Lords Sitting of 13 May 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

B.O.A.C. PILOTS' DISPUTE
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 will now publish Professor Wood's report concerned with the recent B.O.A.C. pilots' dispute.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, Professor Wood reported to the First Secretary on March 28 on the breakdown of the negotiations between B.O.A.C. and the British Air Line Pilots' Association in which he had acted as independent chairman. His report contained comments on the position of the parties, and in the circumstances publication would be inappropriate.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he could explain to us why the Department for Economic Affairs has not yet con
2
firmed the agreement bet0ween B.A.L.P.A. and B.O.A.C.; and, further, whether he is aware that there are a number of minor further adjustments to be made following this confirmation?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, that is, of course, a separate matter, but I am able to say that the Government regard a decision on this matter as one of great urgency, and the decision should not be long delayed.

GATWICK AIRPORT: RE-NAMING PROPOSAL
2.32 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will suggest to the British Airports Authority that London (Gatwick) Airport be re-named Winston S. Churchill Airport.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is an imaginative suggestion, but to change the name of an existing airport raises a number of difficulties. No such problems, of course, would arise in the ease of a new airport.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. While I accept the difficulties involved in changing the name of any airport, would not the noble Lord agree that there is a well-established precedent for this in the case of New York airport? Secondly, would he further undertake or

3
perhaps agree to press the British Airports Authority to adopt this name for the third London Airport, if it is not thought possible to change the name of Gatwick?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not agree to press the British Airports Authority, but, as I say, it is an imaginative idea and one which might well be discussed to see what the general opinion is. Of course there arc other interests concerned.

GREECE AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decision was made by the Council of Europe on the proposal that Greece should be suspended from membership and how the British representatives voted.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Statement made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd on May 7, which made it plain that we voted for the Ministerial resolution of May 6.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that very many of us are disappointed at the delay in reaching a decision? While the report of the Human Rights Commission will not be published until the autumn, does not the régime in Greece also violate Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am aware of course of my noble friend's views on this matter, and he will be equally aware, I think, that the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly did not call for the suspension or expulsion of Greece from the Council of Europe, whatever may be the position under Article 3, and no one in the Council of Ministers suggested that this was so. A time limit has now been set for a deci
4
sion on this matter, which is the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, and I hope my noble friend will be patient until then.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this further question? If the Human Rights Commission makes its report in the autumn, will it be possible to expedite the meeting now scheduled for December?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility, nor procedurally impossible. We have talked of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, but there is no firm date set for that yet. If the majority of the members of the Council of Europe wanted to bring the meeting forward, it would be possible to do so.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, when Her Majesty's Government were giving this reprieve to the Junta Government of Greece they were aware, and whether they took into account, that thirty members of the Greek Parliament, democratically elected, are still in prison or under house arrest, some very old and some very ill?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I note with some interest the information which the noble Lord has given to the House. I must, however, say that this is not a question, as he put it, of Her Majesty's Government giving a reprieve to the Greek Junta; this is a case of Her Majesty's Government voting for a resolution in the Council of Europe which was voted for by a great majority of the other members of the Council.

AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION LOANS
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 for a statement on the apparent conflict between the present policy of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation on interest charges and their clear duty

5
laid down under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 to provide agricultural loans on favourable terms.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is no conflict. In determining their lending rate the Corporation have to consider many factors. These include the cost at which the Corporation have to borrow and the need to ensure that they meet their obligations so that their services to agriculture may continue. The Government are satisfied that the Corporation decided upon the present rate only after a thorough consideration of all these factors.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether the Government are implying that a favourable term of lending is in fact 10 per cent.? It seems very high. Secondly, would not the noble Lord agree that this very high rate of interest, fixed interest, cuts right across the Government's policy of expansion and modernisation of the agriculture industry?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying—and I gather that some other noble Lords support him in the view—that 10 per cent, or above is high, and that in a sane world we should pay a lower reward to the lenders of money, I entirely agree with him. But at the present time the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation would be unable to raise the money to continue its services to the agricultural community.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the present rate of interest charged by the Scottish Agricultural Mortgage Securities Corporation is 10¼ per cent, for a minimum period of several years—I think it is five years—and do the Government, in particular, really think that the expansion programme agreed on last November can be carried out when the money necessary to produce it has to be raised at these prohibitive rates of interest?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. The current rate for the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is also 10¼ per cent. It is also true that in the main they are lending on the medium-term and mostly on the longer term. As a longer-term source of capital, of course, it compares reasonably favourably with other facili
6
ties. But I assure the noble Earl that, so far as the figures I have are concerned, there is no indication that the expansion programme is being held up through lack of credit.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the present hill lambing, in Scotland, in the North of England and in certain parts of Wales, is disastrous; and do they realise that this blow follows a largely indifferent harvest, followed by an unsatisfactory Price Review? Will they not try to take steps to make available on more reasonable terms the credit which the agricultural industry badly needs at the present time?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think the need for capital at a lower rate than this is restricted to the agricultural community. It would be a good thing, not only in this country but elsewhere, if the rate of interest were lower. As to the other considerations to which the noble Earl refers, we did of course go into them in the discussions on the Price Review.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the raising of the mortgage rate in this way is bound to work its way through, and to have an influence also on agricultural rentals thereby having a boosting effect on costs in agriculture from the, very bottom, which must raise the cost of food in due course?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this may well be, but the point is what is to be done about it?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: You are the Government.
LORD BESWICK: What does one do about it? The noble Lord, if he is criticising this, should have some constructive suggestions. He may say that the Government should subsidise the agricultural community, and this is what is done to the tune of some hundreds of millions of pounds; but the subsidies are injected in another way.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in the event, unlikely though it may be, of the bank rate being reduced, the agricultural mortgage rate will remain at 10¼ per cent.,

7
or does it fluctuate in sympathy with the bank rate current?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the Corporation are themselves able to borrow money at a lower rate, of course, this will be reflected in the interest rates they charge on new loans. But loans that are undertaken at the present time are loans which are contracted for on the basis of current rates. Of course it cuts both ways. I understand that there are quite a number of fanners who bought their farms with loans raised at 3½ per cent., and that is the amount they are still paying on the outstanding mortgage.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that when interest rates on loans from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation are at 10 or 10¼ per cent, and you add capital repayment charges to that, you find that the charge is something like £20 per acre on medium-quality agricultural land, and that there can be no future for the expansion programme if large areas of this country are bearing burdens of that weight?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be quite unnecessary pessimism to say that there is no future for the agricultural industry. Of course there is a future. But if the noble Lord himself says, as I have said, that 10 per cent, and above is high and should be lower, then I agree with him.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the expansion programme is selective?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree; and on that basis it is going forward.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government took into account this high rate of interest when they arrived at the decisions on the recent farm Price Review?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord took part in the debate on the Price Review; but if he did, he will remember that the point was raised and the answer given was in the affirmative.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the protection and conservation of seals in England and Wales and Scotland and in the adjacent territorial waters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

POST OFFICE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PONIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETOON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is the customary Motion at this time of the Session.
Moved, That until the House adjourns for the Recess at Whitsun, Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended so far as is necessary to give Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day; and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TATTOOING OF MINORS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
2.45 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Legal Tender]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("with the exception of 6d. pieces").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I beg to move this Amendment. The Government have given considerable thought to the arguments which were developed before your Lordships in the Committee stage of the Bill when, as your Lordships will remember, we discussed what would happen to sixpences after the changeover to decimal currency had been completed. No doubt noble Lords who voted in favour of the Amendment then have also reflected in the interval on the various arguments which were put forward in the debate. The view of the Government is that the Report stage of the Bill should be used to give the House an opportunity to reconsider, to reflect, and to restore the Bill to the form in which it was received from the House of Commons. The majority in favour of the Amendment was small. This particular issue of the 6d. has proved to be the most contentious issue that has arisen on the Bill, and it is right that the House should have the opportunity for second thoughts. Furthermore, it would appear that some of the support for the retention of the 6d. as a 2½p coin after the end of the change-over period is based on misunderstanding.
Before I come to the important issues that were raised in Committee, I should like to dispose of one point. It may be that some noble Lords voted in favour of the Amendment to the Bill in Com
10
mittee simply because they thought it desirable that a degree of flexibility should be preserved. If so, I should like to make the point now that the words added to the Bill by the Amendment were not necessary for this purpose. It would be possible for the Government, under the powers in Clause 15(5) of the Bill to make a proclamation that the 6d. will not be demonetised but will continue as a 2½p coin. The reason why the Government opposed the addition to the Bill of the words added in Committee, and the reason why we now propose this Amendment to remove them, is that we want to make the position quite clear. The Government expect the 6d. to disappear from circulation soon after Decimal Day, and consider that it should cease to be legal tender at the end of the change-over. We believe that it is quite essential for a smooth change-over that plans should be made on that basis.
I do not want to go over in detail the points made in Committee, but let me set out the important considerations. The first is that the 6d., as well as the old penny and the 3d. bit, will be with us throughout the change-over period. None of these three coins will go on Decimal Day; the proposal is that they should go at the end of the change-over period when everybody is able to work in decimal currency and has had ample opportunity to become thoroughly accustomed to working in decimal currency. We are talking of a period of time lasting anything up to 18 months after February 15, 1971, depending on the advice which the Decimal Currency Board in due course give to the Government. There is no question whatever that by that time all the interests that are affected, including those responsible for coin-operated machines, will have had time to arrange to work in the permanent decimal coinage, if I may so describe it. It is absolutely unnecessary to think in terms of a second transitional period, beginning when the first ends, to allow the 6d. to be phased out.
I should like to say something about a point raised in Committee concerning the possibility of inflationary price increases if the 6d. was demonetised at the end of the change-over period. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther—and I should like to wish him a happy birthday to-day—made much of this, but I think that the major part of his speech was

11
based on a misunderstanding; namely, that the ½p would be demonetised at the end of the change-over period. This is not so. Neither the Committee of Inquiry presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, nor the Decimal Currency Board, nor the Government have ever said anything of this kind. We have always said that we could expect the ½p to last at least a generation, which I would put at any rate at 25 to 30 years. Even to-day, we have not got the generation gap down to as little as 18 months.
All prices ending in 6d. translate exactly into 2½p, and the absence of a coin worth 2½p after the end of the change-over period cannot possibly affect the ability of the shopkeeper to charge, and the customer to pay, 2½p, 7½p, 12½p, 17½p and so on. Leaving aside for a moment the goods and services sold from coin-operated machines, the absence of a 2½p coin cannot possibly affect prices at all.
So far as the coin-operated machines using the 6d. are concerned, there arc two points; the first is the cost of converting or replacing machines at present operated by sixpences, and the second is the effect on the price of goods and services sold by these machines. The total cost of converting or replacing machines operated by the 6d. is put at roughly £8 million—and this includes telephone coin boxes. However, it is a mistake to suppose that this sum of money would be saved if we were to say now that the 6d. would not be demonetised at the end of the change-over. Operators of these machines are entirely dependent on those particular coins which the public carry in their pockets at any given point of time as the result of a much larger number of small transactions with other retail or transport outlets. The sensible course is for the industry to plan firmly on the assumption that the new decimal denominations will be in people's pockets.
Enough new decimal coins will be available right from Decimal Day for shopping and machine transactions, plus of course the existing 1,500 million shillings and florins, together with a substantial additional number to be minted when the half-crown disappears at the end of this year. On the other hand, if the industry chooses to assume that the 6d.
12
will continue in circulation indefinitely, they are not planning on a certainty but on a gamble. If, as the Government and the Decimal Currency Board expect, the 6d. disappears rapidly, many firms in the industry would lose substantial turnover during the several months it would take for the available physical resources in the country to convert old machines or manufacture new ones. Furthermore, hasty conversion would be very expensive for the industry—obviously much more so than planned conversion. It follows from what I have said that the effect of the Amendment moved in Committee would not be to save money on the conversion of machines; on the contrary, it might well have the opposite effect. The sensible course for the industry is to assume that the Government are correct in the view which they have taken.
The whole question of bus fares and Tube fares is linked with a much deeper problem, such as the structure of the fare stages, the cost of peak hour services and many other fundamental criteria which the whole public transport industry is now considering. The short-term retention of one particular coin is of small significance in this context. In any case, the 6d. is relevant only where coin-operated machines are concerned, and the public will be considerably inconvenienced if a situation arises where these machines have not been converted, and therefore can accept 6d. only when the coin is becoming difficult to obtain. The absence of the 6d. cannot affect prices to the public except in the case of goods and services sold by machines, and even then in a small minority of cases.
In conclusion, let me emphasise how important it is that all those organisations now making plans for working with decimal coinage should be able to make their plans in the certain knowledge of what that coinage will be. The Bill as now amended gives no certainty; it merely gives uncertainty. The words inserted in Committee cannot make the coin circulate if retailers decide that they will not use it. The only way to secure certainty—and this certainty is essential—is that a large number of people should know now that it is quite clear there will be no 2½p. coin after the complete end of the change-over, and that is what the Government are seeking to do. I beg to move.
2.56 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I need hardly say that I regret that the Government have seen fit to put down an Amendment which flatly negatives the Amendment that was carried on May 1, but I should like at the outset to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who informed me of their intention to do so, and the reasons behind it. I think I fully recognise the arguments which have led the Government to adopt the new coinage which excludes a 6d. equivalent while retaining the 1s. and the 2s. equivalent, and I hope that I understand these arguments.
Moreover, I appreciate—and I feel sympathy for the point—that it would be a convenience to many people, and particularly perhaps those who are concerned with the operation of coin-operated machines, as the noble Baroness has said, to know quite clearly without further delay precisely what coins will exist after the transitional period. Nevertheless, even if all those concerned with coin-operated machines desired to see the 6d. demonetised in August, 1972, that of itself would surely not he a deciding argument. The fact, however, is that they do not all so desire.
I do not propose to repeat to-day, or even to refer in detail to, all the arguments advanced in Committee in favour of the retention of the 6d., but I should like quite briefly to elaborate upon the attitude of industry and trade on this question. As regards the coin-operated machines, the manufacturers of those machines are of course concerned to provide, and will provide, the slots which the particular functions of the various types of machine require. The proprietors of the machines want slots which suit their business, and in this field it is the owners of the machines and the public who use them whose opinion matters, and they are, to some extent, divided in their views.
I want to be quite fair. Opinions differ for different commodities and services. Parking meters obviously require a single coin; if there is no 6d. they will become 1s. operated, and then the time measured has to be adjusted. However, according to the motoring organisations, who are perhaps the best qualified to judge in this field, the coverage of the short periods of waiting time is
14
the most important consideration, and they strongly oppose the demonetising of the 6d. As regards telephones, as your Lordships know, the Post Office can reduce—and have given indication of their intention to reduce—the duration of the local call so that it may be financially covered by 2p. But we all know from personal experience that there are many cases where three minutes is short enough for what was hoped would be a very brief conversation, and putting in extra coins for an extension of time can be a great nuisance. It would be surprising if the public did not much prefer the continuance of the 6d. for this purpose.
As regards the general class of entertainment machines, the 6d. is convenient only so long as there are plenty of sixpences in circulation, and the entertainment industry favour the retention of the 6d., as would the public who use those machines. As regards coin-operated vending machines, the need for the 6d. depends upon the prevalence of 6d. packings suitable for use in such machines. There certainly are fewer of such packings to-day than there were, and with rising costs I am afraid that there are likely to be fewer still; but there are certainly enough to make the consumer industries feel that they would like the 6d. slot to be retained.
As regards public transport, to which the noble Baroness referred, the 6d. is to-day a very important coin, but it could not, I imagine, exist as a single-fare coin to cover a journey for which the full fare was 2½p unless the so-called half fare was raised to 1½p. But it would still he a very useful coin for journeys for which the full fare was 5p, which could be paid in the 1s. equivalent or in two 6d. equivalents.
In this connection, may I be allowed to quote the Report of the London Transport, published as House of Commons Paper No. 208 of 1968–69, wherein, in paragraph 49, they say:
"The decision to adopt the £1/new penny/½ system and the absence of a 2½ new penny coin to replace the 6d. will cause considerable difficulties to London Transport and other bus operators and businesses where a large proportion of the. cash transactions are in comparatively low denominations. There will be no single coin with a value less than the present 1s. which has an exact decimal equivalent, and no decimal coin in the range between the 2p (4·8d.) equivalent and the 5p (1s.), where a high proportion of London Transport fares lie."

