford will follow me later to-day, but when he was Minister I was his Parliamentary Secretary, and we had sections within the Ministry that were in daily consultation with various departments within the Corporations. The budgets were prepared, they were considered, they were discussed. When it was necessary, the chairmen and deputy chairmen came to see the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. We knew what was going on. We were told. We were able to exercise influence if it was necessary. If anything has gone wrong it is not within the Corporations, but within the Ministry.
There is further evidence of the Government's mishandling. I want to say that I think even the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was far from fair in his statement here to-day, not in what he said, but in what he left unsaid. To know things and to deliberately withhold them from the House—to put it quite
472
bluntly in my Cockney language—is distasteful. I am going to prove it.
The present Chairman made a report to the present Minister on his own recommendations for the reorganisation of B.O.A.C. That report was presented to the Minister in July, 1962. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, never mentioned it to-day. Why not? Because immediately after the Minister received that report (or, at least, in September), he initiated the Corbett Inquiry. Let me say this—and I challenge the Minister to deny it—there were repeated requests from the Chairman and the Board of B.O.A.C. for an answer to the points raised within the Chairman's memorandum of July, 1962, to bring about possible reorganisations within the Corporation.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I ask, just to be clear, whether the noble Lord is telling us about a specific memorandum from the Chairman to the Minister covering a very large variety of points or plans or something?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes.
LORD CHESHAM: That is all I wanted to know. I wanted to be clear what in fact the noble Lord was talking about.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes. It was a fundamental report. It is known to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he did not mention it here to-day. The Board have had no reply to it except that, when the Board have asked for a reply, they have been told, "We cannot deal with anything until we get the Corbett Report."
The Parliamentary Secretary said today that things have been wrong in B.O.A.C. for some time. It is only three years since the present Chairman was appointed, but sixteen months have gone by and the present Minister has done nothing. He has taken not a single action. The Corporation are supposed, in the language now used, to have been deteriorating day by day. Yet the Minister has not taken any action during the whole of that sixteen months. Now we have the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, puts it forward as some grand document. Really, my Lords! I hope that noble Lords present have read it. If they have, I am sure that they will agree with me that it is

473
a very superficial document, and that all that it says is, "Do nothing for twelve months except sack the Chairman and appoint another one, because nothing is going to happen for twelve months at least." My Lords, in my view it will be much more than twelve months before anything is done.
I think I must join with others who have made their protest in the other place at the whole handling of the question of the Corbett Report. Nobody disputes the right of the Minister to appoint somebody to conduct whatever inquiry he likes. It is his duty, if he thinks it is necessary, to start such an inquiry. He appointed Mr. Corbett to carry out that inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, did not say to-day that, in the preparation of his report on the inquiry, Mr. Corbett was given every facility, every help. Everything was placed at his disposal by the Chairman, by the Board and by every section of the staff in B.O.A.C. That was no more than they ought to have done; it is the least they should have done. But is it not elementary justice that, where an inquiry has been carried out into the efficiency of an organisation for which people are responsible, in which inquiry those people have co-operated with the person preparing the report, then, after the report has been presented to the Minister, they should have the opportunity of at least seeing the report and, if they are criticised, of being able to answer that criticism? That is ordinary, elementary justice. If within the Ministry of the noble Lord, Lord, Chesham, there is an adverse report on any one of his civil servants, that person is entitled to see it. Are not the directors of B.O.A.C., appointed by the Minister, similarly entitled? Has not the Chairman, who is taking the responsibility, and who has now to carry the responsibility of the innuendos that are thrown—some of which must stick—in regard to his management of B.O.A.C., a right to know?
The Corbett Report is not the Minister's report. It cost well over £20,000 of the taxpayers' money. Yet the people who were inquired into are not to know; Parliament is not to know; the country is not to know. The only person who is to know is the Minister
474
of Aviation. What distinction has he that we have not? We are just as much answerable to the public—or, at least, Members in another place, if not those in this House, are just an answerable to the public—for the good conduct of public affairs as ever a Minister is. The action in regard to the non-publication of the Corbett Report is, I think, deplorable.
I admit that I have a suspicious mind, but I think I know why the Report has not been published. The reason is that it is not critical of B.O.A.C. at all; it is critical of the Government: and, what with the other scandals that have been going on, the Government cannot stand another scandal by the publication of the Corbett Report showing up their inefficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, smiles. He is entitled to smile, if he wants to, but the only way in which he can convince those of us who believe that to be true is to publish the Report and let us see it. That is the quickest way of clearing up suspicion. Until the Government do publish that Report, we have a perfect right to say what we have said. I guarantee that that Report is as critical of the Government as ever it is of the Corporation's actions.
What line are the Government taking to deal with this problem? They are appointing a new Chairman. He is to be Chairman and Chief Executive, and as well as carrying out those two jobs, he is to carry out another inquiry into the financial structure of B.O.A.C. and its operational structure, and to prepare a report to the Minister within twelve months for putting B.O.A.C. on a sound financial basis. My Lords, it just cannot be done; and the Government must know that it cannot be done. Three jobs cannot be carried out by one man. Let us look at them individually. I may not have as much business administration experience or executive experience as noble Lords opposite, but the function of a chairman and the function of a chief executive are totally different. Their relationships within an organisation are totally different. Politically, they are totally different in a nationalised organisation. The Chairman is responsible to the Minister: the Chief Executive is responsible to his Board. I do not care who he is: no man can do these three jobs.

475
Furthermore, airline operation as it is to-day—and one has only to take into account some of the things said by the noble Marquess who preceded me—is not a job for an amateur, no matter who he is. Brilliant though he may be in some field or other, when he goes into an organisation such as B.O.A.C. it will take him twelve months, if not longer, to find his feet, to know what it is all about; twelve months before he can start to make an impression on it. Yet this wonderful Government, this super-Minister who has delayed action all the time he has been in office, and who then cuts everybody's head off, is going to put someone in to carry it all out within twelve months. My Lords, this is just panic action by the Government; and it is due to the fact that some of their own Back-Benchers, who are anti-nationalisation and like to take part in any sort of public activity derogatory to any nationalised organisation, are getting worried about the £80 million deficiency within B.O.A.C. It ought to be written off. It has been said by the Chairman of B.O.A.C. that it ought to be written off; and it was said even by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to-day that when they get the new Chairman's report there is not the slightest doubt that they will write it off then.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has misquoted me. What I said was that it may well have to be written off, not that it would be.
LORD LINDGREN: I accept that correction: it may well have to be written off. Of course it will have to be written off. That is a mere quibble over words. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the earlier part of his speech, referred to the fact that there was a White Paper and that he was not going through it paragraph by paragraph; and for that we were grateful. But when one talks about the £80 million deficiency, then I think it is reasonable to call attention to the fact that well over half of it arises from aircraft problems—the operation of the Tudor, the Hermes, the tragedy of the Comets, the late delivery of the Britannias, and the question of the amortisation referred to by the noble Lord.
But what the Government has not said even to-day—and the noble Lord,
476
Lord Ogmore, called attention to this—is anything regarding the function of B.O.A.C. It was always understood by the Labour Government, and I always thought it was their function under a Tory Government, that it was B.O.A.C.'s job to show the flag, to fly over the Commonwealth and international routes and to support the British aircraft industry. Let me say this bluntly: without the support of the two Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., the British aircraft industry, from the point of view of civil production, is defunct. It cannot carry on. Yet £40 million of that £80 million arises from the support that B.O.A.C. have given to the British aircraft industry.
I have said just now that no civil aircraft could go into production unless one or other of the Corporations places a basic order for it; and there will be no orders from any other part of the world unless those orders are placed by the British Corporations or unless the British Corporations take the aircraft, fly it, get the "bugs" out of it and prove its operational economics. Foreign airlines do not buy foreign aircraft as a pig in a poke. They want proved aircraft; they want to know operational costs, pay-load and receipts in fares and what they get out of it. The B.O.A.C. pilots want to fly British. They are glad to see the British flag throughout the world; but, as I have said, £40 million of that £80 million has been lost in showing British aircraft; and the Government say they want to put B.O.A.C. on a purely commercial basis. They cannot put B.O.A.C. on a purely commercial basis unless they give B.O.A.C. the commercial freedom to buy aircraft from where-ever they like on the proved economics of the aircraft on routes they fly. You cannot expect a Corporation to subsidise by development the British aircraft industry and, at the same time, not to make some losses.
Let us consider this fact. The next replacement aircraft of B.O.A.C. is the VC.10. I hope and believe that it will be a winner, as the Trident looks like being. But no one can say. Our aeronautical engineers and designers are first-class people; but no one knows, until the aircraft has flown, what its characteristics are going to be. If it is a winner, then B.O.A.C. is going to have

