Lords Sitting of 23 November 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

PICTORIAL POSTAGE STAMPS
3.6 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance that not more than one or two issues of large-sized pictorial stamps will be authorised each year; and whether they appreciate how very much more popular is the present small-sized plain issue.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the policy of my right honourable friend is to bring out about four or five special issues a year. He has plenty of evidence that they are popular, but naturally he is glad to hear that the smaller, definitive stamps are also well liked. These are always available at all Post Offices, even when pictorial issues are also on sale.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Would it be possible for all the fourpenny stamps, of whatever design, to be the same colour, and, more particularly, for the threepenny stamps always to be the same colour?
LORD SORENSEN: I will certainly pass on that question to the Postmaster General, but I personally see no reason why there should not be diversity and variety in colour, as in life itself.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there will always be available at Post Offices the small stamp and not the fancy stamp? Some people prefer the small stamps but cannot obtain them.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I have already assured the House that this is so.
1136
I do not personally know of any case, and possibly the Postmaster General does not know of one either, where customers have been able to purchase only the larger stamps. I am quite certain that the small stamps are always available.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that they are certainly not always available?
LORD SORENSEN: I will certainly pass on that information to the Postmaster General.
LORD BUCKTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why the printer is allowed to advertise on these stamps and whether the Government receive any revenue for that advertisement?
LORD SORENSEN: I will certainly put that question to the Postmaster General. I should imagine that some revenue is received, but I cannot be certain. I will make inquiries and will let the noble Lord know.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me whether he has had the experience that I have had, of writing an address on an ordinary sized envelope and then putting on the stamp and finding that it covered half the address?
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me on what principle the subjects for these stamps are chosen, and whether it would not be more appropriate that specimens of the works of British artists should be used for our stamps rather than those of foreign artists?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that in fact these stamps are very popular, especially in philatelic circles. They are printed by the 100 million. Quite apart from the larger size of these stamps, they have an aesthetic quality. I will look into the suggestion, but I can inform the House that something like 55 different issues of these particular stamps have been made since 1924, and it is estimated that this year there will be six, or possibly seven, different issues. Whether the designs should always be by British artists, I do not know. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether an artist is British or not.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord represent to the Government

1137
our strong preference for this year's stamp rather than the abortion of a stamp which was issued last year?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, that is a matter of taste, but I will pass the idea on to my right honourable friend.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, may I ask one final question? Is not the popularity of the large stamps almost entirely confined to the stamp dealers?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, if that is the case there is still a financial advantage to this country, because they are issued by the 100 million. Quite a number of people are attracted by the historical and esthetic significance of the stamps.

BIRMINGHAM — SOUTHAMPTON ROAD
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans for building a motorway to connect the Birmingham area with the port of Southampton; and if not whether they can say how soon the trunk road A.43 will be brought up to an appropriate trunk road standard.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, there are no firm plans for a motorway connection between the Birmingham area and Southampton. In regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, I presume he is referring to the trunk road A.34 and not the A.43. If I am right in that assumption, may I say that there are a number of major improvement schemes, to the value of about £8 million, programmed, under way or which have recently been completed on the A.33 and A.34, forming the main route between Birmingham and Southampton. Other schemes are in the trunk road preparation pool or under consideration for future inclusion, but their timing will depend upon the comparative needs of this route and the overall size of the future road programme.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, as the Question asks about the A.43 and that road runs through Northamptonshire, could the noble Lord give the answer to the Question?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am always willing to help your Lordships, and that is the reason why I assumed that the noble Earl was referring to the A.34. Always trying to be helpful, as the noble and learned Viscount well knows, I endeavoured to answer the Question.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I thought the road was the trunk road A.43. But may I ask whether the Minister is aware that in regard to the trunk road going North from Oxford through Woodstock and Stratford-upon-Avon to Birmingham, for a distance of six miles there is only approximately 4,000 yards of road which has a single line, and all the rest has double white lines?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are these major improvements on that road. I have not any notes on that, but if the noble Earl's information is correct in this particular case, I am quite sure it is one of the roads that will be subject to that improvement.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could assure the House that the right honourable gentleman, the Minister, is aware of the fact that if improvements are made on a long stretch of trunk road with the exception of one half mile, a bottleneck will form which will make the rest of the improvement completely useless?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware of that position.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, having been stuck in the docks at Southampton for three-quarters of an hour last night, may I ask the noble Lord whether something can be done to improve and encourage improvement of the roads at Southampton before he brings the A.34 or the A.43 or any other trunk road anywhere near Southampton?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could a high degree of priority be given to the

1139
stretch between Abingdon and Newbury, which is apt to be the most congested part of this trunk road?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe that particular scheme is in the pipeline.

RHODESIA: DEATH SENTENCE ON AFRICANS
3.15 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 action has been taken, in view of the illegal status of the administration in Southern Rhodesia, to prevent the execution of 88 Africans who have been sentenced to death for forcibly challenging the administration.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the British Government have noted with great concern the reports of the illegal régime's intention to carry out unlawful executions and have made it clear that no death sentence can lawfully be carried out in Rhodesia until confirmed by the Governor. As the noble Lord will know, an action to prevent the carrying out of the executions has been started in the Rhodesian High Court by three of the persons concerned, and this action is still to be completed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend and appreciating that Answer, may I ask him whether he would ask the Government seriously to consider the proposal which I made in connection with a similar Question about South African executions? Would it not be good if this legality could be challenged in the International Court at The Hague, which would not only raise the immediate question but on an international scale raise the whole question
1140
of the legality of the Rhodesian Administration?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should not wish to be drawn on that matter in view of the fact that it is at the present moment before the High Court in Rhodesia. To a certain extent I would hope that the House would regard this as, I think the phrase is, sub judice.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that a great many of these Africans are Russian-armed and probably Russian-trained terrorists, and that they are taught, like the Mau Mau, to mutilate livestock and murder African women and children? And would not the noble Lord further agree that a study of Russian broadcasts over the last three months would tend to confirm this view and lend support to this view?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the present circumstances I think the noble Viscount's remarks are quite out of place. I would only suggest to the noble Viscount, in view of his remarks, to look at the evidence. In fact, of the number that have been sentenced to death, only seven arise from, I think the word is, infiltration.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord aright, I think he asked that we should await the hearing before the High Court in Rhodesia. I take it from that that he still regards the High Court in Rhodesia as legal?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the High Court of Rhodesia is a court of law.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not clear that if, unfortunately, these executions were to take place, the people responsible would be guilty of murder?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, certainly if action were taken without the proper process of law then those involved would be in a very difficult and impossible position.

CYPRUS: TURCO-GREEK RELATIONS
LORD ROWLEY: 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 will make a statement on the present developments in Cyprus affecting Turkish-Greek relations, and the responsibilities of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, noble Lords will know that heavy fighting broke out in the island on November 15. A ceasefire was arranged and the National Guard withdrew from the positions they had occupied during the fighting. These positions were taken over by the United Nations Force. As a result of this fighting, there is a very serious state of tension between Turkey and Greece. In concert with the United States and Canadian Governments we are doing all we can in all the capitals concerned to achieve a peaceful settlement. A special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General is about to arrive in the area, and an emissary of President Johnson has already done so. We have discussed the situation with the Canadian Prime Minister who is in London on a visit at the moment.
The responsibilities of the United Nations Force remain unchanged. They acquitted themselves very well in the recent incident. My right honourable friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretaries are keeping the situation under constant review and are ready to help the cause of peace in any way they can.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the obviously very dangerous situation that has arisen, may I ask my noble friend whether it is intended to evacuate the 660 British civilians in the event of a Turkish invasion of the island? Secondly, in view of the fact that there are 3,000 United Nations peace-keeping forces and 8,000 British servicemen on the island, will not an extra-ordinarily dangerous situation arise
1142
if there is an invasion? May I ask whether consideration could be given to placing all the troops on the island, both Turkish and Greek, for the time being under the command of the United Nations? Thirdly, is not this a situation which is definitely a threat of war, and should not the Security Council proceed to carry out its functions under the Charter?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble Lord, who is a great expert on these matters, has asked me a number of questions. I will try to answer them all. Or course, the situation represents a great threat to peace, and if an invasion took place a most dangerous situation indeed would arise. So far as the question of evacuation is concerned, I think that it might exacerbate the situation on the island if one were to go too deeply and in too much detail into evacuation plans. But I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary has given the British High Commissioner in Nicosia discretion to arrange for British subjects in certain areas of Cyprus, where their presence is not essential, to be moved and concentrated elsewhere in the island, where it will be easier to keep in touch with them if an emergency arises. As my noble friend will know, there are existing plans, which we believe to be adequate, for the safety of British civilians and military personnel; and the High Commissioner and the commander of forces in the area have authority, all the authority they need, to put these plans into effect if the occasion should arise.
On the question of forces on the island, as the noble Lord has said there are more than 10,000 British troops there. The delicacy of the situation is obvious. With regard to placing Greek-Cypriot, Turkish-Cypriot and other forces on the island under United Nations command, that is an interesting idea, but clearly it is not one that is easy to put into effect. So far as the Security Council is concerned, of course we are in close touch with the Secretary-General about this, and action in the Security Council is naturally much in the front of our minds.
3.22 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? I understand that there is a Private

1143
Notice Question in another place on this subject. Will the noble Lord tell the House whether or not the terms of the Answer to that Question are exactly the same as that which he has given the House, or whether further information will be given to another place? If the Answer is not exactly the same, perhaps the noble Lord may consider making a further statement at half-past three.
Secondly, may I ask him what instructions have been given to British troops in Cyprus in the event of hostilities between Greek and Turkish troops? I imagine that British troops under British command have been told not to intervene. But may I ask him what instructions have been given to British troops under United Nations command?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the question of the differences, if any, between the information I have given to your Lordships' House and the information that will be given in another place in answer to the Private Notice Question are concerned, the facts as I have given them do not differ in substance from the Answer which I understand will be given to the Question in another place, although possibly not in exactly the same words. If anything arises from the proceedings in another place then, of course, with the usual indulgence, a Statement will be made at a later stage.
So far as orders given to the troops are concerned, I think it would be wrong of me to go into too much detail about the actual operational orders that have been given. Clearly, as the noble Lord suggests, there is a distinction between the action that may be taken by, and the orders that have been given to, troops under British command and those under United Nations command. As the noble Lord will know, British troops under United Nations command have already been in action in these events since the 15th of the month.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hesitate to press the noble Lord, but I think this is most important. After all, these are British troops, even if they are under United Nations command. In the event of an invasion by Turkish troops, I think the House is entitled to know what orders the British troops would have from the United Nations commander.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, my own feeling is that we are still dealing with the hypothetical situation of an invasion. I think it would be wrong to go into details in your Lordships' House about the orders that have been given to deal with a hypothetical situation. If the situation deteriorates then, of course, all the information available will be given to your Lordships' House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, may I ask my noble friend whether the influence of NATO, as well as of the United Nations, might be used to bring about a peaceful settlement of this dispute?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the fact that these two countries are our allies in the Western Alliance has not been lost on us. The most intensive diplomatic activities of all kinds and in all accommodations has been going on. I think my noble friend will understand that it would be prejudicial to the efforts if I went into too much detail about those diplomatic activities.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
3.25 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move, That the Select Committee to whom the Bill is referred may hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters. The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that when I spoke during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and on the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I said that it was my intention to report to the House, under Standing Order No. 92, that in my opinion the Bill, though unopposed, should be proceeded with as an opposed Private Bill. The effect of this is that the Bill has been referred to a Select Committee although, of course, there are no Petitions against it.
In a Select Committee on an opposed Private Bill, the Committee are limited to hearing evidence from the Promoters in support of the Bill and from the Petitioners in opposition to the Bill. Private

1145
Bill Standing Order No. 124 provides that:
A committee on a Private Bill shall not, without express authority from the House"—
and, of course, it can always go to the House for such authority—
"hear evidence other than that which may be tendered by any parties entitled to be heard."
Your Lordships will appreciate that in the case of this Bill the Committee might be at a disadvantage, and might find themselves fettered if they were to hear only evidence submitted by the Promoters, who of course will be the only parties to appear before the Committee. The purpose of this Motion, to which I am asking the House to agree this afternoon, is to give the Select Committee on this Bill the authority to hear evidence, should they wish to do so—it is entirely a matter for their own discretion—in addition to that of the witnesses called by the Promoters.
Several noble Lords have quite recently told me that they wish to know whether there is any precedent for this Motion. The answer is that, so far back as my inquiries have been able to go, which is only up to the end of the last war, there is no precedent for such a Motion. But your Lordships are usually willing to depart from precedent if there is a good reason for doing so. The reason in this case is that the Select Committee are asking for what is admittedly an exceptional power because they consider that otherwise it may not be possible for them to hear all the evidence which they regard as relevant to the Instruction that has been given by the House to the Committee.
My Lords, this is an unusual Bill, with an unusual Instruction, and the procedure that has been suggested is also unusual. I hope that the House will consider that it gives the Select Committee the greatest possible opportunity to hear all the evidence which they regard as relevant, both to the Bill and to the Instruction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Select Committee to whom the Bill is referred may hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not those
1146
who are, or might be, opposed to the Bill have already had ample opportunity to present a Petition if they so desired?
3.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, has moved this Motion. After all, this is a most controversial Bill. There are matters to be investigated in relation to it, and I think the Report to this House of a Select Committee when they had heard evidence only from the Promoters would be of far less value than one where the Select Committee had been able to hear and test the evidence not only of the Promoters but of the opponents. The case for this Motion is absolutely overwhelming. It may be that there is no precedent for it. I am rather in favour of creating new precedents sometimes, and I think this is clearly a case when a new precedent should be created because, as I have said, the Report of a Select Committee when it has gone into both sides thoroughly will be of far greater value to your Lordships' House than the Report of a Select Committee based on evidence tendered by the Promoters alone.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I find myself in general agreement with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, but I should like to make a suggestion. I feel that it is putting the Committee in a rather awkward position if they have to be both judges and, to a certain extent, advocates—at any rate, examiners of one particular side. This has been met in American cases by having a counsel for the committee—what we in England call amicus curia,. I am quite aware that my noble friend Lord Lindgren does not always like lawyers, and I hope that I shall not be accused of trying to find jobs for them, but they have their uses. I should have thought that in a case of this kind an amicus curiœ would perform a function both useful to the public in general and useful to the Select Committee which had to consider the matter.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, as the mover of the Second Reading of the Brighton Marina Bill, perhaps I should say that I am prepared to accept the Motion, provided that the Lord Chairman of Committees will give me an