15
Aside from that, I have reason to know that they feel—and I think quite strongly—that even if by "D-Day" their fare scales have to be altered, and are altered, so as to be readily convertible from £.s.d. to decimals, they would like to see a prolongation of the life of the 6d. so as to give more time for the conversion of their machines with 6d. slots. I apologise for having taken up so much time over this one facet of the problem, but it illustrates a fact which bedevils many aspects; namely, that opinion is quite sharply divided.
As regards the distributive trade, I listened very carefully to the points made in the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, against the retention of the 6d., and to the speeches made for it by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I have tried to get some turnover figures to evaluate the different points of view, and the latest figures available were the 1966 Census. These showed that of the total retail trade, multiple shops—that is, companies with 10 or more retail branches—represent 32½ per cent., departmental stores represent 5 per cent., the co-operative societies represent 9 per cent., and the remainder, which includes the multitude of small shops, many of whom are in, or associated with, the Retail Alliance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, represent a total of 53½ per cent.
Without in any way wishing to dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said about his own business, or what the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield said about the Tesco stores, I can say that the Multiple Shops' Federation, representing the bulk of the 32½ per cent., are quite categoric in their declaration that the great majority of their members favour retention of the 6d. The Retail Distributors' Association, which includes the departmental stores, would be emphatic on the other side, but they represent only some 5 per cent. The co-operative societies. representing 9 per cent., are wholly in favour of retention, and the Economic Development Council for the distributive trade have, I understand—and I have the Chairman's authority for saying this—come down quite firmly in favour of the retention of the 6d. in the form of a 2½p
16
coin. To sum up on the feeling of industry and trade, I think the position is something like this. Industry, as represented by the C.B.I., are definitely in favour; those concerned with coin-operated machines are divided; retail distribution is mostly in favour; and the public, so far as it would seem to have expressed an opinion, would appear to be in favour.
I should not wish to go over again all the other arguments that were advanced in Committee in favour of the 6d., but I must make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt that the argument for retention and for a 2½p coin of the same size, weight and composition as the present 6d., at least for some time after the end of the transitional period, should not be construed as an argument for the place of the 6d. equivalent as a permanent feature of our decimal coinage, but only for so long as its usefulness, its popularity and its convenience make its continued existence desirable. I believe that those of your Lordships who consider that some provision for the extension of the life of the 6d. beyond the transitional period is important, for the reasons which have been advanced from all quarters of your Lordships' House, will feel that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment, even with the assurance which has been offered. We must therefore resist it.
But whether or not it is carried, I hope that the Government will favourably consider, in the light of all the arguments that have been advanced in both Houses of Parliament and the weight of opinion in industry and trade and, indeed, in the country as a whole, the making of a Proclamation now, or when this Bill has finally passed through its various stages, to the effect that the 6d. will not be demonetised until some date after the end of the transitional period; and then only if either it has ceased to be a popular, convenient and useful coin, or the new ½p has itself by then been demonetised. This Proclamation, to be effective, must, as I see it, include a provision for a 2½p coin, not permanently, but at least up to the point that I have tried to define.
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in rising to support the Government Amendment, I should make it clear

17
to your Lordships that I am speaking this afternoon as a private person and not as a member of the Decimal Currency Board, whose proper spokesman is its Chairman. I shall simply draw on those conclusions which I formed in the course of listening to all the evidence in which I was involved during my chairmanship of the Committee of Inquiry many years ago.
One of my difficulties the whole way through was that everybody wanted to spoil the new system by retaining some feature of the old because it was in his interest to do so, and had I listened to all of them I should have recommended to your Lordships a completely botched job. But if I was not to listen to all of them, how could I discriminate between one and another?—for the only argument that they produced was that the retention of some feature would be of benefit to their section of the community. Hour after hour I listened to special pleading on behalf of the ½d. at its present value, the present 3d. bit, now and then the 6d., and, in its turn, the half-crown: and all the arguments to which I listened were legitimate in their context. It is a matter of regret that I find myself on the opposite side of the argument, on almost all issues, to the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, because I must concede that I have never heard him put forward a bad argument yet. If the case that he defends were the only case to be defended, I should be on his side. All these arguments are legitimate in special contexts; but they are, I think, bad arguments in the context of trying to design a coinage to last a hundred years.
My Lords, nobody will deny that the 6d. has a use. It always will have a use. Any coin that is there will always have a use. People will find a use for it simply because it is there. In the United States the single cent has no purchasing power. There is nothing you can buy for a cent, but they still find a use for it as a means of collecting sales tax; and it will go along as a useless coin but with that one purpose, the collection of sales tax, for an indefinite time to come. The 6d. had a use in 1939; skip 30 years, it has a use in 1969; in another 30 years it will find another use in 1999—but these are not the same uses. Inflation alters the particular use
18
to which a coin is put, but it does not alter the fact that a use will always be found for it.
My Lords, what will be the consequence of having a new ½p, a new 2p and a new 2½p circulating in parallel, beside one another? One of these days inflation (and we must accept inflation as a secular trend) will make it desirable to demonetise the ½p. That is not going to happen immediately: I hope not. It may be in a generation's time. Whether it is in two or three generations' time depends on how effective successive Governments are in preventing inflationary rises in price. But the existence of the ½p and the 2½p alongside one another will each tend to perpetuate one another, because you cannot have a 2p and a 2½p coin circulating beside one another in the same system of coinage without the presence of a ½p to give change and strike a balance between them. So each will tend to strengthen the existence of the other, and a blemish on the coinage will be perpetuated for all time to come.
Nobody denies that the 6d. is not only useful but is also popular at the moment, under present conditions. It is somewhat surprising to find the very large number of sixpences that are in fact used in pairs to do substitute service for the 1s. But it is believed, and I. believe, that the popularity of the 6d. will fade and that the popularity of the 1s. will rise. In this context, I should like to remind your Lordships that the 6d. is not only a value; it is also a name. It is a name in the same sense that "shilling" is a name. It is true that the word "tanner" exists, but I believe its use is most widespread in London and the Home Counties and not in other parts of the country. Whether the 6d. will be used in the form of "tanner" during the transition period to avoid confusion I do not know; but I would ask your Lordships to note that it is a name, "The sixpence"—and can anything be more tiresome than having a new coin which is worth 2½p and whose name is "sixpence" in the old? It seems to me an in-built source of muddle and confusion and should be terminated as quickly as possible.
We must learn not to look back nostalgically on the old duodecimal system. We must not turn back, like Lot's wife,

19
to the past, and to what was going on there. The duodecimal and the decimal systems are quite different. Each has its advantages; each has its disadvantages—nobody will dispute that. The great advantage of the decimal system is that it aligns our treatment of measure with the use of language in terms of which numbers are expressed. One of the advantages of the duodecimal system is that you can divide the radix by two twice. Nobody disputes that you cannot do that in a decimal system. I beseech your Lordships not to try to do what cannot be done, but to learn to think and plan decimally, and to adjust units in such a way that they fit naturally in with the one, two, five and ten coins which are the natural divisions of a decimal system. Other people do it: we can. For 2d. you can get 80 per cent. of everything you get for 2½d. If 6d. or 2½p buys 30 minutes' parking time, then 2p will buy 24 minutes' parking time, and it is a perfectly simple matter to adjust the meters to effect this.
I know that I have been criticised here and elsewhere for being tough and unyielding in my pursuit of the detail involved in all this. I have even been called undemocratic, because I have said that it was a technical issue. The processes of democracy achieve many things, but I do not think they necessarily effect a trusteeship for the future, for coming generations that have no votes and are not voted for. Throughout the whole of my transactions in this field I have had a strong sense of trusteeship for the future. If I had not been unyielding on these points, we should have ended up with, to my thinking, a botched system. The coins in your Lordships' pockets were designed just one hundred years ago. It is probably the only coinage in Europe which has lasted as long. I set out to design something which would be suitable for use for another hundred years to come.
Again, as a trustee for the future I felt it essential to preserve simplicity. We must go for simplicity, above all things. My Lords, there are too many complications of everyday life where we curse our forbears because of the compromises they effected to their convenience and our no little prejudice. I would urge your Lordships not to incur the odium of our descendants by trying to take the
20
easy way out in this day and age, so landing them with an embarrassment the abolition of which someone will always be opposing. Whenever you try to get rid of the 2½p, someone will always want to say, "No" The time for deciding on abolition is to-day, and I believe that the right time to effect it is very much towards the close of the transition period.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I make just one point in order to—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, on Report stage it is not customary to make more than one intervention.
LORD HIRSHFIELD: My Lords, I had been about to contribute once again to this discussion on the question of the withdrawal of the 6d. Quite frankly, I am disposed to scrap the whole of my proposed speech. I should much prefer, if this Amendment is to be pressed, that we should go into the Division Lobbies as soon as we can, bearing well in our minds the very fine contribution, the very reasoned contribution, that we have just listened to from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
3.19 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, in spite of that fact I should like to say that the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, were of course very convincing from one point of view, but that point of view was entirely theoretical. He was looking upon the ½d. as being a blot on the decimal system, but that is merely because the whole decimal system based on the pound is an absurd conception, and we must look at things from the practical point of view. Personally, I think that the retention of the 6d. is extremely desirable. One has only to think, for instance, of London Transport's smallest fare, 5d. My Lords, two new pennies—2p—will be more than 5d., and one new penny—1p—will be less. Or should I have said 3p and 2p? I must confess that I cannot work it out. At any rate, it is impossible to make 5d. out of the new coinage without retaining the ½d. Therefore it is essential, it seems to me, to retain the 6d. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, asked what we are going to call it. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to invent a name for it. I think that it will cause

21
an enormous amount or inconvenience to everybody, not only to those who own coin-operated machines but to those who use them, if we do not retain it.
I must confess that I was a little surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips (to whose opinions I always listen with the greatest respect, and generally with agreement), say that the purpose of a Report stage was to think over what one had said in the Committee stage and to return the Bill to the form in which it had left the House of Commons. I cannot think that that is really the purpose of the Report stage.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I shall not detain you for very long. It seems to me that in the speeches we have heard, and especially the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, we have been hearing of one hundred years hence. I feel that these arguments are a sort of pale reflection of his own arguments in his Report. I quite see the passion with which he defends the future. It seems to me, however, that we must think also of the present. I have not been at all impressed by those noble Lords who have been expressing various vested interests. It seems to me that we are the trustees not of vested interests but of the community as a whole, and that the community as a whole has an absolutely urgent need not to be exposed to any excuse for further inflation. It is absolutely certain that any measure which abolishes small coins, however they were formed—and this very inept decimal currency reform obviously tends to the wholesale abolition of smaller coins and smaller money—the farthing, the halfpenny, and very soon the penny; because the new penny is much more than a penny—will of course hurt some vested interests and will benefit other vested interests who will take the opportunity to increase their profit margins. In the end the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will be perfectly right and all the small coins will have been eroded—but not without his very valiant help.
Having said this, I would add that I shall support the Government in the Division Lobby—although, unfortunately, the change in the Treasury has not led to a change in this particular issue—because the decision is theirs and they have decided. But I would implore the Chancellor to turn his back on the previous
22
decision, which was made on silly grounds—silly prestige grounds—and to think again. But in the meantime I shall support the Government.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I venture to say a few words on a single point not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, either in his speech to-day or, according to my recollection, in the debate the other day. I refer to the problem of vending machines for liquids, for milk and cold drinks. I do not propose to enter into the gastro-nomical problem of whether a pint is too much to consume at one go or whether 2p worth is too little; but I would appeal to the noble Baroness to consider the problem of vending machines for milk in terms of the new currency.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that the noble Baroness told us that she put the conversion costs and renewal costs of these vending machines of various sorts at £8 million. I should like some information on this point. In due course, obviously, these machines will wear out and will have to be replaced. We all know that. But how much life is left in these machines? Will they all become due for renewal in a short period of time? This is what worries me. I should have thought that if the majority of the machines still had a long life left in them, a case can be made for delaying the conversion.
I think the noble Baroness also said, "Do trust the Government". Well, virtually the entire Commonwealth who have been faced with this same problem of going from £ s. d. to a decimal system (and common sense and brain-power are not a prerogative of this country; they exist elsewhere) have opted for the 10s. system. And, of course, therefore they do not require the halfpenny. The only reason we require the halfpenny is because, with all due respect, for some idiotic reason we opted, in complete isolation, for the pound system. But I Would ask your Lordships this question. Are the ½p and the 1p as close together as the 2p piece and the proposed or talked about 2½p? I cannot see that there is any difference at all. If you have the one (which has been forced upon us because we are to go into the pound

23
system) it is illogical to argue that the coins are too close together; because they are no closer together and no further apart than the coins we have already. The only plea we make is for retention for a certain length of time; that is, until it is proved unnecessary, not in theory but in fact. We would retain it for that length of time. So far as the name is concerned your Lordships will have heard of a dime, a nickel, "two bits"; and, if you were old enough, you would know that in Canada and America there was once a note called a "shin plaster". I do not think the name comes into it at all.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I thought that the speech of my noble friend Lady Phillips was most helpful, particularly at the beginning. If I understand that aright, it means that the Government think they are retaining flexibility to act on new facts which may emerge during the interim period. This, on the whole, was the main objection that I and others had to the Bill as it stood.
But in the long run somebody has to decide on this matter. The arguments were well canvassed and I think that no converts have been made. It is the Government's prerogative to decide. I spoke against them in the Committee stage—this is what a Committee stage is for—but it seems to me your Lordships have fulfilled your proper function by asking the Government to pause and to think again. We have had a small pause. I do not think we shall get any more. I think it would be an unnecessary delaying tactic not to pass this Amendment at this stage. If I were not under the long and imprecise shadow of the Addison Rules, I should vote for the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I shall neither delay the House nor repeat anything which has been said in Committee. I regret that the Government have taken the course of seeking to reverse the Amendment which your Lordships then carried. I do not think the noble Baroness was right in suggesting that some of your Lordships voted in Committee under a misapprehension. I think that our main reason was that we felt that the premature abolition of this particular coin, before or soon after the
24
end of the transition period, would have a small, perhaps, but appreciable effect in pushing up that cost inflation against which we have all been fighting for so long—with so little success.
When the noble Baroness went on to say that your Lordships carried it by a small majority she was entirely right: it was a small majority. I think the reason why it was small, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, was simply that on this side of the House we had a free vote. Many of my noble friends voted against our Amendment, but the majority probably voted in favour of it—indeed they must have done; and the same thing occurred in another place. But on the Government side of the House, although many of your Lordships spoke strongly, and very convincingly, I thought, in favour of the Amendment, not one of them voted for it, because the Whips were on on one side and not on the other.
My Lords, I have always felt that this kind of issue is one which the ordinary Members can decide much better than officials. I think that most ordinary Members, of both Houses, are better judges of the kind of thing that will happen in shops than Government officials or the banks, who are accustomed to think in terms of big money; or even than the Halsbury Committee who so blithely assumed that the new ½pwhich is equivalent to 1·2d., will soon be abandoned because inflation will go on so rapidly or because we shall all become so affluent that we shall treat it with contempt. But, my Lords, I think that these little coins do matter. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said he was in favour of simplicity. So are we all. He said that other countries. managed to get on with the purely decimal system, two places of decimals, and he asked: why cannot we do the same? One reason is that we have insisted, on his recommendation, on having this enormous unit of £1, whereas everybody else has a much smaller unit. In South Africa and Australia it is only 10s.; and in America that unit is the equivalent of about 7s.; and in Germany, France and Italy it is very much less, so that simplicity is comparatively easy.
My Lords, I suggest again that this is a matter on which we ought to have had a free vote, and I regret that we did not. It is a matter on which those who are not

25
in official positions are as good judges as—or better than—those who are in official positions and who write briefs for Ministers. We are not asking your Lordships to perpetuate this coin for ever, but only to enable it to survive for an indefinite, though perhaps not very long, period for purely practical purposes after the transition period has come to an end.
3.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have had an interesting and very useful extension of our discussion on this subject. I should like to pay a tribute to the quite immaculate courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, has conducted his opposition to the Government point of view and I think we are all indebted, if I may say so, to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for giving us his testimony.
When I first came to look at this 6d. controversy I was, I confess to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, more than a little inclined to support the view that we should hang on to a coin which we knew. I did not go so far along the sentimental road as did the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, when he brought forward the "dockers' tanner", but at any rate there was a touch of sentiment in the view which I had. I have not been the only one to feel that. Certainly three noble Lords have said to me that in the Division which we had ten days ago they thought the arguments were evenly balanced and it was sentiment which eventually brought them down to support the view embodied in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair. I hope that on reflection we can now agree, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that if we are to have a decimal system we must make it as workmanlike and with as efficient a coinage as possible. Once general principles are set we should be prepared to give considerable weight, indeed decisive weight, to the advice of those who have been professionally concerned and who have done so much research on the details.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that we ought not to divide on this matter on Party political grounds. I quite agree with him that there are occasions when it would be better if this House were able to come to a conclusion quite
26
apart from any Government advice or Government Whip. But there is also a time when the Government, who after all have ultimate responsibility for administration in these affairs, must say what they believe to be the right choice to make in the national interest and on the advice available to them.
This is not a question of a Government taking up a point of view because they, as politicians, believe that they have all the answers. That is not so at all. The Government have had available to them a good deal of informed opinion and very weighty advice. In the first place, we have had the Committee over which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, presided and they certainly informed themselves. They formed a view on the basis of expert evidence, and we have heard from the noble Earl the advice which he now gives. The Decimal Currency Board, which also considered this matter, is not a Government body in the sense of being composed of politicians, or indeed of civil servants. It is a body of distinguished non-civil servants drawn from various walks of life; and the Board, too, gave advice to us along the lines of the Amendment which have on the Order Paper to-day.
Much has been said about the Multiple Shops' Federation and the point of view which it has expressed in the literature which it has sent round to us all. But we have heard from my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of the research which his own firm has carried out in this matter, and we have heard from him that they have come to the conclusion that the Government view is the correct view. The noble Lord, Lord Sieff, who, with his firm, also has very considerable experience in these matters (these are not one-sided or dogmatic politicians), said to me that were it not for the fact that he is to receive an honourary degree to-day from his old university he would have been glad to come to your Lordships' House and offer his point of view, which again is in line with that of the Government Amendment. The Retail Distributors' Association, again on the basis of practical work done on the problem, support the view which I am asking your Lordships to accept this afternoon.
My Lords, the problem here is that were the controversy extended beyond the

27
change-over period which we now envisage, we should simply be continuing uncertainty, if not confusion. Some teaching manuals, as we have heard, are being produced on the basis that the 6d. will be withdrawn. The Chairman of the Decimal Currency Association of the Retail Distributors' Association has said that most sectors of retailing are planning ahead on the basis that the 6d. will be withdrawn at the end of the change-over period. Surely all business experience suggest that there comes a point in time when you have to take a decision so that sensible forward planning can take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, called our attention to one sector where I accept from him—indeed, it is obvious—that there are especial difficulties. I refer of course to vending machines. But here, too, I suggest that in the long run it is in the best interests that a decision should be taken now. I have been asked various questions about vending machines. I do not want to go into the whole issue again. I have been absolutely amazed at the amount of detailed research which has taken place in this matter; I have had accounted to me practically every coin-vending machine in the country. There are now 11 million of these machines altogether. Of this total, only 15 per cent. are affected by the withdrawal of the 6d.
If one ignores the 300,000 machines—I do not know what to call them: they are usually to be found in amusement arcades—which have a doubtful social value, then the proportion becomes only 12 per cent. If this Bill goes on the Statute Book with a provision that another fractional coin—the 2½p piece in the guise of a 6d.—is included in the range of coinage, while we should be helping the 12 per cent. of coin vending machine operators, we should, on the other hand, in the view of the Government, of the Decimal Currency Board and of the Committee over which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, presided and of all those practical businessmen who have come to your
28
Lordships' House to give us the benefit of their experience, be penalising the rest of the community. We should be prolonging a period of uncertainty and causing a slowing down of cash transactions in the retail shops. There would be a definite cost as a result of that slowing down of operations at check-out points and elsewhere.
I was asked about milk-vending machines. I believe that I am right in saying that there are about 60,000 machines which sell beverages, snacks and milk in cartons, not all of them operated by a 6d., and most of those to be found in factories are subsidised. This is not a real problem at all. Discussions are now going on between the Decimal Currency Board and the Milk Marketing Board about the amount of milk to be given for a particular coin.
I cannot understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that it would put up the cost of living if we withdrew the 6d. call from telephone boxes and had a call for 2p pieces instead. That was the implication of what was said. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General is now planning to have a cheaper 'phone call, certainly of a shorter time, as the noble Lord himself said. He was fair in this as well as i n everything else he said. I cannot see that it will be a great hardship to be able to make a call for a lower price. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked me about the difficulties with fractional coins, and he went some way in critising the½p The Government recognise that this is a difficulty, but coins which include a fraction, like the 2½p piece, will complicate transactions much more than a coin which is itself a fraction, like the ½p.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, ended up with an appeal for "just a little longer", but what he was really asking for was an extension of uncertainty. This afternoon I hope that we can now divide in order to put an end to the period of

29
uncerainty, and I hope that we shall end it in the way which has been supported by so many distinguished people in a good cross section of our industrial and commercial life.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Addison, V.