477
very high operational costs by introducing the VC.10. First of all, it is a very high-purchase-cost aircraft; then it is to be amortised over seven years—and much has been said about B.O.A.C. doing that. There is going to be a high amortisation cost. Then other costs have to be faced. There is the question of training, routes, flight-proving and, as referred to by the noble Marquess who preceded me, maintenance training and engine overhaul, which is a very big factor so far as maintenance costs are concerned. When you introduce the VC.10, I doubt very much whether the engine overhaul period will be more than 750 hours to 800 hours. It will be three to four years before you get it up to the 4,000 hours which can be done after that period of testing and operation.
An engine overhaul is one of the most costly items of engineering maintenance within civil aviation. So, to say you are going to get B.O.A.C. on their feet within twelve months, now you have new aircraft to introduce, is just wrong. What if the VC.10 is the tragedy that the Britannia or the Comets were, or is as delayed as the Britannia was? Can B.O.A.C. then get on their feet? That is not the fault of the Corporation; and the Minister knows it and makes no reference to it to-day. The Minister ought to know, if he has taken the interest that he should, that the operational flying costs of the VC.10 will be £100 an hour more than that of the Boeing. It has a lower pay load. How are you going to get the profit referred to? Of course the VC.10 has some first-class attributes; there is its safety and its blind flying; it can operate from marginal aerodromes, and from that point of view it will be a first-class aircraft. But this talk about getting B.O.A.C. right into the black because of the changing of a Chairman is just simply impossible; and no one knows it better than the present Minister. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, it is just a dramatic action in order to cover up Governmental deficiencies.
I should have liked to say much more; but time is passing and I do not want to detain the House unduly. I would, however, emphasise again the unfairness of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he made reference to engineering costs.
478
Would it not have been generous to say why those engineering costs within B.O.A.C. were there; and that they were not due to any fault of the Corporation? Here is an airline which, because of the failure of aircraft it had hoped to buy, is flying five different types of aircraft. When you fly five different types of aircraft, you must have five different sets of maintenance engineers, five different sets of tools, plant, equipment and jigs. You must have five different sorts of spares, and a greater area of hangar space for carrying out general overhauls. If you are going to get good, cheap and easy maintenance within an airline operation, or within any transport organisation, you must operate as few types of vehicle as possible. Why not admit what has happened so far as B.O.A.C. is concerned? Explain it. There is reason for it; there is no reason why it should not be said. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is equally true, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, that the £4 million figure in the White Paper was a figure given by B.O.A.C. and supported by the consultants who came in after checking it. So why claim that it is something the Minister has thought of, when it is what the Corporation itself has arranged for its new programme of maintenance? As I think the noble Lord knows, £l¼ million of that £4 million has already been saved.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton referred to the morale within B.O.A.C. It was suggested—not in this House, I am glad to say, but in another place—that morale in all sections of B.O.A.C. was low. That is completely untrue. Prior to this upset, morale was extremely high, and the Government can take credit for this perhaps, because they appointed as Deputy Chairman, with special responsibility for personnel management, Sir Wilfred Neden, who did a great job within the B.O.A.C. organisation and, together with his Chairman, gained the confidence of all levels, from shop floor to top management. Sir Wilfred Neden is one of those who were sacked by the Minister. I should like to pay tribute to the part he played in increasing morale in B.O.A.C. I am only too unhappy that the good work he did, in conjunction with his Chairman and the remainder of his Board, has been largely destroyed

479
by the incompetent and foolish actions of the present Minister of Aviation.
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I must declare an interest in the subject of the debate this afternoon, as I work in the aircraft industry. Before starting my remarks, may I join with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, on his thoughtful and interesting maiden speech. I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber for a few moments, but what I heard him say interested me very much and I hope that we shall hear many more speeches from him in future.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide the necessary finance to enable B.O.A.C. to continue its work. This provision is obviously required, if B.O.A.C. is to continue on the same sort of scale as it has in the past, and as I believe it must continue to do. Parliament itself has to decide whether this investment is a good one. This, I think, is somewhat unfortunate, because Parliament is not very good, nor is the Civil Service, at dealing with purely commercial matters; and running an airline, as we have seen to-day, is a highly commercial matter. This, of course, is really a basic argument against nationalisation, and particularly nationalisation of a great organisation that has to operate in a highly competitive international field. In a nationalised industry like this it is exceedingly difficult to separate commercial from political factors. Once the Government take a hand, in making recommendations to the management, in bringing in consultants and asking for changes in the form of accounts, it inevitably assumes some of the responsibility that ought to be 100 per cent. with the management.
I know that this is an exceedingly difficult balance in a nationalised industry. It is a problem to which we have not yet entirely found the answer. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said earlier in the debate on the problem of deciding how far the national interest should be taken into account. This is very difficult in a nationalised industry. In commercial operations, it is very simple. There is a profit and loss account and a balance sheet, and a company goes as
480
far as it can in assisting the national interest, but cannot go so far as to make the company bankrupt. Unfortunately, in nationalised corporations there are no checks and balances of that sort.
The difficulties on the railways are another interesting example of this, for it is only now that Dr. Beeching is separating out the commercial from the political factors that we are really getting down to brass tacks and, I hope, going to get a solution to the problem. In that way, the Government is left free to decide on the political factors, as it should. So it seems to me that inevitably there is this kind of problem in nationalised industries. This confusion is entirely avoided under private enterprise. But it is no good regretting the past. We have national Corporations to run our airlines, for better, for worse; and we had better make sure that it is for the better. We have to learn what lessons we can from the past, and concentrate, I suggest, on making the airlines efficient and a real credit to the country.
Those who are concerned in any way with aviation are well aware of the major difficulties of the airlines business: complex and expensive equipment; interlocking international agreements which to a large extent limit the freedom of action of management; the paramount importance of safety and reliability; intense competition and the tremendous sensitivity of the profit and loss account to the aircraft load factor. We have to add to these problems, which all airlines have, the problem facing B.O.A.C.—that of a very limited home market. A very different state of affairs exists with the great long-haul airlines in the United States, which have a substantial business within their own country.
Even with these problems, however, B.O.A.C. has had some successes in the past. Some of your Lordships may have read an interesting article in the Statist, showing that employee productivity has more than doubled over four years, which is a better record than many other major airlines. Pan-American Airlines, for example, has just doubled its employee productivity, and all the others are well below. Aircraft productivity—that is, hours worked per day per aircraft—has also increased substantially over the same four-year