1147
assurance that it is limited to the intention that the Select Committee will be able to call before them an expert witness to give evidence falling within the scope of the Instruction and on which the Promoters have not given evidence; also, that it will not be used to enable opponents to come before the Select Committee since they have already had ample opportunity to put in Petitions against the Bill and have failed to do so.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am still not convinced of the need for the Motion, but I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to go as far as that, although I feel that the Bill has already received full attention. It has been to another place, it was resolved by a very small majority to send it to a Select Committee, there was a good deal of contention and there has been ample opportunity before now for objectors to put their case to the Select Committee. However, in view of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, perhaps one should not press the matter any further.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I hope that the Motion moved by the Lord Chairman of Committees will be accepted. Whatever the circumstances of the Instruction, the Instruction was given to the Select Committee and they were asked to investigate. I think that we must leave it to the Select Committee to decide what they think they want in order to perform the function put upon them by this House. I have very little to add to the excellent and clear speech made by the Lord Chairman in commending this Motion to the House. It seems to me that it is not for us to judge and to tell the Committee what they are to do. If the Committee are to carry out the instructions to serve this House in the best way possible, it must be left to them to judge what it is they require. This Motion, as I understand it, simply enables the Committee to function as that Committee themselves wish to function.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I most certainly shall not oppose the Motion, but I feel rather diffident about carrying a Motion of this kind. We have well-established practice as to what is the position and as to how the Petitioners can object to what is contained in any Private Bill. In this instance the Bill has been before the Commons and we here in this
1148
House have had a discussion of the merits or demerits of the proposal. I should like further clarification from the Lord Chairman of Committees why he feels that the well-established practice and the precedents which exist should be varied on this occasion. As I see the matter at the moment, there has been ample time for the opposition to this Bill to prepare their Petitions in a proper way. Other people who object to Private Bills have to prepare their Petitions in a proper manner, and it seems to me that the people who are interested in this matter are not just ordinary householders, but people who are knowledgeable in our procedure. I will not oppose the Motion so far as to vote against it, but I should like some further clarification. This would, I feel, establish a precedent and it would be as well to lay down, as a guidance for the future, the principles in regard to any further alterations which might arise.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I understand that I am going to be Chairman of this Committee, and in the words of Alice in Wonderland it is becoming "curiouser and curiouser". I should like to say how I see the situation. We have no Petitioners, and I believe that it would be wrong to allow Petitioners to come forward of their own wish in this Committee. As I understand it, our role will be to hear the evidence of the Promoters; to discuss that evidence between ourselves; to decide whether we shall call any other witnesses of our own wish, so that we may clarify any points on which we are not satisfied, and then in the future to report to your Lordships' House our decisions.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, because I am sure that what they have said will be of great use to the Select Committee and that they will give very careful consideration indeed to remarks which have been made on this matter by noble Lords. I should like to say first, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that the question of whether or not the Committee call counsel is a matter that should be left to the Committee to decide, and this of course must be decided in reference to Standing Orders.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, but do I

1149
understand him to say that he thinks this Committee would be empowered to employ counsel to act on their behalf to question any witnesses who might appear before them? If that is so, it is clearly a tremendous departure.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No, my Lords, I think the noble Lord has slightly misunderstood what I said. He is quite right that this is not the practice of our Select Committees. What I said was that if the Select Committee thought that they required help of this kind, they should refer to Standing Orders to see whether they could do so.
May I now reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who put a direct question? He wanted to know whether the witnesses who would be called would deal exclusively with the Bill and with the Instruction which the House has given to the Committee to consider in relation to the Bill. Of course, that is in fact—and I am authorised to say this by the Chairman of the Committee—what the procedure will be. The Promoters naturally will call their own witnesses and will be unfettered by the Committee in regard to the witnesses whom they wish to call; but the Committee, in deciding, if they should so decide, to call other witnesses, would do so only in relation to the Preamble to the Bill and in relation to the matters raised in the Instruction. I think this will go a little way to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. The procedure adopted by the Committee may make it completely unnecessary to call any witnesses other than those called by the Promoters. I understand that the Committee intend to hear first the witnesses called by the Promoters, and clearly if their evidence is sufficient to cover all the matters contained not only in the Bill but in the Instruction, then the Committee will not wish to call any further witnesses.
All this Motion does is to give the Select Committee the right, if they feel that they have not heard all the relevant evidence when the witnesses called by the promoters have stated their views, to call other witnesses. But in the event, and as it is the intention of the Promoters, I understand, to call witnesses to deal with the Instruction as well as the Bill, it may be that the only witnesses who are heard are those who are
1150
called by the Promoters; and, therefore, that the power given to the Committee by this Motion will not be used at all.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before we leave this matter, I do not know whether I shall be in order—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Consolidation Bill and, if given a Second Reading, will go automatically to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, too, is a Consolidation Bill, and the observations which I have just made apply to this Bill also. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a straightforward one and I hope it will prove non-controversial. It deals with a number of miscellaneous civil aviation matters where the present law, with the passage of time, has been found to be defective or deficient. It will be of practical assistance not only to the Board of Trade in discharging their responsibilities for civil aviation, but also to Northern Ireland, to local authorities, to private

1151
owners who maintain and operate airports in the United Kingdom, and to owners and manufacturers of aircraft. Possibly I might most conveniently explain the Bill by going through the clauses.
Clause 1 deals with the control of road traffic at Board of Trade and local authority aerodromes designated by Order of the Ministry of Transport. The Road Traffic Acts already apply to those aerodrome roads, to which the public have access. The clause enables the ordinary laws applying to road traffic in general to be extended to aerodrome roads to which the public do not have access, but on which there is a substantial traffic problem. It also enables those laws to be modified, so far as necessary, in order to confer on the aerodrome authority at a particular aerodrome the functions of a highway or local authority in relation to roads within their aerodrome.
Clause 2 provides modern by-law-making powers at aerodromes owned or managed by the Board of Trade, in place of the rather antiquated powers which they now have. At present, as a reminder that most of these aerodromes were originally military or joint user aerodromes, the Board of Trade's powers derive from the Military Lands Act 1892.
Clause 3 confers similar by-law-making powers on local authorities. At present, apart from Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which is of limited application for this purpose, there is no general statutory provision enabling local authorities to make by-laws for their aerodromes, though some have armed themselves with by-law-making powers by means of local Acts—a rather cumbrous and expensive process.
Clause 4 gives similar powers to owners of private aerodromes but only where the Board of Trade is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of commercial passenger traffic. At some privately-owned aerodromes, such as Lydd and Southampton, there is as much traffic as at some local authority or Board of Trade aerodromes, and where this is so it seems desirable that the owners should have the power to make by-laws, subject to confirmation by the Board of Trade, for regulating the orderly use of their aerodromes.
1152
Clause 5 provides maximum penalties for the contravention of by-laws made under the preceding clauses. Clause 6 enables local authorities to provide facilities for civil aviation at aerodromes not established or maintained by them. The kind of arrangement which this is intended to facilitate is the provision of a civil enclave at, for example, an R.A.F. aerodrome where civil traffic can be fitted in without detriment to its military use. This is sometimes the most economical way of securing civil facilities. There is some doubt whether local authorities can properly do this, as distinct from providing a complete new aerodrome under their present powers, which derive from the Civil Aviation Act 1949. This clause will remove these doubts.
Clause 7 enables grants or loans to be made from public funds towards providing, maintaining or extending aerodromes. To avoid raising false hopes. I ought to say that its primary purpose is to give specific authority for grants and loans which clearly fall within the existing functions Of the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the 1949 Act. During the last ten years or so, a number of local authorities have been the recipients of grants towards the provision or development of civil aerodromes, and it is desirable from the angle of Parliamentary control that specific statutory authority should be granted for expenditure continuing beyond a single financial year. The Board of Trade will continue to judge cases strictly on their individual merits, and in particular on the need for any Exchequer assistance. I might mention here that some amendment may be needed to this clause consequent on the proposal to establish a National Loans Fund, to which reference was made in Her Majesty's gracious Speech.
Clause 8 extends the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament to make laws in respect of aerodromes in Northern Ireland. When the Government of Ireland Act was passed, delimiting the respective functions of the two Parliaments, the Northern Irish Parliament was precluded from dealing with aerial navigation, civil aviation was in its infancy and no one foresaw that the present need would arise. It is no longer appropriate that local authorities in Northern Ireland wishing to establish

1153
aerodromes to serve their own local needs should need approval from Whitehall. Nor is it appropriate that ownership and control over the management and future development of the airport serving Belfast, with its important and rapidly growing traffic, should continue to be vested in Whitehall. The primary purpose of Clause 8 is, therefore, to pave the way for the Northern Ireland Government to assume responsibility for Alder-grove under powers which they will seek from their own Parliament as soon as this present Bill becomes law. Safety matters will, however, continue to be controlled by the Board of Trade by means of aerodrome licensing because of the international obligations of the United Kingdom in this respect.
Clause 9 gives airport authorities power to detain and to sell aircraft for non-payment of airport charges. Harbour authorities already have similar powers in regard to ships under Section 44 of the Harbour Docks and Piers Act 1847.
Clause 10 extends the power of the Board of Trade under Section 4 of the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1962 to make regulations requiring the payment of charges for air navigation services so as to include services rendered by international organisations, or foreign Governments, in pursuance of agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. It also closes gaps in the existing law and ensures that all operators may be charged for these services, wherever the services are rendered.
I now come to Clauses 11, 12 and 13, which I hope it will be convenient to consider together. At present, movables other than ships cannot be mortgaged in English law except by bills of sale. The procedure is cumbersome, and is unlikely to be recognised by foreign courts. There has long been a need on the part of manufacturers, operators and others concerned with buying and selling aircraft for a system permitting the mortgaging of aircraft and for the international recognition of rights in them. Such arrangements should be in the interests of the expansion of civil aviation in this country and should facilitate the export of aircraft; and I understand that what is now proposed is welcomed by the Society of British Aerospace Constructors, as it is now known.
1154
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 enable provision to be made by Orders in Council, subject to Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, both for the mortgaging of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, on lines generally similar to the provisions made in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 for the mortgaging of ships (Clause 11), and for giving effect to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft (Clause 12).
This Convention was signed in Geneva in 1948 by 20 States, including the United Kingdom. Here, my Lords, I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, at Geneva in the drafting of this Convention. He in fact signed the Convention on behalf of this country in that year. It came into effect on September 17, 1953, and 26 States, including the United States and most of Western Europe, are now parties to it; but the United Kingdom is not. The Convention is intended to ensure the recognition in other contracting States of mortgages and other rights in aircraft recorded in the State of registry of the aircraft, thereby improving the security which airlines and other purchasers can offer to those financing the purchase of aircraft. Ratification of the Convention would of course be of no use to a State which itself had no provisions for registering mortgages and other rights in aircraft.
Your Lordships will observe that the enabling powers set out in these clauses are expressed in general terms. The detailed arrangements will be the subject of consultations with interested parties, and will then appear in full in the Orders which, as I have said, will be subject to debate under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. This is provided for in Clause 13, which makes supplementary provisions to Clauses 11 and 12 and permits these clauses to apply, if required, to aircraft belonging to or employed in the service of Her Majesty.
Clause 14 is concerned with another aspect of international civil aviation. In these days, when the tendency is for aircraft to become larger and more expensive, there is increasing commercial pressure for what is known as the interchange of aircraft; that is to say, for aircraft

1155
owned by persons of one nationality to be chartered without crew to operators of another nationality. Normally, it is the responsibility of the State in which the aircraft is registered to regulate the operation of the aircraft so as to ensure safety, and it may not be registered in more than one State at a time. It has, however, become apparent from experience that, particularly where the chartered aircraft is operated outside its State of registry, control can be more effectively exercised by the State of the operator, and the State of registry may wish temporarily to delegate its responsibility to that State. At present, under Section 59 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 the Air Navigation Order and Regulations cannot extend to foreign-registered aircraft except when they are in United Kingdom airspace. Clause 14 will enable the United Kingdom to exercise extra-territorial control over foreign-registered aircraft operated by a United Kingdom operator, and will fill a gap which at present exists in regulating the safety of interchanged aircraft.
Clause 15 requires the registration, as local land charges in England and Wales, of rights enforceable under Section 23(7) of the 1949 Act, which deals with powers over land in connection with civil aviation. This is necessary because Section 23(7) does not accord with the principles of land registration in England and Wales, in that it does not require certain rights created by agreement, which under Section 23(7) become binding upon the successors in title of the grantor, to be registered as local land charges.
Clause 16 extends the time limit for summary prosecutions under the Air Navigation Order and Regulations arising out of aircraft accidents. Noble Lords will remember that the Cairns Committee on Aircraft Accident Investigation recommended that the time limit of six months for summary prosecutions for offences arising out of aircraft accidents should be extended to twelve months. This period would reduce the risk of a prosecution which has been deferred pending an accident investigation or public inquiry, or the necessity for which is first brought to light by the report of such an investigation or inquiry, being barred by lapse of time.
The purpose of Clause 17 is to remove doubts whether the powers of control
1156
over land in the vicinity of aerodromes and other facilities vested in the Board of Trade contained in Section 26(1) of the Act of 1949 extend to aerodromes which are used for the testing of aircraft designed for civil aviation, but not for civil aviation purposes generally. It is reasonable, I should have thought, that such aerodromes should enjoy the same degree of protection as do other civil aerodromes. Clause 18 repeals now inoperative provisions of Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 relating to damage caused by aircraft to persons or property on land or water. Section 128 of the Companies Act 1967 repealed some of the sections of Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act 1949—those relating to compulsory third-party insurance which had never been brought into force. This clause repeals the remaining provisions of Part IV, which are obsolete particularly because of the low limit of liability which they impose. The remaining clauses are the usual ones dealing with the exercise of the powers of the Board of Trade, financial aspects, citation, interpretation and extent.
As I have said, my Lords, this is a useful and a practical Bill, and I trust that your Lordships will accord it a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.58 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and careful exposition of this Bill. He may be aware that some of us on these Benches are not at present particularly enamoured of the present Government, but let me assure him straight away that I do not propose to extend my unamorous feelings towards this particular Bill. By and large, it seems to me to be a useful one. Of course, it bears all the old familiar hallmarks of a departmental measure. It is the usual "rag-bag", but much of the "rag-bag " seems to me at least useful, and most of it quite unobjectionable. I have certain specific questions—a small number—and reservations which I should like to ventilate in a moment to your Lordships' House, but before I do that I should like to make a few rather more general observations.
I must confess that I was a little disappointed that in his opening remarks the