Gifford. L.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst, E.

Granville of Eye, L.

Pargiter, L.

Archibald, L.

Granville-West, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Arwyn, L.

Hall, V.

Plummer, Bs.

Ashbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portsmouth, L.Bp.

Audley, Bs.

Hankey, L.

Raglan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Balogh, L.

Henley, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Heycock, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller]

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hunt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brown, L.

Inman, L.

Samuel, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Buckton, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Burden, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kirkwood, L.

Silkin, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Latham, L.

Snow, L.

Chalfont, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Champion, L.

Lincoln, L.Bp.

Sorensen, L.

Clwyd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stonham, L.

Constantine, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stow Hill, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Digby, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Williamson, L.

Energlyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Faringdon, L.

Mitchison, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Garner, L.

Moyle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Meston, L.

Albemarle, E.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monson, L.

Alport, L.

Essex, E.

Morrison, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Atholl, D.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goschen, V.

Newton, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rockley, L.

Brentford, V.

Hawke, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sackville, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Ilford, L.

Salter, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L. [Teller.]

Daventry, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Swinton, E.

Dudley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Mar, E.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents*, 106; Not-Contents, 78.
*[See subsequent correction by the LORD CHANCELLOR to "Contents" figures: col. 38.]
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND
FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND
FERRARD moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Additional coinage of the new currency
".Schedule I to the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall be amended by inserting before the entry relating to Ten new pence the entry

Twenty-five new pence

28·2759—

Three-quarters copper one-quarter nickel

·188"

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in putting down this Amendment at this rather late stage I am hoping to convince the Government of the sense of having a 25p coin in place of the 20p coin. My Amendment does not suggest that the proposed 20p coin should be dropped, but if the Government see the sense of my argument for the 25p coin, the corollary would be to drop the 20p coin, because we do not want the two of them. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in his argument for not having the 6d. in our new coinage, said (and I agree with him) that life was quite complicated enough to-day without having a lot of small, unnecessary coins. My Amendment seeks to make life less complicated by having a 25p coin in place of the 20p coin.
I have always understood that in our system of coinage of any tier it is important to have a precise value/weight relationship. If you ask any banker about this he will agree. and I venture to suggest that the man in the street would agree, too. If a man reaches for coins in his pocket, it is surely more psychologically and physically natural for one coin to be exactly half the weight of the next one. The 25p coin that I am suggesting would be half the weight and size of the next highest coin. I have not mentioned the size in my Amendment, but provided that you have the weight. the size is relevant to the weight. The 25p coin would be exactly half the 50p coin or the new half sovereign. This is a perfectly logical argument. For instance, if you take the 20p coin, which I suppose will be looked upon as a florin, it will be most confusing for people to compare this with the half sovereign, because 2½ of the 20p coin will go to the half sovereign. If you take the coin I suggest, the 25p coin,
32
you have 2 going to the half-sovereign, and 4 to the pound. It does really seem simpler. The other advantage in the 25p coin is, as I have already said, that 4 go to the pound, and you have a natural progression to the pound. In my opinion, the present half-crown is really more popular than the 2s. piece, which we call a florin. It is far nicer to have in your pocket, and it is far easier to have 4 half-crowns for 10s. or 8 half-crowns for one pound, than 10 2s. pieces for a pound, and five for a 10s. note.
In the last Amendment, with the Division we have just had, we have done away—and I think quite rightly—with the 6d. because it is too small. I am suggesting that the 20p piece is also unnecessarily small. It will confuse people regarding the half-sovereign. I should have thought also (to return to the subject of the vending machines), that, if you take cigarettes, the retailers would be very happy to have a packet of cigarettes at 25p. In other words, if we had a 5s. piece to-day in our existing coinage it would be extremely useful for cigarettes in vending machines and for similar goods. The other point is that charitable organisations are rather worried about the disappearance of the equivalent of the half-crown. They are rather worried (and I think they are perfectly right, especially as applied to the church) that people will be inclined to put a 20p coin into the plate, whereas if there were a 25p coin they would put in that coin. That principle applies, I think to all charitable organisations. They would far prefer to have a 25p coin.
My Lords, I do not want to take up much more time on this matter. I should like to say that in these days of inflation (and I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who said that we are deciding on our coinage for 100 years hence) we do not want to have too many small denominations of coins. I also consider that it is far simpler for the average person to have a 25p coin, 4 to the pound, 2 to the half-sovereign. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
4.4 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the case the noble Viscount has out forward is one which attracted a good deal of attention when the system was being considered in the first place, and the

33
Halsbury Committee looked at this proposal in some considerable detail. They considered the £.s.d. crown, and they decided that it had never been popular because of the weight: it is not a popular coin to carry around in one's trouser pocket. They did, however, recommend the inclusion of a cupro-nickel 20p piece in weight and value relationship to the 5p, and the 10p pieces, although again there was some doubt as to whether it would be popular. I have in my hand, my Lords, the 20p piece, which has not been recommended—again on the ground of its size and weight, and of the general convenience of the public.
What the Government did decide, and what they have adopted, is the long-term view of the Halsbury Committee: that a 50p coin should be provided in a third tier. That is to say, the 50p coin—the size of coin I have in my hand—will be issued in October next. The Decimal Currency Board, after consultation (and all these matters have been dealt with after proper consultation), took the view that there was no case for a denomination between the 10p and the 50p in the initial decimal coin series. If we were to have either a 20p or a 25p coin, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is suggesting, it ought to be in the tier that I have in my hand now, so that it could be a much more convenient coin, if there was a demand for it. I suggest to the noble Viscount that, after reflection, he should withdraw his Amendment. It is not acceptable to the Government. The 25p coin would be too large to be useful in the size he is suggesting. If it was necessary to mint such a coin for some ceremonial purposes, that could be done under the provisions of Section 11 of the Coinage Act 1870 and Section 2(3) of the Decimal Currency Act 1967. I suggest to the noble Viscount that although the point of view that he has put forward is an interesting one—and it has been considered—the Government do not think that a 25p coin would be a very convenient coin for day-to-day use. If one issue were considered to be reasonable, or desirable on other grounds, it would be possible to carry out the idea that he has in mind.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I quite understand his argument. I was really
34
anxious to find out why the 25p coin had been turned down. I did not attend the Committee stage. Perhaps the point was discussed then, although, so far as I remember from reading the Committee stage, I do not think it was brought up. I was anxious to give the suggestion a preliminary canter, and the noble Lord has convinced me, through his arguments, that it might not be completely practicable. At the same time, I was pleased to hear what he said with regard to the minting of any commemorative coins, or coins of that category that might be minted in 25p. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new cause:
Additional coinage of the new currency
".Schedule 1 to the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall be amended by inserting at the end the entry

New farthing

0·89100—

Mixed metal copper, tin and zinc

0·01875"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the argument that took place over the retention of the 6d., it would seem rather verging on the realms of lunacy to move this Amendment for a new coin, but I am hoping that noble Lords who hear what I have to say will consider this Amendment from a practical rather than an idealistic point of view. When we go over to this new currency, owing to the fact that we shall have the largest unit in Europe, we shall have also the largest smallest denomination. I should like to read to your Lordships a list of comparisons which have been taken from Whitaker's Almanack 1969 and also from a list issued by the Midland Bank Limited. The fractions of 1d. are fractions of the present penny, not the new penny: Austria, 0·04d.; Belgium, 0·4d.; Denmark 0·13d.; Finland, 0·24d.; France, 0·2d.; West Germany, 0·25d.; Greece, 0·34d.; Holland, 0·28d.; Italy, 0·16d.; Luxembourg, 0·5d. Luxembourg's is the largest of them all. So your Lordship will see that our 1p, which is to be our smallest unit, is going to be about four, five or six times the size of

35
any of those smallest denominations. Therefore I am proposing the introduction of a new farthing. which is to be a quarter, naturally, of the value of the 1p.
One reason for this proposal is that it is anti-inflationary. By having this denomination one would be able to arrive at comparative prices in the new currency which are much nearer the present prices in our present currency. That is a great argument in favour of this proposal, because there is no doubt that some inflation will take place. And I think that even the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, admitted, somewhat reluctantly perhaps, that inflation was a bad thing. I think personally that, for the sake of the citizen, it is something to be avoided at all costs. Therefore the introduction of a new farthing would be the best way to equate the new currency with the old so far as prices are concerned. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the arguments put forward by the noble Lord were of course considered by the Halsbury Committee. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, himself indicated very clearly that they had gone thoroughly into all aspects of possibilities within the new decimal coinage. They came to the final conclusion that there was not a need for a coin equivalent in value to the present ½d. as a permanent feature of the decimal currency system. The Committee considered even the possibility of providing a ¼p as a temporary feature, but concluded that this could not be recommended as even a temporary expedient because the coin would complicate change-giving.
There were two further objections to the small coin which would be introduced as a result of the noble Lord's Amendment were we to accept it. The first objection is that for technical reasons the Mint would have to mass produce a very tiny coin. I feel sure the noble Lord has seen the proposed size of the new coins and he will appreciate that ¼p would need to be a very tiny coin. It would be half the weight of the proposed ½p, while the object at this time, obviously, is to avoid creating additional coinage.
The noble Lord made the point that he was trying to avoid inflationary con
36
ditions. Certainly the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that he did not wish to see inflation. None of us wishes to see inflation. But I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that both the Decimal Currency Board and the Government have several times expressed the view that decimalisation need not lead to an overall increase in price levels. If the preparatory period of planning is used carefully, as I have every reason to believe it will be, inflation need not occur. And price changes are always watched very keenly by the shopper. Therefore, I am sorry but the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord, having aired his point, which was a very valuable one, will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, having listened to what the noble Baroness has to say, I feel that there is nothing more to be said, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.16 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 16 insert the following new clause:
Compensation in consequence of alteration of machines for purposes of decimal currency
".—(1) The functions of the Decimal Currency Board under section 5(1) of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall include the payment of compensation amounting to not more than three-quarters of the cost incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the change to the new currency, by such persons as the Treasury shall direct, in the adaptation or replacement of commercial and other equipment designed to record or calculate in the old currency or to be operated by the coinage of the old currency.
(2) The compensation paid under this section is an expense of the Decimal Currency Board for the purposes of section 4(3) of the Decimal Currency Act 1967."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is on a somewhat different aspect of the matter. The Bill as it stands at present does not provide for compensation to owners of coin-operated machines for the adaptation or perhaps the replacement which they will have to make. That expense is going to be extremely heavy. I have been told that the cost for half-crown operated machines—and, after all, they are not numerous in comparison with 6d. operated ones—will be £10 million. It is not

37
easy for firms in these days to keep going under the extreme stress of rising costs, rising wages and everything else. It seems to me unfair for the Government to put upon them what is in fact a totally unnecessary burden. My Lords, I must stress that point. It is not necessary at this time to introduce decimal coinage. It may be desirable—I am not questioning that—but it is not necessary. Therefore, if it is going to cause extremley hard financial positions to firms which own these machines, it seems to me that it is entirely wrong for the Government not to give them compensation for the adaptations they will have to make. I do not think there is any more I can say to make my point clear, and I therefore beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, says, this Amendment goes much wider than the Amendment we have recently been considering. It goes very wide and very deep. It is one of the most substantial issues which have had to be considered in the whole business of going over to a decimal currency system. The Government all along have taken the view that it was quite impossible to have any general compensation. That view has been supported by all those who hither-to have considered the matter. It has been a consistently held point of view which has never seriously been challenged in this House.
What the Government said was that the Decimal Currency Board, under the 1967 Act, should study and make recommendations to the Government about compensation to be paid in certain special circumstances, but after two years of study the Board informed the Government that they could not propose any scheme for compensation based upon clear principles and capable of being administered fairly and soundly. The Government had to accept this recommendation and that is the reason why subsection (1) of Clause 17 is in the Bill in the present terms. I hope the noble Lord will feel that at the Report stage in this House it would be a little difficult to reopen the whole of this wide question.
There is one other point I would put to the noble Lord. This clause enables expenditure to take place and it would have been out of order for it to be moved in the House of Commons because there
38
is no Financial Resolution for this Bill. That does not bar discussion in this House, or indeed the inclusion of the clause in the Bill when we send it back to the House of Commons, but it would not be constitutionally possible for another place to agree to the insertion of the clause unless the Government were to ask them to waive their privilege and introduce a Financial Resolution. I think the noble Lord will probably agree that that is not a course of action which we could ask the Government to undertake. Therefore I hope, with that information, the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I naturally accept what the noble Lord has said. I have no desire whatsoever to go against our few remaining privileges in this House, and so far as the desirability of it is concerned I am prepared to accept what the noble Lord says. Personally I think it is a pity, because it will come very hard on many people and a great proportion of the population of this country will say, "To what purpose?". But that is that, my Lords, and I simply cannot do any more. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, in the Division on the first Amendment, the number of those voting Content was 107, and not 106 as reported by the Teller and announced to the House.

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
4.24 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONFIAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 8 [Determination of Appeals]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("the Secretary of State or an") and insert ("an immigration").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would probably be to the convenience of your Lordships if we could

39
discuss Amendment No. 2 together with this Amendment because they are closely linked. Your Lordships may recollect that in Committee there was considerable discussion over an Amendment which I moved to subsection (1)(a)(ii) of Clause 8, the same sub-paragraph which is affected by this Amendment. Both my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and I spoke strongly about the vagueness of this sub-paragraph. If I may remind your Lordships, we are dealing here with an appeal relating to a decision which was not reached on account of an immigration rule but which was within the discretion of the Secretary of State or one of his officers to decide either way. There is no difficulty arising in connection with sub-paragraph (i) because there the appellate authority is asked to consider whether the decision or action was or was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case. That is a perfectly clear justiciable issue, but no similar issue arises under subparagraph (ii).
I pointed out in Committee that where someone wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision by a judge which it was within the discretion of that judge to take, the matter is strictly governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court, and those Rules are properly enforced. Here the Government are suggesting nothing of the kind. They are suggesting that where the original decision involves an element of discretion there shall be an open appeal to the adjudicator or to the Tribunal, and the adjudicator or the Tribunal can reverse the decision of the Secretary of State or his officer simply because in his opinion that discretion should have been exercised differently. As my noble and learned friend and I asserted in Committee, it is wholly wrong that the responsible decision of a Secretary of State, using his discretion and answerable to Parliament for that decision, should be able to be brushed aside by an appeal authority simply on the ground that such appeal authority thinks he should have decided differently.
Since the Committe stage of the Bill. I have done what all your Lordships were urged to do earlier this afternoon in connection with a different Bill, which was to read and think over all that was said in Committee. It emerged in
40
Committee on this Bill, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there were really two broad classes of case where this discretion was exercisable. One, and probably the larger class of case, is where an immigration officer decides, let us say, that the compassionate arguments are not quite strong enough to entitle him to grant admission to a would-be immigrant. There is no question of State policy here; it is a matter of judgment, and if the appellate authority subsequently decides that the immigration officer should have exercised his discretion differently, no great harm is done. Indeed, probably good is done because the matter has been considered by a higher authority. Certainly there is no harm done to the safety of the State or to the future of law and order.
But the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also frankly admitted that there was another broad category of cases (though a smaller category) where an applicant for admission to the country is liable to be debarred because—and I use the noble Lord's own words—
"his character, conduct or associations make it undesirable to permit him to enter the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/1969, col. 1034.]
There is no question that this is a matter of policy. The Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for law and order, and he must be vitally concerned when people of undesirable character. conduct or associations whom he thinks it is undesirable to permit to enter the United Kingdom are subsequently allowed in by a decision of the Tribunal.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave us no indication how this was to he prevented. He stated, certainly, that the Secretary of State could make more and more immigration rules so as to cover increasingly a larger and larger part of the whole field of possibilities, but it would always remain true that cases arose which were not covered by any of those rules.
If any of your Lordships think that I am imagining improbable possibilities, let me recall to you what actually happened in the 1930s. The facts are all set out in Appendix III of the Report of the Wilson Committee on Immigration Appeals, the Committee on whose Report this Bill is broadly founded. In 1932, the Home

41
Secretary of the day appointed a non-statutory committee to advise him upon the cases of aliens in respect of whom a deportation order was being considered. Let me point out that this was a non-statutory body, and it was an advisory body. Therefore, it could be abolished at any time, or its findings could be overridden by the Secretary of State. What we are doing now in this Bill is to set up a statutory body, in the last resort an Appeals Tribunal, and, except in a certain small class of security cases, it will not be possible for the Home Secretary to override the Tribunal's decision.
What happened with regard to this previous committee in the 1930s, which as I have said had nothing like the power that the appellate authority is going to have under this Bill, was this. I read from paragraph 5 of Appendix III of the Report:
"It became evident from the trend of the committee's decisions that its member did not feel bound to accept the Home Secretary's general policy. Consequently, even in a case where the alien did not dispute the allegations against him and brought forward no mitigating circumstances, the committee might recommend against deportation because its members differed from the Home Office in principle on what constituted sufficient grounds for deportation."
My Lords, what guarantee is there that the appellate authority under this Bill will not act in the same way?—indeed, the Bill invites it to do so. The Government have inserted in the Bill, in Clause 8(1)(a), sub-paragraph (ii) instructing the appellate authority to allow the appeal if he considers that the discretion exercised by the Secretary of State or an officer "should have been exercised differently". In other words, the appellate authority, ultimately the Tribunal, will be completely free to do what the advisory Committee did between 1932 and 1936, the only difference being that that was an advisory committee, whereas this will be a statutory body whose decisions can override those of the Home Secretary. This is why my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and I have framed this Amendment, which is designed to provide for the two categories of case to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred in Committee.
We are suggesting by this Amendment that where the decision has been taken at immigration officer level and has not
42
had to go up to headquarters the words in the Bill could be accepted. This will deal with the compassionate argument, where the immigration officer may have just come down against the applicant and the appellate authority might just come down the other way, and no harm will be done to the State if the immigration officer's decision is overruled. But we are suggesting in Amendment No. 2 that where the decision or action was based upon the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State, or an officer other than an immigration officer, then before allowing the appeal the appellate authority must be satisfied
"that there was a misapprehension as to the facts or that irrelevant matters were taken into account or that relevant matters were not taken into account."
If this Amendment is made, it will safeguard the Government against having decisions brushed aside, as I have said, by the appellate authority, simply because the appellate authority takes a different view. We saw in the 1930s that the advisory committee believed that a much more powerful case must exist against a person before he is deported than the Secretary of State did at that time. I believe that the break came because the Secretary of State wished to deport an alien who had been found bribing an immigration officer in order to get some of his relations into this country: the advisory committee thought that was not at all a serious offence, and, anyhow, as the man had done it once and had been discovered he probably would not do it again, and therefore he could stay. That illustrates how wide the difference of view can be.
What my noble and learned friend and I are concerned about, above all, is to defend the position of the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, in cases where law and order may be involved. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned in the debate in Committee the old case of Lennie Bruce. That would be a clear example, because in that case the Home Secretary took the decision that his continuance in this country was not conducive to the public good; and if there had been a so-called liberal-minded statutory Appeals Tribunal in those days that decision might have been reversed and Lennie Bruce might have been able to remain here and become a centre and haven for other drug addicts.