481
period. In 1962 it was 60 per cent. above that of Air France, and better than any other major airline in the long-haul business. If we join with these successes B.O.A.C.'s record of good service and safety, this adds further to what has been achieved. It is true that the financial position has been very bad, and is still bad. But, in my humble opinion, if the factors I have mentioned are taken into account, I do not believe that there has been good reason for the way in which the Chairman and Managing Director have been treated. I entirely agree there was need for decisive, even ruthless, action. Changes were no doubt needed—I would not dispute that for a moment. But surely we shall all agree that the way things. have been done is not the best way to maintain high morale in a great organisation, or make it most easy for future managements to operate.
There is one other factor. Mr. Corbett was put in, with others, to investigate the affairs of B.O.A.C. I accept that it is thoroughly reasonable for the Government not to wish to publish his Report, because much of the information was given and obtained in confidence; but I cannot understand why the Report was not shown as a whole to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation. I cannot understand the reason for what seems to be an amazing decision; and I believe it is a grave error in judgment on the part of the Government. With different personalities one might be tempted to say that this was due to some lack of courage. But with the personality of the present Minister, I do not think anyone would be tempted to say that; for he certainly acted decisively and very courageously in this difficult affair. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the reason for not showing the Report—in confidence, if you like—to the higher management of the Corporation.
But enough of the past. May I turn for a few minutes to the future? In my humble opinion, B.O.A.C., as a major long-haul airline, is essential to this country. But it must be run efficiently to conserve our resources and use them in the best way possible. We must accept that it has two other functions, as well as to make a profit. It must fly the flag, for the purposes of national prestige, on the routes throughout the world; and for
482
reasons of national prosperity it must collaborate closely with the British aircraft industry. I believe, as I have already said, that better arrangements are needed to clarify objectives. But, in any new look that comes about under the new management, I hope there will be no question of minimising the importance of a healthy British aircraft industry, and the tremendous value of close co-operation between the nationalised airlines and the aircraft industry.
This perhaps raises the whole question of whether the aircraft industry of this country is a good thing and worth supporting—and this would be a subject for a debate on its own. I would say only this. It is an industry which uses the most advanced technology and works to the limits of knowledge, with standards of design and reliability of the highest order. It has achieved most valuable exports, both in quantity and in quality. I would draw attention to the fact, as I have done before in your Lordships' House, that the aircraft industries' exports sell at between £15 and £20 sterling per lb. weight, which means very valuable exports, because they have a very high brain-power content or, in the words of the economist, a high added value. The industry also works in a highly competitive international field. For that reason, an active home market is essential for its prosperity. With cost of development of modern aircraft it is quite essential to have firm assurances of orders for a new civil aircraft in advance of putting it into full development. Such action requires close collaboration between airlines and industry, and it would be quite impracticable, without a British airline, such as B.O.A.C., in the long-haul market, to achieve this kind of trust and collaboration which is absolutely essential for the welfare of the British aircraft industry.
I should like, in passing (I am sorry he is not here) to refer to some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said. I think it is most unfortunate that figures should be quoted out of the air, as the noble Lord quoted them this afternoon, in referring to the increased cost per hour of operating, for instance, the VC10 in competition with the Boeing 707. These figures can be picked out of the air to prove anything. As anyone in the industry will tell you,

483
it is essential to make a full study of every situation, every route and every aircraft before any useful comparison can be made. For the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren (I repeat that I am sorry he is not here), to pick such figures out of the air, and quote them completely out of context, does great harm to an important British industry.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren is not here, perhaps I can say that all of us on this side felt that the Minister had been remarkably selective in his presentation of what he regarded as the facts.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I was always told when a child that two wrongs do not make a right, and the fact that the Minister allegedly left out one or two facts is surely no reason for the noble Lord to quote misleading figures.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Viscount is going to argue about Tu quoque, I would say that "Evil communications corrupt good manners".
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I accept the noble Earl's point. I apologise if he should feel that it was in any way discourteous. I think he made a strong point, and I answered it. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is now back, and no doubt he will read what I said to-morrow. I apologise for saying it in his absence.
As I was saying, these long-term commitments of the British aircraft industry, in which all the nationalised airlines played a valuable part, are of tremendous importance. As has already been said, it may well be that pioneering a new aircraft does involve higher cost. But pioneering is essential if you want to lead the word, and this is sometimes an essential part of running an airline.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that it is not the function of an air transport carrier, if it is going to be commercial, to develop a particular aircraft of any company, but to find the aircraft most suitable to the traffic it is going to carry? That has already been proved.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: If that theory were to be put into operation, no aircraft would ever be developed,
484
because no airline would ever start a new aircraft. The point I am making is that if an airline is to lead the world, as we wish B.O.A.C. to do, it is essential sometimes to pioneer new aircraft, which it does. This is part of the general cost of running an airline business. American airlines do it.
LORD LINDGREN: Would the noble Viscount say which American airline carries the development cost of any American aircraft?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I am not sure what the noble Lord is talking about now.
LORD LINDGREN: Can the noble Viscount tell me who carried out the cost of the development of the Boeing 707?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: Perhaps the noble Lord will wait a moment. No airline in America is expected to carry the development costs of an aircraft. I thought we were discussing the cost of introducing a new aircraft in an airline. That is an entirely different matter.
LORD LINDGREN: It is not.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: It is an entirely different matter. It costs tens of millions of pounds to develop a new aircraft, but it does not cost anything like that to introduce a new aircraft in an airline. The point I am making is that, when an aircraft is developed and ready for operation, it still costs the airline quite a lot of money to put it into operation. The noble Lord himself made that point. What I am saying is that it is essential, if an airline wishes to be in the forefront, as we wish B.O.A.C. to be, for it to take on new aircraft from time to time, as it did with great success in the case of the Comet. I agree that there was subsequent trouble, and that was most unfortunate, but it is an example of working near the limits of knowledge. If the noble Lord will bide his time, he will see that I am not arguing so much against his point of view.
I was just saying that the introduction of new aircraft involves higher cost, and it might sometimes be possible to avoid this higher cost by buying American aircraft or the aircraft of other countries "off the shelf". This would mean that there would not be the

