Lords Sitting of 26 March 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Countess of Sutherland—Sat first in Parliament, pursuant to the Peerage Act 1963.
The Earl of Lauderdale—Sat first in Parliament, pursuant to the Peerage Act 1963.

MILITARY SERVICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
2.36 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 subscribe to the doctrine expressed in Resolution 337 (1967) of the Consultative Committee of the Assembly of Europe that:
" 1. Persons liable to conscription for military service who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction arising from religious, ethical, moral, humanitarian, philosophical or similar motives, refuse to perform armed service shall enjoy a personal right to be released from the obligation to perform such service.
2. This right shall be regarded as deriving logically from the fundamental rights of the individual in democratic Rule of Law States which are guaranteed in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights."]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place on April 13, 1967, the principles set out in Resolution 337 are already reflected in
932
United Kingdom law and practice relating to conscientious objection.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask the Government why, if they regard this right as deriving logically from a fundamental right of the individual, they are not prepared to allow political asylum to people who are denied this right in other countries?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not sure that I have entirely understood the implication of the noble Lord's question. As he knows, this derives from Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights. Resolution 337 merely sets this out in a more specific form. We have ratified the European Convention and so subscribe to its principles. I am not clear whether there is any further implication in the noble Lord's question. Perhaps he will put it more specifically.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity. If the Government acknowledge that a right to object to military service on conscientious grounds stems from a human right, then surely the Government are not in a position—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am putting a question. If the Government acknowledge that right, should they not be prepared, in regard to people who are seeking asylum in this country because they are being dented these rights in other countries, to grant them asylum as a human right and not merely as offenders against a law in their own country? I hope that that is a little clearer to the noble Lord.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, the question is clear. The answer regarding the granting of political asylum is well outside the framework of Resolution 337 or the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a clear doctrine about the granting of political asylum. I believe the noble Lord must be aware of that and of the principles which we adopt in regard to it. I do not see that it is relevant to the question of Resolution 337, which was the subject of the noble Lord's Question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the fact that this country recognises conscientious objection even on political grounds and extends it to members of the Forces, it is not therefore logical that we should grant asylum to those who on those grounds come to this country from countries where they are being conscripted for such service to which they have a conscientious objection?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept the logic of this argument. We accept the principles of Resolution 337 and of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that the action of Her Majesty's Government in the area to which my noble friend and the noble Lord have referred is irrelevant to this Convention and to the resolution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I further ask my noble friend whether this matter does not derive from an understanding by the NATO Powers in 1951, whether it was not given expression in the Visiting Forces Act adopted by our Government, and whether both these are not inconsistent with Resolution 337 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot agree with that, and I can only repeat that the practice in British law is consistent with Resolution 337 and with the European Convention on Human Rights.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, since we have been liberal in our opinions in regard to conscientious objection from the time of the First World War, we should like to see this principle world-wide, but that does not mean to say that we should be the receivers of people from all over the world who hold these views but who cannot get their countries to accept this principle?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I sympathise with the point of view of my noble friend. I agree that we should like to see a recognition of these human rights, as we recognise them, adopted all over the world.

SOUTH YEMEN: DISMISSALS OF BRITISH PILOTS
2.42 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: 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 how they interpret the dismissal of the remaining British experts serving with the South Yemen Armed Forces; to what they attribute these dismissals; and what consequences they anticipate.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, to avoid the embarrassment which might have arisen if British personnel, whose recruitment we had facilitated, had been used in North Yemen, where British policy is non-involvement, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Aden requested that the British pilots under contract for service in the Southern Yemeni Air Force should not be used outside the Southern Yemen. Her Majesty's Government regret that the Southern Yemen Government felt it necessary, apparently as a result, to dismiss contract personnel The relationship was, however, a contractual one between the personnel themselves and the Southern Yemen Government, and the latter obviously had the right to terminate their services. Her Majesty's Government do not expect any particular consequences, except that the efficiency of the Southern Yemen forces has no doubt been reduced, but the Ambassador has protested against a hostile statement made by the Southern Yemeni Defence Minister over the dismissals.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I should like to ask him two supplementary questions. First, did the contract of these personnel include an obligation to fight outside South Yemen territory?—because if it did not then they were fulfilling their contract without going outside South Yemen territory. The other question is: has the noble Lord any reason to suppose that these officers will be replaced by Russians, as was suggested as a possibility by the B.B.C. in a broadcast on, I think, February 27.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not aware of the exact terms of the contracts that were signed between those

935
pilots and the South Yemen Government, but we were disturbed lest they might be used outside the area and, indeed, used in Northern Yemen. For that reason we made it clear to the South Yemen Government that we should object to this, and as a result of that the dismissals took place. So far as the replacement by Russian personnel is concerned, I have no first-hand information about this. It is of course entirely up to the Government of the South Yemen, which is an independent Government, to make contracts with whomever it pleases, but I have no clear or firm information about this matter.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, may I suggest that one of the consequences which I had in mind in asking the Question, was the replacement of these officers by Russian personnel? Does the noble Lord, even though he knows nothing about their actual replacement, or of plans to replace them with Russian personnel, know anything of Russian planes landing in the South Yemen, or of a Russian military mission visiting the South Yemen, which might give a pointer to the replacement plans of the South Yemen Government?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I said, I have no information that would lead me to suppose that these contract pilots are being found from the Soviet Union. I am not entirely at one with the noble Lord in thinking that the indicators that he suggested would necessarily point to that. They may point to a number of other conclusions as well.

CROP DAMAGE BY BIRDS
2.45 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 are aware of the ever-increasing devastation to farms, orchards and gardens wrought by pigeons and bullfinches; and whether they have any scientific or other alleviation in view.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the apparently increasing damage caused to
936
agricultural and horticultural crops in many areas by certain birds, notably pigeons and bullfinches. The wholesale slaughter of bird pests would be impracticable, and would also involve the destruction of protected species and other wild life and would be unacceptable to public opinion. Scientists here and in other countries are engaged in research to find new and better ways of reducing damage by birds.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I am afraid must remain disappointing. Will Her Majesty's Government go on working on this problem, which is a very serious one and has very much increased since the discouragement of small boys from collecting birds' eggs?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are a number of other ways besides that. The Ministry is developing a method of presenting a stupefying substance which would be used on wood pigeons. The affected birds are then picked up and humanely destroyed. There is some control by shooting; there is some control by nest reduction, and the noble Lord may also know that in the United States the Americans are working on a process which is delicately called "reproduction inhibitors".
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while respecting the noble Lord's admission about the damage which pigeons do, and also respecting the traditional emotional feelings towards birds and animals in this country, may I ask him whether he does not think that the moment has arrived for a more aggressive warfare against them, in towns as well as in the country? Surely, we cannot understand him rightly as saying that the Government do not think that public opinion would support the protection of farmers, hygiene and historic and other buildings.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I said was that public opinion would not tolerate wholesale slaughter. The use of poisonous substances, for instance, would be an easy way out; but it would not be acceptable and would cause damage to other animals and birds.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the alternative which he suggests, that of investigations by the Ministry,

937
would not be much more expensive than enlisting the aid of little boys?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I think I said was that these were additional methods.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would my noble friend consider using hawks?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government take notice of the fate of the sheep of Denver, and see that none of these stupefying gases get loose among the members of Her Majesty's Government?

POSTAL DELAYS AND SECOND CLASS MAIL
2.58 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 it is correct that in some cases the Post Office is deliberately delaying delivery of postcards and printed papers with 3d. stamps in order to induce the public to put on 4d. stamps.]
LORD SORENSEN: No, my Lords. The Post Office delays despatch or delivery of mail with 3d. stamps where this is necessary to ensure that letters with 4d. stamps, which are given a better and more regular service in return for the extra charge, are not delayed. People who do not want their greetings cards or other printed papers to be liable to a slower service can, if they wish, put 4d. stamps on. The purpose of the recent Press advertisements was to remind people of this.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer which, so far as it goes, is satisfactory. May I ask him two questions? First of all, will he give an assurance that the Post Office will never stoop in the future to deliberate delay of what it calls second-class mail? Secondly, would he reconsider the question of postcards, on which the public puts a 3d. stamp in the belief that they are cheaper to carry and are first-class mail, but which are apparently getting a second-class service?
LORD SORENSEN: So far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I will certainly see that his observations are passed on to the Postmaster General. So far as the first part is concerned, I have no power at all to give that guarantee, but certainly I will see that the Postmaster General has his attention drawn to both what the noble Lord has said and also my own comments.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether that is the reason my Whip, which was posted last Thursday, has not yet been delivered? Is it considered second-class mail? Can Her Majesty's Government also inform me whether it applies to Cross-Bench Peers, Conservative Peers, Liberal Peers, or all Peers alike?
LORD SORENSEN: I presume it is possible that the noble Lord suffers from a disadvantage by being on the Cross-Benches, but I will certainly see that the matter is investigated.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, when we have to have a 5d. stamp, the mail will be delivered any more quickly?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I think the Post Office will be as efficient and competent when the 5d. stamps are issued as it is now.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I think there is something in what my noble friend Lord Saltoun has said, because I discovered during lunch—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SOMERS: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Is it true that noble Lords on the opposite side have received their additional Whip, whereas we on this side have not?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I have no information on that at all. But I shall be glad to have any evidence of it, which I can assure the noble Lord I will certainly see is considered in the right quarter.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many people in this country who are grossly dissatisfied with our postal services? Is he further aware, as an example, that I myself posted a

939
letter to the Inland Revenue in Edinburgh on February 21 and that my letter, with a 4d. stamp, was delivered on March 5? Is this really acceptable?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, there are, of course, literally billions of letters posted, and there are bound to be some complaints. I have no knowledge at all of the particular complaint of the noble Lord, and no doubt if he will send it to me, or to the Postmaster General direct, the matter will be investigated. But I would assure him that the experience of many of us is that as a rule our postal service is excellent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is it not a fact that the postal services of this country are infinitely superior to those of any other European country?