43
I mention that case to show that there are serious issues involved, and I greatly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will address himself equally seriously to this problem. I beg to move.
4.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do indeed agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that there are very serious and important issues involved here. I do not wish, in dealing with this Amendment, which I can assure him I do treat very seriously, to go over the very broad issues, still less to go back to 1932 when the advisory committee to which he referred was set up, but which I would remind him referred only to aliens, to advise the Home Secretary of the day on the position of aliens. I want to deal solely with the noble Lord's Amendments and tell your Lordships what in my view is the effect of them.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendments taken together is first to leave the appellate authorities power to substitute their own discretion for that of an immigration officer unchanged—that is exactly what the noble Lord said. But the Amendments would preclude the appellate authorities overruling a discretionary decision of the Secretary of State or of an entry certificate officer, unless they find that there has been a misapprehension about the facts or that irrelevant matters have been taken into account or relevant matters have not been taken into account.
I propose to show that the noble Lord's Amendments would not affect some of the situations that he described in the way that he imagines they would. Last week, during the Committee stage, I explained that in relation to the admission of Commonwealth citizens—and I emphasise that it is Commonwealth citizens alone to whom the Bill applies—there is generally scope for the exercise of discretion only in a case where the immigration rules require the immigration officer to decide whether there are compassionate circumstances that justify admission, and I then gave a number of examples of the cases where compassionate circumstances could be taken into consideration.
My view was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in these words. He said that it was important:
44
"from the point of view of fair play, and in order that the immigrant himself can see that justice is being done, that the question of the weight to be given to compassionate considerations should be the decision of an entirely independent person".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/69, col. 1047.]
The Government are strongly of that view, and that is exactly what we have provided for in subsection (1)(a)(ii) as it now stands. Lord Brooke's Amendments make no change with regard to Commonwealth cases which have to be decided at the ports, because as drafted they do not apply to decisions taken by an immigration officer, but they do apply to decisions taken by an entry certificate officer.
I believe that the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in trying to make a distinction between immigration officers and entry certificate officers, since their standing and functions are in essence identical. Indeed, it is not at all clear that such a distinction could be drawn, because, under both the Aliens Order and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, the person who actually takes the decision is the immigration officer, and this would be so notwithstanding that he was giving effect to a personal instruction from the Home Secretary. What Lord Brooke's Amendments would do is to limit the power of appellate authorities to substitute their view in discretionary Commonwealth cases arising in relation to people already living here—that is, if they are not here for permanent settlement; the discretion in respect of people who are here temporarily would arise, for example, over refusals of extension of stay or other variation of conditions of stay, or deportation for breach of conditions where there is no recommendation by a court. That is in the Bill with which we are now dealing, which deals only with Commonwealth citizens.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would explain that. Clause 14 says that:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council … make such provision for appeal in connection with the powers for the time being exercisable in respect of the admission into and removal from the United Kingdom of aliens as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate having regard to the provision made by this Part of this Act for appeals in connection with the powers conferred by the Act of 1962."
Does that not mean that the provisions of the Order in Council will, mutatis

45
mutandis, follow what is laid down in Clause 8 for Commonwealth citizens?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was coming to that, and I should like to deal with that point carefully and in some detail. But the point that I am making at the moment is that the noble Lord's Amendment would deal with cases of persons already living here, provided, of course, that they were not here for permanent settlement, and I would emphasise again, subject to what he has just said, that the enactment itself in what it does enacts in respect to Commonwealth citizens. But, as he has just said, we have in draft an Order in Council which would provide appeal rights for aliens corresponding to those provided in the Bill for Commonwealth citizens—corresponding, but not the same; because assuming that we made these same Amendments to the draft Aliens (Appeals) Order that the noble Lord wishes to make to this Bill, we should still only be giving the appellate authorities powers to substitute their discretion for that of the Home Secretary in cases of refusal of admission, refusal of extension of stay or deportation. I hope that I have carried the noble Lord with me so far in relation to the effect of these Amendments and the limitation of their effect.
The big difference between Commonwealth citizens and aliens is that in the case of aliens the Home Secretary has power to exercise discretion on grounds that the alien's presence was not conducive to the public good. The noble Lord will recall that he submitted an Amendment in Committee to provide the same kind of power for the Home Secretary in respect of a Commonwealth citizen. The difference is that the discretion in respect of aliens would cover the whole field of admission because, unlike Commonwealth citizens, they have no statutory right of admission.
I should like to take this opportunity to clarify what I said at the Committee stage about whether there is power to refuse admission to Commonwealth citizens on political grounds. Both the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested that there was a contradiction, or at least an inconsistency, between what I had said about the hypothetical case of "a Canadian Rockwell" and my
46
later remarks. I have looked at this again, and I find that my later remarks correctly stated the position in these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/69, cols. 1052–1053]:
" … this question"—
that is the question of leaving political decisions to Ministers—
"does not really arise with Commonwealth citizens, as distinct from aliens … because with Commonwealth citizens there is no power to refuse them entry on political grounds."
As I explained immediately afterwards, following an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, this lack of power to prevent entry applies only to those Commonwealth citizens who have statutory rights of entry; but since these include students and visitors coming for limited periods with sufficient means of support, they of course cover the vast majority of Commonwealth citizens who come to this country. This Bill does not affect that position in any way, and in particular it continues the present position where there is no power to refuse entry on political grounds.
Lord Brooke's Amendment does not affect that position either, because where there is no power to refuse entry then no question of appeal against that refusal can arise. Again I hope that the noble Lord is in agreement with me over that. Again this afternoon the noble Lord referred to the case of a "Canadian Rockwell" and asked me if the adjudicator or Tribunal could overrule the Home Secretary. The answer is "No," because the case would not go to the Tribunal because we have no power to refuse entry on political grounds.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but in fact I never made any mention this afternoon of a "Canadian Rockwell". I did not quote that case; it was not even relevant.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if I was relying on a memory further back than this afternoon. But it seems to me that the noble Lord has primarily in mind the cases of aliens, and indeed his speech this afternoon in the main referred to aliens: that is, cases in which the Home Secretary decides that the exclusion or deportation of not a Commonwealth citizen but a particular

47
alien is desirable in the public interest. The noble Lord wishes to ensure that such a decision, for which the Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament, should not be overruled by an adjudicator or the Tribunal, who are not so answerable, simply because the appellate authorities take a different view of the merits of the case.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in Committee expressed considerable concern at the possibility of inconsistency in decisions in such cases when they were given by adjudicators. We have given further thought to this subsection in the light of the debate on Lord Brooke's Amendment in Committee, and our conclusion is that any restriction of the appellate authorities' powers in discretionary cases would result either in greater uncertainty about the outcome of an appeal, or in denying the Commonwealth citizen or alien concerned a fully effective right of appeal. In the Amendment that we considered at the Committee stage, reasonableness was made the criterion for the exercise of the appellate authorities' power to overrule discretionary decisions, and this was open to the first objection, that of creating greater uncertainty about the outcome. The Amendments we are now considering are open to the second objection, that of denying an effective right of appeal, because they would not always allow an appeal on the merits. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, wants to make it impossible to appeal on the merits in a case where there had been no error of fact or not taking into account of irrelevant matters, and the decision had been taken by someone other than an immigration officer. That is what the Amendment does, but I should have thought this is surely not what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wants. It is a result which certainly seems to the Government to be undesirable.
The Amendments appear to be based on the Rules by which the Court of Appeal is guided in dealing with appeals against the exercise of a judge's discretion. In the Government's view that is not an appropriate model for us to follow here. Clause 8 does not deal with appeals from one court to another, or from one judge to another. It deals with appeals to an independent tribunal
48
against a decision of an officer of the Executive. It is of the essence of the Bill that, security and political cases apart, every such decision in the field of immigration control should be open to review on its merits. We hear a great deal of talk these days about the powers of the Executive. Well, here we are providing a means for the individual to appeal against them.
If we accepted the noble Lord's Amendments we should be making the outcome of an appeal against a discretionary decision more uncertain, and often quite unrelated to the merits: an appellant, instead of addressing himself to the merits of the decision under appeal—because merits would not count—would have to try to find something in the Home Office's assessment of the facts to which he could take exception. He might try to prove that there had been a misapprehension as to certain facts, even though the rest of the facts had been correctly apprehended and were sufficient to justify the decision. He might prove that some irrelevant facts had been taken into account, even though they had weighed in his favour. He might prove that some relevant facts had been overlooked, even though they would have strengthened the case against him. If the appellant was able to prove any of these things, the appellate authority would be bound to allow the appeal, irrespective of the merits. That is what this Amendment does, and I am sure that the noble Lord—and certainly your Lordships—neither want nor intend the Amendment to do this. But that is what it would do. No doubt the noble Lord would say that in these circumstances the appellate authority should be able to consider the case on the merits, but the effect of the Amendment is to rule this out and to require the authority to allow the appeal.
For all these, I believe, unanswerable reasons the Government consider that the best course is to leave Clause 8(1)(a)(ii) in its present form. There will of course be an opportunity for Parliament to reconsider this and other aspects of the appeal system in the light of experience when, in due course, we introduce permanent legislation on immigration control, and we can then—if in the light of experience we find it necessary—make new provision on matters on which experience has

49
shown that a change in the law is desirable.
I would point out, my Lords, that with regard to aliens, who provide more occasion for the exercise of discretion by the Home Secretary than Commonwealth citizens, the scope of the appellate authorities' power to review discretionary decisions will not depend on the terms of Clause 8 of this Bill but on the corresponding provisions of Article 6 of the Aliens (Appeals) Order. This Article is at present drafted in the same terms as Clause 8, but it could be altered after the Bill is passed and before the Order is made, or amended by a subsequent Order; the original Order and any subsequent amending Order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. But even at this stage I can advance two important points about the draft Order in respect to aliens as it stands, which should go most of the way to meet the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, at the Committee stage and again to-day.
The first point arises under Article 5(2) of the draft appeal Order, which says:
"Rules of procedure may provide that, in such cases as may be specified in the rules, an appeal shall lie under this Article only with the leave of the adjudicator or the Tribunal, or only with the leave of the Tribunal; but an appeal shall lie under this Article without leave—
(a) where the adjudicator has allowed an appeal under Article 1(1)(a) of this Order and the Secretary of State certifies that he considers it desirable in the public interest that the case should be decided by the Tribunal;"
So a case of the admission of an alien must go to the Tribunal, and cannot be finally decided by the adjudicator, if the Secretary of State certifies that he considers this desirable in the public interest. Then paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 3 to this Bill reads:
"Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, an appellant shall not be released under this Schedule without the consent of the Secretary of State …
(b) if the Secretary of State has given a certificate under section 7(2)(a) of this Act in relation to the case of the appellant."
As applied to aliens by Article 9 of the Aliens (Appeals) Order such an alien could not, without the Secretary of State's consent, be released on bail pending the hearing by the Tribunal.
50
The second important safeguard arises under Article 3(1), which reads:
"Subject to paragraph (2) of this Article and to the other provisions of this Part of this Order, a person may appeal …
(b) to the Tribunal, against a decision of the Secretary of State to make a deportation order in his case by virtue of paragraph (b) of the said Article 20(2)."
Thus appeals against decisions to deport an alien because his presence is not conducive to the public good are heard by the Tribunal, not by an adjudicator. These two points already provide substantial safeguards, and since they will be decided only by the Tribunal they should prevent inconsistency in the type of cases that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Viscount Lord Dilhorne, have in mind.
There will be an opportunity to reopen the question—and other related questions—concerning the comparative treatment of Commonwealth citizens and aliens when, in due course, we bring forward permanent legislation on immigration control. Meanwhile, for what I hope are reasons which will appeal to him, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to withdraw his Amendment.
The first of those reasons is that in certain cases it would deprive aliens and Commonwealth citizens of an effective right of appeal. The second reason is that the Amendment would be difficult for the appellate authorities to apply sensibly in practice, since it would deny consideration on merit, and would compel them in some cases to allow appeals which had no merit. The third reason is that there are already safeguards for the types of case he has in mind and, so far as aliens are concerned, we can look at the matter again before the Aliens (Appeals) Order is laid before Parliament.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to all that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said in answer to the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I am sure that anyone having heard both of those speeches will realise that this is certainly an intricate matter. It is a matter which does not, so far as I can see, involve in any degree Party politics. It is just a question of machinery and

51
getting the machinery right. I must say to the noble Lord that I am not satisfied at all, despite the arguments he advanced which he said were unanswerable, that in fact he has got the machinery right. May I take it stage by stage?
First of all, let me assume that there is a decision by the immigration officer. It is quite clear that the Amendment in my noble friend's name and in my name does not alter the position as in the Bill in relation to where that decision is one in which discretion was involved. The noble Lord talked a great deal about merits, but merits and discretion are not always the same thing. Here the wording of the Bill is, "where discretion is involved", and there will he a right of appeal to the adjudicator or to the Tribunal in cases not based on the exercise of discretion by the immigration officer, but in cases in which discretion is involved. That may be a pretty wide field. I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that there may be cases in which discretion is involved, but where that exercise of discretion was not the real ground for the determination and—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I just—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord, and perhaps I may complete my argument. I am only going to ask him to give further consideration to that wording before a later stage, and for this reason. He will notice that in our second Amendment we have referred to the decision being based on the exercise of a discretion, which is a slightly different phraseology, and deliberately so, to raise this point. I am not going to press the noble Lord on that to-day, because it is a matter on which I think he should, with great respect, take advice and give consideration. I did not raise the matter at length on the Committee stage, because it was not appropriate—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but I understood that all the remaining stages were being taken to-day.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if that be so, then it is my last oppor
52
tunity to deal with it. I am afraid that I was not aware of that fact.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount now? I believe I agree with what he has said so far, and I was in agreement with his noble friend with regard to the fact that the discretionary cases will stay with immigration officers in respect of the first Amendment which is being moved. The whole of my discussion, and I think the only disagreement between us, is in relation to the second Amendment; and it is the second Amendment which I said did not permit a case to be considered on merits, but only on the three grounds mentioned in the Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I pursue my speech on this point? I fully recognise that the noble Lord appreciated the fact that in our Amendment we were not changing the procedure with regard to appeals from immigration officers, but I begin with that because I want to lead on from that. That so far is common ground, apart from the point I have now made which I should have made before—I did not realise that all stages were being taken to-day—about the use of the word "involved", which makes it a much wider right of appeal on discretion cases than, say, where the decision is based on the exercise of discretion. Perhaps the noble Lord and the Home Office had failed to observe the difference in language between the two, but I have explained now what that is based upon.
I now come to the next stage which bears upon something that the noble Lord said; that is, the power to restrict the right of appeal by rules, saying that in certain cases or in certain circumstances leave must be obtained before the appeal is brought. I want to make it clear to the noble Lord that I am still speaking about appeals from immigration officers. What it does not seem to me that the noble Lord has faced up to is this. Where the original decision is based on the exercise of discretion, and where the appellate body, he it adjudicator or Tribunal, has a completely unfettered discretion, how is it going to be possible to draft rules requiring in some discretionary cases leave to appeal, and in other discretionary cases not requiring it? I do not believe that can be done in

53
a way which is either equitable or fair. If you have this unfettered right of appeal in a discretionary case, I do not think that you can impose restrictions by way of the granting of leave, when you know that the Tribunal or adjudicator may exercise discretion quite differently.
That brings me to what seems to me a serious point: that there is nothing to prevent or discourage every unsuccessful person before the immigration officer from appealing in every single case. I do not myself feel that it is a very satisfactory appeal system, when in every single case where there is the exercise of discretion it is likely to go to the superior body. You might also say that if that is to be the machinery, it might go to that body straight away.
I now come to the other type of case which is not dealt with by the immigration officers, but which is dealt with by those at headquarters, which I think is the expression used by my noble friend—that is, the Secretary of State and those working in his Department immediately under him. Quite where in this pattern comes the entry certificate officer, I do not know. But the idea behind this Amendment, which I commend to the House as having merit, is that where there are officers at the headquarters directly under the control of the Secretary of State, then there should not be this unfettered right of appeal in discretionary cases.
The reasons for that are many. The noble Lord said that this means taking away an effective appeal on the merits. I do not really know how he distinguishes merits and discretion. If he says that it is taking away effective appeal to the adjudicator or the Tribunal in a case in which the decision of the Secretary of State is based on the exercise of discretion, then I will agree with him and for this reason. If the Secretary of State or those immediately under him at headquarters are exercising their discretion in a case, then it seems to me, first of all—and this is one argument—that the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament should remain. of you have this Tribunal or adjudicator to which a decision of the Secretary of State can go, then once it has gone to that body the Secretary of State is relieved of all responsibility for the ultimate decision in a particular case.
54
I cannot think that that is right. I feel very strongly myself that if the matter has come within the Secretary of State's purview, or within the purview of the Home Office, then he should take the responsibility of his own decision, or the decision of the civil servants immediately under him, and that responsibility should remain and he should be answerable. If the final decision in a particular discretion case rests with some outside body, he will not be answerable and he cannot be called to account either in this House or in another place. That is one reason why this Amendment seems to me desirable in principle.
Secondly, I would point out that it is true that that part of the Amendment which the noble Lord was attacking says that where there has been a decision based on the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State (or, if you like, headquarters), that decision cannot be interfered with by an appellate body unless it is shown that what the Secretary of State did was wrong, either, as the Amendment says, by taking into account matters which he should not have taken into account or by not taking into account matters which he should have taken into account, or by a misapprehension of the facts. Where they find there has been error of that kind, then under this Amendment the appellate tribunal could allow the appeal.
But the gravamen of the noble Lord's criticism of this Amendment, as I understood it, was that where there was established to be a misapprehension of the facts, a failure to take into account relevant facts or the taking into account of irrelevant facts, the Tribunal, whatever the effect of that failure might be, would be bound to allow the appeal. My Lords, it must have required a great deal of study of this Amendment to be able to detect that possible defect in it. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord and the Home Office: but we get so used to attacks on other people's drafts that I am not in the least surprised. But it is, I should have thought, quite obvious that that would be the consequence only if it was clear that the effect of the failure to take into account those matters, and the rest of it, had led the Secretary of State to come to the wrong conclusion; and if there was any doubt about it the noble Lord could easily