485
pioneering element in B.O.A.C. which we want; but it would also mean that the British aircraft industry, as the noble Lord said, would find life extremely difficult. So I hope that in any new look there will be no question of the airlines abandoning a preference for British aircraft. They must be suitable aircraft and good aircraft. But, as I said just now, the Corporation have done well with British aircraft in the past, and they will do well in the future with aircraft such as the Trident and the VC.10.
May I say one or two words about the new Chairman? I hope there will be an end to this carping criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred to him as an amateur. He is not an amateur. Is Dr. Beeching an amateur? Is Lord Robens an amateur? The new Chairman of this great Corporation is a keen and competent airman. He has had experience, on the Board of B.E.A., of the problems of running an airline, and he is a wise and inspiring leader in the City, with a very wide knowledge of financial affairs. What more do you need in B.O.A.C. at this moment? I hope this House will send out a word of encouragement to the new Chairman. He has taken on a very big task indeed in the national interest, and I think there should be an end to this continuous carping at him when he is setting about doing a difficult job. I do not doubt that to move away from his accustomed fields is not all joy to him. I should wish him well. I should hope strongly that he will bear in mind that the aircraft industry is ready and anxious, as it has always been, to support British airline Corporations. It is ready to support them, and it is more than ready to collaborate.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finishes, may I say that he has made the point that there must be confidence in the new Chairman. But what concerns us all is this. About three years ago we had the same expressions of complete and utter confidence in the present Chairman.
LORD LINDGREN: With instructions to reorganise.
LORD SHEPHERD: I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, speaking in the most glowing terms; and now, with-
486
in three years, you denigrate his character—not the noble Viscount, but the Government and the Minister. Therefore we feel a little put out. I hope the new Chairman will receive the loyalty and support of the Corporation.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: It is no good jobbing back too far. We must face facts as we find them. I have made some comments, and so have other noble Lords, on the way in which we think things could be improved in the future. Whether notice will be taken of them is another matter. I have certainly made some criticisms, constructive I hope, of what has gone on in the past. But I do not criticise it all, for the Minister has certainly acted decisively and quickly. It is no good jobbing back every time a change comes. Let us look forward to the future and support this man who has been put in. We have had our fun and made some criticisms of the Government. Let us now leave the past and get on with the future, and see whether we cannot lend our support, with constructive criticism if necessary, to making a good job of this great airline and helping the Chairman in his extremely arduous task.
Finally, I hope it will be appreciated that the future prosperity of British airlines and the British aircraft industry are inevitably and desirably, I think, linked together. Each will remain dependent upon the other for its prosperity. I hope the Chairman will remember this, and that he will receive the support for which I have asked to-day; he will certainly continue to receive the support of the aircraft industry. I believe the airline has a very great future before it under the new Chairman's leadership.
7.34 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as an ex-R.A.F. man, perhaps I may be permitted to add my congratulations to the noble Marquess for a most interesting speech and a well-informed one, if I may humbly say so. From this side of the House I do not wish to be unduly or unfairly critical of, the Government's handling of a situation involving the future of B.O.A.C. But it is extremely difficult to assess the present situation correctly when in effect it is only Her Majesty's Government who are in possession of all the facts and figures arising out of the Corbett investigation. A study

487
of the White Paper does not automatically lead one, I feel, to the conclusion that such a sweeping and major reorganisation of the management of B.O.A.C. was necessary. This impression has been confirmed in my mind by the various statements that have been made in another place by the Minister of Aviation, and also by his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Neil Marten. For instance, these two gentleman have made such utterances as: losses due to the disaster which befell the Comet 1; the delay in the introduction of the Britannia; the cost of the introduction of these two aircraft in terms of adapted engineering and maintenance departments; the provision of ground equipment; route proving flights; spares along the route, and so on.
The Minister also went on to say that half the losses were due to bad luck. We can write those off then. The Minister also said that many of the weaknesses that have been shown up in the White Paper, and which are due to errors of management, have already been corrected. There are, in particular, two Government statements which, if I may put it this way, were spoken in one breath by the Minister which really cannot be reconciled. They are, on the one hand, the tribute for the very good work done for the Corporation by Sir Basil Small-peice. Then, on the other hand, one sees Sir Basil's consequential "retirement" due to Sir Giles Guthrie taking over many of his functions. It is true that the Minister said that Sir Giles worked for an airline before the war, but he must have been at an age of 22 or 23 at the most. But, of course, he has had the experience of being on the Board of one of our national airlines. Surely Sir Basil's knowledge of airline operation is more extensive and, I would say, more up-to-date than Sir Giles Guthrie's.
I now turn to the question of the submission of the Corbett Report, which comes under three headings. As Messrs. Urwick Orr and Partners were impressed—in the words of the Minister—on the sales and publicity side, and felt that the Corporation was getting good value for money, I will say nothing more on that side of the investigation. Messrs. Associated Industrial Consultants feel that, in spite of reduced engineering costs
488
over the years, £4 million (and this has been mentioned before) could still be saved in engineering and maintenance. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was right when he said that B.O.A.C. put forward those figures themselves. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, say that £1¼ million has already been saved of those £4 million. On this aspect of the problem, it would appear, if I read the Minister's words aright in Hansard, that the appropriate sections of the Report on engineering and maintenance have been shown to the existing management for consideration. That would indeed seem fair and just, but what I feel is certainly not just or fair is the withholding of information regarding financial control, which is the crux of the problem. I think most noble Lords have stressed this point, and it is really most important.
B.O.A.C. is certainly not the only Continental airline which is faced with the problem of over-capacity on certain lines. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, mentioned Air France and how in certain respects B.O.A.C.'s figures were better, about which I am delighted. Air France have this same problem of over-capacity. Also, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, there is the surge of independent countries of Africa operating their own air lines; there are higher equipment costs uncompensated by an equivalent increase in revenue; and the drawback of having to operate obsolescent aircraft, apart from their being subjected to strong pressure for lower fares.
What of the future? Even if the rate of traffic growth has slackened in the last few years, the trend would still appear to me to be encouraging. Excluding the U.S.S.R. and Communist China, the I.C.A.O. figures for last year compared with the figures for 1961 show the following increases in world air traffic: 11 per cent. more passengers carried; 19 per cent. more freight, expressed in ton miles; 13 per cent. more mail, also expressed in ton miles; and that, with only 5 per cent. more miles flown.
Now that the Corbett Report has been produced, I feel that if there had been proper discussions between the management of B.O.A.C. and the Ministry, with both sides in possession of the document, the present show-down would not have come about and it would have been