1157
noble Lord was not able, or did not see fit, to relate this particular measure in any way to a coherent policy towards airports in this country. I confess that I am worried about this, since I can see all too many signs that the present Government—and I do not absolve previous Governments from their share of the blame in this respect—are tending to plan our airports in isolation, piecemeal, and with an altogether undue bias towards London and London's particular needs.
I am personally convinced that we need a clear and coherent air transport policy in this country, within it and outside it, and a clear and coherent national airports policy related to that. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens travel by air within our borders and several millions go outside. Executive travel is expanding, and will expand, and air freight is expanding very quickly indeed. I think it is going up by something like 23 per cent. a year; and again we are just on the verge of much larger expansion. Air freight affords an obvious way of exporting quickly and efficiently and also of getting what is just as necessary, the quick back-up, in spares and so forth, to our export effort. With bigger aircraft and aircraft specifically designed for air freight, and with the growing trend in industry towards miniaturisation (and therefore hopes of less bulky engines) I am certain that this tendency will increase. Yet at present I can see but little recognition of this by the Government.
Nor can I see much recognition of the way in which our policy towards airports should impinge upon a great many aspects of regional and indeed national planning: on the choice of sites for major industrial development, on amenity considerations, not least—in fact on a whole host of land use considerations. For example, the Chairman of the new British Airports Authority recently told us that Heathrow, directly or indirectly, employed or supported nearly 300,000 people. This, in itself, shows how cardinal is the proper siting of airports to proper regional and national planning. I would therefore express the hope that wherever the Government are now planning major developments, whether on Humberside, Severn-side or Tayside, the question of appropriate air facilities will be given due and proper consideration.
1158
I must confess that I am not particularly confident that this will be the case, seeing that the South-East Planning Council were not even consulted about Stansted. I would therefore urge the Government to give priority to elaboration of a long-range plan for our airports. I would also urge them, in this connection, to consider the importance of direct air services abroad from all our major regions. And in this connection I would suggest the provision of other forms of service transport, and, in particular, roads. And I would urge upon them a careful sense of choice of priorities. I think we have heard M. Mendes-France's dictum quoted before in your Lordships' House:
"To govern is to choose."
My Lords, given the fact that our resources are not inexhaustible, is it really sensible for us to duplicate our airports as we do in certain regions? Is it sensible, for example, not to make proper provision for a really major airport in the South-West? Therefore I would urge the need for a more regional approach by the Government.
So much for the general considerations, which may perhaps be only partly relevant to this particular Bill—although if I am challenged I think I could justify them by reference to Clause 7. I have felt compelled to make the few remarks I have made because I am worried at the fact that, to say the least, the Government do not appear to be seized of the necessity for a coherent and long-range policy. The French are planning their airports for the 21st century. Contrast this with Mrs. Barbara Castle's White Paper Transport Policy. In that document brief lip service was paid, and only occasionally, to our airports and to our airport needs; but in the summary in that document there is not a single mention of this or of airport policy. That, it seems to me, denotes a rather odd and unimaginative set of Government priorities.
My Lords, that said, I should like to put four specific questions to the noble Lord. Since I have been kind enough to give him notice of these questions, perhaps he will be kind enough to give me satisfactory replies. My first question relates to Clause 7 of the Bill. That clause, as the noble Lord explained,

1159
makes it possible for the Government to make grants or loans towards expenses in respect of airports and their development. So far, so good. But in subsection (2) of that clause we find that our major airport authority, The British Airports Authority, is specifically excluded from this beneficial provision. I should like to ask the noble Lord why this is so. He may reply that under the Airports Authority Act 1965 the Airports Authority has adequate powers for borrowing. In the normal course of events I should have been the first to grant that this might well be so. However, I would remind your Lordships that the British Airports Authority is intended to be a commercial undertaking—and its first year's results show that it takes its commercial responsibilities very seriously. But the Airports Authority is subject to ministerial direction and the Government might direct that it should take something on or do something against its considered commercial judgment.
The Authority might, for instance, be be asked to operate aerodromes in the Highlands and Islands, something which might be perfectly sensible on social grounds, but not so sensible on purely commercial grounds. Or it might, to take a hypothetical example, be directed by the Government to change the direction or layout of the runways at one of its existing airports. Such a change might be held to be desirable on planning grounds. However, by the yardstick of economics, such a change might be totally uncommercial and could be very costly—and I think it would be in the case of Stansted. In view of this—and this is the first question which I should like to put to the noble Lord—is it right that the British Airports Authority should be specifically excluded from the provisions of this clause of the Bill? Would it not be wiser for the Government to retain some flexibility here? May I, parenthetically, ask whether the Authority was consulted before it was excluded?
My second question relates to Clause 9 of the Bill. Under this clause the aerodrome authorities are given the power to detain aircraft in the event of the nonpayment of airport dues or charges. There is obviously a good case for this power, but the penalties are pretty stiff. If the outstanding airport charges are not paid
1160
within 21 days the airport authorities have power to sell the aircraft. Might it not be considered somewhat disproportionate that an aircraft worth, possibly, a million pounds or two million pounds could be sold to settle an outstanding charge which might amount to only a few hundred pounds? Is not the time allowance of 21 days possibly a little on the short side?
Then there is Clause 11. This deals with the new mortgage provisions and also sets out the United Kingdom mortgage register for aircraft. I personally warmly welcome this. But I notice that the mortgage provisions are related to those of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. This strikes me as a little odd. That particular Act of 1894 is, after all, getting rather long in the tooth, and we know that the Government dentists will possibly examine these particular teeth. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is really sensible to relate the mortgage provisions for aircraft in 1967 to the mortgage provisions for ships in 1894.
My final question is concerned with Clause 12, which gives the Government the right by Order in Council to ratify the Geneva Convention on the international recognition of rights in aircraft; and in this connection I should like to echo the tribute paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. This is all very well, but I would remind your Lordships that the Convention was signed 19 years ago and some of us may be pardoned if we do not carry all its provisions fresh in our minds. In view of this, might it not be helpful to have attached it as a Schedule to the Bill, as was done in the case of the amended Warsaw Convention which was attached to the Carriage by Air Act 1961? More important, can the Government tell us why there has been all this delay in ratifying the Convention? Of course the noble Lord may reply that he, or his Government, can be held only six-nineteenths responsible, but I hope that he will not fall back on that line of argument.
That said, I should like to put one specific question in this connection to the noble Lord. I think he said that 26 countries have now ratified or now adhere to this Convention. They are headed alphabetically by Algeria. Your Lordships will recall that last summer the Algerian Government impounded a

1161
British aircraft and two British pilots. After a prolonged and humiliating struggle we managed to secure the release of the two pilots. I am afraid I do not know, and I would ask the noble Lord, whether we have yet managed to secure the release of the aircraft. Secondly, I should like to ask him whether our legal rights would have been stronger in attempting to do so had we already been parties to the Geneva Convention; and if we have not yet succeeded, will they be stronger when we become parties to that Convention?
My Lords, I hope that we shall give careful consideration to this Bill in Committee, not least because it is starting in your Lordships' House, and I am glad that it is starting here. But, that said, and with those qualifications, I should from these Beneches like to wish a fair passage to this Bill on Second Reading.
4.12 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his careful and lucid explanation of this Bill and to say that we on these Benches welcome the Bill as giving the proper and appropriate powers to the Board of Trade and to municipal authorities to administer the airports and aerodromes under their control. In particular, I am told that the Association of Municipal Authorities is extremely gratified that now, for the first time, they are to have statutory powers, which they are given, I think, under Clauses 3 and 9, to make appropriate bylaws and to have the power to detain aircraft to secure unpaid charges.
I also should like to refer to Clause 7. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, explained, this provides for help by the Government in the way of grants in aid, loans, for expanding, establishing and maintaining aerodromes and also for making good operators' losses. But, as the noble Lord pointed out, subsection (2) seems to exclude the British Airports Authority. It also stipulates, quite categorically, that it relates to the four airports transferred to the Authority under the 1965 Act. Those four airports are Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick. With the mention of Stansted, although it is a little outside the precise discussion on this Bill, may I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government one question of which I have
1162
given him previous notice? As I understand it, yesterday, in reply to a Question in another place, the Government said that their choice was the development of Stansted. The question I should like to ask is whether, in view of the immense divergence of opinion, professional and otherwise, which has been publicly expressed, this choice is irrevocable, or will there be an opportunity for reconsideration in the light of further debate and hearing?
I should like now to return to Clause 7. It would be useful to look at paragraph 37 of the recent White Paper Nationalised Industries: A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives, which says categorically:
"Where there are significant social or wider economic costs and benefits which ought to be taken into account"
and which mean that the nationalised industry
"has to act against its own commercial interests"
a special payment will be made to the industry, or an appropriate adjustment made to its financial target. It looks to me as though Clause 7(2) is in conflict with what is said in the White Paper on the subject. When we come to the Committee stage we may find that this clause has to be amended. If it is not to be amended and the development of Stansted is to go on, involving the realignment of the runways which, I am told credibly, is to cost something like £10 million (and there will be greater expenses in developing this airport to the proper standards as an international airport and the third London airport) and if the whole of this huge cost is saddled on the British Airports Authority, which cannot ask for help because it would receive a statutory refusal, there is little hope that the Authority could be even in sight of viability in the next several years.
My Lords, there is only one other small question which I should like to ask, and it concerns Clause 9(4). This deals with the detention of aircraft and stores and documents on the aircraft. Can this be construed to cover baggage, freight and mails? If so, I foresee that a great many difficulties may be involved. Perhaps it would be wise to try to be more specific in this clause. Having said that, my

1163
Lords, I would end by repeating that we on these Benches welcome the Bill.
4.18 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, may I trouble your Lordships with a very few observations on the clauses in the Bill in which I have a particular interest, namely, Clauses 11, 12 and 13? I would say at once how grateful I am for the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and their references to the work of the United Kingdom delegation at the Geneva Conference, of which I was a member. As your Lordships will see from the Bill in Clause 12(1), and indeed as the noble Lord told us, this matter has a rather long history. It goes back to 1948 when at Geneva the United Kingdom delegation made great efforts to procure a Convention in a form which would be acceptable to interests in this country and would fit in with our law. We succeeded, at any rate to the extent of being authorised by the Government of the day to sign the Convention on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Unfortunately the then Government did not decide to ratify it, and their successors, instead of ratifying it, decided to set up a Committee to investigate the adaptations necessary before the Convention could be brought into force. That Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice McNair, which worked in the early 1950s, put in some two years of very hard work on this Convention with a view to bringing it into English law; and with the assistance of distinguished Parliamentary counsel, Sir John Rowlatt, who was a member of it, actually drew up a draft Bill containing all the necessary clauses to put the Convention into effect and to make the necessary changes in our law. However, it was decided not to bring the Bill in, and there it is reposing in some pigeon-hole. Now, some ten years or so afterwards, we are presented with Clauses 11, 12 and 13. For my part, I am grateful that the present Government have at least decided to take action to bring this Convention into operation. I realise that with the passage of time the original Bill probably will not do because of the amount of water which has flowed under the bridge, particularly by the introduction of Euro
1164
control, and that certain changes are necessary, so probably the technique of legislating by Order in Council is the right way to do it now.
But if I may, I would urge the Government, though I am sure I am pushing at a partly open door, to proceed vigorously this time with the necessary instruments so that this Convention can really come into force. It is a matter of considerable practical importance to a number of interests. First, there is the interest of the constructors of aircraft. The Bill enables finance to be provided for foreign firms to buy not only single aircraft, but fleets of aircraft and the spare parts of aircraft, all of which are covered by this Convention, the cost of which runs into many millions of pounds, and which could not be financed without some security arrangement. The constructors have for a long time asked that something of this kind should be provided.
Secondly, our own private airlines are interested in having some means by which they can finance modern fleets which can compete with other airlines. I know that they have asked for a long time for these financing and security arrangements to be made available. Thirdly, the Convention is of interest to bankers and merchant houses who are able and willing to lend money to foreign airlines on the security of their aircraft provided the security system is right. Here is a further source of invisible exports, which I am sure would be greatly helped forward by the enactment and adoption of this Convention.
The noble Lord used one word in announcing the Government's intention which gave me a little disquiet. He said that the necessary Orders in Council would be proceeded with after "consultation". I know that nowadays there is consultation and consultation, but assuming that this is to be genuine consultation, as I am sure the noble Lord meant, I can only hope that it will not be too prolonged consultation, because for a long time a great many of the interests have made their attitudes known. These were carefully investigated by the McNair Committee. No doubt there have been changes and developments since then, but I do not think that a lengthy process of re-examination is necessary. In a friendly way, I would urge the noble

1165
Lord and the Government to see whether they cannot this time improve on the record of the five preceding Governments and really get this Convention and the necessary legislation going.
There is one other point I would make on the Bill. It introduces a number of amendments of a detailed kind to the Civil Aviation Act 1949 and to its numerous Schedules, and provides for the issue of a number of regulations and other forms of subsidiary legislation. The legislation on civil aviation, like legislation on other subjects, unfortunately, is rapidly becoming a jungle, and I would ask the noble Lord to consider with his department whether it would not be possible to proceed to a consolidation of this legislation, which I suggest should not be limited merely to the Acts in question—the 1949 Act, including its various amendments, and this Act—but should also incorporate up-to-date regulations. A great many people—owners of aircraft, pilots, and those in the aircraft industry—have to look at civil aviation legislation, and there is a great demand for up-to-date and easily accessible copies of this legislation. I wonder whether the Government could set a precedent by getting out not only a co-ordinated Act, but also a single volume through the Stationery Office, which would contain in a convenient form the subsidiary and delegated legislation as well. At present people have to look up Statutory Instruments, then find the amendments and check subsequent amendments, which all takes a long time, even with the help of lawyers. Perhaps the noble Lord, if not now, then at a later date, may be able to improve our methods of legislation by helping in this way. Otherwise, I am very glad to support the Bill.
4.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earls, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Amherst, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for the general support they have given to this Bill. I understand the need of the noble Earl to be critical in general, because I do not feel that there is much in this particular measure about which he can be critical. I am grateful to the noble Earls, too, for having given me some indication of the points they proposed to put, and I hope that in consequence I can answer some of them, though in
1166
other cases, even with longer notice, I could not have been able to give satisfactory answers.
I am all in favour of clarity in aviation policy, and to this extent I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. But I am sorry that he called the Bill a "ragbag". There is some very good cloth in this bag, and some of it could have been woven by Administrations before the present one. But I do not propose to go into all that. In regard to airport policy, I should have thought that the noble Earl would be the first to applaud the fact that we brought in legislation to set up the Airport Authority. It was the first Bill which I introduced in your Lordships' House, and I have a fond recollection of it. I thought that it was improved in your Lordships' House and went out from here a satisfactory measure. It made some progress in airport policy.
In the field of air transport policy, I thought that the noble Earl might have made, at any rate, a passing reference to the Edwards Committee and its remit, which I think has had general welcome throughout the aviation world.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it was merely time consideration which prevented me making a reference to the Edwards Committee, and purely that. But since he has raised the point, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is his understanding that their writ will cover net only the question of licensing, but also the siting of airports, which is closely linked to it, at least in my mind.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should not like to answer "off the cuff", but my understanding is that it does not cover that. I agree that there is a need for clarity and reconsideration in our air transport policy, and I think the establishment of the Edwards Committee was a step in the right direction.
The noble Earl asked me about Clause 7(2), in relation to the financing of the Airport Authority. When we considered the Bill in your Lordships' House, it was stated strongly on both sides that it was undesirable for the Authority to be too closely under the control of the central Government. Under the terms of the Act, the four airports concerned are given certain borrowing powers, within the scope of which they