55
agree, I am sure, to the addition of words to make that absolutely clear. It would not take many words to do it: one could almost draft them on one's feet. So I brush that point on one side, and I come back to what I think is the real point of principle. It is purely machinery, but we ought to get it right.
As the Bill stands, as I see it, in every single case where there is a discretion involved, whether it was originally decided by the Secretary of State, by the Home Office or by any immigration officer, the matter can go to appeal. There is nothing to stop that happening. Every appellate body, adjudicator or Tribunal has a free and unfettered discretion; and the noble Lord really has not answered the point made in Committee, that where there are cases indistinguishable on their facts, indistinguishable in relation to their compassionate circumstances, coming before different adjudicators, each exercising individual discretion, there is a wide disparity of decision, a complete lack of uniformity. I must say that I do not myself think that a machine—and this is purely a question of machinery—which permits of that can be regarded as an effective machine.
My Lords, I am a little encouraged by what the noble Lord said about there being a possibility of reviewing this matter if indeed it be the case that we have got to take the remaining stages of the Bill to-day. I had not noticed that; I am sorry. Perhaps it was because of the difficulty of getting Papers. But I think that this is an important question. I am not satisfied by the noble Lord's answer. I do not think he is right in saying that a system such as we propose would prevent proper adjudication on the merits. I do not think it would. It would certainly preserve the responsibility of a Minister to Parliament, which the provision of an appellate body over and above the Secretary of State takes away. I do not think it would lead to any injustice to the people seeking to appeal or seeking entry; and I can only say that I am very disappointed that, after what we said in Committee, the noble Lord has not felt able to be more forthcoming about this Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount repeated more than once that this was not a matter of principle but was purely a question of machinery. With the greatest respect, I disagree with that. It seems to me that this is a question of principle. To my mind, the principle that we are discussing, in the first place, is whether Commonwealth citizens should have the right of entry into this country provided that they conform to the various criteria which have been laid down from time to time, and should have the right to remain in this country provided they adhere to those criteria and do not commit any criminal offence for which they can be deported. That is the first principle which seems to me at issue. The second principle—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that they are principles at issue. His first principle does not arise on this Amendment at all. None of those principles do. This is a question of procedure on an appeal from a decision of immigration officers or the Secretary of State, and what should happen thereafter.
LORD STONHAM: With respect, they do arise, because we are dealing with cases of discretion, which as I shall explain again later are almost all cases of compassionate circumstances.
LORD WALSTON: In spite of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I still agree with my noble friend that this is a question of principle. One of the principles which arises out of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is whether in fact the same conditions which apply to aliens—whether they should be allowed in or should be deportable if it is in the common interest, or whatever the correct phrase is; whether they should be deported or should be denied access to this country—should also apply to Commonwealth immigrants. That I maintain is a matter of principle, and I hope the Government will stick to their present stand on that matter.
The second principle concerns the differentiation in nomenclature between immigration officers and entry certificate officers. I may have this wrong, but as I understand the Amendment to read at

57
the moment there is a different method of appeal, and different reasons for granting an appeal or refusing it, depending on whether entry has been refused by an immigration officer, who I take it is the man who is actually standing at the port or airport, or by an entry certificate officer, who I take it is the man who is to be attached to our High Commissions in Commonwealth countries. It is very much a question of principle that the right of appeal should be identical whether the would-be immigrant is denied entry into this country when he arrives at Heathrow or whether he is denied entry into this country because the entry certificate officer in New Delhi has refused to grant him a certificate. The grounds of appeal against both those decisions should be identical. Under the present Bill, that is so, whereas as I understand it these Amendments differentiate between the two. That is a very important point of principle which I hope and am confident my noble friend will recognise and will stick to.
In passing—and I do not want to detain your Lordships for any length of time—the noble and learned Viscount suggested that, as the Bill now stands, in 100 per cent. of the cases there will be appeals against the decisions of the court of first instance, against the original decision-maker. That I do not believe to be the case at all.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I did not say that. I said there was nothing to stop unlimited appeals in cases involving the exercise of discretion. I did not talk about all the other cases.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is of course perfectly correct, but there was only relevance in his remarks—and I take it that all his remarks are full of relevance—if in fact he was suggesting that the number of appeals would be very high under this system as it now stands, and that therefore it ought to be altered in order to prevent, if not 100 per cent., at least 90 per cent. of the people whose applications were refused being able to appeal.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I did not argue that point. I do not want to pursue the matter. What I pointed out—and I think it cannot be challenged—is that where there is an appeal from
58
the exercise of a discretion (the noble Lord said that there were grounds stated in the Bill. There are not; these are discretion cases, involving no grounds and no principles, only compassion), on an appeal to a higher body with equal discretion, I do riot see how you can impose restrictions by imposing the requirement to obtaining leave to appeal in these cases.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount may not wish to pursue the matter but he is doing so. There is no reason why he should not; and I think it worth pursuing. Of course you cannot prevent people from appealing; but common sense, and to a certain extent cost, will prevent them from appealing. If the noble and learned Viscount and other noble Lords have studied the cases of people who at the present time have attempted to come into this country and who have been refused permission by the immigration officers, they will be aware that many of those people come here under a complete misapprehension and that the grounds on which they are refused entry are reasonable and correct. These people know that they have no grounds for appeal.
I will illustrate this by quoting one case which comes to mind—and there are many. When I was at London Airport not many weeks ago, a young man was coming in to pursue his studies at a certain college of aeronautics. When inquiries were made, it was found that he had not been accepted for the college, and that in fact that college accepted only people with Higher or Advanced level certificates, or the equivalent. The fact that the man does not have such certificates obviously means that he has no right of entry whatsoever and his whole case falls to the ground. In such cases, the people involved never think of pursuing an appeal against the original decision. I can assure noble Lords that there are many cases of that kind.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that was not a discretionary case.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is true that that was not a discretionary case; it was a case of fact. But it is the type of case where, as the Bill now stands, the applicant would be entitled to appeal, but would

59
not in fact do so. I stress this only because the noble and learned Viscount himself pursued it to some extent. I would assure the House there is no fear that the appeals system will be overburdened as a result of the wording in the Bill. On the grounds that this is a question of basic principle, and not simply one of machinery, I urge the Government to stand firm in their present line.
5.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may briefly reply, I should like to deal with some of the points that were raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He said that this is a matter of getting the machinery right, as if it were a question of machinery only. This is not so, because the Amendment, as I read it (and I have been thinking about almost nothing but this Amendment for a week) seeks to circumscribe the right of appeal where the Secretary of State or a headquarters official had decided the case. As my noble friend Lord Walston said, the difference is one of principle. There is a real point of difference in that, in my submission, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would deny a fully effective right of appeal in some important cases.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that we were providing an unfettered right of appeal. In certain classes of case, if people want to appeal and can afford to appeal and think it worth while to appeal, their right is unfettered; and that should be so. He said that we cannot make rules to exclude some classes of person, and he thought that everyone refused entry would appeal. The position is already strictly circumscribed, because we are really dealing here only with cases of discretion. I dealt with this on Committee, and if the noble and learned Viscount will bear with me I should like to remind him of what I then said:
"The kind of case to which sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (1)(a) would apply is one where the law and the immigration rules …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/69; col. 1033]
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I help the noble Lord and save time? I quite agree. I was referring
60
only to discretion cases. I do not suggest that in any other cases there will be an unfettered right of appeal, because it can be fettered. My observations were limited to discretion cases. The question I posed, which is a different question from that raised by Lord Walston, was: how can you restrict, by requiring the granting of leave, an appeal from the exercise of an unfettered discretion to a body which has an equally unfettered discretion? I was dealing only with discretionary cases.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if we are dealing with discretionary cases, which means interpretations of compassion factors, I would point out that we have already limited the field—and strictly limited it—because compared with the total number of people coming in, and the still substantial number of people coming in for permanent settlement, these cases will not be so many—although they may be a substantial number. But in so far as they arise, their right to appeal in compassionate cases in those sections is unfettered; and we think that it should be so.
My Lords, the other point is that it seemed to me from what the noble and learned Viscount said that he was under the impression (I do not know if I have misinterpreted what he has said) that there will be an automatic appeal; that is, an appeal without leave from an adjudicator to the Tribunal in discretionary cases.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I posed the question. I am not trying to quarrel with the noble Lord. I am trying to get the matter clear. I do not see how, in those circumstances, it is possible to impose a requirement of the obtaining of leave which could be either equitable or fair. I posed the question.
LORD STONHAM: There is no provision in Clause 7 (which deals with appeals to the Tribunal) for appeal without leave from an adjudicator to the Tribunal in discretionary cases. Therefore, the answer to the noble and learned Viscount on that point is that in such cases there is no automatic appeal without leave. I am glad at least to have been able to clear up that point.
If I have not said so in so many words, I believe that I have shown by the care I have taken over this Amendment on

61
the Committee stage that I realise how important and how complex it is. As I have already indicated, this is not the end of the story. It is by no means the end of the story in respect of aliens; because, although Clause 8 will be taken as the basis for the Aliens Regulations, there is still time to consider these points (and perhaps to amend what we may have first thought) w hen the Order is introduced. Of course it will be subject to debate and it will be some time before the Order is introduced. But with respect to this Bill and to the Amendments that we are now discussing, we think that we have it right; and if that statement proves to be over-optimistic, then the time to alter it will be when we introduce permanent legislation which, as Lord Brooke knows, is one of the things in the forefront of my mind on this particular subject.
I would say to the noble and learned Viscount, who thought that I had not been sufficiently forthcoming on the Amendment, that I have said about it all that I possibly could—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In condemning it.
LORD STONHAM: If I had been sitting where the noble and learned Viscount is sitting, and he had still been sitting on the Woolsack, he would not have stood from me the allegation that he brushed aside the defects in the Amendment—defects which the noble and learned Viscount admitted. Also I think it is a cardinal principle that your Lordships should not press an Amendment the defects of which have been demonstrated. To the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I would say how grateful I am for the care he has taken over this, and for the way he has tried to meet his own points, though I do not think he succeeded in so doing in a way acceptable to the House. If, as I believe, there is an issue of principle between us, then I am bound to say that I think the Government's principle in this matter is the right one.
5.31 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we had an unsatisfactory debate in Committee on this paragraph and we have had another unsatisfactory debate to-day. I do not for a moment question that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has dealt as carefully as he could with the
62
matters which have been raised. The unsatisfactoriness stems from two things: first, that the wording of the Bill will not do, and secondly, that the Government have been unwilling to take sufficient trouble to find means of improving it so that it will do. We on the Opposition Benches have done the best we can with two separate and quite distinct Amendments, one in Committee and one on Report. Each of them would have done something to improve the wording in the Bill, but neither of them, I grant, is wholly satisfactory. In view of what has been described on all sides as the complexity and intricacy of this question I am inclined to think that it would be impossible for anybody except a Parliamentary draftsman to get the wording wholly right.
In my view, in my continuing view, this is a matter of machinery, and if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, argue that this is a matter of principle, let me again read what the Wilson Committee said in paragraph 143 of their Report, dealing with cases of people whose presence here is, or would be, offensive to public opinion:
"We would not therefore think it wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the proposed appeal system, to remove such cases from the scope of that system and leave them entirely to the Home Secretary's discretion subject to his responsibility to Parliament."
The Committee also state in the same paragraph:
"We doubt whether the system of appeals which we are proposing would provide apt machinery for dealing with such cases."
Now we have the Government ignoring that and applying this standard machinery to cases where the Wilson Committee themselves have said that that machinery will not be apt. Well, my Lords, we must see what happens in respect both of Commonwealth immigrants and of aliens.
I raised objection to what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about the Bill applying only to Commonwealth immigrants, because it seems to me that in considering all the clauses of the Bill we have to bear in mind Clause 14, which empowers the making of an Order in Council applicable to the parallel case of alien immigrations, having regard to the provision made in the Bill for appeals in connection with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Therefore, in

63
moving Amendments to the other clauses of the Bill, which admittedly relate to Commonwealth immigrants, one has to bear in mind all the time that what one is doing as regards Commonwealth immigrants will influence the terms of the Order in Council that will govern the position of aliens.
If the Government really believe that the unsatisfactory words in Clause 8(1)(a)(ii) are going to be satisfactory as regards Commonwealth immigrants, I have little hope of their being willing to make the effort to think up something better than that in relation to aliens. What will happen, as my noble and learned friend said, is that in every single case of a discretionary decision there will be an appeal—obviously there will. The person concerned has nothing whatever to lose, and there is always the chance that either the adjudicator or the Tribunal may take a different decision—as the appellate authority would be perfectly free to do—from the Home Secretary or the immigration officer. So there will be an appeal in every case. The appellate authority will get very tired of this and will ask why on earth Parliament did not legislate differently, so as to discourage appeals, many of which might be quite ill-aimed in that they had little chance of success. But once these words are in the Bill they convey to the potential appellant that he has a chance of success even where in fact he has not.
My Lords, I do not see much safeguard in the coming Aliens (Appeals) Order. The only protection I see is that it is, I believe, the intention of both the main Parties to introduce comprehensive legislation at an early date that will catch up into a single Statute all the relevant immigrants legislation, aliens legislation and this appeals legislation. We had hoped that that might have come along before now. The Government defended the introduction of this Bill in advance on the ground that it would be better to see how the appeals system worked before we had the comprehensive long-term legislation incorporating it. For once, I am grateful to the Government for an idea. I am quite certain that this appeals machinery, so far as Clause 8(1)(a)(ii) is concerned, will work very badly and it will become quite clear that
64
there must be a change when we have that comprehensive legislation that lies ahead of us. I feel deeply disappointed that the Government have not been willing to see the weakness in this provision which we have been criticising or, if they have seen the weakness, have not been sufficiently strong and bold to find the necessary way to amend it. I must conclude that there are defects in this Amendment, and it would be wrong for me to press it at this stage in the Bill. But I can end only by saying how profoundly unsatisfactory I find the Bill as it stands. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Liability of owners or agents of ships and aircraft for expenses incurred in respect of persons directed to be removed from the United Kingdom]:
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("current entry certificate") and insert ("document or documents appearing to render him currently eligible for admission into the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. We now come to an entirely different subject that is still within the scope of the Bill. I feel grievously concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, should have said a few moments ago that he has been giving practically the whole of his time during the past week to considering my Amendments to Clause 8. I have an important Amendment to Clause 21 and I very much hope that the noble Lord will not have to improvise a reply to it; but if he does, I hope it will be favourable to my Amendment.
This arises out of the new clause which the Government moved into the Bill in Committee; that is, the clause which appears now as Clause 21. It deals with the
"Liability of owners or agents of ships and aircraft for expenses incurred in respect of persons directed to be removed from the United Kingdom."
I had little time to consider this matter before the Committee stage. For reasons which I appreciate, the Government Amendment was put down at a relatively

65
late stage, but I expressed certain criticisms then, and I must repeat those criticisms, for it is on the basis of those criticisms that I have drafted this Amendment.
There are two main purposes which I wish to achieve by the Amendment. First, while the Government say that the carrier shall not be liable where a person when he arrived in the United Kingdom held a current entry certificate or was the person described on a current employment voucher, I said to the Committee that this appeared to be no safeguard to the carrier who had been deceived by forged documents. It is common ground between us that there has been forgery of documents. Some of those forgeries are so skilful that we have already accepted Amendments to the Bill which will safeguard the Government against having to disclose in public how they ascertained that the documents were forged. So there is no difference of opinion about the existence of these forgeries and the excellence of some of them.
It appeared to me that the Bill as it stood was not going to safeguard sufficiently the carriers, who would be very unlikely to be able to detect these exceptionally good forgeries. I believe that my Amendment would have secured that purpose, but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has been good enough to table an Amendment, No. 4, whereby, I think I am right in suggesting, he is desiring to meet my purpose. At any rate, it appears to me that Amendment No. 4, if adopted, will give the carriers the safeguard that I was seeking, and I am grateful for that proposed Amendment
But I have another reason for tabling this Amendment. Clause 21(2), to which my Amendment refers, deals only with people who hold a current entry certificate or who are described in a current employment voucher. The term "entry certificate" relates only to Commonwealth immigrants and not to aliens. For reasons which I mentioned a few minutes ago it is important to get the legislation right for both, because whatever we do in this subsection will presumably get, mutatis mutandis, into the Aliens Appeals Order which it is proposed to make under subsection (5) of this clause.
For aliens, visas are not normally necessary. Therefore, my Amendment
66
would safeguard the carrier—the shipping line or airline—provided that an alien carried a valid passport. He would not have an entry certificate, because they apply only to Commonwealth immigrants, and he would not have an employment voucher for the same reason. He might have a labour permit, because labour permits are issued to aliens, but only a small proportion of aliens coming into this country arrive with one. Certainly he would not have a visa, because at present they are not normally required for aliens. I do not know whether the Government, having made entry certificates compulsory for certain classes of Commonwealth immigrant, are intending to make visas compulsory for a large proportion of alien immigrants, but I doubt whether that is the case. This is the reason why I believe that these words in subsection (2) have to be widened in the way my Amendment suggests.
The principle underlying my Amendment is that the carrier can reasonably be held to be liable if there has been some failing on their part. I do not think that is challenged in any quarter. But if there has been no failing, the carrier ought to be protected by law against having expense put upon them. If a carrier brings a Commonwealth dependant without an entry certificate, they will know that he will not get into this country and therefore it will be a failing on their part if they fail to check this, but in the case of an alien the carrier cannot know whether there is any likelihood of leave to land being refused. The Government quote in their defence the United States law, but this is not a parallel, because admission to the United States normally requires a visa obtained before starting on one's journey. The British Government, so far as I know, are not intending to impose any similar restriction on aliens arriving in this country. I have heard of no suggestion that visas are to be compulsory for aliens. Therefore, there is no parallel between the cases.
The airline or shipping company taking an alien visitor or immigrant to the United States can see at once whether he has obtained a visa from the American authorities before starting, and if he has not, my understanding of American law is that no obligation then falls on the