489
possible to achieve any adjustments in organisation, financial control or personnel far more smoothly. Forecasting accurately the airline's future share of air traffic would then be facilitated by close contact and consultation between the airline and the Ministry, as this share is so very much associated with the question of fares decided by I.A.T.A. and the problem of air traffic rights.
On this latter question of air traffic rights, I should like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend—though perhaps he may think from what I have been saying that we are no longer noble friends—whether he has any information with regard to the Comet flight to Mauritius, which started as a Britannia flight in January last year and which called at Tananarive, Madagascar. With regard to that halt, it was only a refuelling halt and, in due course, as permission was not granted for full facilities, B.O.A.C. no longer called there. Therefore, I should like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend for information, because it seemed to me at a time when Kenya was not independent there could be a quid pro quo, with France bringing pressure to bear on Madagascar on the question of this country giving greater rights in Kenya and the Madagascar Government allowing B.O.A.C. to call and load and offload passengers at Tananarive.
I would now conclude by deploring the manner in which the reorganisation of the management of B.O.A.C. has been carried out, and expressing the earnest hope that the new management will be able to produce within a year, as has been stated, a workable plan so as to put B.O.A.C. properly on its feet, for in the period 1966–67 B.O.A.C. will be operating only two types of aircraft, the Boeing 707 and the VC10, and we shall have the introduction in 1970 of the Concord. I feel perhaps I should end on a kinder note for the Minister of Aviation, and I should like to pay the warmest tribute to him for his share in the effort which has been expended on the co-operation between our country and France on the Concord project.
7.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is certainly well qualified to take part
490
in a debate on civil aviation for, as he told us, he has a background of the Air Force and also of transport. When I was a Minister I was taught by my very capable Parliamentary Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, as he now is, that a transport background is as important for dealing with civil aviation as a knowledge of flying.
This has been a gloomy debate, and I will deal with that aspect in a moment, but we have all been cheered by the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort. I hope that I am not revealing to the House something that I should not when I say that he had a very unnerving experience just before he came into the House to make his maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Minister, came up to him and said, "I am glad to see you. I knew your father well. He was a Moslem, wasn't he?" That was an extraordinary thing to have said to someone just before a maiden speech. The noble Marquess had to explain that neither was his father nor is he a Moslem. He does something much more valuable for this particular purpose; he is a well-qualified pilot in current practice. We listened to his speech with much enjoyment.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, obviously felt at the end that he could not go away for Christmas without saying something charitable towards the Minister in another place and the Minister here, and he seemed to be scratching around to find the smallest sector of the subject, so to speak, and I was glad to think there was a point on which he agreed with the Minister.
It is a long time since I can remember a noble Lord, a very popular noble Lord, if I may say so, like Lord Chesham, introducing a Bill of this kind in your Lordships' House and sitting down without a single cheer coming anywhere from anybody. I assume that if he were not so popular there would have been violent protests, although I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, would have been too well-conditioned to join in. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, must feel that he is putting a very unpopular cause before the House, not just one that is unpopular with the Labour party, but one that is unpopular with everybody. I am afraid I missed some of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, but what I

491
heard appeared to be highly critical. I am afraid one must say that not a dog has barked on behalf of the Government this afternoon. I feel sorry, as did the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for the Minister, a man of strong patriotic impulses, and a gifted speaker. Attacking him now is like kicking a man who is down. Of course, he is down, but not out; the people who are out are Sir Matthew Slattery and Sir Basil Smallpeice.
LORD LINDGREN: It will not be long before he is out.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: A few weeks, perhaps, or a few months. At any rate, he is not out and, therefore, I know he will understand that he is the object of rather natural criticism.
I can bring a fairly dispassionate mind to bear, so far as anyone is allowed to attribute that sort of psychology to themselves, to this question. I can understand the feelings of a Minister of Civil Aviation, in this case a Minister with a wider office, who feels it necessary to make drastic changes at the highest level in B.O.A.C., and, for that matter, in B.E.A. I did the same when I was a boy and therefore I am not going to take up the attitude, which for me would be ridiculous, that anybody who informs a chairman that his contract will not be renewed at the end of his time is clearly an enemy of the people.
I would, before coming to B.O.A.C. in a little detail, join in all that has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside. Inevitably I feel a certain pride in this, if only for the reason my noble friend Lord Lindgren mentioned. When I made that appointment there were cries of "Jobs for the boys!" but I think after fifteen years he can be said to have lived them down and been accepted by all as having done a wonderful job for B.E.A. I would join also in an expression of confidence in Mr. Milward, the Chairman-elect, whom I got to know very well in the old days. I feel sure B.E.A. have a first-class man to follow Lord Douglas of Kirtleside.
I have an understanding, at any rate, of the position of the Minister which, if you like, makes me more sympathetic
492
to drastic action than some others might be. On the other hand, I have a bias in another direction, if you like, a very legitimate bias to introduce to this discussion. I happen to know Sir Matthew Slattery extremely well, not in an "old boy" sense but as a working colleague. When I was chairman of the National Bank I brought him on to the board as a director. I know his worth and I regard him as an outstanding example of one who combines the highest type of public service with a great deal of business drive and leadership. I regard him as an absolutely outstanding man, and that, so far as I can discover, is how he is regarded in B.O.A.C. But the Minister has formed the opinion that something quite different must be done and Sir Matthew must be cleared out at the first opportunity. I am bound to say, with, I hope, no personal offensiveness, that Sir Matthew has more business experience than the Minister, and if I had to choose between the business judgment of Sir Matthew Slattery and that of the Minister, leaving out their general intellectual capacity and taking their high moral worth for granted, I would much prefer Sir Matthew Slattery's judgment in anything that affected business, if only by reason of his experience.
May I offer one or two general observations which are slightly less controversial than some things that have been said? We cannot, surely, speaking now, meeting together for a few moments as British citizens, be happy about these continual changes at the higher level in B.O.A.C. They took place under the Labour Government, and they have taken place since. No one is allowed to have a very long run for his money. The new Minister appears, and out goes the Chairman, fairly soon. That kind of cycle is beginning to be accepted by all: but it makes the life of the Chairman very difficult; it is difficult to look very far ahead because he knows that he will not be there to gather the fruits.
Taking any comparison with private business or other nationalised industries, one must recognise that B.O.A.C. have suffered, have been handicapped, by all these changes; and I think it is worth asking whether there is some special explanation in the case of B.O.A.C. We should be astounded if this sort of thing went on in private business. We should

493
be very much surprised if Lord Robens or Dr. Beeching were suddenly treated in this way. I think it is worth concentrating for a moment on the wider question of whether there is any special explanation why B.O.A.C. seem to find it harder to satisfy public opinion. Why is it that the Minister arriving on the scene seems to feel a strong impulse to change the Chairman and apparently appease what he imagines to be public clamour in a great number of cases?
I agree with what the noble Viscount Lord Caldecote, said: we must look to the future; and I hope that what I shall say is aimed at the future. I wish Sir Giles Guthrie well, as I know does my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who spoke so effectively from this side in the first place. I do not know Sir Giles Guthrie. I must say (and it is against myself) that I had never heard of him until he was appointed; but I do not suppose he had heard of me, so there is nothing between us there. On the other hand (and I am glad to say this, because the other thing I want to say is slightly unpleasant), only yesterday I met a high person in B.E.A. who knows Sir Giles very well. He told me that Sir Giles was a very capable man and he felt quite sure from his first-hand experience that he would do a fine job. That is the opinion of somebody who knows Sir Giles extremely well in aviation: it is his testimony, and I. am ready to accept that opinion.
The point about Sir Giles that perhaps needs attention is his peculiar sense of public relations. In the Sunday Times a week or two ago there was an article in which a number of statements were attributed to Sir Giles. The article was headed, "How Guthrie got to B.O.A.C." It started with a story of a lunch—I will not go into that. There are various other strange remarks; but I miss out most of them. I finish with one thing, but not the most fatuous thing which is attributed to him. I cannot believe he said:
The public does not know me "—
this is in direct quotes; and so far as I know it is not challenged—
…but for instance how many of the public know the name of the Governor of the Bank of England? As it happens, I know him by his christian name, and that is the point. Things work differently in the City."
LORD LINDGREN: It is not what you know but whom you know.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That was the statement attributed to him, but I refuse to believe he really said that to a responsible journalist. I think that that remark passes the point of fatuity. I think he made a very bad start in public relations by giving a peculiar picture of himself—I do not mean the physical picture; that is very nice, a very charming picture; I am talking of the words, and I hope he will improve on them on subsequent occasions. I must repeat what I did hear at first hand; that he is very capable, and we wish him well.
My Lords, how can we look to a better future, not just in the next year, which was well covered by my colleagues, but in the years ahead, if we take a ten-year view, of this very difficult question of the relationship of the Minister and the Chairman? We are not having a nationalisation debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, so I would not defend nationalisation as such. I am not conceding anything to anybody if I say that there is bound to by a relationship which needs a great deal of working out between the Chairman and the Minister. One is bound to ask: is there a special difficulty in the case of B.O.A.C.? Is it harder than in other national Corporations?
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who was of course very successful (though he was not long enough at the Ministry) has suggested that the Government—and perhaps it might be said of all Governments; though we did our best and the results are there for all to see, and we are very happy—have failed to give B.O.A.C. a clear directive. I am sure that is true. But I am bound to say that I think it will always be very difficult to give B.O.A.C. an absolutely clear directive. It will always be difficult to distinguish absolutely between what is to be done for public reasons and what is to be done for commercial reasons. We all know that the Corporation are supposed to operate commercially, but undoubtedly the Government have national policy in mind, and B.O.A.C., as patriotic people, are anxious to fall in with the Government's ideas of policy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, comes forward quite boldly and after declaring his interest quite unashamedly