ALL SAINTS, STREATHAM BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHRIST CHURCH WITH SAINT ANDREW AND SAINT MICHAEL, EAST GREENWICH BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1968
2.54 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968 be approved. It might also be convenient to your Lordships if we discussed the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order 1968 at the same time, since the two are complementary.
May I first say something in general terms about the purpose of this subsidy? Payment of a calf subsidy was first authorised by the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act 1952, and the first payment was made in 1953. The first scheme then introduced had a life of three years, and successive Parliaments have renewed it at intervals of three years. This of itself is an indication
940
of the importance attached to this part of the overall pattern of support for beef production in this country. Its primary purpose has been straightforward. It is to encourage the retention for beef production of all calves of suitable beef potential by making a direct cash payment to the man who rears the calf to an age when this potential can be judged. It is a complement to the deficiency payments scheme, which ensures an adequate level of return to those who fatten and market cattle.
The claim that this calf subsidy has encouraged development of the beef industry is strengthened by the fact that the number of calves certified in the current year is expected to be almost one million more than the average level in the first three years of the scheme. With suitable mating policies for dairy cows, from which two-thirds of our beef is derived, and rearing all those calves which are suitable for beef production, this growth should continue. The scope of the subsidy was widened in 1965 to allow for certification for subsidy on the hook. This was a development to provide specific statutory backing for this alternative method of claiming this subsidy.
The scheme itself falls into two parts. Part I provides for the payment of subsidy on live calves born during the three-year period up to and including October 29, 1970, and Part II provides for payment on carcases of home-bred cattle which have not earned a subsidy as calves but which are of a standard eligible for fatstock guarantee payments, and which are certified during the three-year period April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1971. These two ways of claiming subsidy are, of course, better known as "Stage A" and "Stage B".
Stage A of the scheme is the traditional calf subsidy. It continues the provisions contained in earlier schemes, and excludes heifers of the four main dairy breeds. The new provisions differ from those in earlier schemes in only two respects. First, the scheme no longer contains provisions for the marking of certified calves. This is now provided for in the new Supervision and Enforcement Order. Secondly, the opportunity has been taken to provide for payment on calves which are over the specified age limit at the time of certification, where the reason for the delay in inspection and

941
certification was to avoid the risk of spreading or introducing animal disease, most particularly foot-and-mouth disease. This provision will do much to remove anxiety from the minds of farmers, and I know it will be appreciated. In these circumstances, so long as they put their application in at the normal time farmers will not lose their money if, when the animal is eventually inspected, it is found to have already shot its incisor teeth. Similar arrangements have been operating on an exceptional basis during the recent foot-and-mouth epidemic.
Part II of the scheme contains the new provision to which I referred earlier. The test here is that the carcase should be of a standard which would make it eligible for a payment under the fatstock guarantee scheme provided, of course, that the animal was not certified for calf subsidy when alive. Payments on this basis have been made under the authority of the Appropriation Act since September, 1965, pending the necessary legislative authority contained in the 1967 Act.
The main purpose in widening the scope of the scheme was to enable subsidy to be paid on heifers of dairy breed which were fattened for beef. Previously, although it was recognised that if properly finished these heifers—in particular Friesian heifers—could and did produce valuable beef carcases, they had been excluded from subsidy because of the risk that if certified alive on the farm they might subsequently be used, not for beef production but for dairying. This problem was overcome by providing for certification after slaughter. This widening of the scope of the scheme has been generally welcomed, and whilst we would expect most producers who can to claim their money at Stage A, it does have the additional advantage that those animals which just fail to qualify for subsidy while they are still calves have an opportunity to earn the subsidy on the hook if they eventually produce a good carcase.
Perhaps I ought to say a short word about the references in the scheme to the rates of subsidy. The Stage A rate is laid down in the scheme. For Stage B, on the other hand, no rate is prescribed, but the Ministers are given powers to determine rates which shall be approximately equivalent on the average to those which would have been payable at Stage
942
A, if the animals in question had qualified at that stage as calves. The difference stems from the fact that whereas the date of birth of a calf on a farm can be readily established there is no way of determining the precise age of all of the cattle presented at Stage B. The rates of subsidy earned at Stage A by steers and heifers respectively is therefore determined by the date of the calf's birth, and the rates at Stage B by the date of certification. If calf subsidy rates were never changed there would, of course, be no problem. The rates could be set down in the scheme to apply at both stages. But the rates are changed from time to time. At Stage A any increase is expressed as relating to calves born on or after a certain date: the parallel increase in Stage B has to relate to carcases certified after a certain date. There has to be a time lag, so that the generality of cattle receive the same rates of subsidy as they would have received had they been presented at Stage A.
I now come to the Order providing for the policing of the subsidy payment, the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order, 1968. There has always been provision for Stage A, of course, but Stage B is administered jointly with the fatstock guarantee scheme, and this has called for some extension of the measures for ensuring that subsidy is paid in proper cases only. I may say that £28 millions of taxpayers' money is involved here. Therefore, safeguards are needed. Briefly, the Order makes it an offence to seek double payment for subsidy, and provides for the marking of certified calves and carcases in such a way that an attempt to obtain a second subsidy payment would be detected. An identical provision for the marking of calves has always appeared in earlier calf subsidy schemes.
In support of these marking provisions, the Order also provides authority to seize the ears of carcases, in cases where these constitute vital evidence which may be needed for prosecutions. The other provisions of the Order are similar to those contained in the Fat-stock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958, for supporting the arrangements for deficiency payments on fatstock. No new burden of record keeping is imposed by the Order those concerned will

943
simply be required to produce for inspection such records as they already maintain for other purposes. In addition to the requirements as to records, the Order contains powers of entry for authorised officers at all reasonable times.
The powers taken by this Order are, in the Government's view, necessary to safeguard public money.
Finally I must make some reference to the Meat and Livestock Commission. Both the scheme and the Order authorise Ministers to delegate certain functions to the Commission. This power is confined to the certification functions at Stage B and their policing, and is now taken in readiness for the time when the Commission will take over the day-to-day administration of the fatstock guarantee scheme, and the calf subsidy at Stage B. Arrangements for this are now being made and will be announced in due course.
I have already indicated the importance which the Government attach to this subsidy and, I think, the farming industry shares this view. I commend this scheme and the new enforcement Order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968, laid before the House on February 29 be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for describing to us the calf scheme and the enforcement Order? I welcome this Order and the continuation of the calf scheme which they will provide. They will extend their life for a further three years and will, at the same time, I think, add £1 a head both for male and for female calves; and this keeps pace with the general increase in values. May I state my belief in the value of this subsidy, which makes payment to the farmer who is most directly connected with the rearing of the calf and who will make it into beef later on when the animal is fattened? I should also like to welcome the two new features that the noble Lord mentioned. The introduction of a certain amount of flexibility in relation to the time of certification under Part I is valuable. As the noble Lord has said,
944
it overcomes anxieties in connection with foot-and-mouth disease regulations and so on.
The second new feature, mentioned in Part II of the calf subsidy scheme, which provides for a subsidy to be paid when the animal is dead on the hook is especially valuable in the case of the dairy heifer which has been fattened-on for beef. I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining what is the approximate equivalent rate and the problem of the date of birth of the calf. This is not easy to determine in animals dead on the hook. If I may say so, his explanation makes the matter a good deal clearer than when it was dealt with in another place.
So much for these bouquets or new ideas. I have a slightly critical word on one side of the working of the scheme. I welcome the overall increase in certification since the scheme started 16 years ago when, as the noble Lord mentioned, the figure was one of a million calves a year; but I am inclined to think that the boost value of this calf scheme is tending to fade out. I quote two figures which rather indicate that. In the year 1962–3 there was an increase of plus 8 per cent. of calf certification. Last year, 1967–68, the estimated increase was only 4 per cent. I should myself suspect that the rate of increase is falling and is tending probably to stabilise. As some 10 per cent. of our beef is still imported—and mostly from the Argentine with all the disease risk that that implies—and is a heavy burden on our balance of payments, it is of first national interest that we should, if we can, increase our home beef production. This is a part of our national diet which, given time, we could supply from our own farms. The main nutrition for beef cattle is grass; and Heaven knows! there is plenty of that, and to spare.
It interested me to observe that the Government's National Plan estimated that by 1970 beef and veal production could be increased by 125,000 tons per annum. That would just about comfortably take the place of existing imports. I should think that this was another viable prediction in the National Plan; but, in fact, in the last two years beef production has increased by only about 15,000 tons per annum. I regard that as rather a disappointing result. It is