67
carrier for that alien's maintenance or removal should he not be admitted. But in the case of the United Kingdom it is not possible for the shipping company or airline to protect itself in that way because visas are not compulsory. The British Government make no similar requirement on people arriving here, except for quite a small percentage of the total arrivals—the dependants of Commonwealth immigrants, as provided for under this Bill. This puts the carriers to the United Kingdom at risk to a degree to which carriers to the United States are not at risk. And what I am saying about the United States applies to other countries which insist on visas before they will admit people.
Moreover, I want to ask the Government what would the position of an airline or shipping company be if they accept aliens with passports but refuse to accept Commonwealth citizens with valid passports unless they also have entry certificates? How will such a carrier defend themselves against a charge of racial discrimination? It appears to me that the Government, with their eyes open, are putting the airlines and shipping companies in that difficulty. They are requiring them to demand more of a Commonwealth traveller than of an alien traveller. My Amendment would overcome that difficulty.
I submit that this whole problem has not been sufficiently thought out. Indeed, it is obvious that it has not been sufficiently thought out when the Government's proposals are going to leave with the carrier the cost of removing a person who is refused leave to land, even though accepting that the carrier should not be charged with the cost of the maintenance of that very same person while his case is under consideration in the United Kingdom. Clause 21, rightly, as I think, relieves the carriers of the expenses of maintenance of certain Commonwealth citizens if they are detained for a time in this country and then sent away. But, quite anomalously, it still leaves the shipping company or airline with the cost of removing those people although, by implication, it is said that the carrier did nothing wrong in bringing them to this country.
I appreciate that a possible reason for leaving the law in such an anomalous
68
state is because the cost of removing the person might be considered to be outside the scope of the Bill, whereas the cost of maintaining the person while in this country has been brought within the scope of the Bill by this clause and by the alteration to the Title which has been made. Because it would be outside the scope of the Bill, my Amendment does not rectify that particular anomaly; but it is my contention that it is time this whole subject was looked at afresh. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in Committee when he moved the new clause, we have been carrying on with the law, certainly as regards maintenance, in an uncertain state for many years; that is to say, since the first provision was made in 1905, when travel documents were very different from what they are to-day.
The Government have tinkered with the law to some extent by Clause 21. So far as it does partial justice to the carriers, I welcome it, but I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House must accept that it is anomalous and wrong that a shipping company, properly relieved of the cost of the maintenance of a passenger while detained in this country during the consideration of his case, should still be expected to pay the cost of removal of that same person if he is refused leave to land. Obviously, those two should go together. As I said in Committee, the Government should now set up an independent committee, which would establish all the facts of this problem, the amounts of money involved and the degrees of hardship in various directions, and then make recommendations. Quite frankly, we do not have sufficient information to get this right here and now.
If we leave Clause 21 unchanged, we shall be leaving the matter in a confused state. Meanwhile, until we can look at the problem as a whole (and I hope noble Lords will agree that it is a problem worth looking at as a whole), the acceptance of my Amendment would remove one anomaly. It would put matters on a better footing and safeguard carriers from having to pay for maintenance during detention in this country in cases where they had not been at fault in the slightest degree in bringing the people here.
The principle which I hope the Government will accept, and will in due course embody in future legislation, is

69
that the cost should lie where the fault lies. If there is a fault with the shipping company or the airline in bringing someone here and not checking his documents sufficiently, then that carrier should bear the cost. But if the carrier has checked the documents, has committed no fault, and is simply made to remove the person because the British Government have decided not to admit him, for reasons which the carrier could not have foreseen, then the carrier should be relieved of all cost. I hope that the Government will accept my Amendment, and will then proceed to the setting up of an independent inquiry, so that we can get this matter, too, completely right before the permanent legislation that we have all been discussing as a matter for the near future. I beg to move.
5.54 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may be right in saying that this wants looking at thoroughly, and that it is time the whole subject was looked at afresh. But at least this Government have looked at it and done something about it, which is something that no other Government this century have done. I think that we have had a pretty good shot at achieving equity and fairness.
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord would relieve the carrying company of liability for detention costs if the passenger held any document or documents appearing to render him eligible for admission. As the noble Lord said again to-day, in Committee he was primarily concerned to relieve the carrier of liability where the passenger holds a forged entry certificate or forged employment voucher; and, as he rightly said, if we want to keep secret how we shall detect forgery, we cannot expect carrier companies to detect good forgeries and they should not be made to suffer because of that. This the Government agree, and we hope that the House will agree, can be put right by an Amendment which I hope to move later.
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord is not confined to documents which appear to be entry certificates or employment vouchers. I am not really certain of its effect, but so far as I can judge the noble Lord's Amendment could be interpreted as including any document,
70
whether genuine or forged, that might be used to support a claim to admission to this country. This would go much too far. It could be argued that the statements about age and relationship in a passenger's passport "appeared to render him eligible for admission" as a dependant; but the Wilson Committee were satisfied that ages and relationships are sometimes mis-stated in passports, and I am sure the noble Lord would agree with that. It might even be argued that a letter offering a passenger a place in a college in this country "appeared to render him eligible for admission" as a student; or that a letter from a relative offering to accommodate and maintain the passenger during his stay here "appeared to render him eligible for admission" as a visitor; but such documents, though genuine in the sense of not being forged, are often used to support bogus claims to admission, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware from his time as Home Secretary.
If a passenger holds a document issued on behalf of the United Kingdom Government for the purpose of conferring a prima facie claim to admission, or what appears to be such document, then the carrier is justified in assuming that he will be admitted. Subsection (2) of Clause 21, as the Government propose to amend it, will relieve the carrier of liability for detention costs in cases of that kind. But it is not the carrier's function to decide whether any other documents a passenger may hold are such as to make him eligible for admission; that should be done by the entry certificate officer in the country of embarkation, or the immigration officer on arrival. The Government oppose this Amendment because it is so wide, and because it might encourage carriers to bring in immigrants without vouchers or entry certificates, which is contrary to Government policy and, as I understand it, contrary to Opposition policy as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised some points about aliens. I have only dealt so far with Commonwealth citizens. Aliens, as he surmised, will be covered by an Order in Council, and the Order will cover those with visas or work permits. We really cannot cover all aliens or Commonwealth citizens with a passport only; and as the noble Lord will appreciate his Amendment does not cover them

71
all either, because a passport does not establish eligibility to enter the United Kingdom. Eligibility to enter depends upon whether the holder satisfies our immigration policy, not merely on the possession of a passport.
I think the noble Lord said that his Amendment would cover all people carrying a passport. In fact it would not, because possession of a passport does not establish eligibility. If it did cover everyone carrying a passport it would mean that carriers would be relieved of all expenses in respect of passengers refused entry, expenses that they have borne for fifty years, and the Government think this would be wrong. In our view, the new clause, when it is amended, will relieve the carriers of perhaps one-third of their present costs, coupled with what I think will be the still greater savings arising from the fact that entry certificates will prevent many people who now come here, who have no eligibility for entry from coming in the future. I am quite sure that the noble Lord was right when he said that now we have started to look at this, and have gone some way along the road, we must look at it further.
I would correct a misapprehension under which the noble Lord laboured in Committee on this point in regard to the practice of other countries. He suggested in Committee:
"that an airline or a shipping company which is taking passengers to the United States, or Canada, is relieved of all financial responsibility should entry be refused, if the airline had satisfied itself that the passenger had an apparently valid visa, or entry certificate, or other document which seemed in proper form to ensure him entry into the country concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/69, col. 1147]
I ventured to say to the noble Lord on that occasion that I thought he was wrong in believing that. I have since rechecked, and I can confirm that no provision in such wide terms can be found in the relevant provisions of the law of the United States, Sections 233(c) and 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, and Canada, Section 40(4) of the Immigration Act 1952. Both those Acts in those countries grant relief only on the basis of valid documents.
I also made inquiries about Australia. I had some difficulty in ascertaining the
72
law there, but by a coincidence the Chairman of P. & O. Lines, who led the shipowners' representatives at the meeting with my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State on April 23, has written to ask for our help in connection with a man with a criminal record in this country, who broke his bail here, and sailed for Australia on a P. & O. ship, but was refused entry there. P. & O. Lines take the view that because the police failed to prevent the man from leaving this country, the police authority concerned ought to reimburse the company,
"the equivalent of sterling £294, which amount we have suffered in maintaining him in Australia and returning him to the United Kingdom."
That is proof positive that in Australia a shipping company can be liable for detention costs, and bringing the person back. This is another example where the noble Lord is right in thinking that we had better have a closer look at this; and it shows that the carrier companies should also have a look at it, because they do not know the law in other countries.
With regard to the carrying company having to pay for repatriation—as indeed they will under the noble Lord's Amendment as well—we have always taken the view that in most cases there is little or no extra cost to the company, because it simply means sending the person back on an extra seat on the aeroplane. In terms of the real cost it is very little more for them. I feel that what I have said is not wholly and immediately relevant to the noble Lord's Amendment, but I thought it might clear up the position overseas if I gave this information. I think, however, the noble Lord will accept that what he has asked for in his Amendment is much too wide, much more than he really wants, and that the Amendment I hope to move later will meet the main point he made on Committee. I hope that on that understanding he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not accept that my Amendment goes much too wide, but I would certainly accept that no private Member of your Lordships' House can be certain when he is drafting an Amendment that it is going to mean in practice

73
exactly what he wishes it to mean. I am encouraged, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his careful reply to my Amendment, though he was not ready to accept it, agreed with my suggestion that this matter deserves to be looked at afresh as a whole, for that is my main feeling.
I want to apologise to your Lordships for having made an incorrect statement in Committee about Australia. I think I said that the Australian law imposed no obligation at all on shipping companies or airlines in this matter. That is clearly incorrect. I believe it is the case that although Australian law does impose an obligation, that obligation is not enforced unless there is some failing on the part of the carrier. I thought the figures of total cost which the noble Lord quoted from the Chairman of P. & O. Lines cut across his argument that normally the cost of removal is negligible. I appreciate that some of that cost must have been incurred in Australia, but I cannot really believe that the P. & O. could return somebody from Australia to Britain by sea, and not feed him at all on the journey.
Surely it must be recognised that in these matters the shipping companies and airlines are in a somewhat different position. The noble Lord said in Committee that removal would mean the person occupying a seat, which would otherwise be empty, on an aeroplane that was returning. That might be so; and the person might not require very much food on a short journey. But I do not think the shipping companies are in anything like the same position, and I am sure the noble Lord's humanitarian sense would not wish these people to be deprived of all food on a journey of three or four weeks.
The noble Lord said that the obligation on the carriers to pay the cost of removal had gone on for fifty years and that this was not the time to change it. This is surely an incomplete argument because this problem has become much worsened, or shall I say much accentuated, over a period of fifty years. If the noble Lord would care to look up the figures of arrivals in the United Kingdom fifty years ago and now, he will find that the increase has been enormous. Therefore, the carriers are at risk to that
74
much greater an extent. Of course, they are put further at risk when Parliament passes legislation imposing new restrictions on entry into this country.
I hope I have made clear by this Amendment that I am grateful for what the Government are doing, but I am not satisfied that it goes far enough. I have expressed appreciation of new Clause 21, so far as it goes. I have expressed appreciation that the Government have taken the hint from my speech in Committee and have now put down their own Amendment to safeguard the shipping companies against penalties if they are deceived by well-forged documents. I think there is further work to be done on the subject. But, having persuaded the Government to agree to that, too, I am not so keen on the words of my Amendment as to think that this is the right stage of the Bill to press it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 32, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of this subsection a document purporting to be such a certificate or voucher shall be treated as genuine unless its falsity is reasonably apparent.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 21 relieves the carrying company of liability for detention costs where the passenger is the holder of a genuine entry certificate or employment voucher. The Amendment I am now moving will also relieve the carrier of liability where the passenger holds a document which is not a genuine entry certificate or voucher although the falsity is not reasonably apparent. This is precisely the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised in Committee; and by this Amendment we recognise the force of the noble Lord's argument, that a carrier who brings a passenger on the strength of an apparently genuine employment voucher or entry certificate will feel unfairly treated if he is made to bear the cost of detention because it turns out that the document is forged and the passenger is ineligible for admission.
The reason why we have said that this document should be treated as genuine unless its falsity is reasonably

75
apparent is that we do not want this provision to be used in respect of people—remembering that we are dealing here with a stamp on a passport—who might come in with not merely a forged but a blatantly forged document, or even a blur, if you like, on the passport, and say that that is an entry certificate. There could be quite a thriving trade in things of that kind if they thought they might get away with it. But we greatly value the co-operation of carrying companies in encouraging the use of the entry certificate procedure. We believe that this will be a useful concession all round, and we are very grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting it.
Your Lordships may ask who will ultimately decide whether the falsity of a document was reasonably apparent. The answer is, a county court judge. For if a carrying company refused—in the Home Office's view unreasonably refused—to pay the detention costs the Home Office would have to bring proceedings in the county court, and the judge would decide whether the carriers were justified in resisting the request for payment, or whether we were justified in demanding it. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have already expressed appreciation to the Government for this Amendment. I am sure that it will improve the Bill. I would only say that if I had been wanting to draft an Amendment to achieve the purpose which the noble Lord has described, I should never have put it into these words. That just goes to show how much cleverer Parliamentary draftsmen are than I am. And I think that the county court judge would have to be quite clever, too, because to treat something as "genuine unless its falsity is reasonably apparent" is a roundabout phrase. I have seen various documents and I am not quite sure what has been reasonably apparent in them. However, we have it on the best authority that this Amendment will do what the noble Lord says it will, and I very much hope that your Lordships will accept it.
6.15 p.m.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I believe we have done a good job on this Bill, and I assure your Lordships that I shall not spoil it by making a long speech. But there are some things it is essential I should say. The Bill has three main effects. Part I provides for the introduction of a system of appeal against decisions in the field of immigration control. Part II gives power for the deportation of certain Commonwealth citizens who are in breach of their conditions of admission. Part III (Clause 20) introduces a requirement for Commonwealth dependants to have obtained entry certificates before they can exercise their statutory right of entry.
There has been a general welcome for Part I of the Bill. It acknowledges that in this day and age there should be not only justice for the stranger who is within our gate, or who is knocking at the door, but also an assurance of justice. Part I achieves this by providing for a right of appeal to an independent authority against decisions taken in the field of immigration control by the Home Secretary or his officers. The only doubts in your Lordships' House have been whether the Bill does not go too far in the direction of surrendering control to appellate authorities who are not responsible to Parliament. My Lords, we cannot have it both ways: we cannot both preserve the full responsibility of the Executive, and at the same time provide a truly effective right of appeal against the decisions of the Executive.
But both at Committee stage and again to-day I have explained the safeguards in the Bill which, in the view of the Government, will enable the Executive to retain adequate powers of control. Among these are the Home Secretary's power to make new immigration rules; the special provision for security cases (and, in the case of aliens, political cases); the provision whereby the most sensitive cases of admission will not be finally decided by an adjudicator but can be brought before the Tribunal, where the Home Secretary considers this to be in the public interest; and finally, the provision whereby the most difficult cases of the deportation of aliens are decided by the Tribunal, and not by an adjudicator. With these safeguards, the

77
Government consider the Bill to be satisfactory; but we shall have an opportunity of looking again at the working of the appeal system, in the light of experience, when we come to enact permanent legislation for immigration control.
I cannot say when the statutory appeal system provided for in Part I of the Bill will be brought into operation. No time will be lost, but there is a heavy programme of necessary preparations. Premises have to be built or otherwise provided for the hearing of appeals; staff have to be recruited and trained; adjudicators and members of the Tribunal have to be appointed; and the rules of procedure have to be drafted and submitted to the Council on Tribunals. These preparations will be put in hand at once.
Of Part II of the Bill I need only say that it is obviously sensible and humane that there should, subject to the right of appeal, be a power to deport Commonwealth citizens who are in breach of their conditions of admission without the present cumbersome procedure whereby such a person has to be prosecuted and recommended for deportation by a court of law.
As to Part III of the Bill, Clause 20 makes a substantial change in the procedure for the admission of Commonwealth dependants for settlement by requiring them to have obtained an entry certificate before setting out. The case against this change was put in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in a speech of great power and penetration. I will not reopen the arguments, but I think that the noble Lord underrates the hardship caused by the present arrangements. The change is one in the interests of the genuine immigrant, designed to free him from the apprehension of refusal of admission and the prospect of an experience that may be distressing on arrival in the United Kingdom. Despite what has been alleged in certain quarters, the change in procedure was in no way motivated by a desire to reduce the number of Commonwealth dependants entering this country. And here I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to a reply given in another place on May I which brought out the point that in the first quarter of 1969 the number of Commonwealth citizens admitted for settlement was about 25 per cent. below the figure for the first quarter of 1968. If
78
that reduction in numbers had taken place after entry certificates had been made a requirement, it might have been said to be a consequence of the introduction of that requirement; and that is why I think it right to take this early opportunity to put it on record that the reduction took place before there was any question of entry certificates becoming obligatory. It was a reduction I forecast in December last year.
In Committee, doubt was expressed about the effectiveness of the non-statutory right of appeal against the refusal of an entry certificate that we are introducing straightaway. Of course it is not an easy matter; but we are determined to do our best to make it work. In this respect, therefore, there will be no fundamental change from the arrangements which the Wilson Committee envisaged. But we shall certainly keep the working of these arrangements under careful review. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said in Committee, the effective operation of the system of appeals against refusals of entry certificates is to a large extent dependent upon the part that the voluntary organisations are prepared to play in assisting Commonwealth dependants. I entirely agree. At the Committee Stage [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/69, col. 1105], I told your Lordships that the Home Office would be discussing with a number of voluntary bodies on May 8 the part that they could play in the representation of appellants under the interim appeal arrangements. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the voluntary bodies chiefly concerned are willing to provide advice and assistance for Commonwealth dependants who are affected by the new requirement for entry certificates.
These bodies, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and International Social Service of Great Britain, have offered to consider what arrangements could be made for advice to be available to dependants in their countries of origin, both on how to apply for entry certificates and how to appeal if an application is refused. They have also offered to provide advice for sponsoring relatives in this country about the entry certificate procedure, and to represent applicants at the hearing of appeals. These offers are conditional on the cost of these facilities being met from public funds. We warmly welcome this willingness to co-operate in working out the new arrangements to