1167
will be able to make their own decisions, subject of course to approval by the Board of Trade so far as capital expenditure is concerned. I thought that that was satisfactory. But I take the point made by the noble Earl, about any extension of ownership of airports by the airport authority, and I should have thought that this was covered by the Bill. The fact is that if the Authority wish to acquire new airports, those airports are not excluded by the terms of the Bill. The noble Earl asked me about Clause 9 and the choice of 21 days as the period—
EARL AMHERST: Before the noble Lord continues, may I ask him whether the development of Stansted will be classified as a new airport or not?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was proposing to refer to the noble Earl's contribution later on. The fact is that Stansted is one of four airports which the Aviation Authority took over. To that extent it is excluded by the provisions of this Bill. I will take the opportunity now to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst. I am sorry, but I cannot give him any satisfaction about Stansted. I am prepared on another occasion to debate the merits of the decision. The fact is that, as the Lord President said in another place, the Order will be laid, and the only question now under consideration is that of the alignment of the runways. But when that is decided an Order will be brought before the House, and at that time, if not before, there will be an opportunity to discuss the Order relating to Stansted.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked me about the choice of 21 days as the period after which a defaulting aircraft may be sold. I agree with him that it seems a somewhat short time, and he may feel that the period is an arbitrary one. The only precedent in legislation is, I understand, the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, which states a period of seven days. That, it was agreed, was too short, and the period was made 21 days. If the noble Earl, on reflection, still thinks that it is too short a period, I shall be happy to consider it further on the Committee stage.
Then the noble Earl asked me about Clause 12 and the relevance of this to the
1168
unfortunate affair of the HS.125, which is, I understand, still in Algeria. The Geneva Convention on the Rights in Aircraft 1948 imposes an obligation on contracting States to recognise various rights in aircraft, including mortgages and rights of property, if those rights are recorded in the register maintained by the State of registry. Assuming that the United Kingdom and Algeria were both parties to the Convention, and that the British owner's property rights had been registered in this country, the Convention would nevertheless not be relevant to the present situation. This is because neither the Algerian authorities nor anyone else is apparently contesting the British firm's ownership; nor, indeed, any other rights which may exist over the aircraft for the benefit of British third parties.
The Algerian authorities, in fact, are only detaining the aircraft, without contesting any such rights, for which detention, so far as I know, they have given no reason at all. The detention is clearly not justifiable under International Law. The answer to the noble Earl, therefore, is that had this Convention been ratified before there would have been no difference in the situation. It is now a matter for representation from this country to try to prevail upon the Algerian authorities to recognise existing law, and it is hoped that as a result of the representations which have been made the aircraft will be released, and released within a short time.
I was particularly grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said about the clauses relating to the Geneva Convention. I am not sure whether I can call on him to help to explain the delay that has taken place in the ratification. One of the excuses which has been put forward in the past, I understand, is that the measure would have been so long that it would have required a large slice of Parliamentary time. The present procedure has the merit of not encroaching on Parliamentary time to the same extent. We have not yet gone the whole way. There is still the question of consultation, as the noble Lord mentioned, before Orders are actually laid. I take his point about the danger of consultation. I well remember an occasion in New York in 1946, when the late Mr. La Guardia was calling on the United Nations General Assembly to

1169
carry out a certain resolution in relation to the condition of people in the war distressed areas of Europe. Mr. La Guardia said in a speech which I think was the best speech that I have heard:
"There are as many ways of killing a resolution as of killing a cat. One is by referring it to a committee; another is by having consultations."
I can only say that I will see that the point which the noble Lord has made, about the necessity for urgent action, is brought to the notice of those concerned.
I was asked a detailed question by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as to why the Convention is not attached as a Schedule to the Bill. The fact is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, that it is now out of date in many respects; it would not be helpful, and it might even be misleading, and I do not think that in the present context such a Schedule would be called for.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, if equipment in the stores in Clause 9(4) is covered by the powers which it is proposed to obtain. The answer is that baggage, cargo and mail would not be covered.
I think that this covers all the questions I was asked, with the exception of one about consolidation. I should have thought that in the matter of consolidation the record of the present Government would bear comparison with that of any previous Administrations. But I can well understand that there is a need, so far as aviation law is concerned, and what the noble Earl has said will, I am sure, be considered by those responsible. With those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will now give a Second Reading to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
4.38 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, as I am confident that its provisions will commend themselves to all Members of this House. I should like to say at the outset that the various local authority and teachers' associations were consulted about the objects of the Bill and have expressed agreement with its intentions. The measure is, therefore, one which I hope will secure the support not only of all political Parties but also of all those who are directly concerned with the conduct and development of the establishments of education affected by it.
This Bill is concerned with the governing bodies of certain educational establishments maintained and at present administered by local education authorities. These are colleges of education, certain establishments of further education and special schools. I shall have a word to say shortly in more detail about these institutions. The Bill is not concerned with voluntary institutions of education.
The purpose of the Bill, in brief, is to provide the establishments with substantial responsibility for their academic task and increased freedom in the performance of it. Before I describe the way in which it is proposed to do this, it will be helpful, I think, to outline the developments which led to the decision to introduce this legislation. Members of the House will no doubt recall the statement in December, 1964, in another place by the then Secretary of State for Education and Science on the recommendations of the Robbins Committee on Higher Education in relation to the teacher-training colleges—as the colleges of education were then called. Among other changes, that Committee had recommended that the colleges should be given independent governing bodies and should be federated in schools of education of the universities. My right honourable friend said that the Government welcomed closer academic relationships between the universities and the colleges, but that they had concluded that, for the present, the colleges should continue to be administered by the existing maintaining bodies under the present

1171
system of overall supervision. They intended, however, to secure that the present arrangements for the internal government of colleges should be reviewed forthwith, in the light of the Robbins Committee's recommendations on this subject, by all those concerned. To this end the Study Group on the Government of Colleges of Education was established in 1965, and its Report was published in February, 1966.
The membership of this Group was drawn from the bodies representing the local education authorities, the voluntary bodies and the teaching staff of the colleges and universities, and it was under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. T. R. Weaver, by whose name the Report is often known. The Study Group concluded that if the further measure of freedom desired for the maintained colleges was to be secured for them it was essential that their governing bodies should be constituted otherwise than as sub-committees of the education committee, as almost all of them now are. To enable these governing bodies to become autonomous legislation would be required. The Study Group recommended that such legislation should be introduced. The subsequent consultation, to which I have already referred, established agreement to this recommendation. It was further decided that the same principles were equally applicable to the main body of further education establishments. It was also felt right that the opportunity should be taken in the same Bill to provide for the government of special schools, which are not covered by the provisions of earlier Education Acts relating to the government and management of schools generally.
Now for a word in more detail about the three categories of institution concerned. There are at present 112 maintained colleges of education, of which 94 are general colleges and the rest specialist colleges of one form or another. Currently they contain some 65,000 teachers in training and this number is likely to grow. The colleges vary in size from a small specialist college of 120 students to a large general college of nearly 1,300 students. The average size is now some 550 students—a very marked difference from the position less than a decade ago—so that these colleges are now sizeable institutions. The development of the
1172
arrangements for the Bachelor of Education degree enhances their status and it is fitting that institutions of this kind should have greater autonomy in the conduct of their affairs.
The establishments of further education covered by the Bill number over 600 and consist mainly of technical colleges, colleges of art and agricultural colleges. They will include most of the 30 polytechnics to be designated in accordance with last year's White Paper, A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges, the first of which are expected to come into operation in the autumn of 1968; a few of the polytechnics will be voluntary establishments, and thus fall outside the scope of the Bill. These 600 or so institutions differ very widely in size and in the range and nature of the subjects covered, but all provide some full-time education. The Bill is expressly limited to institutions providing full-time education. It thus excludes evening institutes and small establishments without any full-time courses, of which there are a considerable number and for which it is thought inappropriate to impose a statutory requirement that they shall be conducted in accordance with instruments and articles of government. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local education authorities from making or continuing their own governmental arrangements for such establishments.
The special schools are defined in the Education Act 1944 as schools which are specially organised to provide special educational treatment for pupils suffering from any disability of mind or body. In January, 1966, there were 780 maintained special schools, with 67,000 pupils. The 1944 Act provided for the constitution of managers and governors for county schools, both primary and secondary, but the relevant provisions did not apply to maintained special schools, for which local authorities can only appoint bodies of managers as subcommittees of the education committee. But special schools have particular functions to fulfil. Many of them are boarding schools located at some distance from the centre of local government. Hence it is appropriate that they should be managed by a board of governors devoted to the particular school.
I turn now to the specific provisions in the Bill. These are, first, that for

1173
each of the institutions to which I have referred there shall be a body of governors, the constitution of which is to be laid down in an instrument of government to be made by the order of the local education authority concerned; secondly, that every such institution shall be conducted in accordance with articles of government made by order of the local education authority, and that for colleges of education and the establishments of further education involved these articles shall be made with the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The instrument of government will lay down that each body of governors shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the authority may determine. These instruments will not be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, but it is his hope—and I believe it is the intention of the maintaining authorities concerned—that the governing bodies will be broadly based and fully appropriate for the responsible nature of the institutions concerned. This means that, for the colleges of education, the composition of the governing body, in the spirit of the Study Group's recommendations, should comprise, in addition to representatives of the maintaining authority, representatives of neighbouring authorities, of the university most closely associated with the college and of the staff of the college, together with practising teachers and other persons with a special contribution to make to the work of the college. Similar considerations apply to the establishments of further education which need strong and broadly based governing bodies with substantial representation of industry, commerce and the professions.
The articles of government of colleges of education are already subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the provisions of the Training of Teachers Regulations 1967. The Bill thus introduces no new requirement, but the existing articles of individual colleges will need to be revised if the colleges are to be given sufficient responsibility for their academic task and freedom to perform it. This revision is now in process in the light of general guidance which has been given to the authorities. I should like to
1174
assure the Members of this House that it is not the intention of the Secretary of State to insist on a uniform pattern. There are, nevertheless, certain essential features that he will require these articles to contain. These are that the articles should clearly define the respective functions of the local education authority, the governing body, the academic board and the principal; that there should be appropriate arrangements for the establishment of teaching and non-teaching staff and for their appointment, suspension and dismissal; that there should be specified procedures for the preparation and submission of estimates of expenditure, with suitable delegation of financial responsibility; that the responsibilities for premises and equipment should be defined; and that there should be satisfactory arrangements for the admission, suspension and dismissal of students and for student associations.
Similar considerations will be relevant in regard to the articles of establishments of further education generally, but these establishments vary so greatly in character that there can be no question of any kind of standard pattern for all of them. In the case of the polytechnics, guidance was given to the local education authorities concerned last April (in the Department's Administrative Memorandum No. 8/67), and it was made clear that a liberal form of government would be a condition of designation. As regards other establishments of further education, it is the intention to isssue guidance to authorities after consultation with the national representative bodies.
Before I close, there is one consequence of the Bill to which I must refer. Almost all the governing bodies of the colleges and special schools affected by this Bill are constituted as sub-committees of the education committees of the maintaining authorities. Where this is the case the members of the governing bodies may claim allowances in respect of travelling, subsistence and financial loss under the Local Government Act 1948. The intention of the Bill, as I have already said, is to take the governing bodies out of the local authority committee structure. An indirect effect will, therefore, be to remove from the members of those bodies their present statutory rights to allowances. We think that it is right that allowances

1175
should continue to be paid, and that the simplest way to enable this to be done would be for the governing bodies to be prescribed by regulation under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1948. I am able to tell the House that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be prepared to make the necessary regulations in due course.
This Bill provides the framework within which these important institutions of education can develop more fully. Some of the changes envisaged are far-reaching in character, and some may take time to be put fully into effect, but I am sure that all Members of this House will join me in hoping that the liberal attitudes which have inspired the proposals will be reflected in the spirit in which the changes are operated. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for explaining the Bill to us concisely and clearly. I say straight away that we welcome the Bill, which is something for which my right honourable friend Sir Edward Boyle has been pressing since early 1965. The noble Baroness reminded us of the history lying behind the Bill—the Robbins Report recommendation that colleges of education should be linked to universities, which was not accepted by the Government; and at the same time as they announced that they were not accepting it they also announced that a review would be undertaken of the internal government of these colleges.
We on these Benches fully agreed with those decisions, but it is essential that they should be taken together. If the colleges of education are not to be accorded the closest association with universities, it is of the utmost importance that they should be given the maximum amount of freedom for their own internal self-government. After all, the colleges of education are institutions of higher education. They are now running four-year degree courses in accordance with the Robbins recommendations, and they are in every sense national colleges. They draw their students from all over the country and their students take posts all over the country when they are qualified. Indeed,
1176
they are financed nationally by all local authorities in a pool, and not just by the one in whose area they happen to be. It would be appropriate at this moment to pay a sincere tribute to the colleges of education, which have done a great deal to meet a difficult situation with the shortage of teachers, and have put a tremendous effort into a massive expansion of intake, with a correspondingly very small building programme.
The noble Baroness reminded us of the Report of the Weaver Committee which resulted in this Bill. I think this is a model Report. It is short and concise, its recommendations are sound and sensible, and I was delighted to see that one of its members was the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, whom as a fellow Welshman I can recommend to your Lordships as being well respected in the field of education throughout Wales. This Bill puts into effect the recommendations of the Weaver Report, but it goes a long way further and covers the provision of governing bodies also for institutions of further education which provide full-time instruction, and also for special schools.
While we welcome the Bill and have no quarrel with what is in it, we on these Benches are rather worried about what is not in it. Consider, first, the colleges of education. If it is important to allow colleges of education maximum freedom for their own internal self-government, then two recommendations of the Weaver Report are of vital importance. The first was mentioned by the noble Baroness, namely, the constitution of the board of governors. As she rightly said, this should include not only the representatives of the L.E.A., who naturally would be strongly represented on the board, but also university representatives, the principal and representatives of the teaching staff, as well as practising teachers and others with a special concern for teacher training. In the case of voluntary colleges there should also be strong representation from the providing body.
The second recommendation, which the noble Baroness did not mention, is that the senior administrative officer of the college should act as clerk to the governing body. This is a clear recommendation of the Weaver Report and one which we should certainly like to see put into practice. We consider both