945
far below the estimated target figure of the National Plan and, I believe, below the potential which is there on the farms. The main potential would seem to me to be in the male and surplus calves—called in the farming world the "bobby calves" of three or four days old—at present going for slaughter. My apprehension is that this figure is something in the order of 300,000 to 400,000 calves per annum. If all those calves could be reared and fattened the gap would just about be filled. I appreciate, of course, that they cannot all be reared-on. A number of them—for example, the males from the Channel Islands breeds—would not be worth carrying on. But I suspect that quite a proportion of that number could be saved and could be reared-on to make good beef.
I should be interested if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could tell us whether the Ministry of Agriculture have carried out a survey to discover the causes of this large apparent annual wastage. How many are lost due to diseases? To what extent is brucellosis a feature here and, in this context, how is the brucellosis programme getting on? Could the Ministry advisory officers help the small dairy farmer by giving more advice with regard to their breeding programmes by perhaps a greater use of artificial insemination by a beef bull of some of their dairy cows, in order to have more beef animals to rear, while at the same time maintaining the strength of their own dairy herd?
The noble Lord, I think rightly, made the point that this subsidy is costing £28 million per annum and therefore we are entitled to be as sure as sure can be that this very large sum of money is being used as effectively as possible to encourage the rearing and eventually the production, of the extra beef that we want. More home-grown beef is something which would be an advantage to the whole nation and, of course, to every housewife. If I may say so in passing, I am quite certain from my long acquaintance with the officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that there are plenty of officers who could carry out a survey and give the necessary advice and help to bring about the kind of results for which I, and I am sure all
946
noble Lords, are hoping. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can give a reassuring answer to my general point that there may be scope for new thought and initiative in the Calf Scheme on these lines which might provide some additional beef for the benefit of everybody.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, one question, apropos the marketing of beef. The punching of a hole in the animal's ear, provided that it is done by an expert, can I believe be a comparatively painless operation. It soon heals, and there is little loss of blood. On the other hand, if it is not done by an expert it can be a great deal worse. I do not see anything in the Order which insists that this shall be done by those who are qualified. I do not know whether the noble Lord can enlighten me on that point.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend in welcoming parts of this Order. Particularly I welcome the provision made for the payment of subsidy on the carcase of the pure dairy heifer. It is an undoubted fact that there is a considerable loss in the potential of meat production by the slaughtering of these so-called "bobby calves", to which my noble friend referred, when they are a few days old. One hopes that the provisions of this Order will mean that heifers of the British Friesian breed particularly will be utilised, all of which would make good meat, and heifer calves from the dairy herds of the Ayrshire breed, a very large number of which would also make good quality beef.
In addition I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on his correct use of the word "animal" in this connection. I was glad to notice that the word "animal" was used officially in paragraph 7 of the main Order. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, used the word consistently and managed to refrain from referring to "creatures' diseases". He used the correct term "animal diseases". May I suggest that he takes another look to see whether the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill could be brought into line and the proper use of the English language be continued.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the reason for the difference in the rate of subsidy for heifer cows as opposed to steer cows? Surely if a man is breeding for beef, it must be a matter of pure chance whether he produces a steer or heifer. I would add that I am not being critical in any way; I am merely seeking information.
3.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I think I am right in saying that other noble Lords who have spoken also welcome the scheme, and I thank them too. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was gracious enough to compliment me on my use of the English language in this connection. I accept his compliment in the spirit in which it was paid. I would only point out to the noble Lord that in this Order we are referring only to calves and not to the wide variety of creatures covered by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Allerton, asked about the different rates of payment for heifers and steers. The answer is that there is more beef on the steer than on the heifer, and I think that most people would agree with different rates of payment.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, expressed some doubts about the current effectiveness of these subsidies. He pointed out that the increase has not been as great as was expected. The noble Lord was kind enough to tell me earlier of his doubts and in the meantime I have been making some inquiries. I am sorry that I am not able to get all the information that the noble Lord would wish to have particularly about brucellosis, but if I may, I will write to him about that. I do not believe that this is an important ingredient in the arithmetic about which the noble Lord spoke. What I do find is that the figure of 300.000 to 400,000 slaughterings which the noble Lord gave is an underestimate. The number of bobby calves going to slaughter is much greater than that.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I wonder whether he could tell us what is the figure? It would be interesting to know.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was about to give some figures. The fact is that in the early 1960's it was between 800,000 and 900,000. The figure fell in 1964 to 491,000. In 1965 it was an all-time low, yet still above the figure which the noble Lord quoted. Since then it has risen again. In 1966 it was 500.000. I think I am right in saying that in 1967 it was 600,000, a slight increase. The reason for this slight upswing is not sinister. Following the success of the scheme in the early 1960's, what seems to have happened was that farmers were keeping an uneconomic number of these bobby calves. The realisation of this led to the slight change of policy, and I think it true to say that farmers are now much more selective in the calves which they choose to keep instead of sending them to the market when they are three or four days old. I think that is one of the most unhappy sights on the farming scene, but looked at purely from the economics of the thing, it is understandable. Nevertheless, although the figures for slaughtering are as I have stated, if one looks at the matter from the other angle, the number of calves retained, there has been a consistent increase from 1953. As I said, the total number now is about a million more than it was at the inception of the scheme. Looking at the break-down of the yearly returns it shows a fairly consistent increase. For 1953–54 it was 1,479,000, and right the way up to 1966–67 when the figure was 2,558,000. From April to February 1967–68 it was 1,273,000. Therefore, I should not have thought that it was fair to draw the conclusion that the scheme was a failure. It has not been a failure It has succeeded in increasing the number of animals reared for beef. The noble Lord called attention to the fact that the National Plan figures had not been achieved. I agree with him that this has not been done, but the beef potential is there and I firmly believe that the potential can be realised. This calf subsidy scheme must be part of the policy for increasing our beef production.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about the marking of animals by the ear. As he says, it can be painless if done properly by qualified people, and I am informed that all calf certifying officers recruited by the Department, particularly for the purpose of examining

949
and marking calves, are instructed and become expert in the use of the marking instruments. So far as I am aware, there has been no complaint at all that unnecessary cruelty has been caused. With these explanations, I hope that it will be possible for your Lordships to approve this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT) ORDER 1968
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order 1968 be approved.
Moved, That the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order 1968 be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1968
3.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 22 be approved. These Regulations make minor amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations 1966 and I should like briefly to give some explanation of each of the changes. The amendments contained in Part I deal only with the administration of the pension arrangements for policemen who leave police forces in this country to serve temporarily overseas, and do not affect in any way the pension rights of these officers or their dependants. In the past a number of officers have served in this way in police corps set up under the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and, more recently, officers have served under the arrangements of the Overseas Service Act 1958. During their overseas service officers continue to be subject to the police pension scheme in all respects, and the Secretary of State responsible for the particular appointment has assumed responsibility for their pension position.
For administrative reasons it is desirable for these functions, at present being performed by different Departments, to be transferred, for the most part, to the
950
Minister of Overseas Development, and Section 12 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 went some way to enable this to be done. The amendments contained in Part I of the Regulations now before the House follow upon the Act of 1967 and make the changes in the Police Pensions Regulations which are necessary to enable the transfer to take place. That is all there is to Part I.
Part II of the Regulations contains three separate amendments. The first of these, Regulation 3, makes provision for a higher gratuity to be paid in certain cases to widows or to the children of policemen who may die as the result of duty. At the present time the Regulations provide that when a policeman dies from injuries received from an attack or while effecting an arrest or preventing an escape his widow or his children shall receive, in addition to a pension, a gratuity amounting to twice the maximum pay of a constable in the force in which the policeman served. But, as your Lordships will be aware, the pay of a constable in the Metropolitan and in the City of London Police is £50 a year higher than in other police forces, so there is a difference in the amount of gratuities which may be paid. This amendment provides that in future in all cases the gratuity will be assessed on the same basis—that is, twice the maximum pay of a constable in the Metropolitan Police whether or not the policeman was a member of that force. The gratuity would amount to a sum of over £2,500 at the present time.
The two next amendments are both concerned with preserving the pension position and the continuing application of the pension scheme in relation to former and serving policemen of police areas which are absorbed into other police areas in certain circumstances. The pensions regulations already provide, in Regulation 97, for preservation of rights and the continued application of the schemes in most situations created by alteration or amalgamations of police areas, but these amendments provide for kinds of cases which are not at present specifically covered.
Regulation 4 makes the appropriate provision in relation to all former members and serving members of the River

951
Tyne police force in the event of the dissolution of this force by a harbour re-organisation scheme under the Harbours Act 1964. Regulation 5, which is rather technical—not unusual in these pensions regulations—makes provision for a situation where the whole of an existing county or county borough police area is included in a new county or county borough police area by reason of an order made under the Local Government Act 1958.
I now come to Part III of the Order. Regulations 6 and 8 of this Part will help to reduce the complexity of the main Regulations because they revoke certain provisions which now have no application. These provisions governed the payment of allowances to children of police officers who died before July 5, 1948. Your Lordships may wonder why separate provision existed for the payment of awards by reference to this date, and I should explain that it is because that was the date when the police pension scheme was incorporated for the first time in Regulations. Previously it had been contained in the Police Pensions Act 1921.
July 5, 1948, was also the day on which the National Insurance scheme came into operation, and this brings me to the amendment contained in Regulation 7. National Insurance benefits are not payable to some children of deceased policemen because their fathers were unable to complete the necessary contributions to the scheme. They were too old. So since July 5, 1948, the Police Pensions Regulations have given police authorities discretion to increase the police allowances of these children up to amounts which are related to certain National Insurance benefits for which they do not qualify. It is the practice to revise these amounts payable by police authorities whenever the amounts of the related National Insurance benefits are changed, to retain parity. Your Lordships will be aware that from April 9 National Insurance benefits for children become payable at revised rates in accordance with the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1967. The amendment in Regulation 7 makes certain related adjustments in the amounts payable under the police pensions scheme, but it makes no adjustments which would reduce the amounts of payments already
952
being received by children. Finally, my Lords, I would assure you that all these changes have been agreed by the Police Council for Great Britain.
Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on February 22 be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for explaining in simple words which we can understand this type of regulation which is always rather complicated. We on this side have nothing adverse to say about any of them, but I personally particularly welcome paragraph 3 in Part II of the Regulations. I think this is a very fair move.
There is one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord. I can quite see why all these pension arrangements for police officers from this country who serve temporarily overseas should all be dealt with by one Ministry, but as a matter of purely academic interest, since in practically all cases these police officers will be coming back here at some time during their service, why is this matter given to the Ministry of Overseas Development to administer, and not to one of the home Departments—and I do not necessarily mean the Home Office? It has nothing to do with overseas development, and most of these police officers are based in this country. Why has this particular Ministry been chosen?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is desirable to channel administration into one Department, and my understanding is that the Overseas Development Department has been selected because it has, in general, the most in common with the countries where these officers have been or are serving. It seems a most logical thing to transfer the responsibility to that Department.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not want to pursue the point, but I do not think the explanation is very satisfactory, because, although the Department may have most to do with the countries in which these officers serve, this is the country in which their pensions are paid. However, apart from that, we welcome the Regulations.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I rise to seek a point of information on those parts of the amending

953
Regulations which refer to the increased sum which is paid to the widow of an officer who is killed while endeavouring to arrest a criminal. I understand that if that officer is killed directly by the criminal, either by shooting or stabbing, his widow will receive the increased award; but if in trying to apprehend a criminal he is killed by, say, falling off a roof when pursuing him, or even killed in a car when pursuing him, the widow and family will not receive the increased contribution. I rise to ask if that is a correct interpretation, and, if so, what is the reason for the distinction.
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, it is not correct, If the noble Lord would do me the honour of reading Hansard he will see that I made it quite clear that the officer could be directly killed, or killed as a result of injuries sustained in the course of duty in the circumstances I described. The criteria is actually being on duty, and the distinction is between an officer dying in that way and one dying from natural causes.