79
the best advantage of Commonwealth dependants. We have invited the voluntary bodies to let us have more details of their plans, with an estimate of costs. This estimate we have now received, and we shall consider, in consultation with our colleagues in the Treasury, what measure of financial assistance we can provide so as to ensure that immigrants are fully aware of, and able to exercise, their rights under the new procedure. We do not underestimate the practical difficulties of introducing this kind of appeal system; but we should not, in considering how best to overcome them, lose sight of the painful aspects of the system of immigration control that it is to replace
My Lords, I believe that the Bill in the substantially improved form that it leaves your Lordships' House makes provision that is both sensible and just; that it will do much to remove from controversy decisions in the field of immigration control; and that in doing so it will remove an irritant from community relations in this country. For these reasons, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.27 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Lord pay a tribute to the improvements which have been made to the Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House. I should like further to congratulate him on his success in piloting it through. The Bill is founded largely on the Report of the Wilson Committee. It has been a long time in coming, and many of us feel sore that the comprehensive legislation dealing with the entry of both Commonwealth citizens and aliens is still postponed. Nevertheless, things are as they are, and I have no doubt that the experience of working this Bill in practice will provide valuable material for those who have to prepare the subsequent comprehensive Bill.
We are breaking fresh ground in the matter of appeals, and all of us who have been in positions of ministerial responsibility know how easy it is to get it wrong the first time if one is in fact breaking fresh ground. I have already indicated to your Lordships our dissatis
80
faction in regard to Clause 8. There we can but hope that experience will show how the comprehensive permanent legislation should be drafted so as to avoid the shortcomings which I feel certain will become apparent in practice. I am equally convinced that it is a defect of the Bill that it does not extend in regard to Commonwealth citizens the power which the Secretary of State has had for many years to make a deportation order if he considers that the presence of an individual in this country is not conducive to the public good, that being usually because of the man's associations or character or habits.
My Lords, we certainly have effected improvements in the Bill, both directly and indirectly: directly, for example, through Clauses 20 and 21 and the Government Amendment which, in a sense, I begot, and indirectly through remarks that I made on the Second Reading having brought the Government to the point of setting up outside the Bill a proper non-statutory machinery for providing a right of appeal to the United Kingdom resident who is denied a passport. I feel certain that it will be appreciated by all that the liberty of the subject in difficult cases has been thus enlarged. My Lords, the subject of this Bill is not without controversy, but I hope your Lordships will agree that we have all approached our task in a spirit of genuine service, not seeking to widen differences but to try jointly to improve the measure. In my view that is the principal justification for a Second Chamber, and I think that in this Bill we have proved once again the value of a Second Chamber in the legislative process of Parliament.
6.29 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will excuse me if, for a short time, I hold up the passage of this Bill, because I was unable to be here on the occasion of the Minister's announcement of the new arrangements for entry permits, and I was not able to be here during the Committee stage. I need not say that I am deeply interested and have been concerned about all the issues which have been raised. When this Bill was first introduced it was a measure to give Commonwealth immigrants a right to appeal against decisions which prevented them from entering this country, and on the Second Reading of

81
this Bill I was able to give it wholehearted support, though I indicated then that I hoped certain Amendments would be moved. Let me say I would particularly have supported the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, regarding the right of residents of this country who were denied passports.
I have read the whole Committee proceedings in great detail. May I tell the House what was my first impression? It was an impression of appreciation of how from all sides of this House there was a desire to give in the machinery of this Bill the greatest assurance of and opportunities for fairness and liberty. I exclude from that statement only one very bad Amendment moved from the other side and its very much worse speeches in support; but, fortunately, the House did not accept that Amendment. Otherwise the debate during the Committee stage was another indication of how this House can make serious contributions towards the solution of problems which are difficult and very intricate. I want to pay that tribute to those discussions.
When the announcement was made that this Bill was to be extended from providing the right of appeal by Commonwealth immigrants to requiring the introduction of compulsory entry permits before they reach this country, my noble friend Lord Stonham—and I express my thanks to him—said it was unfortunate that I was not present but that an Un-starred Question which I had tabled indicated that I was
"… wholly in favour of this change".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1/5/69, col. 963.]
I should have thought that the terms of my Unstarred Question, which I was unable to move because of an accident that day, indicated my qualifications to this proposal and indicated that I was not "wholly in favour of this change". In that Unstarred Question I put two qualifications: first, that there must be the personnel in the Commonwealth countries to carry out this change, and, secondly, that there must be an arrangement with Commonwealth Governments by which the applicants in distant villages and islands might have an opportunity to make their applications.
My Lords, of course I am in favour of ending the terrible procedure in exis
82
tence at present by which Commonwealth immigrants come to Heathrow Airport from primitive conditions into another world here. Any of us who has seen women, children, women even with infants in their arms, lined up held there for hours, not knowing where they are, utterly bewildered by this strange world which they have entered, and then interrogated, often by interpreters who say they know their particular language but have no knowledge at all of the dialect in which they speak, must recognise that the appalling misery for which we are now responsible has got to be ended. Because of this, I am all in favour of this proposal, instead of leaving these wretched people to be brought from their distant villages first to the High Commission office, then put in an aeroplane of whose existence they cannot even begin to think and finally landed at a London Airport with these vast modern buildings—to them it might be another planet.
When it is said that one has to amend that procedure by seeking to find a method by which before they leave they may be assured of their right to come to this country or of their inability to come to the country, one realises that it is a humane measure which every one of us who has seen these difficulties has to support. I add to that, because I hive some knowledge of this subject, that we have no right to place upon the immigration inspectors at Heathrow a decision on the matters which they are to judge. It is beyond the most experienced and the most sympathetic person to be able to decide on those issues which arise there. For their sake, as well as for the sake of the immigrants themselves, I want to see an end of this system.
But I want to sound this warning. There is a very great danger indeed that by deciding, almost over a week-end, at least so far as the public announcement was concerned, that compulsory permits must be obtained before those people leave their countries, we may make the misery, I will not say worse, but certainly no less than now exists. I have here an issue of the Daily Pakistan Times for April 19. It has a picture of the queues which line up before the High Commissioner's office to obtain exit permits. It has a description of the men, women and children, women with babies at their breasts, standing outside the iron

83
door of the High Commission office in the early hours. The iron door is opened at 8 o'clock. There are 200 of them; 30 are admitted. This descriptive report goes on to say that these women with babies, these old people, these youngsters, entrench themselves from early morning in front of the iron gate of the immigration office of the British High Commission for an interview; 30 out of 200 are allowed inside. The rest wait there for days—six days, maybe—before they are able to be heard. I just warn the Minister that he is in danger of transferring this appalling misery which occurs at Heathrow Airport away to the High Commission offices in India, Pakistan and elsewhere, out of sight.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? He mentioned the date, April 19, which was of course three weeks before any announcement was made of this change. Apparently this is what has been going on. I am interested and most distressed to hear it, but we have already given an assurance that because of the increased work there will be an increased staff of experienced immigration officers who will act as entry officers. I can give my noble friend my personal assurance that if this is not enough then there will be more. I entirely agree with him that this difficulty must not be allowed to arise.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, because I appreciated what he said when the Motion for Third Reading was moved. But there is going to be a very great difficulty about this. During the Committee stage my noble friend said that it might be necessary to provide for double the number of applicants. I think he is a little conservative there; I believe that the number is likely to be larger. I have in mind a proportion of eight to one of the Indian immigrants.
LORD STONHAM: I meant that the whole number will be doubled.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes; with that I shall deal later. At the moment, I am just going to emphasise that this will require a quite extraordinary development of our personnel at the High Commission offices. At present the staff are
84
inadequate. Even now, applicants wait for six days. To double the staff would be utterly inadequate. The difficulty which my honourable friend has to meet is that the personnel required for this j task must be not only persons of know-ledge and experience, but persons of a quite extraordinarily sympathetic attitude and understanding. He will find it most difficult to provide such personnel at the High Commission offices.
The second difficulty is that applications will often be made at distant villages. I speak with some knowledge of this. My childhood was spent in a distant village in India. There you will have children requiring to join their father; and a young woman requiring to join her husband in this country. They will be utterly isolated. This applies particularly to India and Pakistan. It applies also to some small islands in the Caribbean. That young wife has never been out of her village; those children have never known anything outside their village. What is going to happen to them?
I hope I am not disobeying the Rules of the House in making this kind of speech on Third Reading.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, no; I must say that I do not think the noble Lord is disobeying the Rules of the House. It is perhaps unfortunate that he was not able to make his speech at an earlier stage of the Bill, because it is more customary that on Third Reading speeches should be directed to the actual content of the Bill. But there is no specific guidance on this; it is merely in my experience that, on the whole, one tries to keep one's speech short. I may say that I appreciate that the noble Lord is raising some quite serious points in relation to the implementation of the Bill, and therefore I felt a certain diffidence in interrupting him for that reason. But I think perhaps he might have regard to the fact that it is a rather unusual thing that he is doing.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that. I understood that the noble Lord was a little concerned, and I almost invited his interruption because I am anxious to meet the spirit of this House. I will try to be concise in my further remarks. I only say to the House that it was not my fault—or perhaps it

85
was—that I was not here on the earlier occasions.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, to say that I am sure that all your Lordships were most sympathetic towards the noble Lord and we are glad to see him in such excellent form. But, of course, his non-appearance was not the fault of the House, either.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate that. In that spirit I will try to continue. I was speaking of the utterly isolated women and children and elderly in villages 500 miles from the High Commission offices. These people have never been outside their village. How is one to deal justly with them? I am going to say to the Minister that this requires the closest co-operation of the Commonwealth Governments. I suggest that it requires that the Commonwealth Governments should have advisers at district centres, with arrangements for the transport, both from the village to the district centre and from the district centre to the High Commissioner's office, of those who wish to make applications, so that the applicants may have proper advice and consideration.
My next point (I could have added much more to the last one, but I have been brief) concerns the provision for hearing cases and for appeals. I want to urge upon the Minister that provision should be made for a friend, not necessarily a lawyer, to be available when the application is heard at the High Commissioner's office. Happily, I am not a lawyer, but I have often acted as a friend at tribunals. The principle that is applied at tribunals in this country should surely be applied to the cases of applicants in Commonwealth countries. My suggestion is that there should be discussions with the Commonwealth Governments regarding provision for this sort of thing.
There may be an appeal to London. I was deeply grateful to hear from the Minister, in his speech in opening the debate on Third Reading, about the provision being made regarding the assistance of the Community Relations Commission, and (I think I am right in the term) the International Council for Social Services. I welcome his statement;
86
I appreciate it tremendously. I would urge that they, and possibly the National Council for Civil Liberties as well, should receive information—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, they left the "consortium", if I may put it that way. They announced their disagreement with this Bill and the Government's policy, and unfortunately they left the consortium of welfare organisations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would only say to my noble friend, as in another case where I hope that some compromise agreement will be reached, that I hope it will be possible to find a basis for agreement on that issue. What I am asking is that appropriate organisations in this country should be given the fullest information about the applications which are made to the High Commissions, and that they should be allowed to be represented when these cases are heard on appeal.
My last point is that despite these arrangements there will be certain individuals who, when they arrive in this country, will be regarded with doubt and be detained. I welcome the proposals which are now being made that accommodation should be provided. I will try to speak calmly, but I regard it as an absolute infamy that a Pakistani girl should have been kept for nine weeks in Holloway Prison while her case was being considered, the Government having to acknowledge, at the end of those nine weeks, that sufficient information had been received from Pakistan to justify her release at least for three months while the investigations went on. That was an appalling thing. The girl could not speak English and was put in Holloway Prison. It was a shocking outrage. I am glad the Government are now thinking in terms of new accommodation. Kent has given a precedent for this. If this girl had arrived at a Kentish port she would never have been sent to Holloway Prison. She would have gone to one of the hostels which have been provided there. I hope that the Government will, at a very early moment, put this crime right.
These considerations lead me, because of the absence of personnel to deal with this problem in the High Commission offices, because of the failure at present

87
to reach an agreement with Commonwealth Governments regarding those in distant places, to oppose compulsion at this moment. Before compulsion is introduced for entry permits from Commonwealth countries, adequate arrangements should be made for the personnel to deal with appeals, and adequate arrangements made for those who are in distant places. Let me just add this, my Lords. I am not so much in agreement with many of my friends who regard this matter as one of principle on the issue of a visa. I take the view that the present restrictions amount to a visa, and in that respect the change that is now being made makes very little difference in principle. I hate the whole system, but I am concerned that arrangements should be made which are fair and humane. This requires much more preparation and organisation than immediate compulsion will permit. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider these proposals again, and make sure that the arrangements which they are proposing, from quite human motives, are as humane in practice as they are in intention.
6.56 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I have substantially changed the speech I was going to make, partly because a number of the points I was going to raise have been made by my noble friend Lord Brockway, and partly because of the announcement which my noble friend Lord Stonham made as to the result of discussions held with the voluntary bodies. I was very pleased indeed to hear that announcement, and entirely welcome the sympathetic and positive approach that the Government seem to be making towards the question of the provision of funds to these voluntary bodies, and I would urge them not to be niggardly in this respect. I would go so far as to say that adequate assistance to these organisations to give help not only at the ports of entry but in the countries of origin is vital to the proper working of this Bill, and in particular to the new provisions of it which were brought in last week. Not only must representatives of these organisations be on hand to give advice to try to cut down the delays, to give assistance, to help the applicants for entry certificates to produce the right kind of evidence and to make available skilled
88
advice from people who know what the difficulties are, but also—and I do not think my noble friend would think it wrong—I believe that in the form of these organisations there should be a watchdog over the workings of this new machinery.
For instance, I find it most regrettable that more or less the first that we in this House, Members of Parliament, knew about the workings of the High Commission office in Pakistan was from a newspaper report which happened to come into the hands of my noble friend. I hope that my noble friends—who well know of the apprehensions that I and others have as to the workings of this Bill—will welcome the assurance that was given. I feel it is of great importance that if the machinery is creaking the matter can be communicated to Members of Parliament in this country and questions asked, because in that way we can ensure to our satisfaction that the machinery will be working properly. I am quite certain that the machinery is being set up at such short notice that inevitably it will creak in the initial stages.
I would only add to my request that the Government be not niggardly, the request that the machinery for the voluntary organisations be set up with the same alacrity and rapidity as the machinery of compulsory entry certificate procedures, because the two must go hand in hand. I will say no more about the various doubts I have had—I still have them—but at least with the approach that is being made to the voluntary organisations, provided they are properly assisted and financed, we may have some way of ensuring that the kind of situation my noble friend has referred to is reduced to the minimum, and that this new part of the Bill which was introduced so recently can in fact be humane in practice and not cause the other kind of hardship to which my noble friend referred.
Having said that—and my noble friend knows my apprehensions—I should like to say, so far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, that until last week this was a thoroughly good Bill in the eyes of everyone interested in these questions. So far as the vast number of immigrants, students, visitors and aliens are concerned, it is still a very good Bill and provides the kind of just appeal for which

89
so many of us have been pressing. Bearing in mind what has been said this afternoon, I hope that it can be as good a Bill for Commonwealth dependants.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Nuclear Installations Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

TANZANIA BILL [H.L.] ARMY RESERVE BILL REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bills reported without amendment; Reports received.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS, BYSSINOSIS AND MISCELLANEOUS DISEASES BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1969
7.4 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1969, the draft of which was laid before this House on April 29, 1969 be approved. This draft Scheme is a very simple one, made j to enable allowances to be made available out of the Industrial Injuries Fund for disablement or death due to a rare disease, nasal adeno-carcinoma, arising
90
from employment before July, 1948, in the wooden furniture industry. The disease, which has only recently been established as a particular risk of this industry, is presently being prescribed under the Industrial Injuries Act for cases where it arises from employment after July, 1948.
Because the disease is very slow in developing, however, there may be men developing the disease who left the industry before 1948; this draft Scheme will enable the benefits already available under the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1966 for the effects of similar slowly developing diseases to be extended j to these cases. Your Lordships may; wish to be assured that arrangements are being made to check on known cases, and once the amending Scheme comes into force the Administrative Board who operate the scheme will contact any who are found to have left the industry before 1948. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1969, laid before the House on April 29 last be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we should like to add a welcome to this admirable measure. Noble Lords who have been studying their Order Piper will have been waiting with considerable apprehension to hear the title of the Scheme actually spoken, and I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on her successful pronunciation of this tongue-twister.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUS TRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT ORDER 1969
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1969, the draft of which was laid before this House on April 30, be approved. This Order aims to amend the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme which was introduced in 1948 at the request of the coal mining industry. The

91
Scheme provides supplementary benefit for colliery workers (or their dependants) who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts for colliery accidents or diseases. The Scheme is administered by a National Committee comprising equal numbers of representatives drawn from both sides of the industry. Contributions to this Scheme's Fund are made by employers and employees only—there is no charge on the Exchequer or on the Industrial Injuries Fund.
The Order for which we are now seeking approval will extend until December 2, 1969, the arrangements for a standstill on the rates of supplementary injury and disablement benefits made in previous Orders and will provide that increase in industrial injuries benefit before December 2 shall not result in higher supplementary payments. This extension has been asked for by both sides of the National Committee, who are, I understand, involved in detailed negotiations involving not only the future of this Scheme but other benefit Schemes in the coalmining industry. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1969, laid before the House on April 30 last be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)

R.A.F. AIR-SEA RESCUE SERVICE
7.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering reviewing the Air-Sea Rescue Service at present provided by the Royal Air Force. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the hour is rather late and Members have somewhat emigrated from the Chamber. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will grant me a few minutes on this Question. The Question I wish to put before the House to-night is on the Air-Sea Rescue Service provided by the Royal Air Force around our shores. Principally, I have two main objectives in asking the Question. The first is to seek further information on this
92
splendid service—a service that many of us may one day be thankful to benefit from—and the second is to ask Her Majesty's Government why it is that this service is still officially restricted to military purposes only when, in practice, for the past ten years over 85 per cent, of its work has been involved in the rescuing of civilians.
As the House will know, the Air-Sea Rescue Service is but one of a number of rescue services around our shores. These include, of course, that wonderful voluntary body the Royal National Lifeboat Service, the In-shore Rescue Service, the Coastguard Rescue Service, the Policeboat Rescue Service and a number of local authority services. All of these are co-ordinated under the Coastguard Service, a body which comes under the wing of the Board of Trade; and it is the Coastguard Service which decides which particular branch or branches should be asked to answer a distress call. It is true to say that, under the Coastguard Service, the rescue services around our shores have few equals in the world in skill, devotion to duty or outstanding bravery; and we are all, I am sure, justly proud of this. But, my Lords, the helicopter service, for its part, makes, I would suggest, an outstanding contribution to the overall service, for over the past few years, as I understand it, it has rescued no fewer than, on average, some 350 civilians a year from the sea; and perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, comes to reply he will confirm this figure.
The advantages of the helicopter service, as I see them, are many, and I would mention three of them briefly. The first is that it offers a fast service and is capable of picking up survivors far out at sea in a matter of moments when a lifeboat or an in-shore boat would take hours, rather than minutes, to achieve it. In the second place, it can operate in virtually all weathers except fog; and here, perhaps, one can pay a special tribute to the pilots of these helicopters, who so often show outstanding skill and courage. When the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, comes to reply perhaps he will mention whether there have been any accidents at all while the service has been in operation. The third main advantage—and it is, to me, a vital one—is the capacity to spot survivors in the