1177
these requirements to be vital if there is to be any real independence for the colleges—yet there is nothing in the Bill to require them. The noble Baroness expressed the hope that local education authorities would act correctly in this matter, but we feel there should be some provision in the Bill to ensure that this is so. There is no doubt, as the noble Baroness said, that the Secretary of State clearly accepts their desirability. The circular (No. 2) which was sent round during this year on the government of colleges of education clearly states, in paragraph 8, that
"the instrument of government shall specify the arrangements to be made for the participation of the principal and representatives of the academic staff in the government of the college".
However, under Clause 1(2) of the Bill the L.E.A. alone is responsible for the instrument and the Secretary of State has no power to insist on a properly constituted governing body. In fact, as the Bill stands I can see no power to prevent an L.E.A. from nominating as the governing body the individuals who at present constitute its education committee—or the sub-committee that is at present running the college. The same would apply to the governing bodies of technical colleges, although I am sure that in many cases it is highly desirable that there should, for example, be representatives of industry on those governing bodies. The trouble is that the instrument under the Bill is the concern of the L.E.A. alone and no approval by the Secretary of State is required.
The noble Baroness mentioned that when it came to the polytechnics this point was covered, because in the recommendations for the polytechnics the governing body clearly has to include the director and other members of the academic staff, representatives of industry, commerce and the professions, and representatives of universities and the teaching profession. Why should the colleges of education be treated any worse than the polytechnics? I believe I am also right in saying that in certain cases the universities, in recognising courses for the degree of Bachelor of Education, assumed that there would be proper representation of the academic board on the governing body of the college of education. I should like to know what is to happen if
1178
a particular L.E.A. does not appoint academic representatives to the Board, or, as I have heard suggested, if they were to grant academic representation without voting rights.
In the same circular on the subject of the constitution of polytechnics, the Secretary of State lays it down that the governing body of polytechnics shall appoint its own chief administrative officer who shall act as its clerk. But again there is nothing in the Bill to ensure this for colleges of education or technical colleges. Of course, if the clerkship is included in the articles then the Secretary of State has power to approve them. But what is to stop a local education authority from putting in the instrument that the clerk shall be the authority's chief education officer? It would be against the Weaver Committee's recommendations, and in my view it would severely restrict the independence of the colleges. These are all serious worries and I hope the Government will consider them seriously. If the Bill is to be effective in giving a measure of internal self-government to institutions of higher education, it must ensure proper representation on the governing bodies and an independent clerk.
In my view, the simplest way to achieve this would be to make the instrument of government subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and I should be interested to know whether the Government would consider an Amendment to that effect. For the rest, we shall have to depend on the Secretary of State's wisdom in approving the articles. I was happy to hear that they would not be standard articles; that there would be a certain amount of scope for different articles of government in different cases, but that the Secretary of State was going to insist on certain general principles, one of which in particular I was pleased to hear, namely, that clear financial responsibility should be given to the governing bodies, because no internal self-government is possible unless there is some degree of financial discretion. The other recommendation in the articles which I should hope would be insisted upon, in the case of colleges of education, at any rate, would be that there should be an academic board. I hope that would be included in the articles. Again, it was one of the recommendations of the Weaver Report. With the feeling that

1179
we should like to see these extra provisions put into this Bill, we welcome it warmly.
5.0 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised an extremely interesting point which I am bound to say had not struck me before, and which I think goes to the root of what I want to say about the Bill. He suggested that there may be a weakness in the fact that the constitution of these boards, that is, the people on them, will be chosen by the local education authorities alone, and that what they do will be decided by the L.E.A.s together with the Secretary of State. This may point to a weakness in the Bill which should be put right. I think he may well be right. I do not know how far this is in line with what the Weaver Report said.
What one feels very much about this Bill is that one welcomes it to the extent that it will implement what the Weaver Report suggested. The Bill says very little, but what the noble Baroness said in explaining it went a long way towards answering the various points I had in mind. In general I welcome this Bill very much so far as I can see what it does. The noble Baroness covered this point, and in commenting upon it afterwards the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, completed the picture, and I feel very happy about the Bill as a whole. But I am interested in the point the noble Lord raised, and I am wondering what the noble Baroness will say about it.
The Bill stands or falls on what the local education authorities do in regard to choosing their governors and deciding what they shall do. Weaver points out that in the past there have been extraordinary divergencies over the whole country as to what is done by the different local authorities; some have had governors, some not. I think Weaver would like uniformity, and would like the governors to have a good deal more status or, at any rate, a different status from what they have had. In a way, under the old system the governors had powers far greater than I imagine they may be given under the new Bill, because their powers ranged from overseeing finance from top to bottom to virtually choosing the curriculum.
1180
These very wide powers they had made it appear so attractive to politicians that they in fact got themselves elected to these governorships when it should have been other people, people concerned in social and educational affairs. The wrong people got on to the boards. I can say this perfectly well, because I have been one myself. My experience as a governor of a college was that the board of governors were completely useless. They were no use to the staff whatever. When the staff wanted help the governors were unable to give it. At best they were useless, at worst mischievous. After I had been on the board for two or three years, I felt, "I am no use to the staff; I am wasting my time". I am sure a great many other noble Lords who have been governors will have felt the same thing.
That being so, two things obviously emerge: first, that the governors should be the right people, not just politicians appointed because the power seems to be so attractive that the only people who should wield it are politicians; and, secondly, that the powers should be very much more closely defined. I do not know what those powers should be. They are laid down already to some extent in existing articles, and the noble Baroness has told us that these articles will be revised. Nevertheless, there is immense scope for making the wrong choice, and the best one can say about this Bill, which follows the Weaver Report, is that local education authorities will now be aware how easy it is to make the wrong choice. The same applies to the wrong choice in choosing not only the governors, but what the governors shall do. The noble Baroness pointed out that of course they will vary from place to place, and that is perfectly all right. This is not the same thing as Weaver was complaining about, that there was no uniformity over the country. This is a variation within uniformity, which I am sure is exactly right. I know, as the noble Baroness recognised, that it will take some time to get this going and, having got it going, for it to be effective. This is only too true. The noble Baroness said that it is a step in the right direction, and I warmly welcome the Bill.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like first of all to express my

1181
appreciation for the welcome given to the Bill by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Henley. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, paid tribute to the work of the colleges of education. I was in one quite recently where they were undoubtedly working under extraordinarily difficult conditions and making no complaints but really pulling their weight in the national effort. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was a little hard on himself. I cannot feel that he would be a useless member of any body to which he was appointed. But I take his point, and indeed governors should always be the right people for the task. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned Lord Heycock. We had hoped the noble Lord might speak to-day but unfortunately he has been unable to do so. I believe, however, that he will be giving us the benefit of his very great knowledge of education a little later when we have another debate on this subject.
I should like to assure both noble Lords that my right honourable friend has considered the points they have made in relation to the instruments of government. My right honourable friend does not think it would be appropriate for him to require his formal approval to the instruments of government, but in examining the articles of government which do require his approval, he will naturally have to take into account how they are likely to be affected by the composition of the governing body the authority has in mind, and by their proposals for servicing the governing body. I hope noble Lords will accept that this will be sufficient protection for the point they have both made so strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to Circular 2/67 which asked local education authorities to report to the Secretary of State at the end of June the action they have taken to reconstitute the governing bodies in the light of the recommendations. Examination of the articles is showing that they follow closely the model outlined in the Report, and the governing bodies will include representatives of the universities, staffs of the colleges, practising teachers and other persons with special contributions to make. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to properly constituted academic boards and these are the objective of the
1182
articles of government suggested by the Secretary of State. They do not seek to impose a uniform pattern, but will, of course, be subject to his approval.
I hope therefore that both noble Lords will accept that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the points they have made and that the full explanation I have given in the introduction will enable them to see that these points are being very well watched.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the British Standard Time Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will not perhaps recall reading a letter in the Spectator of October 12, 1907, written by a Dr. Philpots, a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. It read:
"Sir,—However much Mr. Willett's ideas respecting 'the waste of daylight' may form an attractive target for humorous critics, they would, were they carried out, be a great public benefit. Although I cannot follow him as regards the periodical alteration of clocks, I would suggest that the most practical method of dealing with this matter would be for all Western Europe to adopt what is known as middle Europe time'. This would result in giving that part of the world one hour's more daylight during a substantial part of the year and introduce a uniformity of time which would have numerous advantages, international and other. I think that to adopt literally Mr. Willett's suggestions and introduce spasmodic changes of time would be fatal to his ideas, excellent as they are in spirit".
Dr. Philpots went on to say:
"May I be bold enough to assert that the suggestion I have made commends itself to the intelligence of anyone who will give it the best consideration of an unprejudiced mind?"
My Lords, the "Middle Europe time" he referred to is, of course, synonymous with the present Central European time which, under another name, the present Bill proposes to bring into force in the United Kingdom. The annals of the Spectator do not tell us what reception Dr. Philpots's letter received, but it has taken us some sixty years to adopt his idea. I am persuaded that it is a good one and will commend itself to your

1183
Lordships. You will recollect that my noble friend Lord Raglan spoke on this matter in this House on June 19 last and, in giving a clear exposition of the history of summer time, mentioned that it was William Willett who first put forward the idea that the clock should be advanced one hour in the summer months. He also told us of the sorry fate of successive Daylight Saving Bills which, except for one year, were promoted annually from 1908 to 1914. Indeed, it was not until the middle of the Great War, in 1916, that legislation was eventually passed—and then as a measure for the saving of fuel. The new time that followed the change was designated Summer Time," and so it has remained.
Since then, the actual period of Summer Time has varied, to a greater or lesser degree. But it has persisted for 51 years, and Greenwich Mean Time has not operated throughout a whole year for over half a century. Indeed, in the last war Greenwich Mean Time did not operate internally at all, because in 1940 Summer Time was extended throughout the year, and even a period of "Double Summer Time" was introduced in 1941. These arrangements lapsed when peace returned. During the serious fuel crisis in 1947, however, an Act was passed to enable the period of Summer Time to be varied for any year by Order in Council, and the period which ended on October 29 last was governed by such an Order. Your Lordships will remember that during the last Session we had an interesting, and I think profitable, debate on the Summer Time Order 1967, the object of which is to cover the interval next year before the proposals in this Bill come into effect. Under that Order Summer Time starts on February 18, 1968, some four or five weeks earlier than it has done previously. One of the objects of this earlier start of Summer Time was, as I then explained to your Lordships, to accustom people to the permanent change we are now considering.
So much for the transitional period and the precedents. It might at this stage, however, be helpful if I sketched in the events since 1960 leading up to this present Bill. In that year a questionnaire about Summer Time was sent to some 180 organisations, representing
1184
a very wide variety of interests. The answers showed that there was an almost even division of opinion between those who wanted the equivalent of Summer Time throughout the year and those who did not. As the "antis", however, included some important special interests, it was decided—partly as an experiment and partly to test public reaction—to extend the period of Summer Time so as to cover the whole of the period from the end of March to the end of October; that is, some seven months. This arrangement has operated for the last seven years.
In recent years there has been increased pressure for continuous Summer Time. Further consultations were, therefore, undertaken last winter to obtain up-to-date views. These covered both the economic and social aspects of a change. More than 80 organisations, representing all walks of life, including both sides of industry and agriculture, teachers, local authorities, social workers, organisations connected with sport, and many others, including 22 different organisations solely related to Scotland, were consulted. It is in the light of these consultations that this measure has been introduced.
My Lords, it is not true that the Government's decision to adopt permanent Summer Time has been dictated by what might be termed Common Market considerations. It is of course true that the change now contemplated will benefit our commercial transactions with the Continent of Europe. We calculate indeed that the gain in business contact hours by telephone or Telex will be of the order of some 20 per cent.; and that will be a considerable advantage, whether this country is within the Common Market or not. But this is only one factor in the equation, to which due weight has been given, but no more.
If we consider the whole of the economic field—including effects on productivity and the consumption of fuel and power no less than communications and transport—the general conclusion that emerges is that the advantages and disadvantages of the change will be pretty evenly balanced. We would not dispute, for instance, that it will cause some difficulties to the outdoor industries of agriculture and construction, though less than has often been supposed. There is a

1185
tendency, we believe, to underestimate what can be done through changes in working hours; and it is significant that the National Union of Agricultural Workers, for one, approve what we are doing, and that the opposition of the National Farmers' Union is notably less than it was in 1960. On the other side, there will be solid benefits for transport, both international and domestic. The change will help the ports, the railways, airline operators and, we believe, road haulage. The effect on the fuel industry will be largely neutral, with the important exception of electricity generation. Here the effect will be to shift much of the peak load from the late afternoon to the morning. Some years ago this would have given rise to problems, but we are advised that, with the increase of generating capacity, by the winter of next year it should no longer do so.
Had the economic considerations been all, the Government might have hesitated to take the step which I now recommend. But if we turn to the social considerations a much sharper picture emerges. Here, too, there have been misconceptions. It seems to be quite commonly believed, for instance, that the change will increase the danger of road accidents. Our information is quite to the contrary, because it should lead to a higher proportion of travel falling within the daylight hours. All the principal teachers' organisations in England and Wales support the change, because they think it preferable that children should come to school in the dark rather than return home in the dark. It has incontestable advantages for outdoor sport, entertainment and leisure-time activities in general; and certainly in England and Wales it has clear majority support among every section of opinion whom we consulted on the social implications, whether for the young, the working population, or the aged. The Trades Union Congress were strongly in favour of it—
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is leaving the education authorities, which he has mentioned in England and Wales, can he say what the view was in Scotland?
LORD STONHAM: The view in Scotland was varied: it was not unanimously in favour. We consulted 22 different organisations solely related to Scotland
1186
and their view was not unanimous. The Scottish Trades Union Congress, for example, were in favour. The Trades Union Congress here were strongly in favour of it, as was the Confederation of British Industry. And even in Scotland, where, as is understandable, opinion was a great deal more divided than South of the Border, we were surprised at the considerable degree of support to be found. The local and education authorities in Scotland were generally opposed, though not all of them were; and, as I have just mentioned, the Scottish Trades Union Congress were as much in favour as their English colleagues.
This is not, my Lords, an issue that easily lends itself to scientific or cost analysis. It affects every one of us as individuals in our domestic habits no less than in our working lives. The most impressive feature of our most recent inquiry was the movement of opinion which it showed. While in 1960 the balance of representative opinion was even, it has now tipped most decidedly in favour of change. It is for this reason that the Government believe that this measure will not only be to the advantage of the country, but is what the community as a whole both want and expect. May I add that, as a side advantage, it will bring to an end the bi-annual crop of complaints, particularly from parents with young children, from farmers about the difficulties of educating their cows as to the right time to let down their milk, from compilers of timetables and diaries, and, more recently, from the owners of heating appliances controlled by time switches.
I now turn to the question of the name for the new system, which, so far as I am able to judge, is the only real controversy outstanding. Your Lordships will remember that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary undertook in another place to consider any suggestions as to what this permanent Summer Time should be called. More than a hundred different names were received from many sources, including Members of Parliament, the public and the Press. Two newspapers ran readers' competitions, and one of them chose "British standard time" which was easily the most popular choice among the letters received, and this was the title chosen by my right honourable friend, after careful consideration of all the alternatives. It appears