495
says his industry must be given preference by B.O.A.C. as compared with foreign aircraft.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: The noble Earl is taking my words rather out of context. I said I hoped that any new look of the nationalised airlines would continue to give preference to British aircraft provided that the British aircraft industry produce suitable aircraft.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid that I regard that as a totally ambiguous sentence which really means nothing at all. Obviously, if the aircraft are the best aircraft, they will go for them without the aircraft being British. But the noble Lord has said that they should give a preference, and they can do that only by setting aside their purely commercial interests. I am not saying at the moment whether it is right or wrong, but that is what the noble Lord, on behalf of the aircraft industry—he has rightly declared his interest—is asking them to do; and on the whole, in one way or another since the war, that has often been done. The noble Lord is speaking for the aircraft industry, and has said that they have given this preference up till now, that they are doing that for patriotic and not commercial reasons, and, if you like, to fit in with the public interest.
I do not think that the matter is quite so simple as the Minister here and the Minister in another place made out. We were asked to give examples of where the Minister has insisted that the Corporation sets its own interests aside in the wider interests of the State. But it will not work that way. It never would work completely that way. I agree with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he said that if we are going to have much more of this, with a show-down, with the Government and Ministry of Civil Aviation finding the scapegoat in B.O.A.C., then no one is going to take a patriotic interest unless he has it in writing as a request. But, without wishing to be too controversial, having done this kind of thing myself, I know that neither party, if I may use the expression, can tell the whole truth; and neither side wants to be unpleasant to people they have worked with and probably respect highly as individuals.
496
So I am not going to say that I know the full truth, or that I should ever expect the full truth on the personal side to be proclaimed. I think probably all concerned would hesitate to do that.
It will always be difficult, I think—though one must keep on trying to do better than we have done in the past—to disentangle the commercial interest from the public interest. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is an example of how difficult it is to disentangle these interests. But if that is so, it is essential, in my opinion, that there should be close confidence between the Minister and the Chairman, and, indeed, the Board as a whole. It may be said that there will be confidence. I gather from the Sunday Times that the Minister had only recently met Sir Charles Guthrie, so let us say that he has picked him and that there will be confidence between these two. But then some other Minister will come along and he will find things not going too well in terms of profit, and he may find somebody in whom he has confidence.
This question of establishing the kind of confidence that is going to provide continuity on the Board of B.O.A.C. is quite a difficult one. I think that in this matter the Minister made one fatal step, and one step which was almost as fatal, and which has been much criticised; but by that time the damage was done. He came in setting about things with all the earnestness of a new Minister—and I speak with that kind of background—and he asked Mr. Corbett to investigate B.O.A.C. When I was a Minister (I am sorry to give my experience, but perhaps the House will forgive me) I tackled the same sort of problem rather differently. I persuaded B.O.A.C. to agree that the then Deputy Chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, should conduct an inquiry into B.O.A.C. in conjunction with a high official of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and that inquiry was conducted therefore in full collaboration with B.O.A.C. It seems to me that where the present Minister made his fatal mistake was in setting up his own inquiry and refusing, as it were, to settle many difficult points with B.O.A.C. while his own private inquiry was proceeding. The present Minister and the noble Lord may wish to challenge me here, but I

497
do not think so: it seems plain that all the time the Corbett inquiry was proceeding, as Lord Lindgren said, and afterwards, is was impossible to get decisions out of the Minister. That was the inevitable result of that peculiar method of organising his inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, in effect (and I think it was said elsewhere) that one had either to have a public inquiry or to have what he called a secret inquiry—a personal inquiry, in this case by the Minister. But there are other forms of inquiry open to the Government. There is the same kind of inquiry that we ourselves held in civil aviation when I was Minister. I cannot help mentioning that the deficit which was £11 million in B.O.A.C. about the time when I came in, had, just after I left and after Lord Ogmore left, disappeared altogether. So I think that that inquiry must have been most fruitful.
That, I think, was a fatal mistake. Of course, the point that has been criticised more, and which I also criticise, and the main error which was made earlier, was the refusal to show the Corbett report to the chairman. I cannot think of anything more calculated to sow the seeds of more distrust; and one must assume that by that time the Minister had formed some unsatisfactory opinion about Sir Matthew Slattery. If he had not, this was a mysterious way of proceeding, and I think he had no ground whatever for keeping Sir Matthew Slattery at arm's length in that way.
In my opinion, those were his mistakes. We have here a bad story which has found no one in this House to defend it, apart from the gallant representative of the Government. If we look to the future, it seems clear that we must think hard, whatever Government is in power, as to how to establish greater understanding and more mutual confidence between the Chairman and the Board. If that is achieved as a result of this wretched episode, then Sir Matthew and Sir Basil will not have perished in vain. But, as things are, I join with my colleagues and others in the House who, to a greater or less degree, have said that the whole story is one of great ineptitude and one that is going to do
498
harm for a long time to come to a Corporation which we are all anxious to help.
8.7 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, having listened with the care which I always do to everything in a debate in this House in which I have to wind up—and it is only courtesy to the people who have taken part in the debate—I should like to say, in the first place, that I appreciate the sincere and genuine interest in aviation matters that there is all round the House. I am glad to recognise from the noble Earl who has just sat down, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that in the debate on this matter there has been no quibble or argument about nationalisation. I thought that noble Lords opposite might, to a degree, but only to a degree, have paid a little more attention to the words which ultimately came from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who said that he wished the matter was not quite so political. I got the impression from where I was listening that noble Lords opposite were so tumbling over themselves to find every conceivable point which they could hurl at the Government, that some matters were becoming a little obscured here and there. I make no complaint of that. The Opposition are quite excellent, a very dutiful Opposition, and, they have, of course, done what they should do. Having said that, I most certainly agree that there are some serious matters remaining to be discussed, and I shall address myself to some of them.
What strikes me as one of the most serious things in this debate is what has been said about the crisis of confidence which is alleged to be occurring and the consequent damage to morale among the people who work in the Corporation. I am talking, of course, of B.O.A.C. I am wondering how long morale can remain as high as it undoubtedly is on the working side. I make no complaint of the morale, but surely the point is this: what morale is going to be possible in the future for a Corporation with a deficit such as it has, a deficit which is likely to increase—and even if it decreases, not able to be paid off for many years to come unless it is written off? I should have thought that there was at least an argument in favour of measures to put that great