MARKET DEVELOPMENT SCHEME EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER 1968
3.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Market Development Scheme (Extension of Period) Order, 1968, laid before the House on February 28, 1968, be approved. This Order extends the Market Development Scheme for a period of three years from March 31 this year. The Scheme was first introduced in 1962 for three years and a similar Order extending that initial period was made and approved by the House in 1965.
An unusual feature of this Scheme is that, subject to Ministerial approval of grants, the Farmers' Union are charged with the responsibility of running it. They constituted for this purpose the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee, and for six years since its inception this Committee has been fortunate to sit under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. The Scheme has assisted a wide range of development in agricultural and horticultural marketing and it is expected that grant paid or due to be paid on projects approved by
954
by the end of March will have amounted to £1·2 million. About one half of this sum has been used to assist producers to organise their marketing on a cooperative basis. Since early October last year it has been possible for co-operative projects of this kind to tie assisted under the Agricultural and Horticultural Cooperation Scheme administered by the recently established Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Cooperation. Various grants for promoting or developing co-operative marketing including those previously available from A.M.D.E.C., have been incorporated into this unified scheme. A.M.D.E.C. have therefore lost part of their work. Nevertheless, an important task in the general, as distinct from the co-operative, field of marketing remains to be done and the continuation of the Scheme will enable A.M.D.E.C. to make its distinctive contribution for another three years. To cover this extension we propose that the money available for these grants should be increased from the present figure of £1½ million to £2 million.
I am glad to say that the unions agree with us on the future of the scheme, but as the burden on A.M.D.E.C. will be less in future they will be reconstituting the Committee as a smaller body. They have also told us that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has decided that the time has come when someone else should take over the chair. His resignation will be a loss. I must say that when I was told this in that crisp way, I thought that they were guilty of an understatement. I should like to take this opportunity to ray my tribute and, I am sure, the tribute of this House, to the constructive and conscientious contribution which the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Committee have made in their six years of office. I speak for the Department and my right honourable friend when I say we are extremely grateful to them for having given so freely time, experience and wise judgment. The Farmers Union have told us that they would like to appoint Mr. J. G. Jenkins as Chairman of the reconstituted Committee, and I am happy to say that this has been agreed to. I wish him well. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Market Development Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1968 be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for describing to us the scheme in this Order, and may I specially thank him for his kind and generous words about me, which I can assure him are not in the least deserved. I have been very happy to serve as the Chairman of this Committee for the last six years. It has been a most interesting and worthwhile experience. I think it is a great credit to the Farmers' Union to bring together such a strong and able committee.
I am sorry to see that the scheme has changed in its nature, and it is now cut down, as the noble Lord has said, to about half its size. In fact, as the noble Lord knows, the recommendation of the A.M.D.E.C. Committee and myself was that the scheme should be wound up altogether and merged into a new Central Council. I thought that this would be more convenient for everybody. It is unwise to have too many different bodies operating in the same field, and I thought it would be the best arrangement. However, the new arrangements which the noble Lord described are, I think, the best possible in the circumstances, and, for my part. I wish the new Committee every success. My best wishes go to their new and very able Chairman, Mr. John Jenkins, who now succeeds me.
May I just say one valedictory word about the work of A.M.D.E.C. as it passes? This, I think, was an unusual scheme, as the noble Lord has said, in that the Farmers' Unions were asked to administer it. It therefore put a great strain both on them and on the officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, and the fact that they were able to operate it successfully for six years, giving over £1 million in grants, is a great credit to the officials in the Ministry for their promptness and understanding, and to the Farmers' Unions on their side, as well.
I believe that the scheme has played a valuable part in encouraging farmers to take a greater share in the marketing of their produce and to study the market rather more than they traditionally do. Farmers are accustomed to studying the problems of production, which, heaven knows! are big enough—when the roof of your factory is the sky there are many unpredictable factors—but nowadays it
956
is necessary to go further and to study the needs of the market, the tastes of consumers, and to try to organise the product coming off your farm, the better to meet what the consumers want. This is what A.M.D.E.C. has been doing over the past six years: grant-aiding various schemes of research into the market itself and to organise the collection and grading of produce, so that it reaches the market better in quality and quantity and in more regular supplies, always aimed at the same idea of better meeting the market. In the process of doing this we have grant-aided many groups of farmers who have come together to do a joint exercise in marketing—groups formed as ad hoc groups or as companies under the Industrial and Provident Acts, or as agricultural co-operatives.
There are just two major points on which I should like to comment, and which the whole farming community learned. In the first place one cannot improve marketing unless one influences the methods of production as well. It is absolutely basic to influence the methods of production—and probably, with livestock, the breeding methods as well as the management, nutrition and so on. This fact has been recognised. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with admirable flexibility, allowed us to extend our grants into production, where it was related to marketing, although we were originally set up simply for the marketing function and when we set up the new statutory council which was mentioned by the noble Lord—the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Marketing—that could specifically give grants for production schemes as well.
The second point, which is directly related to this, is that as soon as a group of farmers come together to try to organise their production and marketing as a joint exercise the prime factor for success is the strength of the management and the loyalty of the members. These are the lessons we have learned over and over again with the two or three hundred schemes that we have grant-aided up and down the country, concerning livestock, grain crops, horticultural crops, every sort and kind of crop. As noble Lords are probably aware, the farming Press have been extremely generous in giving us publicity, and of

957
course all the reports were available to any farmer who asked for them. I think these lessons have been most helpful to the whole farming world, so that they could see the possibilities and the limits of development in this field. I believe the most enterprising and able farmers have got a great deal of value out of it, and I hope and believe that as the years go by others will follow in the wake of the leaders of the industry. In my view the scheme has been useful. The functions which remain are with that part of the work not covered by agricultural co-operatives and groups, and continue to be important, and the scheme has my best wishes for the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This is a consolidating Bill, which consolidates all, or the relevant parts of, the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952, the Administration of Justice Act 1960, the Criminal Appeal Act 1964, the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Special Orders Committee report that they have considered the Criminal Appeal Bill and have heard evidence thereon. The Committee have made certain Amendments which seem to them necessary to improve the form of the Bill and to bring the Bill into conformity with the existing law. They consider that the Bill, as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law, and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. My Lords, with our thanks to the Committee, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
3.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. This also is a consolidating Bill, dealing with all, or the relevant parts, of those Acts relating to Courts-Martial appeals, beginning with the main Act in 1951, and there have been some five amending Acts since. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Northern Ireland has followed us very closely in relation to criminal appeals, and the same need has accordingly arisen to consolidate those Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

HOVERCRAFT DEVELOPMENT
3.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the present state of the British hovercraft industry is satisfactory in view of the enormous potential export market available and the increasing development of this British concept in other countries. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am a little disappointed not to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, here at the beginning of my speech, as I have

959
a great number of questions to ask him. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I have put down this Unstarred Question for two specific purposes. The first is to express what I believe is in the minds of many people; that is, a feeling of disappointment and anxiety at the rate of growth of this potentially great industry.
The second purpose is to offer to the Government, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet (who I am glad to see has now returned to the Chamber), in particular, a chance, for which I am sure he will be grateful, to state clearly what are the short-term and long-term plans the Government have in mind for the industry over the coming years to ensure that it never loses its place among the markets of the world and is able always to compete with the increasing foreign competition that is rapidly challenging it.
The House will be aware that the hovercraft concept, which has already shown itself capable of a numerous variety of purposes, is an all-British invention and was first conceived some 12 years ago by Mr. Christopher Cockerell, down in Southampton; and from those early days the invention grew into an industry, thanks almost entirely to the support of the N.R.D.C. who in their wisdom and foresight supported Mr. Cockerell by forming the Hovercraft Development Company. In this Company the research work, as I understand it, was financed by the N.R.D.C., and in return for this the Cockerell patents were transferred to the Company.
The House will recall that by the early 1960s private industry also had taken an interest in hovercraft development, and at that stage a small number of Government development contracts were awarded. Then in 1965 came the important policy change and decision by the Ministry of Technology to weld together the interests of the major companies taking part in design studies in this field, and the argument put forward for this change was to eliminate duplication of research and development work in this industry. And this single body, as the House will be aware, became known as the British Hovercraft Corporation.
Although in theory the merging of interests into one body in 1965 may have seemed a prudent policy, I believe now,
960
with the benefit of hindsight, that the defects of this monopoly of the industry are beginning to show themselves. Signs, for instance, of the lack of impetus, a distinct reluctance for others to be allowed to enter into competition, a serious reduction in design staff, as we saw only last month, all go, I suggest, to make up not what one would expect of a thriving and expanding industry, an industry of great export potential, as the Government themselves have described it, but more of an industry that has seemingly lost direction as to its development and the mode of its development; and it is this, I believe, which concerns so many people to-day.
One of the most frequent complaints I have heard since meeting people in the industry is the present system adopted by the N.R.D.C. for granting licences to develop and manufacture hovercraft both at home and abroad. I believe I am correct in saying that the bulk of the patents of the hovercraft industry are held by the British Hovercraft Corporation and the Hovercraft Development Company, and in each case the N.R.D.C. negotiate the licences. The question that is often asked by the British competitors in the hovercraft field is why do the N.R.D.C. negotiate licences to foreign competitors in, say, Japan and the U.S.A.—notably those two countries—in a matter of weeks when similar and often much narrower licences have taken months, and even in one case years, to negotiate with British companies outside the umbrella of the British Hovercraft Corporation. In the case of the Hover-marine Company, for instance, I believe that the negotiations took over 13 months to complete, and in the case of Vosper Thorneycroft Company over 25 months.
The second question that is often put, and on which I do not think the Government have yet stated their view, is this. Is it right that competitive companies, when they apply for a licence, should have to disclose their industrial secrets to the body whose very members are on the board of another competitor, the British Hovercraft Corporation? This, I feel, is a fundamental question which the Government should answer today, as to the role or roles the N.R.D.C. should play in this industry.
As to the licences that have been granted abroad, obviously one can see the