1187
to be a general wish that the word "British" should appear in the title, and "standard", I think your Lordships will agree, indicates clearly and concisely the object of the measure, which is to prescribe the time for general purposes. There is also the advantage that the initials B.S.T. retain those of the now familiar British Summer Time.
I myself was struck by the fact that in regard to the many suggestions made, some of those which appear to be sensible when one first looks at them become perhaps unacceptable when one examines them, particularly in an abbreviated or initial form. For example, "Western European time"—W.E.T.—might be regarded as a most unfair description of the British climate or "British European Time "—B.E.T.—might be taken as describing one of our growing national weaknesses. There are many others one can think of in that way.
There has been a suggestion that in making our choice we are detracting somewhat from the unique world-wide status of Greenwich Mean Time and sowing confusion between that time system and this. My Lords, I do not believe it; any more than I believe it caused confusion to me when on television I heard the Americans refer to sending rockets to the moon by "Eastern Standard Time", which was something seen and heard all over the world. However, I shall be very ready to argue this matter in Committee. Meanwhile, your Lordships will observe the special emphasis given in the Bill to the preservation of Greenwich Mean Time in the field of astronomy, meteorology and navigation.
It is customary, in introducing a measure in your Lordships' House, to conclude with a brief explanation of its provisions. But this is one of those, unhappily, rare cases in which the measure itself is so short and direct that no explanation is really called for. I can assure your Lordships that there are no hidden snares in the drafting, and that what Clauses 2 and 3 provide in respect of Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man gives effect to the wishes of the authorities of those territories. Quite simply the measure is applied to them, but since the subject is within their domestic jurisdiction they are at the same time empowered to replace
1188
it by enactments of their own. And it is largely to allow time for this that, under Clause 4, the date of operation has been deferred to the last possible time, October 27, 1968, when it will coincide—all but for two hours—with the expiry of the Summer Time Order 1967. Our understanding is that none of the territories which I have mentioned will wish to depart in any way from the practice in Great Britain, although certain of them may wish to enshrine that practice in their own laws.
It remains for me only to commend the Bill to the House. I do so with confidence in the belief that industry and the public in this country will quite readily adapt themselves to the change, and that, while there may be—indeed, I think there are—those who, for business or personal reasons, would quite reasonably prefer that it should not have been made, I am firmly convinced that all the evidence goes to prove that the great majority of the country will endorse it and enjoy—even at the cost of getting up rather earlier than usual on dark and cold winter mornings—the many and great advantages that this measure will bring.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
5.30 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think we shall all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the clarity and conciseness of his explanation of this Bill. With studied courtesy he suggested that not every one of your Lordships might recollect the letter of Dr. Philpots in October, 1907, conveying, at any rate to my mind, that that was one of the things which he noted when in the nursery, with a remarkable prescience that 60 years later he might be the Minister of State at the Home Office and presenting this important Bill to Parliament.
My only regret about his speech was that he did not suggest at all that the Government were approaching this change in an experimental frame of mind. I should have thought that was necessary, because nobody can tell for certain how popular or unpopular this is going to be. Each winter we are going to have novel arrangements which we have not experienced except under the artificial conditions of war time, and it really is

1189
impossible to foresee what the actual reaction will be in various sections of the community, or indeed in various parts of the country. Of course, I fully realise that, even as an experiment, such a change could not be tried without legislation. It is necessary to alter the law if we are to see what it is like in winter to have the sky an hour darker in the morning and an hour lighter in the evening.
There is an extremely interesting map, which I expect a number of your Lordships will have studied, in The Times this morning showing what the time of sunrise will be in different parts of the British Isles at the darkest period of the year, should this Bill become law. The one thing which one can read off that map straight away is that the general feeling in, shall I say, the North of Scotland is likely to be somewhat different, at any rate, front the general reaction to these new arrangements in the South-East of England, which the sun reaches first. I shall not be surprised if noble Lords wish to question the Government further about the views expressed not only from Scotland, but also from Wales—because the day starts later in Wales as well—about the probable implications of this change for the people themselves.
Let me say at once that I personally welcome the idea of making this experiment. I favour it as an experiment worth trying, but I certainly would not seek to support it as about to become a "law of the Medes and Persians" which could never be changed, if, indeed, the popular reaction in different parts of the country after practical experience was adverse. I have a special interest in the matter, because I was the Minister responsible from 1962 to 1964. Whereas up till 1964 the periods of Summer Time were fixed by Order annually for a year ahead, I initiated what I think was an improvement: that of fixing them for three years ahead, which appeared to me to be more satisfactory from the point of view of diary publishers and many other people. I think that this change was generally welcomed, and that Order which I brought forward in 1964 in fact gave the country one more week of Summer Time than had been the case in the previous few years.
1190
Of course, I was informed of the 1960 inquiries by the Home Office, but in 1964 I should certainly have thought it premature to try all-the-year-round Summer Time, even as an experiment. It was quite clear to me that there still were objections, though I was also aware that they were less loudly voiced, even at that time, than they had been perhaps ten years earlier. Frankly, I had in mind in 1964 that in three years' time—that is, in I967—a successor of mine would probably order fresh inquiries. That, I understand, is just what has happened, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given your Lordships some of the results of those inquiries. It certainly had become apparent to me that the objections previously so strongly voiced by the farming community had lessened materially, at any rate in England and Wales.
I should like to have rather more assurance from the Government that the electricity supply authorities are confident that they can meet the need. On that account alone I should not have dared in 1964 to propose all-the-year-round Summer Time, because there certainly was not then sufficient margin of generating capacity to ensure that the additional load which one would get in the dark hours of the morning could be met. It is not simply that more light will be required, but also that the early morning hours are cold, and therefore the heating load, on top of the lighting load, will be very heavy. It would be a disaster for the whole cause which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has at heart if one of the first things to happen were load-shedding in the early hours of the day during the winter of 1968 because the electricity supply industry had misjudged demand in relation to the available supply. I think that this is perhaps one of the most important material points on which Parliament should be fully satisfied.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about traffic and road safety, and that aspect also needs to be examined somewhat further in our debates with reference to the accident-proneness of drivers in the cold early hours, when, clearly, there will be more traffic on the road than if we continued with our present arrangements for the winter. Very naturally, the whole of the business community which does business

1191
with the Continent is keen for a change, and I think the strongest opponents of the Bill will recognise that as a factor to be put into the scales.
Broadly, I feel that it is desirable that this experiment should be tried, but I should be much happier if the Government would make it clear that they regard it as an experiment and will study with objective care, in the spring and summer of 1969, what the country then thinks about it. I do not believe that at this stage we should commit ourselves, mentally, further than that. I should hope that the Government would be prepared in early 1969 to carry out a further inquiry into how people have enjoyed darker mornings and lighter evenings in the winter.
As to the terms of the Bill, I am sure we shall all welcome subsection (2) of Clause 1 which safeguards the use of Greenwich mean time for scientific purposes. As a former Home Secretary I personally welcome Clause 3 and the degree of independence that it guarantees to the States of Jersey and Guernsey and to Tynwald; and I can imagine that if our ranks here, as in another place, had lately been strengthened by some noble Lord or noble Baroness from Scotland, he or she might claim that this proved the necessity to have a Scottish Parliament, which could opt in or out of the system of British standard time according to Scotland's real needs.
Finally, my Lords, as to the name, I do not think that we ought to set much store by the fact that the initials of British standard time are the same as the initials of British Summer Time. That does not seem to me to be any great argument. Strong objections were raised, in a cogent letter to The Times of October 24, by a number of people holding important official positions. I will not go in detail now into the question of the name, because I strongly suspect that some noble Lords will wish to put down Amendments when we reach the Committee stage so that alternative names can be canvassed. Speaking only for myself, I regret that we are omitting the word "Greenwich" entirely from the name of the new time. I should certainly have thought that some name such as "Advanced Greenwich Time", or with the addition of some other adjective to the two words "Greenwich
1192
Time", would have been well worth considering, and rather more traditional than this new name of British standard time. But I feel sure that, if a large number of alternative names have been submitted to the Home Office, the best of them will doubtless be selected by noble Lords to be made the subject of Amendments which they will put down, and then we shall be able to discuss them one by one.
My Lords, I personally think that this Bill should be supported, but as an experiment and not as an unalterable change in our social arrangements. I hope that its advocates will have their case proved, and that its opponents will find that their arguments lessen, in the light of practice. Clearly, we are going to have this system in the winter of 1968–69, and we shall all know better at the end of that time. But the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will facilitate the progress of this Bill if he will give some kind of undertaking that the Government will be prepared to make fresh inquiries as to the reactions of various sections of the people when we have had this Bill in operation for a whole winter.
5.44 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. It seems to me to be an inevitable development of what has taken place over the last sixty years. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am not very impressed with the prospect that this is something permanent. Of course, nothing in law is permanent. The noble Lord who has just spoken would agree with me, I think, that there will be nothing to prevent another Parliament, or even this Parliament, amending or repealing any Act, such as this one, which is found to be unsatisfactory and not to meet with the support and approval of large sections of the community.
I also agree with the noble Lord in his reference to the title. I am glad that we have got away from the term "Summer Time". I have always preferred the phrase which is used in the United States—"daylight saving time". In April, 1924, in my first Parliament, I was asked by the late Sir Kingsley Wood to second the introduction of his Bill, which, like other enactments, was called a Summer Time Bill. Some of the criticisms that were made during the debate then were directed at the farce of calling

1193
any Bill a Summer Time Bill in a country where no season merits the description "summer".
While a good many of the misgivings that were expressed in that particular debate seem to have disappeared over the years, I should be inclined to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in saying that the Government should undertake to satisfy themselves by inquiries as from October of next year, and during the months that follow, whether or not considerable sections of the community are put into an impossible position. I think that the Government should consider giving an undertaking on these lines. At the same time, as I said a moment ago, I do not believe that there will be any great objection after we have had an experimental period, because so many of the objections that were expressed in the debate to which I have referred seem now to have disappeared.
My Lords, the advancement of our clocks by an hour is now sought to be made permanent. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the first such Act that was passed was in 1916, when I, like others present, were engaged in France in the trench warfare of that period. I do not think it made much difference to the carrying on of hostilities, but if my recollection is correct I believe that there was the strong feeling that it helped a great deal those who were engaged on war work in the factories and in other places. The Act of 1916 provided only, of course, for the duration of the war; and then in 1922 another Act was passed making it operative for another twelve months. Sir Kingsley Wood's object in introducing his Bill in April, 1924, was to make it permanent, but only between the months of, roughly, April and October. The Second Reading of that Bill was carried, but it was overtaken by events—in other words, the General Election of 1924. The Conservative Government which followed presented the Bill again, and it became law in August, 1925. It is from that date that for the period from April, approximately, to October, it became a permanent part of our way of life.
Now this Bill is seeking to extend that permanent six-month period to a twelvemonth period. Therefore, the controversy which will follow can only be on the part of those who object even to the permanent six-month period of
1194
Summer Time, daylight saving time, or whatever you like to call it. At the same time, there may well be criticism from Scotland, because in the debate to which I have referred it was Scottish Members of Parliament, both those belonging to my Party and those belonging to the Conservative Party, who were very strongly critical even of the Bill that Sir Kingsley Wood had introduced. I have no doubt—and reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to this—that there are sections of people in Scotland, and possibly in Wales, as well as, possibly, in parts of England, who have some doubt as to what will be the effect of making this advance of one hour a permanent feature for the whole twelve months of the year.
A reasonable suggestion has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Stonham will not be giving anything away in the fundamental approach to this Bill if he agrees, at least, to consider the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has made. Subject to that, I believe this is a necessary step to bring ourselves into uniformity with Western Europe, and I believe that on the whole once the people have experienced this extra hour in the winter, the possibility of widespread objection will not be realised. All I would say again is that I for one welcome this Bill.
5.50 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, as he got to his feet said that he was rising to support this Bill. I should like to echo him with a modest difference: I rise to oppose this Bill. All my life I have thought that Summer Time, daylight saving time, is a piece of nonsense. I can remember the day when I was a very small boy when I was converted to this belief. I then had to learn, as I have no doubt very many of your Lordships in childhood had to learn, the ditty by Robert Louis Stevenson:
"In winter I get up at night and dress by yellow candle-light;
"In summer, just the other way, I have to go to bed by day."
Young as I was, it did not surprise me that I did not use a candle to get up in the winter although I knew it was dark.

1195
I realised that we had the benefit of electricity which Stevenson did not. It was some time ago. He was a contemporary of my grandfather. Nor did it surprise me that I had to go to bed by day in the summer. We spent our summer holidays in Aberdeenshire, and I knew perfectly well that in Aberdeenshire in the summer, even the grown-ups went to bed by day. So neither of these things surprised me at all. I therefore inquired of my learned pedagogue: "Please Sir, what do these lines mean?" He was taken somewhat aback at the query; and then, after a pause, he said, "Well, of course, they do not ring true nowadays because of daylight saving." That did not ring true to me, even as a little boy; and it does not ring true to me now. I wonder whether any of your Lordships have ever seen or heard a demonstration of the proposition that "fudging" the clocks by one hour in the summer could save even a fraction of a split second of daylight to any man, woman, child or beast in the field on the face of God's earth. How can one save daylight by falsifying the clocks? It is really a most strange name, "daylight saving". However, now we are being asked to falsify the clocks not just in the summer; but all the year round.
There seem to me to be two practical solutions of this problem in international communications. One was suggested in the newspapers a few days ago (I think in the correspondence columns) which seems to me to be the ultimate answer: it is to have one clock setting for the whole world and for every country to organise its own timetables around a given clock setting. But I am afraid that world opinion will not quite wear that. Indeed, it may be many years before it will. We are therefore driven back on to regional time zones, the system that we have at present and which might be described, I think, borrowing a phrase from another context, as cujus regio, ejus tempus. But if we are to work our clocks on a regional time zone basis, let us at least do it upon a sensible basis. What is a sensible basis? A sensible basis is that when the clock says it is mid-day, it shall be mid-day. You cannot do that for every village along the way. You have to do it as nearly so as is convenient.
A convenient system for this country was thought by our ancestors to be to
1196
base the clock upon the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. Well, that was a quite reasonably good base. But Greenwich is not by any means in the middle of this country. It is in the far South-East. There is only a very small proportion of England—Kent, Sussex and most of East Anglia—which is East of the Greenwich meridian. Most of the rest—the whole of Wales, all Scotland and all Northern Ireland—is to the West of it. Supposing this had been done in the last century when one considered the whole of Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, to get a proper base for time for the whole British Isles I think probably 4° West might have been chosen, on the line roughly of Plymouth, Swansea and Inverness; and that would divide the country more or less evenly. But Greenwich is was; and Greenwich we still have. If Greenwich, therefore, is to be criticised, it is to be criticised because it is already too far East. The proposal now is to put our base line 15° further East—the longtitude of the Lofoten Islands and of Frankfurt—beyond Frankfurt, in fact—and Catania in Sicily. This would mean that the Western-most parts of the Kingdom—take our Western-most city, Londonderry—would be permanently nearly 1½ hours behind the time base. The Irish city of Galway would be over 1½ hours.
But longtitude is not the only consideration. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has already mentioned the interesting article and very interesting illustrations that went with it in to-day's Times. Everyone knows that we get longer nights in winter and longer days in summer in Scotland than down here; but I wonder how many noble Lords who saw that illustration were not surprised at the extent of the difference which latitude makes. In winter sunrise times, there is more than half an hour's difference between London and Aberdeen on the basis of latitude alone. If you combine these two factors (the winter difference in the sunrise on the basis of latitude and the normal difference on the basis of longitude) and remember how steeply these Islands slope as you go North towards the West, you will realise that the proposal to put the time base 15° East is going to cause a very considerable change in their way of life to people in the North and West.