499
Corporation on a sound financial footing so that it could operate not only as a good airline but as a financially successful airline. This is one of the best things one can do in the interests of morale.
There is a further point which is obviously perplexing noble Lords—almost a confusion which appears to range over whether B.O.A.C. knew, or did not know, what its role really was. I must devote myself to that for a moment or two. It has already been pointed out to us by one noble Lord that in 1945 it was made perfectly clear in the White Paper that the Corporations should aim to pay their way; and so far as I am aware that understanding has never been retracted or altered. It was clear in 1945; it was clear in 1951. I quote from the B.O.A.C. Report for 1951-52, paragraph 14, page 6:
"Finally, though not last in point of time, the fourth phase in reconstruction was the imprinting on the minds of staff at all levels the idea that the Corporation was essentially a commercial undertaking; that the financial aspect of every single activity mattered: and that the ultimate test of the Corporation's success was not only the standard of public service it provided, but also the normal business criterion of whether it could be made to pay its way."
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord in that last sentence mentioned two criteria. This is why it is a complicated problem. The last sentence he quoted referred not only to public service but to commercial principles.
LORD CHESHAM: That is so, my Lords, but I understood doubt was being cast as to whether B.O.A.C. had a commercial rôle or was only a prestige affair. I am trying to make this clear. I thought it was understood that it was expected to pay its way. I do not think, following on what I have just quoted, that there has ever been any retraction of that.
LORD LINDGREN: One accepts that. But can the Corporation be commercial on a basis of carrying the aircraft industry? Under the Labour Government the Handley-Page Hermes was three years late. The effect upon the Corporation of carrying on with the Yorks and Lancastrians, and the rest of them, was to increase its difficulties. The Britannia was two years late. By
500
the time it came into operation it was almost obsolete because of American developments. Can B.O.A.C. carry that financially?
LORD CHESHAM: I got the noble Lord's point in his speech and was going on to deal with the question of aircraft policy as I went along. Of course, it has been equally recognised, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out to us, that there are other considerations and responsibilities of a non-commercial character which have to be borne by the Corporation, but this applies also to other transport undertakings. I should have thought it a sorry day with an airline like B.O.A.C. when there were no considerations of prestige entering into the matter, particularly in relation to the effect abroad. These factors have always been recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, detailed the kind of duties which the Corporation faces and argued that they were mutually inconsistent. That was the great trouble for B.O.A.C. I would only say that the success of B.E.A. in very similar circumstances hardly supports the argument that it is impossible to operate commercially if you have those duties laid on you.
LORD OGMORE: Not at all. I pointed out that the situation is quite different. B.E.A. is a short and medium haul operator. B.O.A.C. is a long-haul operator, and B.E.A. has not the same prestige considerations as has B.O.A.C. That is my point, and I am quite certain in my own mind that the Government have to face this fact. If they want these incompatible considerations to be taken into account by B.O.A.C., they have to do something about the financial situation: otherwise B.O.A.C. will never be able to make itself pay.
LORD CHESHAM: I think I have already dealt with that in the course of my speech. I apologise to the noble Lord if I did not take his point quite correctly.
I want also to deal with the point as to the duties and obligations which are laid upon the Corporation and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about requiring a certificate every time they do something which is believed to be in the national interest. Of

501
course they should not require a certificate every time they do something which may be said to be in the national interest. It is perfectly right, I think, for B.O.A.C., as an international airline, to take political, social and other aims into account; because, as often as not, the national interest may well lie in exactly the same direction as sound commercial judgment. If there is some action in the national interest which is quite contrary to commercial judgment, I should have thought that there is room for recording the fact in writing and that one would have expected that where the national and commercial interests lay poles apart the fact would be recorded, as it has been in the cases I mentioned. I do not want to make any more of that than I must.
I know that the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, and Lord Lindgren, have suspicious minds. Of course they have, and as far as the Corbett Report is concerned they will just have to have suspicious minds.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if another Government come in, a Labour Government, would the Corbett Report be found waiting for them?
LORD LINDGREN: Taxpayers' money has been spent on it to the tune of £22,000.
LORD CHESHAM: I must tell the noble Earl that that is too fast a ball for me to play. I am prepared to inquire and let him know.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very glad to hear that.
LORD CHESHAM: My right honourable friend, I think—and I know that noble Lords opposite do not so think—was quite right when he was suspicious of a situation and set about finding out all about it for himself. Noble Lords opposite think and have said—and they have said it again to-day that this Report ought to be published. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed out to us that this Report was commissioned as and evidence taken under pledge of its being confidential. The noble Lord looks doubtful, but in fact it was. I have told the House so before and that is the fact of the matter.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I interrupt?
LORD CHESHAM: May I just finish this point and then I will give way. What I want to say is that a lot of the evidence that was taken for that Report was taken under pledge of confidence, and if that pledge had not been given the Report would not have half the stuff in it that it has. There is no question of being able or being willing to publish this Report. It was for the Minister, and with him it must rest.
LORD LINDGREN: This is a most remarkable statement to come from a Junior Minister. What the noble Lord is now saying is that the Minister of Aviation pays a person to go behind the back of the Chairman of the Board, to report and to get information from members of the Chairman's staff on the basis that it will not be divulged because it is confidential. Such an action is completely scandalous and any other person who did it would be hounded from here to Land's End.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense.
LORD LINDGREN: It is what you said.
LORD CHESHAM: No, that is not what I said. I said that my right honourable friend, as he desired to inform himself as to what went on—because he takes the responsibility, as the noble Lord pointed out to us earlier —appointed an accountant, Mr. Corbett, to do it for him, to conduct this inquiry on his behalf, to inform him under pledge of confidence. That is the important part.
LORD LINDGREN: But whose was the confidence—members of the staff, or everybody outside B.O.A.C.?
LORD CHESHAM: Both.
LORD LINDGREN: That is scandalous.
LORD CHESHAM: Very well, then. The noble Lord will not agree. Noble Lords want the Report published. I want to know if the noble Lord, or perhaps one of the noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box, would say whether, if he were in my