961
practical wisdom of negotiating licences with foreign competitors rather than trying to block their development. But could the noble Lord who is to reply tell us to-day what royalties these licences to Japan and the U.S.A. have so far earned us; and are any of these licences limited by time? Could the noble Lord also say whether the N.R.D.C. are considering extending their licences in Canada to exploit what must be a vast potential for hovercraft in that country, and have any Canadian applications for licences ever been refused? Finally on the subject of licences, may I also ask the noble Lord whether he can advise the House why the N.R.D.C. refused the offer of taking up the Latimer Needham patent on the hovercraft flexible skirts, which the British Hovercraft Corporation subsequently snapped up and which now represents, as I understand it, one of the most important and valuable patents of Hovercraft?
My Lords, the concept of hovercraft can, I think, be divided into three aspects or categories—the marine, the industrial and the hover-rail or tracked hovercraft. I should like, if I may, to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, a number of specific questions on all these developments. In the case of the marine development, can the noble Lord say why he argued on February 21 that the military development known as the B.H.7 project was no longer required due to the Government policy of withdrawal from the Far East? Surely such hovercraft for military use cannot have been envisaged solely for the Far East. Does not the noble Lord anticipate the possibility of its use in the European theatre? As to the civilian field, are the Government planning to support development on a hover-ship for freight? I believe I am right in saying that the American industry are specifically concentrating on this. What do the Government consider of its potential?
Turning to the industrial use of hovercraft, I would ask the noble Lord whether he can say what progress of development the hoverbed has reached and how soon they expect it to be possible to offer it to the world markets. The bed, the noble Lord will recall, was designed by a very small team in the Hovercraft Development Company, and it has already, I believe, been fitted on an exploratory basis into one British hospital, with tre-
962
mendous success in the case of badly burned patients. Could it not be offered to a hospital in Vietnam where surely there must be an urgent need for such a bed? As to the many other industrial uses being discovered from the hovercraft concept, such as the moving of large storage tanks and the damming of rivers, can the noble Lord say what support the design team at Hythe are receiving from industry, and are the Government satisfied that sufficient investment is being allocated for development of these projects?
May I turn now to the tracked hovercraft concept—and I apologise for giving so many qustions to the noble Lord. This is a concept which I am very glad to learn has at last been supported by the N.R.D.C. It is, I believe, a British concept which has virtually lain dormant for two years, and during that time France has seized upon the opportunity of developing it and going ahead. To-day, in the eyes of the world France must seem to be the leaders of this concept. Can the noble Lord say to-day, now that funds have been allocated to the hover-train concept, how soon is it expected that the actual test track will be laid and the hover-train tested, and are the Government considering developing this revolutionary, form of transport by themselves or in collaboration with other countries?
One of the more confusing aspects to many people when discussing hovercraft is whether or not it should be treated as an aircraft or a ship, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will be dealing with this aspect, particularly from the pilot's angle and that of the current regulations of licensing. But the Government have said boldly, and I am sure rightly, that hovercraft are hovercraft and are neither ship nor aeroplane. And in a statement which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will recall, on July 26, 1967, the Minister for the Board of Trade announced in another place that legislation to this effect would be introduced at an early date. My Lords, that was nine months ago, and although one has become accustomed to the speed at which this Government work, I really feel it is time that they were able to publish a Bill. This is potentially a great export industry, and it clearly warrants a real show of interest and the smack of a firm Government behind it. I hope that today the noble Lord will be

963
able to say whether or not the Bill will be published this Session.
If I may turn briefly to the manufacture of hovercraft in Britain to-day, the achievement of the launching of the S.R.N.4 by the British Hovercraft Corporation, the HM2 by Hovermarine, the V.T.1 by Vosper, all within the same week last month, is obviously a great boost to the industry. And, without detracting from the obvious great achievements of the British Hovercraft Corporation, the S.R.N.5, and S.R.N.6 and now the new advanced S.R.N.4, I think it is a significant fact that the other two companies, Hovermarine and Vosper, have designed and produced their hovercraft without receiving one single penny from the N.R.D.C. or the public purse, and they have already received orders for these craft. In my opinion, this fortifies the value of a competitive industry, as against a monopoly.
The key, I believe, to the success of manufacturing hovercraft and selling them relies at the end of the day on two factors: performance and cost. Although I appreciate the magnificent achievement of the giant S.R.N.4, the cost of it to an operator must seem to be tainted with the expensive brush of the aircraft industry. It is perhaps misleading to give a comparison, but I believe it is significant to see that the 60-seater Hovermarine craft will, I believe, cost £1,000 per passenger to buy, whereas the S.R.N.4 will cost £3,000 per passenger.
My Lords, I am almost at the end of my speech. The hovercraft industry is a large subject to deal with in an Unstarred Question, and I am grateful to the other noble Lords who have indicated their intention to follow me in what I am sure will be a worthwhile and productive debate. The message I should like to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which perhaps I have not so far put clearly enough to him, is this. I believe, having examined the number of foreign companies engaged on hovercraft development at this moment (and I take my figures from Jane's Surface Skimmers of 1967:—there are nine in the U.S.A., four in Japan, two in France, and an unknown quantity of companies in Russia, at any rate in relation to development), the threat to British world leadership in this industry is very real. I
964
believe that the more the Government can encourage other development companies into the field, the more they can encourage other operators to operate in Britain—and perhaps I may here pay my personal tribute to the courageous and pioneering spirit of Hovertravel, Limited, and, belatedly, to British Railways—and the more development money the Government can allocate to the industry, the more chance it will have of holding its own.
The potential world market is, without question, enormous. The Government's job to-day must be to provide an atmosphere within which the industry can thrive. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to describe to us to-day what positive steps the Government are taking to provide this essential atmosphere which, I submit, at present is lacking. There is no room, my Lords, for complacency.
4.5 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asks the Government:
"whether they consider that the present state of the British hovercraft industry is satisfactory in view of the enormous potential export market available and the increasing development of this British concept in other countries."
I am sure we are indebted to the noble Earl for raising this question of the state of the British hovercraft industry. I think it is timely for your Lordships' House to discuss this industry, because it seems to be the general opinion that it is in a crucial stage of development and expansion and potential production, and I feel that what is being done now and in the near future will determine the future of Mr. Cockerell's British invention of which we are all very proud indeed. It is for the Ministry of Technology to go into this question, as they do most carefully, and to make the right decisions, because it is their function to do so in relation to this young and growing industry. But if we are to get our balance of payments right, I suppose that the first priority in dealing with the hovercraft must be exports.
It is my experience that this type of product and design is the most suitable type of production considerably to boost British exports. We have proved over the years, certainly in the aircraft industry, that it is teams of designers, technicians and specialists who make the

965
big-time exports, and who, by their skill and inventiveness, their design capacity and their development knowledge, find the really big and rewarding markets—like Rolls Royce in their bid to capture the American engine market in relation to certain airline operators at the present time.
I believe this is a first class product, and that the Government and those engaged in the industry really ought to set their sights on world markets. I think we have proved in the past that, wherever you cross water, wherever you have an expanse of water to fly over, there is always a potential and profitable market. These models which are being used at the present time ought to be demonstrated in the potential markets all over the world, so that we may capture those markets. An instance of this is the successful demonstration on the Amazon last week where, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, the S.R.N.6 carried out a test of 1.500 miles and achieved an overall speed of 48 knots.
When I say that we ought to demonstrate and show these craft all over the world, I wonder whether the S.B.A.C. can possibly cope with this. They have a great deal on their plate at the present time in relation to orthodox aircraft and aircraft exports. I should like to make this suggestion, or put this consideration to my noble friend who is to reply: I wonder whether it would he worth while setting up a hovercraft export corporation? This might also give some of the smaller companies a chance when they think up improvements, new ideas, new designs or inventions. A small concern might find it difficult to demonstrate its ideas and models in the world markets where competition is growing more intense every year.
It is a very difficult proposition to sell a £6 million product. The same applies to aircraft and aircraft engines as applies to hovercraft. It is not just a matter of getting out your designs and then sending off salesmen to the markets in the hope that the best product and the keenest price will get the order. Governments enter into the matter. This is why Rolls Royce are finding difficulty at the moment in attempting to get the massive aero-engine contract in the United States. If the airline operator or customer for a hovercraft wishes to buy the British
966
model, the government of the country concerned, because of defence potential, balance of payments problems or whatever it may be, may say "No", and that is the end of the story. That is the kind of pressure selling with which we are contending in the aircraft industry a id with which we shall have to contend in the hovercraft industry.
I suggest to my noble friend that the Government might consider setting up a hovercraft export corporation, since it is most difficult to win these orders. One is not just selling to an airline or to a potential customer; one is trying to get through the regulations of the country in regard to currency or defence potential, and in the last resort you are almost selling to the Government of the country rather than to the potential customer. I believe this project begun by Mr. Cockerell has a tremendous potential export capacity. It adds up to very big sums of money. It is not just a matter of being sixpence cheaper than your nearest competitor; it is the sort of market where one talks in terms of millions of pounds for one of these larger hovercraft.
I should like to ask my noble friend to answer one or two questions when he comes to reply. Assuming that the hovercraft industry in this country can expand, does my noble friend think that we have the capacity available to fulfil export orders if we get them? Can my noble friend give us any idea of the figures of o hovercraft production at the moment, and any indication of the figures, or estimated figures, of the likely exports for this product? I suppose that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology to decide which project they are going to support—this happened in the early days of the aircraft industry, and has happened since. I wonder whether it will happen again in the hovercraft industry. Can my noble friend tell us what is the policy of the Government in supporting the various companies which are operating in this field, including the support being given at present by the National Physical Laboratory? Further, does the Ministry of Technology intend to support the hydrofoil as well as the hovercraft—or both?
Are we getting the right balance in this important industry between, on the one side, design and development, and

967
on the other production? It is the story of Camm and the Hurricane, Mitchell and the Spitfire, and it is the story of the Harrier to-day. It is the story of the early days when one had to do one's research and development and then see how quickly one could get into production so as to achieve a large turnover of hardware. When one looks at what happened in the aircraft industry in its early days and looks at the present S.B.A.C. exports, one realises the enormous potential which exists if this matter is handled properly. All these projects have been built up by brilliant and successful design teams. As the noble Earl has said, these teams are of tremendous importance to the future development and export potential of this product. One just cannot afford to let them go. One cannot afford to hand these teams to the United States on a plate, because when you want them to go into the next phase or prototype of development, they will just not be there—they will have dispersed. I hope that in this matter we shall learn from our experience in the aircraft industry and not repeat past mistakes.
Countries like America, with their tremendous facilities can indulge in large-scale production and very often use our know-how. I am not sure how much of the development of the hovercraft by most of the major countries of the world is covered by patents and how much by know-how, and as to how much of this British concept one can patent and get a licence for to produce in other countries in order to earn valuable currency. With this kind of product it is not so much a matter of patent, but more a matter of know-how. That is why I supported the noble Earl when he raised the question of the team, some of whose members were being disbanded. One has to think of the effect on apprentices and on young men coming into the industry to make a career in it when they see members of a successful team being made redundant—redundant in a project which has world-wide possibilities for exports. Here lie some of the seeds of the brain-drain. I hope that the Ministry of Technology will fully consult industry and overseas markets, and Mr. Cockerell, and will conduct a proper market survey. I believe that the Government should
968
think again about the possibility of exports and sales abroad of this particular product. The hovercraft industry needs to retain its brains if we are to become the technical power-house of Europe, if not of the world. French technicians are not leaving France to go to America, and we, too, must keep our young men and technicians in this country in our design teams for the future development of this industry.
In conclusion I would ask whether we are planning exports on a big enough scale. We must get in on these markets very early on, and we must have all the support we can get from the Ministry of Technology. Have we the production capacity when we have achieved the orders? Most important of all, have we the right balance between development and production of hardware? I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us the answers to some of these questions.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having put down this Unstarred Question on the Order Paper, for in my view the hovercraft is certainly one of the most notable inventions since the war. It might be fair to say that it comes soon after our achievements in gas turbine engines, in atomic energy, in the swing-wing aircraft—and it was Barnes Wallis who first produced that idea—and perhaps even soon after the Bacon fuel cell, which I believe will also prove to be one of the most important inventions we have seen in the last two decades. And now, with the building of the new S.R.N.4—the 160-ton craft—it seems to me that the hovercraft industry is coming to the point of making a very important break-through with what we hope will be a truly economic craft which will ply a regular service across the Channel at, we hope, considerable profit. I think I am right in saying that, popular as the regular services of the smaller craft have been across the Solent—and I have taken them on more than one occasion—those earlier models have not proved as economically successful as we hope the new S.R.N.4 will be.
I was particularly interested in what my noble friend implied might be the possible abuses of this quasi-monopolistic industry in Britain. I hope that the