1197
I have not taken the extreme case of the Shetland Islands, nor shall I now take the extreme case of December 21 or 22. But let me give the times at which the sun will rise on December 15 under the new so-called British Standard Time. In Kirkwall, it is at one minute to ten; in Stornaway, five minutes past ten; and in Londonderry, a quarter to ten. That is the middle of the morning! Are we seriously to ask people to take their mid-morning cup of tea to the window and watch the sunrise?
One must face, if one lives in the North, that one is going to have very little daylight in the winter days. Clearly then, one must use the daylight one has to the best effect; that is to say, it should be straddled as near as possible around mid-day. This will be quite impossible if this Bill becomes law. There seems to me to be little enough justification for the Bill, in spite of the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, even in England; and probably less in Wales. But in Scotland and in Northern Ireland there is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Unless the Government agree—which I am sure they will not—to exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland from the Bill and let us in our tiny little United Kingdom have two times going, then the best thing they can do with the Bill is to consign it with all decent haste to the nearest convenient waste paper basket.
6.0 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stonham very much for his kindly reference to my efforts in your Lordships' House in June, when I asked an Unstarred Question on this subject and gave all the arguments I could think of in favour of the permanent change which is proposed in the Bill. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by repeating those arguments, most of which have been given this evening by my noble friend. I will content myself with expressing the opinion that chopping off one hour of daylight at one end of the day and putting it on at the other will bring great pleasure and benefit to most people.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, that I think there is a good deal in what he said; but perhaps, before continuing in his belief, he would like to read the evidence taken by a
1198
House of Commons Select Committee in 1908 which may be found in your Lordships' Library. If he will do so, I think that he will find it most interesting and informative. It makes one regard the matter from a slightly different angle from that taken by the noble Lord.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that nobody knows the precise effect which the provisions in this Bill will have, and I wonder whether they might be brought in for an experimental period of, say, three or five years. I will not say any more, except that I have no strong opinions about what the Title of the Bill should be. I do not think that "Greenwich" should necessarily be incorporated in it. I think that we might perhaps incorporate Hurstmonceux. But "British standard time" sounds to me comfortable and sensible, and I hope that both the Title and the Bill will commend themselves to your Lordships.
6.2 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for introducing the Bill and for the careful and painstaking way in which he did it. At the same time I am not quite happy about a number of points to which I proposed to refer.
Turning to the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, which was debated in the summer, it is well to remember (this is a point which I have made before in your Lordships' House) that the debate took place on a Monday. That is an important reason why no Scotsmen took part in it at all—unless the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, with some reference to dawn on New Year's Day, may be taken as such. Indeed, if one reads the debate, although Glasgow is twice mentioned—and, of course, Glasgow is on the West side of Scotland—the word "Scotland" or "Scotsman" does not appear at all.
As for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, that to oppose this Bill must mean that one is opposed to Summer Time altogether, I do not agree; and I would not go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle: that because I oppose this Bill I am opposed to Summer Time—far from it. I understand that under the present Summer Time it is possible to play 18 holes of golf at Aberdeen in July and to tee off at

1199
11 p.m. I feel there are definite advantages in having Summer Time as it is now—with the exception of the Order beginning on February 18—and I feel that they are worth taking into account.
When the Order which we debated in July was considered I mentioned the problem of Northern Scotland, and I thought, wrongly as it has turned out, that a Bill would not be laid before this House until after the February experiment. In this I go some way with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I felt at that time that it was to be experimental, and I would quote what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this was a matter of
"the change which we shall be discussing next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/7/67, col. 215.]
In other words, I thought that this was going to be discussed after the experiment of early Summer Time on February 18 had been introduced. I would remind your Lordships that next year on February 18 sunrise in Aberdeen will be at 7.40 Greenwich Mean Time or 8.40—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I have here the Reort of what I said. I said:
"Your Lordships will know the Government recently announced in another place their intention of introducing legislation early next Session to extend throughout the year …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/7/67, col. 209.]
I made quite clear that it was early in the Session which we are now in.
LORD FERRIER: I agree that the noble Lord said that, but at the same time, in column 215, he used the words:
"a very great preponderance of opinion in favour of the change which we shall be discussing next year."
Perhaps the noble Lord meant "next Session". Frankly, as the noble Lord will see from the speech which I made on that occasion, I said that we should address ourselves to this as an experiment, because the actual hardship which it causes in the North of Scotland is a matter which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, really ought to be approached in a very cautious way. What worried me however was this reference in his speech
1200
"to accustom people to the permanent change to be made later."—[col. 210.]
I protested at the time that this sounded as though there was to be no question about it, and I wonder whether that was a "toot" from the whistle of the "Westminster steamroller" which we now see in action. Be that as it may, I opposed the idea then and I oppose it now.
I think another noble Lord has mentioned Sir Alan Herbert's letter which appeared in The Times the other day. It was interesting and of course entertaining, but there was one point which Sir Alan omitted and to which I am glad to say the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made only a passing reference: that was, the contention among many of the supporters of this measure that we should go along with Europe. I cannot see the point of that, beyond the fact that people who want to telephone to Paris when the market opens may have to get up a bit earlier than they would have to do under the new proposals. After all, in North America there are four main time zones, and nobody would suggest that a Californian is less a citizen of the United States than somebody in Pennsylvania.
As for our getting into Europe, of which I am prepared to be in favour, would a different time scale make us any more European? No, my Lords, I consider it would have been wise to defer this Bill until next year. I will not go over the points which have been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, about daylight saving in wartime. This is not a measure for daylight saving; it is a measure for improving conditions for a number of the populace. But I doubt whether all the savings which it is indicated may go with the introduction of this proposal, will apply in the North. I shall not use many of my notes about the hours of daylight in the North. I would only emphasise that the problem, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, is not one of longitude only but also of latitude. For instance, Glasgow and Inverness are on the same meridian, but there is getting on for 15 minutes difference between the times of sunrise in the middle of the winter. In fact in Inverness in the middle of winter the sunrise under the new Bill would be at 9.57 a.m. That is a very

1201
late hour for the sun to rise, far less for it to become light.
The noble Lord said that the majority of women's organisations have accepted this proposal, but I should like to know to what extent women's organisations in Scotland feel able to agree. I venture to say that in the North of Scotland they would not support it, and I have reason to say that parents' associations are seriously disturbed, because children will have to go to school, not one or two hours, but almost three hours, before it is light.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us more information along these lines. Even in the neighbourhood where I live, South of Edinburgh, getting children to school will be a serious matter. In the winter, it is extremely cold, far colder than it ever is in England, and the road conditions—not so much because of traffic as because of weather conditions—are bad.
We have been told that the President of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, who did not like the idea or see the need for it, was prepared "to put up with it, if it is in the national interest". But is it? I should require evidence that it was in the interests of the nation as a whole before I believed it. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, who is to follow me, will be able to prove that there is reasonable doubt in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, touched on the effect on farmers. Farmers are already affected by the disadvantage of the present system, which requires changes twice a year in the handling of dairy stock, and this new proposal will affect farmers more than other folk.
We must also remember that costs are bound to increase in the North in the conditions which are likely to arise if the Bill becomes law. I refer especially to the construction trade where, because of the climate in the North of Scotland, modern methods are not so easily adopted, and costs in terms of overtime will be higher if the dawn is made so late in terms of the clock.
I think I have said enough to indicate that if we divide on this Bill, as I hope we shall, I shall vote "Not-Content".
1202
But if the Bill is read a second time I would beg your Lordships to consider three things: first, that the Title of the Bill should be amended in Committee; secondly, that it should not be tabled in another place, unless it is the Government's intention to steamroller it through, until we have seen what happens in early February under the Order which has already been passed; and thirdly, that if it becomes law, the Scottish Electricity Boards should be instructed to go thoroughly into the question of off-peak tariffs. It is all very well to say, as the noble Lord said, that electricity power supplies will be maintained, but what about the people who are to consume the power? And what was this reference to the makers of time-switches? What have they to do with it? Surely, they have to design switches which will enable consumers to make the best possible use of the power available.
I particularly wish to make the point that people will have to use more electricity in the morning peak hours, and I sincerely hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cu =or, has said, the generating powers will not be overstretched. The peak hours of consumption should be adjusted in terms of zones, for the North of Scotland, the South of Scotland and for England, so that people who want warmth can have their thermal storage type heaters boosted up in the morning and can get power when they need it in the early morning, when they have these long hours of darkness before lunch, as they will have if this Bill becomes law. I believe that this measure is so controversial that the House will want to divide, if only to show that is the case.
6.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, there cannot be one noble Lord who did not hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in introducing this Bill with anything but the warmest pleasure. But I think that I detected a charming note of almost insouciance in the approach of the Government towards this Bill. It showed itself at the beginning of the noble Lord's speech, and chronologically speaking at the beginning of the Bill itself. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for referring to this rather tedious question of the Title.

1203
It reminds me of the building of the South Bank Exhibition in 1951. Perhaps your Lordships will recall the tremendous debate in the newspapers as to what this great Exhibition was to be called. I cannot recall any of the names then suggested, but right in the middle of the debate somebody wrote to the papers and said that it did not matter what kind of name was given to it, it was on the South Bank, and whatever might be decided it would be called the South Bank Exhibition. That is what happened. It became the South Bank Exhibition.
We have had all sorts of suggestions put forward, and we have had the pleasure of hearing some of them this afternoon, about what this time proposed in the Bill will be called. I predict that it will be called "mid-European Time"—because this is what it is called already. Mid-European Time is an international name for a time zone which is used all over the world, as Greenwich Mean Time and Eastern Standard Time are used now. What is proposed under the Bill is simply a sidestep to the East chronologically of one pace, out of the time zone Greenwich Mean into the time zone mid-European. Three countries that were originally in the Greenwich time zone have preceded us in this direction—France, Luxembourg and Spain. For reasons of their own convenience they have taken this step already, leaving with us only Portugal, Ireland and the Faroe Islands. The Greenwich time zone is a small one in terms of countries, because most of it is covered with water.
If we take this one step, we shall become the 35th partner in a club of 34 other members, of all those people who use mid-European time. We are proposing to call it, according to this Bill, British Standard Time. I must say, as a patriotic person, that I am inclined to approve of this Title, and I look forward to the day when we shall join the Common Market and, looking forward quite a long way, when we in these right little tight little Islands will refer to it as the British Economic Community. I think I detect a certain insouciance—if I may be forgiven for repeating the word—running through the whole of the approach to this Bill. The noble Lord has told us, with impressive effect and perfectly correctly, of the number of
1204
bodies that have been consulted and whose opinions have been sought on various aspects of this piece of legislation. But I am not certain that all the relevant bodies have been consulted, or that those that have been consulted have in fact consulted the people most closely concerned.
I will leave that for the moment and come back to it; it will be a kind of continuing theme. I will come to the first example of this straight away by mentioning an example of a somewhat curious side-effect which has not been mentioned by any noble Lord so far. I take it as an example because I imagine that there are others I have not discovered. I am now referring to the somewhat curious position of a transatlantic passenger by air, particularly in the supersonic age. When the Concord comes, I understand, to my alarm, that it will be possible to fly from London to New York in about two and a half hours. This will enable an East-borne passenger who takes off from London Airport at, say, noon to finish his after-luncheon glass of port in nice time to be ready for breakfast on touch-down at half-past eight. On the return journey, strangely enough, the timing will be precisely the same. He will take off at noon and arrive at 8.30, but in the evening, just in time for dinner, if he is ready for it so immediately after lunch.
The point of this problem is not entirely a gastronomic one; there is something a little deeper involved than that—if the adjective is not ill-chosen. It is this. What is the effect of flying through six time zones at any speed, but particularly at high speed, instead of the five time zones through which the trans-Atlantic flier has to fly now? It is well known that flying through five time zones causes considerable upset to the nervous and metabolic clocks inside the human system, and sometimes a considerable period of recuperation is required at the other end if one is to be fit to take part in, say, an international conference. What is the result of flying through six time zones? This is a problem that must, I feel—I am prepared to bet on it—have been investigated by aviation medicine. It is part of the basic research that must go into the building and design of the Concord. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us in his reply if this particular research report has been asked for and, if

1205
so, what it is. I might even add a rider and say, if not, why not? It is not enough to dismiss it airily and think that the result will be simply to require the passenger to have a longer rest when he reaches his destination, which would be very agreeable, especially for those travelling at the public charge on expense accounts. This is a matter of public health, and one that will increase rapidly in importance as the years go by.
The noble Lord said, with admirable fairness and objectivity, if I do not misquote him, that the commercial advantages and disadvantages of this measure are very approximately balanced, one against another. At the same time, I should like to make a point which perhaps might upset this balance in favour of the opponents of the Bill. I refer to the suggestion (it is one that is mentioned in the newspapers, and therefore perhaps it is worth disposing of in your Lordships' House) that by getting into his office at nine o'clock in the morning in London, when his friend in Brussels or in Rome or Berlin or anywhere else has already been there one hour, and by going out to lunch at one, when his friend in one of those places goes out at twelve, the businessman loses two hours of telephoning time a day. Well, he does. He can get this back by staggering his time, which is a point that has already been made in the debate. What I should like to know is this. If this is important, are any of the people who think it is important doing it now, or are they not? How many businessmen are getting to their office an hour early or going an hour early out to lunch? Because if to the smallest degree we are to be persuaded to get up earlier in the morning in order to enable a few businessmen to be punctual at lunch at one o'clock at the Savoy Grill, I personally am not for it.
I now come to the question of children. This matter has been mentioned all through the debates on this subject. We are told that the National Union of Teachers feel that it is better for children to have the extra hour of daylight in the evening, and are prepared, against that, to accept the morning dark. I have here a graph which is reasonably accurate, and I think it might be of interest if I were to say that all people, including children, who leave home at seven o'clock in the morning now will find that the Bill will
1206
make no difference to them. They will still leave at or before dawn. If they leave at half-past seven, they will get one more extra month of darkness, by which I mean the time up to dawn: admittedly it is not entirely dark. If anybody leaves at the more gentlemanly hour of eight o'clock, he now leaves in daylight; but he will find, to his surprise, that under the Bill he will have four months of darkness—that is to say, time at or before dawn—including one whole hour of darkness in the middle of the winter.
Hundreds of thousands of these people are children. The point, so far as they are concerned, is probably not so much that it is dark, but that it is cold and miserable. I am certain that I am not alone among your Lordships in remembering what it is like to get up in the dark and go to school in the dark, and to arrive with chilblains, as I did. Perhaps they do not have chilblains nowadays. But it is not true to suppose that children get up and get into a warm bath and trundle off comfortably to the school and can do the whole thing between eight and nine o'clock. I do not live in the North of Scotland; I live fifty miles South of here, in a small village. Now, under Greenwich mean time, the children from that village start their journey to school, two miles away, with a twenty-minute walk in the dark to catch a bus. They are the lucky ones. Two miles away, children catching the same bus get up two hours earlier, not because they have to walk further to catch the bus, but because the bus is going the other way: school buses go round in circles. The unlucky ones at the very beginning of the trip have to get up an hour or two earlier than the ones at the end of the trip.
The National Union of School Teachers may think that when the children arrive at school they are content, and that they ought to be allowed their hour of daylight in the afternoon for games. I accept that as a reasonable and excellent argument, but I hope it will not be forgotten that these children are being sent out into the cold and dark, some of them frightened many of them without breakfast—because nobody has found a law yet to persuade all mothers to give their children a hot breakfast before they go out. I ask your Lordships to consider whether this is a desirable thing. I personally very much doubt it.