503
right honourable friend's shoes, he would publish that Report?
LORD LINDGREN: No really trustworthy person would go behind the back of a chairman to get his staff to talk, and to undermine his position within an organisation. Such an action is disgusting.
LORD CHESHAM: But it is not an answer to my question. There is no question of going behind the back of the Chairman. The noble Lord has invented that for himself and I never said that. I merely said that this Report was taken under pledge of confidence. The noble Lord presses me to publish it. Would he?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has put that point about going behind the back. I gather opinions were elicited. I gathered that the noble Lord said earlier that he wanted facts. If the noble Lord was concerned only with collecting facts, they could have been put clearly in a way which could have been shown to the Chairman. But I gather there was something which could not be shown to the Chairman or to the Managing Director, and it was something which was elicited from juniors about their seniors. That is going behind the back of the seniors.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think it is like that at all. But I can see that I am clearly not going to get any answer from the Benches opposite on the question that I have now twice posed, as noble Lords have raised another issue on each occasion.
LORD LINDGREN: My working-class decency would never get me to ask another person to "rat" on his chief.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think anyone else's sense of decency has done anything of that kind at all.
LORD LINDGREN: That is what it is.
LORD CHESHAM: All I will say is that I take note, my Lords, that when it comes to pressing and making a great deal of impassioned argument about the unfairness of concealing, the unfairness of not publishing, the Corbett Report, and when it comes to a decision on
504
whether or not it would be published, I receive nothing but silence.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The answer to this is perfectly obvious, I am sorry to deprive the noble Lord of what he may have hoped for a moment was his main debating triumph of the day, but the answer is perfectly obvious. Nobody without seeing the Report can possibly tell whether it can be published. One can be quite sure that it should be shown to the Chairman. Whether it should be published is something one cannot pronounce on till one has seen it. It would be much more satisfactory to see it. Until one has seen it one cannot tell whether that Report should be published.
LORD CHESHAM: That is exactly right, and I am very grateful to the noble Earl for putting it in that way.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No, the noble Lord does not see it in the same way. We think he went behind the backs of the officials, and behind them in a most unpleasant way, by getting these people to sneak on their superiors. That is what we say and, so far as we can understand, that is what has been done. But we cannot know what they have said, because we have not seen the Report. The noble Lord says that there are things which would damage this country if they were published, but of course we cannot speak in advance without seeing the Report. But it would have been much better if, in all these circumstances, they had produced a Report which could have been published.
LORD CHESHAM: There is only one real point at issue. We have established everything now except this "going behind the backs" business. How do you go behind the back of anybody when you announce to Parliament that you are going to do this, which was done before Mr. Corbett went to work? My right honourable friend announced this to Parliament, and it is not going behind the backs of anybody. No, the charge is too ridiculous to stand up for a moment.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am sorry, but this is an important point. I said during the course of my remarks that Mr. Corbett had received the fullest co-operation in every phase of his inquiry from the Chairman, the Board and all

505
sections of the staff of B.O.A.C., in order to carry it out. Yet the Minister is now saying that when it gets below the Board level the persons gave their evidence in confidence, because in fact they were speaking against their chief at the top.
LORD CHESHAM: I did not say that at all. The noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I said that the whole Report was prepared in confidence and evidence was taken in confidence, but I said nothing about the level at which it was taken. The noble Lord is trying to put words into my mouth which I never said were even thought of. I am glad that we now have it fairly obvious—
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, might I interrupt my noble friend? I have not interrupted him once yet. Could he say from whom evidence was taken in confidence?
LORD CHESHAM: May I ask my noble friend whether he would have the courtesy to wait till I have finished my sentence before interrupting me?
LORD LINDGREN: You are on a sticky wicket, but do not get cross.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not in the least getting cross. I am asking my noble friend for the normal courtesy of the House. At least I should have thought I could do that. I do not know whether my noble friend wants me to give a list of the people who gave evidence. I do not have one. I do not know how I can use shorter or simpler words, to say that the Report was prepared in confidence and evidence was taken on the basis that it would be treated as confidential. I trust that that makes the matter clear once and for all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As clear as mud.
LORD CHESHAM: Mud has its uses at times, my Lords.
I want now, if I may, to go on to a question raised by noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, raised this question of the Slattery plan, and I had to do a bit of quick thinking to discover quite what they meant. That is why I was sufficiently rude to interrupt the noble Lord, when I did not want to do so, to
506
ask him to be quite clear what it was he was talking about. It is perfectly true that a series of ideas were put forward for reconstructing B.O.A.C., and a number of these—certainly most of them, I think—have been made public. But whether you can add them up and call them a plan for putting B.O.A.C. into financial prosperity is a slightly different matter. One idea was redefining the rôle; another one was relieving B.O.A.C. of its debt, writing off the deficit. There was mention of greater continuity of management, and of allowing B.O.A.C. to have equity capital. I do not know whether your Lordships want me to discuss all those things at length—
LORD LINDGREN: No.
LORD CHESHAM: —but I do not feel greatly inclined to do so. But, my Lords, those ideas were hardly in a shape which would enable decisions to be taken on some scale. The basic measures which would have put B.O.A.C. back "on the financial ball" would still have to be worked out, and the Minister thought that major steps of financial reconstruction could not be put to Parliament until the reasons for the losses had been thoroughly investigated. I do not think that that line of thinking can be interpreted as in some way ignoring the Chairman's existence or his suggestions. I think that that was the actual sequence of events. It would be true, I think, had a real, full plan been put forward, and not just certain ideas.
LORD SHACKLETON: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? He is being very patient. This is rather interesting. We have had something secret revealed, even if not from the Corbett Inquiry. Would it be possible to see the plan? Or could we even know whether the Minister communicated with the Chairman on what he wrote to him, possibly even only to say that it was not good enough, or to ask for more details?
LORD CHESHAM: Now, you cannot, my Lords, I can assure you.
LORD SHACKLETON: Because you do not know.
LORD CHESHAM: Because I do not know. But I will certainly see what I can do to oblige the noble Lord in that respect.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD CHESHAM: I cannot off-hand, for reasons that he well appreciates, say very much more than that at the present time.
My Lords, I am taking a very long time, I am afraid—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD CHESHAM: —but I want to have just a very quick word about this question of "Fly British". The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised it first, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote also mentioned it. Basically and I make this point because I want to get it clear —I am perfectly sure that, wherever possible, whenever possible, "Fly British" is the right policy, and I do not think anyone in this House, in any quarter of it, is going to disagree with that. But the criterion is "when possible". I think it is recognised that they must be able to have the best aeroplanes they can get according to their commercial judgment. In fact, I do not think it is true to say that B.O.A.C. have been denied the freedom to choose the aircraft they wanted. There have been, I will agree, limitations. There were limitations, because of dollar shortage, against the Boeing 707's which they wanted to buy in 1956; but, by and large, my Lords, they have not been directed here and directed there. Planes like the Comets, Britannias and VC10s they have chosen themselves; and I believe that that is the right policy wherever possible.
I should like just to point something out to my noble friend Lord Headfort, whom I would congratulate on what I thought an excellent and well-thoughtout speech. I only hope that he will go on, and will not be flying off to Ireland and depriving us of his company and further speeches. But I would say to him that routes may be unprofitable, but there is no route that I know of which B.O.A.C. flies at present other than from commercial choice. There is no route that they are pushed into flying or are requested to fly, or which it is insisted they fly, or anything of that kind. I thought I would make that point, so that it would comfort him in case he thought they were pushed around in that way.
508
Finally, my Lords, I should like to agree wholeheartedly with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he referred to B.O.A.C. as a magnificent Corporation. My Lords, we are doing what we propose because we think so, too. We want to keep it that way, and we want to keep it financially successful as well.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 12), Bill read 3a, and passed.