969
Government will look carefully at what my noble friend said in this connection, and, particularly, will look at the possibility of letting other competitors into the industry. I know that Hovermarine Limited have been licensed under certain Hovercraft Development Limited patents, and that the British Hovercraft Corporation agreed to support the development of HM.2—a 60-seater passenger ferry. I also see from the last N.R.D.C. Report that licence discussions continued last year with Vosper's, but had not reached finality at the time when last year's Report was completed. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may be able to give us a little more information regarding the discussions with Vosper.
Then I was also most interested to hear what my noble friend had to say about Canada. I know, again from the N.R.D.C. Report, that the Corporation provided assistance to Hoverwork (Canada) Limited to enable a hovercraft service to be run at Expo '67 in Montreal. I know from a visit to Expo last autumn the success this service was, even if there were one or two relatively minor mishaps at the outset. But I should have thought that the potentiality in Canada, with its millions of lakes and ice and snow in the winter, was tremendous; and I am interested to see in the Press in the last few days that a service is now being definitely contemplated in Vancouver harbour. Would the Government think that a service from Vancouver to Vancouver Island would also be a practical proposition?
No doubt there are certain situations in which a hydrofoil may serve the purpose more effectively, and in that connection I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may be able to tell us when the Government Report on the hydrofoil is likely to be published. It seems to me most important that we should look at that Report at the same time as we consider the further potentialities of the hovercraft. But I cannot help feeling, even in regard to the hovercraft alone, that in North America there must be many uses for it, and in that connection I should also be grateful if the Minister could let us know what the position is in regard to licensing Canadian firms.
It would also be interesting to know what the position is regarding the use of hovercraft in other countries. I see also
970
in the Press during the last day or two, that a hovercraft has been successfully operated on the Amazon—not only in Brazil, but on part of the thousand miles of the Amazon which flows in Peru. Could the noble Lord say what exactly is the status of the negotiations which, I presume, have been undertaken, either officially or privately, between firms and the Brazilians and the Peruvians? Like the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, I shall certainly be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to say generally about overseas marketing arrangements. I hope that the Government feel that our relations with the United States in this matter and the profitable granting of licences there are satisfactory.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, say what he did in our debate on science policy on February 28. He asked in column 822
"…whether the effort which is now going into the hovercraft is worth anything at all. I have a shrewd suspicion myself that we are devoting a lot of effort and energy, but not enough to make it successful, and that what we are probably doing is throwing money straight down the drain. I may be wrong, but I have a suspicion that if this project were really something that could be developed rapidly the Americans would have done it already in a quarter of the time that we have taken to get to the stage we have reached."
That is what the noble Lord said. I am not going to detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two longer, but I am glad to see that he is with is and I hope we shall hear something further from him on this point.
We know, of course, from the N.R.D.C. Report itself that as long ago as April, 1957, an American, Colonel Melville Beardsly, filed a similar United States patent application to that which had been filed by Christopher Cockerell in December, 1956. We know that on this the United States Patent Office "declared an interference" and that this was finally resolved in favour of Cockerell, the decision being announced in, I think, May, 1966. This decision must obviously have been of great importance to the Corporations—I mean both the N.R.D.C. and the British Hovercraft Corporation—in the exploitation of patent rights in the U.S.A. But from all this it seems clear that if the Americans wanted to go ahead—and here, to some extent. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord,

971
Lord Wynne-Jones—on similar projects, it might not be impossible for them to overcome the licensing difficulties. One knows that one can get round them from time to time. I was wondering what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had to say about that, and particularly about how watertight he thinks these arrangements may be.
Like my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I hope the Minister will also give us some information regarding the development of the hover-rail, which has, I think, been pioneered by the French but on which I believe we in this country are now to spend considerable sums. I understand that in addition to the French aero train the Germans are also working on a new rail system. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us anything about this. But it is hoped that our own hover-train, which will use the Laithwaite linear induction motor—another important British first—should prove faster than any other, and I gather we are to build an experimental track near Cambridge. If ultimately it were decided that Foulness rather than Stansted should be the third London Airport, then a hover-rail to Foulness might well be an obvious requirement.
I was also interested to read in the last N.R.D.C. Report, which is not, of course, very up to date, that development is being carried out on a number of other industrial applications, one or two of which the noble Earl mentioned. These, I gather, include hoverpads, using high air pressures for use over prepared surfaces, and low-pressure skirts for lifting large objects over unprepared ground. I think a good deal of work has gone into this, and I shall be interested to know whether anything further can be said on it. I believe that work is also proceeding on conveyors and on a number of other possible applications. I also note from what my noble friend has said that one of these air-cushion applications includes work on a hoverbed which I believe has been successfully used in a London hospital in the treatment of badly burned patients. Can the noble Lord tell us how far this work has gone? I gather that it has been carried out by the surgical engineering firm of Allen and Hanbury, Limited, in association with the N.P.L. hovercraft unit.
972
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having raised these questions, and I hope that the Government will see fit to give us some satisfactory answers on these points concerning an industry which is, I am sure, going to become more and more important. I particularly should like to know whether the noble Lord thinks that enough money is going into it. I should have thought that the problem was not so much a question of shortage of money, for one of the last acts of the Conservative Government, I may say, in the autumn of 1964, was to raise the borrowing powers of the N.R.D.C. to £25 million, and I believe that this sum is to be raised further in the new Industrial Expansion Bill, if it goes through Parliament. So the money, I think, should be there. But with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, I hope that it is not being wasted.
4.32 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not feel quite so grateful as other speakers to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because he has succeeded in "needling" me in coming to say something on this matter. I had hoped that perhaps I might avoid saying anything more; but this is obviously a problem of great importance. In fact, both when one listens to people and when one reads the Press one might almost imagine that the motto, "Hover to prosperity" was now to be blazoned right across this country. There is a booklet brought out by B.P. which is mainly euphoric in character and suggests that almost anything that you do by hovering must necessarily be extremely profitable and very good both for this country and for everyone else.
Obviously, this is an important invention—there is no question about that. Cockerell, in making this invention, tried to solve the problem which faces one all the time when moving across sea or land, and that is the problem of friction. What he did was to point out that by putting an air cushion (I regret that the word "hover" was ever introduced) between the vehicle and the medium over which you are moving the friction is brought to a very low value, and that consequently there is an enormous gain. But, of course, my Lords, you never get anything for nothing, and the cost of having this air cushion is that you have

973
to supply power continuously in order to keep that air cushion. For every ton weight that you lift a foot above the ground, you necessarily have to supply approximately three horsepower, and you have all the time to be supplying this energy in order to keep the vehicle off the ground or off the sea.
Then, necessarily, other problems arise. In order to take full advantage of reduced friction, you want to travel at great speed. And since you are travelling without friction, you avoid having any contact with the ground so that you have to use a propulsive unit, a motor, which does not operate either wheels or, normally, a propeller. Although there is a case where one can have a propeller, the H.M.2, you require a motor which does not normally operate a propeller actually working in the water. In order to do this, you have to use engines which are not simple, ordinary engines. For instance, you cannot use the ordinary petrol engine, because the ordinary petrol engine as available to-day is, I think, restricted to something of the order of 300 horsepower. A much higher horsepower than that is required in order to work any sort of hovercraft. If you use a diesel engine, then you have an extremely low power-weight ratio, and since you are keeping this vehicle above the ground or above the sea you want to keep its weight as low as possible.
As a result of these factors, we turned to what is, I should have thought, a rather inappropriate engine for the purpose; that is, the aero engine, which is used in conditions under which an aero engine was never designed to operate. You are working with a lot of spray, sand and dust about, and you have corrosion and erosion occurring. Furthermore, the duty cycle on which the aero engine is operated is quite different from the duty cycle on which an aeroplane is operated. If you are flying an aeroplane, once you have got up to a certain height you then work at constant speed. But that is not so with a hovercraft. With a hovercraft, you are chopping and changing the whole time. In fact, even the actual steering of a hovercraft depends, in most cases, on swivelling the engines round.
So one is concerned—and it is important to realise this—not with taking an ingenious principle, applying it to vehicles
974
and just using it. On the contrary, one has to redesign everything.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords I am loath to interrupt the noble Lord in full spate. I agree with him that some of the obstacles he mentions are obstacles, although they are obstacles to be overcome. He suggests they are insurmountable. He also seems to be very sweeping in the case of some of the things which he says are impossible. He says, for instance, that a petrol engine cannot be applied. As a matter of fact, I have myself built a hovercraft with two thrust engines, petrol, engines, and it works quite well.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Yes, my Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will get one to work. I do not doubt that for one moment. What I said was that the horsepower limitation is about 300 on the ordinary petrol engine that you can buy, and this means that you could not use it for the S.R.N.6, for instance; and you certainly could not use it for the S.R.N.4. I quite agree that if you want a hover-lawnmower there is no problem at all.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The one I mentioned hovers me.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I am quite confident, my Lords, that it would hover any one of us, but the point is that I am not saying that you cannot make a hovercraft. What I am saying is that it you are going to make a hovercraft of the sort of dimensions that are talked about—for ferries, or for this sort of purpose—then you have to start on a very big programme of design, and this, I think, is one of the major troubles we have been up against all the time. You see, the S.R.N.6 is a "dead duck". It is no good imagining that that is a profitable hovercraft. No one would maintain for a moment, I think, that you could run an economical service with the S.R.N.6. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, there are certain problems of nomenclature here, because for some reason or other we produced the S.R.N.5 and the S.R.N.6 before we produced S.R.N.4, and the S.R.N.4 is the more advanced.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is our Socialist Government.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I thank the noble Lord for giving us that credit. But