1207
These children are certainly on their way to school between the hours of eight and nine in the morning. Something else is happening between those hours and that is the morning rush-hour. The police are quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in the debate on the Order, as saying that relatively there are fewer accidents in the morning than in the rush hours at night because people are more relaxed and are not rushing so much. I should like for a moment to draw attention to the hour in the morning between eight and nine o'clock. This is a daylight hour. This Bill operates only in the winter. Let us take the two months of December and January. At present, according to my reckoning (which is not quite accurate, but it is accurate enough for this purpose, and very nearly right), 94 per cent. of the traffic in that hour runs by daylight. The Bill will cause 97 per cent of that traffic—virtually the whole lot—to run before dawn. I nearly said "in the dark", and it would have made no difference if I had, I submit, because I know very well, from considerable experience of my own in driving in these hours of the dawn, that the hour of twilight which spreads over the time of sunrise is the most difficult part, the most dangerous part, in my opinion, of the whole of the day's motoring. In terms of danger, one can perfectly well draw a line at the moment of sunrise, and say that before that it is dark in danger terms, and after that in danger terms it is light. The whole of the rush hour traffic has been taken out of the daylight and put into the dark.
In the report, accurately given by the noble Lord, the police say that there are fewer accidents in the morning. I cannot believe that this applies to this particular hour. It may do. I am not in a position to say that it does not, but I do say that I do not believe it is intended, or that the noble Lord intended, to imply that. This dawn hour will carry in the dark, in the frost, in the snow and in the fog, the whole of the morning rush hour. I should like to know what research has been done on this point. I am sure the noble Lord will be able to tell me what reports he has from the Road Research Laboratory, for example; from the motoring organisations, and from
1208
the hospitals, I may say, and, above all, from the Minister of Transport.
I am inclined to think that these things have not been thought out. I think they have been approached—I stand open to correction—with the same rather wishful thinking attitude as the Title. This Bill has been presented to us quietly, with eminent reasonableness, by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government, with the expectation that we shall quietly pass it through. Your Lordships, of course, will quietly pass it through if you feel so disposed. For myself, I agree with my noble friends, Lord Craigmyle and Lord Ferrier, that it ought not to be passed through quietly, or indeed at all. A great deal more thought should be given to it, and a great deal more research carried out. I, for one, shall vote against the Bill.
6.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the opposition to this Bill. I want to make about four points, and the first is one of regret that this Bill should have come on as the last business on a Thursday. I quite realise how this has happened: it was down for consideration on Tuesday, and it was displaced by more urgent matters. But the effect of that is that comparatively few Scotsmen are able to be here. If I may mention one, my noble friend Lord Saltoun expressed to me his regret that he could not be here, and also his utter contempt for the silliness of this Bill. I am sorry that he is not here to make his views clear.
I was most astonished by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, who seemed to think that some of the arguments in favour of Summer Time support this measure. Of course they do not. I think that that would have occurred even to the noble Lord himself had this Bill, which is now very elegantly and well drafted, been drafted in the alternative way in which it might have been drafted, which would have been to adopt one of the old Summer Time Acts and then add a clause that "as from October 27, 1968, the winter shall be deemed to be the summer". I believe that, had it been drafted in that way, many noble Lords who think this Bill so sensible would have thought that perhaps it was a little

1209
more stupid than they had hitherto supposed. Of course, Mr. Willett's arguments—I thought there was a lot to be said for his reform—were put forward to save daylight in the summer, not to be cruel to Scottish children in the winter. It is a totally different purpose.
The reason why I ventured to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his very reasonable and fair presentation, which he always adopts in presenting measures, was that after dealing with the teachers in England and Wales he did not deal with the views of the teachers in Scotland. He did not, except to say they were very different. I am not astonished. I believe that if we wished to convert almost all the mothers in Scotland to Scottish nationalism, this Bill would do a very great deal of good. But if that is not our aim, it seems to me to be one of the silliest Bills it has ever been my experience to see. I think it will adversely affect not only the comfort but the health of the children in Scotland. I do not believe this has been adequately considered at all. If there is a Division, for the reasons I have given I shall join with those who oppose the Bill.
There is only one other matter which I shall mention. Should the Bill receive a Second Reading there will be a number of Amendments to the Title to be considered during the Committee stage. One fairly clear and possible Amendment would be to leave out "Standard" and insert "Sub-standard". That would be one possible Amendment of this Bill to reveal its general nature. I support the speech of my noble friend who spoke immediately before me, because further attention should be given to this Bill. For myself, I find very convincing the arguments of my old friend Alan Herbert which he developed in The Times. He was supporting arguments that had been put forward by various scientific organisations at an earlier date. I believe that this measure has received altogether too little consideration. I do not believe that the serious objections have been weighed at all, and I think it should be opposed and rejected.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I had not meant to say anything on this subject, but I am in a difficulty because I should like to ask about two
1210
questions, which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be able to answer. My impression from his excellent introductory speech left me in doubt on one main point. That is whether this Bill is being introduced, whether or not it is scientifically advisable, because there are a large number of people in the country who want it, or for the opposite reason, that it may not be a popular Bill but there are very good scientific reasons for introducing it. I can quite see, on a subject I know as little about as this, that there is a case for any Government pressing a measure which may not be popular at first if there are overwhelming scientific and economic reasons for it; or for putting through something they are less enthusiastic about, so long as it is not actually harmful, if there is a wide pressure of opinion for it.
I have not yet been convinced by anything I have heard (perhaps this is because most of the speeches have been in opposition to the Bill) that the Bill provides an advantage from a scientific point of view. Before I "stick my neck out" here, I would refer to what I think almost every speaker, including the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has mentioned before. There was a letter from four, I imagine, eminent and unbiased scientists in The Times the other day. They were, I think, the President of the Royal Astronomical Society, the President of the Navigation Society, the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the President of the Royal Geographical Society. There were certainly four. My recollection is that they said it was ambiguous, misleading, likely to lead to confusion and misunderstanding, and inconsistent with the system of standard time zones. Experts are often wrong but I should like to hear the arguments against that.
The only thing that I can understand in the reference to "standard zones" is that the meridian of Greenwich was fixed not, as some people believe, by English gunboat politics but by invitation from the United States of America that all countries should get away from the practice of having different times and should try to get a reasonable system. Greenwich was not suggested purely for the English, and I think there is probably no reason in nature or in geography. It may have been as a result of the

1211
history of the times, and I think I am right in saying that only one out of something like 30 countries voted against it. That one was San Domingo. I believe in addition there were two abstentions, one of which was France and the other Brazil, but at that time it may have been out of loyalty in opposing Britain or in supporting San Domingo.
The reason for choosing the zones, if I understand it rightly, was to get what is called "integration". That is a fashionable word now, and it was in order to get into a situation in which the times round the globe would not get one into the realms of 5·326 recurring but a whole number of hours—either one, two or three or four hours in front or behind a certain time. As I understand the situation, if we go into this particular system we shall be getting away from that. If I may take the only analogy which I can think of at the moment, one knows that an orange has segments, and instead of keeping all the segments the same size we already have one which has absorbed about two segments, and we are now coming in on the grounds that it is to our economic advantage.
However, it has not been made clear to me at the moment that it is to our economic advantage, because perhaps more than any of your Lordships I am in favour of the European Common Market. But we are not yet members of it, and it seems to me that any argument—and there may be an argument for saying that this would be an advantage in the European Common Market—may cut the other way, as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, pointed out, if one is going West or even having business dealings.
This is a technical and difficult subject which I do not know anything about, but it seems to me there are two possible reasonable systems of time. One was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, which is what we had for years—have one global time with 24 hours (or another number) and ignore the fact that somebody is having breakfast in one place at the same time as another person is having lunch in another place. In fact that is what happens with the seasons. Christmas in one hemisphere is very cold, while in the other hemisphere it is hot. People have to adjust themselves
1212
to that. But I should have thought that if this is based on technological grounds we are falling between two stools, and it is wrong to make a substantial change like this which will affect a lot of people's lives, before we have actually entered the European Economic Community and, as has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, on the grounds that it will not be a permanent change and we may presumably have atomic space time to-morrow. In fact I believe that in Whitaker's almanack at the moment there is a mention of atomic time.
My feeling is that it is the wrong moment to take this step, unless we are absolutely 100 per cent. certain, and that is what I should like to be before I vote in favour of this Bill. I should like to be 100 per cent. certain that there are real technological and economic advantages. So far as the social side of the problem is concerned, if, as has been said, the teachers—in England, though not apparently in Scotland—are entirely in favour of it, I doubt whether the parents are equally in favour of it, because the very few parents to whom I have mentioned this were against it; and I have seen a number of letters from parents who oppose it.
I believe it would be a great pity if this Bill went through quickly, on the assumption that all the scientists and the parents and the teachers were agreed, and it was found afterwards that this was not the fact. I should have thought that, in the present state of legislation, this was not such a vital matter that this Bill needed to be pushed through with such a small attendance, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, without more consideration than can be given to it by those of your Lordships who are here to-night.
I have spoken for too long and have said more than I intended to. I will only add that if the question of the Title comes up—as I think it will do—in my opinion it is a pity to use the expression "Greenwich mean time" to mean, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, would put it, something which is deemed to be the time that people think it is at Greenwich, but is not. It would be more accurate to call it Potsdam Time, or whatever the name of place may be where it would be that time. If one

1213
wants to keep the name "Greenwich" I think "Greenwich memorial time" would be a more honest name. Another thing I should like to emphasise for the last time is that a daylight—saving Bill which actually loses daylight—and when I say that I mean at the end of the day, which matters to a great many people—is an anomaly that I do not believe we ought to pass without a good deal more consideration.
6.49 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords whether we call it "Standard", "Greenwich" or any other name, I am quite sure that on one thing your Lordships will agree with me, and that is that I should take up as little as possible of your Lordships' time in replying. The noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, asked me whether we were introducing this measure because it was popular but scientifically undesirable. The best information I can obtain is that this is a measure which is extremely popular in the country. By that I mean in the United Kingdom as a whole, though I think it would be quite impossible to say of any measure that every parent was in agreement with it.
I think the opposing views which have been expressed to this measure can be divided roughly into three. One view is that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, who said that he has always regarded Summer Time as "nonsense". We have had this "nonsense" now for 51 years, and, while he may be right to continue his objection in this way, it seems to me not to be a strong enough reason for opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord asked how one can save daylight by falsifying the clock. The answer is that most people get up by the clock, and if we so contrive things that they sleep less when the sun is shining, they use more daylight. This has been the whole justification for Summer Time, and I suppose it is the whole justification for this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery voiced objections to the name. I said in moving the Second Reading that of course we could discuss this point in Committee. It is quite obvious that we shall have a number of Amendments to consider in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford suggested. But I submit that difference of opinion about the name is
1214
not a reason for opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a principle.
The third range of objections came from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier and others, who voiced in particular the position of Scotland. It is of the essence, of course, that in different parts of the country there will be different effects. The one thing the noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, Lord Ferrier and Lord Cork and Orrery, all missed out was a reference to the time of sunset. They referred to the time of the sunrise, but they did not—and, indeed, neither did The Times—refer to the time of sunset. The important thing surely is that though people will be getting up in the dark for a longer period of the year, when it may well be cold and unpleasant as well as dark, the hours of daylight, the hours between sunrise and sunset, will not be reduced anywhere in the United Kingdom by this measure.
I naturally did not come here without some knowledge of the respective times. For example, in midwinter, at the worst, London would get almost eight hours of daylight; Cardiff, in the West, would get almost eight hours; Newcastle, seven and a quarter; Manchester, seven and a half; Belfast, seven and a quarter; Glasgow, seven; Inverness, the worst of all, six and a half hours. This is what they get now. This is what they will get in the future, if this measure becomes law in its present form. There is only a quarter of an hour difference in the daylight between London and Rome, Cardiff and Rome. Rome would get only three-quarters of an hour more than Manchester.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, of course I did not mention sunset, because one cannot alter the length of the day. The point is that in the North the sunset varies very much less than the sunrise at these particular critical times. The length of the day remains the same. It is the very late hour of sunrise that is the problem.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think I have made the point that we are not out to reduce the hours of daylight, and this measure would not do it.
With regard to the position in Scotland, I mentioned that we have consulted 88 different organisations, of which 22 were in Scotland. I was asked by the noble Lord what the womenfolk in Scotland think about it. The Scottish Townswomen's Guild reported a two-thirds

1215
majority in favour of the change. The Scottish section of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service were also in favour, but not by quite such a large majority. They are representative of women all over Scotland. The District Councils Association of Scotland are in favour. The County Councils Association were not, by two to one against in counties; but of the counties in favour, there were Aberdeen, Ayr, Banff, Clackmannan, Dumfries, Fife, Moray and Orkney, the most northerly of all.
I should hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and other noble Lords will not take what I regard as the most unusual step, a step not in accord with our usual methods in this House, of opposing the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind. If they have, as they must have, differences of opinion, no doubt on important matters, these can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that they will now agree to give this Bill a Second Reading and put down Amendments. Then let us discuss
Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
them thoroughly and give these matters full consideration.
With regard to the very important point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for which I was very grateful, he will know that if we had had any doubts about this legislation, or any thoughts that in a year or two we should have to come back to the House and say "Let us cancel it", we should not be bringing legislation forward now. But most certainly I can give him the assurance he asks for: that when this Bill becomes law, and as we begin to have experience of it, we will most certainly take the necessary steps to record reactions and learn from experience. I hope that, with that assurance, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hunt, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Piercy, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ironside, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rowley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Carron, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonham, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strang, L.

Denham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swansea, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Moyle, L.

Williamson, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Oakshott, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Peddie, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Hughes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Audley, Bs.

Ferrier, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Barrington, V.

Gray, L.

Mountevans, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.