975
with regard to the production of these vehicles, the early ones had to be made with equipment that was available. Aero-engines were taken and used and the company, Westland, were concerned with techniques that they already knew. Anyone who has been to see the construction of these hovercraft realises that they are being made individually; there is no manufacturing procedure that I saw, at any rate. They were being made as one-off models. You could never hope, in my opinion, to sell things like this anywhere in the world except as curiosities. The idea that one would get large markets for this sort of vehicle is quite wrong.
What is being said is that we are really banking, not on the S.R.N.6—and with that I agree—but on the S.R.N.4. The S.R.N.4 is more advanced; but the S.R.N.4 is still being made by methods not dissimilar from the methods used for manufacturing the S.R.N.6. It is true that it is more effective. I have the figures for it. May I just refer to the actual power units employed? The S.R.N.6 has a 900 h.p. motor, a Gnome aero-engine; the S.R.N.4 has four Proteus engines, roughly of 3,400 h.p. each; so that you have a very much greater power supply. It is interesting to note that with the S.R.N.6, of the 900 h.p. maximum output, 250 h.p. had to be taken up by the cushion so that there was 600 h.p. available for propulsion. That gives an idea of the cost of keeping it in the air. For the S.R.N.4 the corresponding cost for the cushion is 4,000 h.p. and for the propulsion 8,600; but when it comes to horse power per ton of vehicle—I almost said, "per ton of aircraft"; but to call it an aircraft is ridiculous—for the S.R.N.6 it is 100 h.p. required per ton and for the S.R.N.4 only 86 h.p. per ton. In other words, there has been a distinct advance mainly because of the increased size of the S.R.N.4. The point which arises is one of the overall cost of construction; and this is where I find the figures quite fantastic. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that the H.M.2 was cheaper than the S.R.N.6 or the S.R. N.4.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: The S.R.N.4.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: But it is not cheaper on the proper basis of evalua-
976
tion. The basis that Cockerell himself uses and is used in these matters of propulsion is the cost per ton knot; and not per passenger. That is the carrying capacity; it is per ton of loaded vehicle per knot of speed. That is what determines the capacity.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, it is the passenger that determines the economics.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: It is the ton knot. This is the accepted way of doing it. The weight of a person is nothing like as great as the weight of cargo. It is a question entirely of cargo, and this is the normal way of doing it. It is a question of how much weight you can carry at what speed. It is therefore the cost per ton knot which is the important figure. The cost per ton knot of the S.R.N.2 is just about £400. The cost per ton knot of the S.R.N.4 is also about £400; but the cost per ton knot of the S.R.N.6 is as high as £600. That shows the advance made in going from S.R.N.6 to S.R.N.4. To compare this with the sort of thing that we normally use, the motor car, it is more like £40 per ton knot. It is very much less.
Your Lordships can see that the cost of these vehicles is high. In fact the cost per ton knot of the S.R.N.4 is as high as the cost per ton knot of a Boeing 707. This is a remarkable thing. It shows to me clearly that for this type of vehicle, these air cushion vehicles, we must be employing at the present time a far too extravagant method of construction. There is something quite wrong, in my opinion, in the method of construction. I cannot believe, unless we can reduce the figures to something much below this figure of £400 per ton knot, that we can hope to have these as economic vehicles let alone talk about there being a vast world market for them. I do not believe this is possible unless we can bring the cost down. The cost of an ordinary ferry boat is, I believe, under £200 per ton knot. The ordinary ferry boat is more economical in carrying any sort of freight than is the S.R.N.4.
Reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, to the hover-train, the tracked vehicle. This is an extremely important idea. It may prove valuable: I do not know. But this has been linked with new propulsive units, and this I

977
think is the crucial matter. The proper propulsive unit, the linear induction motor, is being devised for this; but it is not yet ready. We are only in the very early development stages. If this comes off it will be a remarkable thing, but I see no sign yet of the development of a proper propulsive unit for these amphibious vehicles or for the ordinary sea vehicles. Until one is able to find that this matter has been tackled more effectively, I would still wonder whether money is not going down the drain.
4.47 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, in rising I must first give my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for having introduced this subject. Before making some brief points, I should like to ask the noble Lord who has just sat down whether he is certain about the figures he has just offered us of the cost per ton-knot. The only basis on which we can compare the operating costs of a vehicle such as the hovercraft is surely that of aircraft operating costs. Although the noble Lord offered us the operating costs of the Boeing 707 in terms of pence or pounds per ton-knot, he did not go any more deeply into that aspect of it. I suggest that this type of assessment of operating costs is not too helpful, because it does not take into consideration the variation in effective operating speeds of such vehicles over different stage lengths. For example, if one assesses the operating costs per ton-knot across the Solent which is, say, five or six or ten miles, and then, perhaps, applies the operating costs so derived to an operation of a greater distance, say, of 100 or 200 miles, one would find that this can produce very serious errors. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is better, therefore, to do as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, did: to consider the costs of these aeroplanes in terms of cost per seat or seat-miles. But one must qualify the operating costs per seat-mile in terms of the particular stage lengths that one is considering.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I must have failed to make myself clear. I did not give operating costs; I gave construction costs. This is the figure which was used by Cockerell himself in a paper which he gave last summer in Canada on this very subject, when comparing the costs of different types of vehicles, and it
978
is the capital cost of construction per ton-knot. This is commonly maintained by engineers to be the appropriate method of measuring the cost in terms of carrying capacity. How frequently you use it is again another matter, but this is the basic cost in terms of carrying capacity.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I will not dwell on the matter except to say that if the new S.R.N.4 hovercraft can approach the 707 in terms of operating costs per ton-knot—
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Capital cost.
LORD TREFGARNE: In capital cost per ton-knot, I should have thought that it was not doing too badly at this early stage in its development, bearing in mind that the 707 is a highly developed and sophisticated piece of machinery.
May I now continue with the points which I wanted to make, which are not perhaps directly aligned to that? I am particularly concerned with the set-up as I have discovered it in the British hovercraft industry. We find that principally the British hovercraft effort is not perhaps co-ordinated but at least is led by the British Hovercraft Corporation, in whom we find that the N.R.D.C. has a small shareholding; I believe it is 10 per cent. By virtue of that shareholding the N.R.D.C. is entitled to appoint two directors to the board of the British Hovercraft Corporation. At the moment two gentlemen, Mr. Duckworth and Mr. Hennessey, occupy those posts. If you or I, my Lords, wished to manufacture a hovercraft, as opposed to just building a prototype, we should have to apply to the N R.D.C. for a licence. I confess that I am reiterating points made by the noble Earl Lord Kinnoull, but I make no apology for doing so as I wish to emphasise this. I think it something that your Lordships ought to consider, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will clarify it in his reply.
If I want to manufacture a hovercraft I have to apply for a licence to the N.R.D.C., and when I did so the N R.D.C. would submit me and my company to a most rigorous and searching investigation. In particular, they would make a most critical examination of the precise project which I had in mind. This would

979
give rise to a situation where I should have to reveal to a potential competitor the precise nature of my project and the particular commercial advantages which I thought it had. I am informed that approximately two weeks ago an applicant for a licence for a five-seat training hovercraft was visited by one of the directors on the board of N.R.D.C. who is also a director of the British Hovercraft Corporation. The visit was made with a view to "assessing"—so-called—the viability of this five-seater training hovercraft. Within a week of that visit the British Hovercraft Corporation had launched their own assessment of the desirability and requirement for a five-seat training hovercraft. It is not for me, my Lords, to say that the gentleman who went to assess the licence applicant "pinched" the idea and went home and started off on his own, but I must confess that I am somewhat concerned at this turn of events.
One fear that was voiced when the problem first arose of how to regulate the airworthiness of this vehicle was that if the Air Registration Board were allowed to get hold of it, they would apply the full rigour of the British civil airworthiness requirements and perhaps strangle or drown the product at its inception. I am delighted to be able to say that this has not occurred. The Ail Registration Board have taken over responsibility for controlling the airworthiness—or is it the seaworthiness?; I am not quite sure—of these vehicles. I am told that they have done so in an exemplary manner and succeeded in producing reasonable specifications for these machines without submerging them in a sea of red tape or imposing unsuitable requirements. I think we ought to offer our thanks to the Air Registration Board which, as we know, is headed by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for the excellent work they have done in promoting and encouraging these vehicles.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to comment on the question of the licensing of, I was going to say pilots—the drivers, if you like—of these vehicles. I do not wish to go into this subject too deeply, because I understand that a Committee is sitting on which the Board of Trade and the various operators are represented, and presumably in
980
due course they will produce some recommendations for licensing drivers for these vehicles. I would briefly point out the difficulty that hitherto there has been some problem about whether one should obtain a mariner and train him in the aeronautical aspects of the operation or whether one should obtain an aviator and train him in the nautical aspects. I gather that hitherto both policies have been pursued with pretty fair success. I suggest that the time has now come when we must not look upon flying, driving or sailing a hovercraft as an extension of either flying an aeroplane or steering a ship, but rather as a science in its own right and look to the day when we have a breed of men who are trained as hovercraft pilots right from the start, and who have no particular allegiance to one discipline or the other.
There is an existing difficulty on which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can expound a little when he replies in addition to the rest of the things which he is going to answer for us. I refer to the present situation in which only one company is authorised to certify pilots as competent to operate these machines, and which therefore, has a complete stranglehold over all other commercial operators who may wish to enter the field, now or in future. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will assure us that as soon as possible the Board of Trade Flying Unit, or other suitable department in the Board of Trade, will produce people qualified to certificate pilots when the need arises.
There are two other small points on which I wish to dwell. The first is the question of military potential for these vehcles. We are aware that during the confrontation with Indonesia in Malaysia a squadron of hovercraft were used in a Commando-carrying role with, we understand, every success. How far have the Government explored the possibility of using these vehicles for submarine hunting and, if necessary, for destroying submarines, for which, apparently, they are suitable?
Finally, if I may sum up on the civil aspects of these machines, it seems to me that success depends upon the volume of sales that we can generate. The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, wondered whether we had enough capacity to manufacture these machines. Without

981
wishing to forestall the noble Lord's reply, I should have thought that we should get the orders first and worry about the capacity afterwards. I am sure there is the capacity; the real problem is to get sales. If we are to make a success of these machines as a nation we must exploit the sales potential, and to do so we have to ensure that the people who are offering them for sale have a broad enough range to offer at the right prices. This supports what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said about the capital cost per ton-knot. We have also to keep to our delivery dates of these machines. The way in which we can achieve these three desirable objectives, which in turn will let us achieve the necessary sales volume, is to have a really impartial and reasonable licensing policy so far as the Government-operated N.R.D.C. and B.H.C. are concerned. In that connection it seems difficult to see how the N.R.D.C. could justify what I understand was 25 months of negotiation on licensing with the Vosper-Thorneycroft Company.
5.1 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I do not know when I have been asked so many questions in so short a debate, and I am tempted to go on to say that I do not know when I have known the answers to so few of them. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not pick up every one. It seems to me that some questions have been properly addressed to the Government which I shall try to answer, and that others would have been more properly addressed to the hovercraft industry and the firms in it. It must be remembered that the Government do not do everything in the industrial field, not even a Socialist Government. I know that this debate will be read in the relevant Ministries and para-Governmental organisations. I very much hope that it will also be read by the firms we have been talking about, because I think that they will find a lot in it which may make them think. Perhaps some of them may like to write to noble Lords about points which have been raised, and perhaps noble Lords
982
may wish to write to them about specific points.
I will start by answering a few of the questions on which I may be able to assist your Lordships. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the amount of royalties from Japan and the United States under licensing agreements. That information is not available for publication; it is confidential. I was asked more than once about the delays in granting licences to United Kingdom firms and the apparently longer delays in granting licences to British firms than in granting licences to manufacture abroad. Let me say that I do not intend to justify in detail every single month of the one case which has been mentioned this afternoon. The point is that as regards licensing in this country the N.R.D.C. has a dual function. Not only does it license in general terms, but it also has to ensure that a sensible British industry glows up. This means that it uses its licensing policy to ensure that firms which do not have the prospects of making a go of it in this difficult new industry do not get in on the market and take up some of the not limitless resources of skill and know-how. This means that the N.R.D C. have to look into the claims of a British firm to go into hovercraft production much more closely than into the claims of Japanese and American firms, since it is not one of the N.R.D.C.'s functions to protect the Japanese and American industries.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes with licences, could he answer the second and important point about the N.R.D.C.'s role and the fact that there are two members who are members of the board of B.H.C.?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I was proposing to come to that later, but I will come to it straight away. We have a situation here where two member; of the N.R.D.C. are also members in charge (as it were) of the Government's 10 per cent. in B.H.C. If I understand the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, aright, he laid a very serious charge against two named individuals this afternoon, and I should like to separate this matter into two aspects and to ask him whether he would agree with my summing up of it, as I think he should.

983
If a firm applying for a licence, after examination by the N.R.D.C., finds that another firm is applying for a licence to make a hovercraft of the same general size and purpose, I do not think that anybody need be surprised. There does not have to be a leakage of industrial secrets for someone to think of building a five-seater trainer. If, on the other hand, there is an assertion that these two named individuals—and remember that we are talking behind the umbrella of privilege in this House—passed on to a potential competitor any details of an intended design which could be of financial advantage to the latter, this is a serious matter, and I think it probably should not have been said in this House. But in order not to delay the proceedings I will take it that the noble Lord will agree that it was not his intention to make that assertion about these two individuals.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the question that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and I were putting to the noble Lord was how far the licensing policy of the N.R.D.C. was best served by having two members of a potential competitor as part of the assessing committee, as it were, of the potential licensing applicant. Perhaps he could answer that point more positively.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government think that they and the whole industry are well served by an interlocking structure. This is intensely complicated. Members of this organisation belong to that organisation at all points in the development of this new industry, which seems to be a good thing. It would be a bad thing if anybody's industrial secrets were to be "blown" by this situation, but I understand that the noble Lord is not alleging that they have been.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not alleging that they have been, but rather that, in the present situation, they may be. Is it not undesirable that this arrangement should exist, in which it is possible for people to make insinuations, and indeed charges, as they have done to me, about the sort of situation that exists?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is utterly impossible to devise a situation in which people cannot make insinuations
984
and charges. We shall get them whatever we do. When any of them are justified then we may examine the situation, but until a justified charge has been sustained it may be a waste of time to do so.
Reverting to the question of the new legislation, I may say that the Bill which the noble Earl asked about and which was mentioned last summer will be introduced very shortly in this House.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: This Session?
LORD KENNET: It is not customary to say before or after which Queen's Speech legislation is going to come, but "very shortly" means very shortly. On the question of the future of military orders, I think there is some confusion. The Naval version of B.H.7 is going ahead. There has been no change there. What has been cut is the Army version of the B.H.7. One noble Lord asked me the connection between this and the decision to withdraw from East of Suez. It is simply that in Borneo, Sarawak and Malaysia, and in many places in that part of the world, there are big rivers which are good for hovercraft operation, and up and down which it might be very much to the convenience of the British Army to proceed.
In Europe you do not get that configuration. There are few rivers of anything like the size convenient for hovercraft navigation, and those that are there are all cluttered up with bridges and all sorts of impediments. So it seemed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence that in the predominantly normal European duties of the British forces the future of the hovercraft lay far more with the Navy, where, of course, it could do all this anti-sub-marine work, which was also asked about, than with the Army; and that was the reason why he cancelled the Army order.
LORD TREFGARNE: If I may interrupt again, can the noble Lord say specifically whether the hovercraft with the naval forces is to have a submarine hunting and/or killing capacity?
LORD KENNET: I could not state specifically at the moment whether or not it will, because it is not all that far ahead. I can find out and let the noble Lord know anything on this subject

985
which at the present moment is, first, certain, and, second, not classified.
With regard to the hovership, what is happening here is that the United States are proceeding only with a design study, not with a development project; and this, I am informed, may go to a small prototype hovership of about 400 tons in a year or so. In this country we are also proceeding along the same study lines. But the state of the art in both countries is such that the idea of a very large ocean-going hovership is not likely to be worth pursuing with much vigour for about four or five years. So that is further down the pipe-line.
I was asked about an Export Corporation for the hovercraft industry. So far, it has seemed to the Government that the most appropriate help they can give to these firms has been through the services and commercial attachés abroad, and the Government are not clear that it would be entirely easy to avoid the risk of inhibiting the wide range of design that we want from these firms if for export purposes they are all grouped together in one corporation. At any rate, that seems at the moment to be an obstacle to having an Export Corporation. It may not always be an obstacle, and maybe later on it will be appropriate to have one; but at the moment it does not seem a necessary or urgently desirable thing.
I was asked about the report on the future of the hydrofoil. An interim report is expected by the Minister of Technology in the next few weeks.
How much more would your Lordships like me to say? I do not know. I could go on almost for ever taking up the small points, but I think they all really boil down into one general consideration. We have here a new industry—very new indeed. We started it. Any other hovercraft industry in the world is even newer. We were the first, and we are the furthest ahead. When you are getting an industry off the ground like this, the first psychological, and also the first political, temptation is to pour money into it; to open your arms wide and say: "Everybody come along and do exactly what you want."
I am informed (my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones will tell me if I am right about this) that it is not difficult for anybody, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald,
986
or anybody else, to make a hovercraft which will give him a lot of fun, which will carry him, and possibly two or three of his friends, and his suitcase around perfectly safely. But it is at the moment very difficult to make a hovercraft which will carry a large number of people around cheaply and reliably. It is in order to bring forward as quickly as possible the day when we can say: "This is cheap, and it is reliable", that the Government have not been very welcoming to all-corners, and have channelled the money, which is the resource Governments have par excellence, and the expertise, by the use of their licensing policy, into a rather small number of firms, and have sought to ensure that each firm does something different, so as not to duplicate, and, so far as they can, that nobody does anything which is obviously stupid, because it all takes up resources.
I should say a word about the hover-train. I think that uppermost in our minds about all this is the French initiative: how are we doing compared with France? I understand—although it is not always very easy to know what is happening, even in a neighbouring country like France—that the French project is concentrated on a different approach altogether. The British idea is to serve centres of population about 200 miles apart. You can get there by train or by air from centre to centre in about a couple of hours, taking full journey time of 2½ hours. You get this 200-mile grid quite commonly all over Europe, and in parts of the United States. Would it be possible to cut this time of 2½ hours on a typical London to Birmingham journey by a great deal? The answer is that it might be if we were to go for the linear induction motor, when you can get speeds between 200 and 300 m.p.h. from city centre to city centre, which will bring it down to an hour. That will be very interesting.
But the French, so far as we can find out, are not tackling it on quite these lines. They are using a conventional aerodynamic propulsion, a push or a pull of some sort, and it seems that that is not likely to give very much faster speeds than can be obtained with a steel wheel on a rail. It might go at 125 to 150 m.p.h., but we know that trains can do that now, if they have the right kind of track. It appears to the Government

987
that it is a better bet to go one ahead, to leapfrog over that and jump to the time when you can really cut these travel times. On the question of the trial track in Cambridgeshire along the New Bedford River—about 18 miles I believe this is—the next step there is to get planning permission. It straddles two county boundaries. Planning permission has been obtained from one county, and the Norfolk County Council are expected to consider it and decide yea or nay quite shortly.
My Lords, there are dangers on all sides. There are dangers in pouring money down the drain and wasting it, as outlined by my noble friend. The way to avoid this danger is by a sensible licensing policy. There are dangers in being outstripped by other industrial economies, some of which have a bigger technological base and bigger financial resources. The way to avoid this is by
988
keeping a sharp eye open on what they are doing to make sure that they are not doing anything cleverer than we are—and at the moment we have no reason to suppose that they are—and to pour the right amount of resources to the right developments and into a limited spread of developments at the right moment.
It seemed to me at moments in our debate this afternoon that we were verging on topics that would have been better discussed in the National Research Development Corporation itself rather than in a legislative chamber. But I think that we have thrown a good deal of light on the wider spectrum of the problems which I have just described, and I am sure the House will agree with me in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising the matter, and in holding the view that this has been a useful debate.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past five o'clock.