93
sea. This capacity of spotting is particularly valuable, for instance, where unfortunate holiday-makers—and this happens all too often—are swept out to sea on lilos, for then it is found very difficult to spot them from boats. It is from the helicopters that, so often, the information is passed to the boats, so saving many valuable hours.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would agree, bearing in mind these advantages and its great record of successful service, that so far as the general public is concerned the Air-Sea Rescue Service is a vital and integral part of the services operated by the Coastguards. And yet this present service has one great cloud over the horizon, and that, of course is the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence reminds us from time to time, and often quite frequently, that this service which we all enjoy and on which we rely, and indeed expect to rely, is not in fact for us. The service has two main functions. The first is to operate to meet the Service requirements of R.A.F. personnel, and the second is to meet the I.C.A.O. requirement, which covers an area from the mid-Atlantic to the North Sea. The service provided to us, on the other hand, is just a bonus—admittedly a free bonus. It is a service which can be withdrawn by the Ministry of Defence at any time without special notice, without a public inquiry and in the face of total opposition from local authorities.
The rights and wrongs of this situation have recently come to a head with the withdrawal of the service from Manston. This base, as I understand it, is one of seven bases from which the Royal Air Force operate their air-sea rescue helicopter services. At each base, I am told, there are always two helicopters, each with a fully-trained crew, offering a round-the-clock service. The service is such that the helicopters can become operational within fifteen minutes in the daytime or thirty minutes at night. We see, thus, the total service operated by the Royal Air Force amounting in fact to only 14 helicopters—not exactly, I would suggest, an extravagant service, but one that truly gives value in performance. It would be of interest to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to-night what the total cost of the service is and what proportion is concerned with rescuing the general
94
public. It would also be of interest to know which are the busiest stations and how far down this league Manston comes.
May I return briefly to Manston? The principal reasons for closing this station were given by the Government on March 10. They were, first, that this service was urgently required in North Africa; and, secondly, that no other helicopters were available at that time. Whereas, of course, one accepts the first reason, the second reason, I would suggest, takes some swallowing, when one considers that the Royal Air Force has approximately £45 million a year to spend on equipment. It seems a little hard that they have to "pinch" two out of the 14 helicopters that are protecting these shores and our population of over 60 million.
The closing of Manston was, I believe, significant for a number of reasons. It is a station with a history of a pretty busy rescuing service, particularly for holidaymakers. The decision to close it became operative at the very start of the holiday season, against the strongest possible pressure from the local authorities. The local authorities have discovered that a contract with a commercial helicopter service to operate similar helicopter services is prohibitively expensive. The local authorities and the Coastguard Service will now, it seems, have to rely on the U.S. Air Force helicopter services based in Essex to cover this area. The local authorities may well be wrong in thinking that Manston is such an important station to them, and perhaps the Ministry of Defence are correct when they say that other stations can cover this area; but if the local authorities are proved right, as I suspect they will be, it would seem chat they have received pretty shabby treatment; and perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether a helicopter service will be resumed in the near future at Manston.
But whatever the rights and wrongs of Manston, it has demonstrated that it is surely time now for the Government to review this service and to give the Royal Air Force a new peace-time role—a secondary role, albeit—to meet the civilian requirement of a helicopter service. Such a role, I believe, could usefully provide the valuable experience which the Royal Air Force get from supplying such a service and with it the

95
possibility that part of the cost may be borne by the local authorities. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is to reply to this debate. He has great experience in this subject, having served in Coastal Command during the war. Also he was good enough to provide us with a good deal of information on this subject in December, 1966, when he was the Minister responsible. On that occasion he described the service provided to the general public as a "byproduct". I hope that in the light of what has happened in the case of Manston he will be able to tell us that this "by-product" is to be upgraded to an official duty—a duty similar in character to the almost full-time unofficial service which the R.A.F. have provided, with such skill and courage, over the past decade and which we have all come to expect.
7.21 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for putting down this Unstarred Question which gives us the opportunity of hearing from the Government what they propose to do with Air-Sea Rescue and possibly with special reference to the gap, if there is to be a gap, at Manston because of the squadron there now being sent overseas. I think it is correct to say that the area covered by Manston runs from the North of the Thames Estuary, along the whole of the Kent coast and probably as far as Hastings and, it may be, Eastbourne in East Sussex; and it covers the Channel which is probably the busiest sea lane in the world. The amount of shipping which goes up and down the Channel is fantastic and many are the calls upon the Air-Sea Rescue Service.
I think we might look at the functions of Air-Sea Rescue. I think they are fivefold. In the first place, one of their functions is to be able to locate ships in trouble or reported to be in trouble, which are out of sight of land through fog or which are too far away, and who do not carry the radio equipment to enable them to be communicated with or spotted. Secondly, they keep track of all ships who say that they anticipate requiring assistance; thirdly, they keep track of those ships whose skippers are not very happy about observing inter
96
national regulations and who will wash out their oil tanks and cause oil slicks. The helicopter service can spot the slicks, see the direction they are going and warn the people on shore what to expect so that they can take appropriate action. The fourth function, a very important one, is that they can provide medical assistance and relief crews to lightships and lighthouses off shore at those times when the weather does not permit the Trinity House boat to do the job that it normally would do. That is a very valuable service indeed.
Lastly, and I think possibly the most important function of all, is the ability to provide medical assistance to a ship in which there is a passenger or a crew member who through illness or accident urgently requires medical assistance. Before this service, the National Lifeboat people went, often at their own great risk, to collect such people. But it was a rough ride; and even if they could get alongside a ship—and this was not always possible—it meant a rough ride for the patient, especially if a gale were blowing. The Air-Sea Rescue Service helicopters can winch down a doctor or winch up a patient and fly him quickly to a shore hospital; and do it smoothly and quietly which would not be possible by carrying him in a lifeboat.
May I look at the machinery of the service. At the present moment the coastguards are the authority who take care of this. They are the people who decide where and when and with what. They press the appropriate button. All the other services, including the police, the firemen and the other rescue services, are really the machinery of rescue which are called upon by the coastguards. But it is the coastguards who are the authority and they come under the Board of Trade. It could be suggested that the coastguards now that there seems to be some doubt whether the R.A.F. can go on providing this service, might have their own helicopter service. But even if it were only one helicopter complete with crew, maintenance and engineering back-up for a year, it would be a very expensive business. And if the helicopter is not kept in the air all the time it gets more expensive. It is an old principle of transport that any vehicle, whether train, bus or aeroplane, that is not going somewhere with a payload is eating money.

97
At this moment of financial stringency I do not think that it possibly could be thought that the coastguards should have their own helicopter service. Previously this service was paid for in the operational flying of the R.A.F.; it came under part of their operational flying and it was taken care of by those who take care of the finances of the R.A.F.
I am going to suggest that it might be possible or useful to consider whether the coastguards (if indeed there is to be a gap at Manston or at other places) should not be empowered to hire commercial helicopters as and when they want them from whatever responsible air company is operating helicopters in the country. There are some. They could take use of that helicopter only as and when they wanted it. The cost should not be anything like as great as would be involved in having their own fleet. It should be really a question of balancing between Government offices; because the flying done by the R.A.F. is taken care of by one Government fiscal office and the Board of Trade is another one. It is really transferring the cost from one to another. I think that suggestion is worth while thinking about, because if there are to be gaps in the R.A.F. service, it is serious; because this service really should go on. It is vitally important both in rendering assistance and in saving lives.
7.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this Question, because it gives me the opportunity to pay my tribute to what is not only a very fine service, which is very widely reported, but which has frankly become almost a national institution. I can appreciate easily that the Ministry of Defence is probably slightly embarrassed. This is a service which has in some ways grown up slightly haphazard since the end of the war—not that the work is haphazard; but because there has been no deliberate and willing attempt to undertake wider services. But I think that the Government should remember that this creates a very important image for the R.A.F.—not only in its air-sea rescue but also in its mountain service, which attaches more closely the idea of this service to the general public. This is not less important because the reserve services in this
98
country, which always form an attachment to the regular units, have gradually become rather more attenuated.
It is very sad that the Government have found it necessary to curtail these services. I can understand their reluctance to accept an obligation to do what they are doing. I can see that might be difficult; but I hope that they will bear in mind that this is something which has grown up strongly in the public mind. If it is dispensed with, the Services will not be reviewed quite in the same close and warm way which they are at the present time. I should have thought that certainly 50 per cent, of this work, if not more than that, provides straight-forward good training—good for the pilots taking part in it, good for the organisation to see that they can carry out their work properly. For that reason I hope that the Government will not precipitately throw aside a service which if not directly connected with Defence is still one connected with the saving of lives from the sea, about which this country is always extremely conscious.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, I rise rather reluctantly, because I am old, but I was the person who first started the Air-Sea Rescue Service It was called by the Air Force, "Sea Rescue". I pointed out to them that that meant nothing to anybody, and we started the Air-Sea Rescue Service in 1940. Then the argument and difficulty concerned the question of who was to be in charge of it. Eventually, because there was a war on, the areas of the sea were put in charge of naval officers who were in charge of that particular part of the sea. At that time, there were no helicopters.
Now, my Lords, we have to start practically a new service altogether. I do not think that the Royal Air Force should be in charge of it. I do not think that the Navy can be in charge. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will give us some indication of how this service is to be run. To put it on record, I must say that it is true that in the first two years of the war, when there was the argument about who did most, the Lifeboat Service picked up far more Battle of Britain pilots than anybody else: it was a most remarkable record. Anyhow, my Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will

99
tell us how this particular service is to be organised and run, and by whom.
7.31 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, must be rather satisfied: his Question has given rise to a most interesting little debate. Towards the end, it ranged rather far. The noble Viscount who has just spoken took us back almost to the old inter-Service wrangles of the 1940s and I felt my Coastal Command hackles beginning to rise. It is perhaps not surprising that during those years the lifeboats saved so many people, because they save a great number of people to-day. This is not a question of competition; it is a question of using resources suitable and available in different areas.
Perhaps I might at the beginning say that I noted the reference by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to the mountain rescue teams in which he and I are both very interested. They do not actually come within the terms of the noble Earl's Question, but I shall be happy to talk about them on some other occasion, if only because a few weeks ago I heard a rescue team being called out when some climbers were lost in a blizzard on the Cairngorms. These teams are a very fine, interesting, adventure-training—in fact, my Lords, I could go on for hours about them, so I think perhaps I had better get away from that subject.
My Lords, the Air-Sea Rescue Service has recently been the subject of public interest and a number of Questions have been asked. It is natural and proper that this should be a matter for consideration by Parliament. I must say one thing right at the beginning to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk (I think it was he who referred to it): the Air-Sea Rescue Service did not just grow up; it was deliberately planned to meet Service requirements. It is equally true that it is a pure coincidence, historically, that when his Government were in office—it was very fortunate for us that this should have been so—the needs of the Air Force also met, happily, the needs of holiday-makers and others.
When the noble Earl, quoted an earlier speech that I made I began to get nervous. One always begins to get a little nervous when people quote from one's earlier
100
speeches, and I was very relieved to find that what I had said on that occasion is precisely consistent with what I have to say now. I hope to illuminate it somewhat, because clearly one does not look at a subject of this kind, involving the saving of human lives, in a purely mechanistic way. The points are of importance.
The search and rescue helicopters are established in a manner calculated to provide the best cover for the sea areas over which military aircraft operate and carry out a large proportion of their training. There is a very great deal of training, much of which takes place at relatively short distances from the coast every day. There are aircraft flying out over the sea, and some of them, particularly the high-performance aircraft like the Lightnings, fly out over the North Sea to practise interceptions and so on. It is undoubtedly a comfort that, to meet a real need, this service should be provided.
It has always been the practice for the Services to provide their own short-range facilities for aerial search and rescue, in the form of helicopter aircraft, in support of a very large and continuing programme of military flying. Perhaps I might say straight away that at longer range this is the responsibility of the Shackletons of Coastal Command, certain of which are kept available and at a certain degree of readiness. I should perhaps in that connection say to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, that when it comes to locating ships, fixed-wing aircraft are, on the whole, better than helicopters. The Coastal Command aircraft, the Shackletons (and they will be succeeded in due course by the Nimrods) are particularly suited for this. I propose to confine my remarks to the helicopter units.
Let me say straightaway that the provision of this service is not cheap. The present Royal Air Force organisation costs about £1 million a year to operate. I think this answers one of the first of the questions put by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. There are limits to the number of aircraft, trained crews and supporting personnel that can be spared from other Service tasks for this purpose. It is, I fear, no argument to say that air-sea rescue provides good training.

101
This is not a question of good training; they are engaged on operations as much as anybody else, and there is not the reserve of helicopters that one would want. In passing, I would mention that the service is now equipped with Whirlwinds which, although they go out in all sorts of weather, are not in fact all-weather aircraft. In due course, when the Wessexes come in, they will have a greater all-weather capability.
My Lords, deployment is necessarily governed—and always has been—very strictly by the pattern of military flying. The noble Earl knows something about the organisation, because obviously he has gone very fully into this matter. There are the seven units, as he mentioned, each of two Whirlwind Mark 10 helicopters located at Leuchars, Acklington, Leconfield, Coltishall, Thorney Island, Chivenor and Valley. In addition, there are the land-based helicopters of the Royal Navy which operate from four stations on aerial search and rescue duties as the programme of naval flying requires.
My Lords, these facilities are of great importance to the Services. Much of the flying takes place over sea areas and calls for the exercise of the highest professional skills. It is carried on throughout the year, often when sea conditions are bad and the sea temperature is very low; and when, incidentally, there is little likelihood of any bathers being swept out to sea, and probably not many yachts in evidence. A good deal of this flying is in areas which are sparsely served by civilian search and rescue facilities. Accidents are very few, but some degree of risk is inevitable. I think that was one of the questions which I was asked I have not the figures of the number of accidents involving air-sea rescue aircraft. There was, regrettably, one quite recently, but it was not actually engaged on task at that particular moment.
Regarding other kinds of accidents, it is of course true that the helicopter may be the only means of rapid rescue in circumstances in which the survival time—this is the crucial point—may be very short; and the existence of an effective aerial search and rescue organisation is not only an indispensable insurance against the loss of aircrew lives—very valuable and highly skilled air crews—
102
but also an essential factor contributing to the confidence with which the aircrews engage in their flying duties. I must say that when flying out over the North Sea in a supersonic Lightning in spring or winter, knowing that if anything happened one's survival time, even wearing an immersion suit, would not be long, I had a comfortable feeling that there was a helicopter there to pull me out.
As the noble Earl said, we also have responsibilities under international understandings. But here again helicopter services are designed for the Services, though they can be called upon to provide aerial search and rescue for civil aircraft and for the military aircraft of allied countries which may, unfortunately, crash in coastal waters around the United Kingdom. In the case of an aircraft lost far out at sea, usually the Shackletons, with their equipment, are out looking for it. These are the regular tasks and accepted obligations of the helicopter service. However, it has always been the practice of the Services, subject to overriding military considerations, to respond to calls for assistance of a non-military nature, and, subject to operational requirements and practicability, assistance is given to vessels reported to be in distress in waters around the United Kingdom when, at the request of a recognised authority, the use of a helicopter is thought desirable. These helicopters have always been quick to respond whenever possible to other emergency calls—for example, those involving holiday-makers in distress as the result of boating or swimming accidents. The Services are justly proud of the assistance they have been able to give on such occasions.
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, referred to medical services to ships and trawlers. Of course these will continue. The fact that there will be no helicopters at Manston does not mean that the type of service he has in mind, which is not so much one of air-sea rescue, will not still be provided from Thorney Island and Coltishall when required. The R.A.F. will continue to meet the requests of all kinds from the civil authorities. It is a fact that the lighthouse authorities are experimenting with civil helicopters and further developments of this kind may well take place. Meanwhile, I can assure noble

103
Lords that there is no question of the R.A.F. not providing the sort of services that have grown up in recent years and we have learned to expect.
There is particular drama about a rescue by helicopter, which sometimes take place with all the quality of saving life just in the nick of time. We recognise the concern which is expressed when changes are made in the Services' helicopter search and rescue organisation. I am sure that all noble Lords will accept that the size and deployment of this organisation must be related closely to military requirements and that it would be difficult to justify the expenditure of monies voted for defence on maintaining a larger organisation than is needed to meet these requirements, or to deploy the organisation in such a manner as to follow, for example, the pattern of civilian holiday activities in coastal areas, when this would mean reducing cover in the sea areas in which military flying is concentrated. I was a little surprised at the noble Earl's reference to the Ministry of Defence. It has been called many rude names in its time, but never before called "a cloud over the horizon". I think it is unfair, at a time when there is great stringency and great pressure on public and defence expenditure, to blame the Ministry of Defence. It must give priority to the purposes for which the money is voted.
This discussion has really arisen over the withdrawal of the Manston detachment, and I should like to deal with this particularly, because I want to explain precisely why these changes have been made. This is not in detriment to the noble Earl's general proposition, but because I do not want anybody to assume that it was undertaken regardless of the general public interest. The problem facing us was that, over the five years ending in 1968, the Manston helicopter detachment had been called out for only four incidents involving military aircraft, all of them in the first three years of this period and none in the last two. That reflects the great change which has taken place in the pattern of military flying, in particular the shift in the main incidence of R.A.F. activity towards the North-East. Your Lordships are familiar with the developments right up the East Coast and the East coast of Scotland.
104
Over the same period (I want to choose my words with great care) it has become increasingly apparent that we must provide aerial search and rescue facilities in Libya where, under Treaty arrangements, the Army and the R.A.F. carry out training both over the sea and in desert areas. Not long ago the pilot of a Hunter aircraft was in the sea in his dinghy for 10 hours off the coast of El Adem, in the Tobruk area, before he was picked up. A helicopter could have rescued him in perhaps a tenth of the time. And there have been several other marine incidents in which helicopters would have proved invaluable. Furthermore, there is the desert, which imposes on those who use it no fewer risks than the sea. In 1968 there were frequent cases in which soldiers had to be brought back to base as quickly as possible from desert areas with such injuries as broken limbs and severe burns. Surface movement in these areas is arduous and slow, particularly for an injured man. A helicopter service would have been a great mercy.
Faced with these facts, and in the absence of any other Service resources for meeting the requirement, the Ministry of Defence came to the inescapable conclusion that Service requirements made it imperative to re-deploy the Manston unit to El Adem. I have gone into this at length, and I am sure that the noble Earl will fully see the reasons for the Services' action in this matter. As I say, he is taking a particular example to raise an important general issue.
I do not think that the Government or the Ministry of Defence can be criticised for the action they took in regard to this matter. The decision was not taken until the Ministry had consulted other Departments and a study had been made of the other facilities for research and rescue which exist in the Manston area. There are the other helicopter units at Coltishall and Thorney Island, though the distances, of course, are greater. There are also in the area many other search and rescue facilities.
Here the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, is relevant. There are 11 regular and seven auxiliary coastguard stations holding rescue equipment; 13 fast in-shore rescue boats and 12 lifeboats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and a

105
number of privately owned boats which take part in the Inshore Rescue Scheme organised jointly by the Coastguard and the R.N.L.I. This is a very extensive range of services, as the noble Earl pointed out. It is worth adding that the United States Air Force has detachments at Wethersfield and Bentwaters, which are within range of the Manston area. These are established for the same kind of military purposes for which our own Services' organisation exists. But they, also, are willing to respond to emergency calls for assistance from a recognised authority, subject to military requirements. The United States Embassy has only recently reaffirmed this generous and helpful policy in a letter sent to the Mayor of Southend.
Let me say that the flying services of other countries based in this country do not seek to duplicate our Air-Sea Rescue Service, and they rely on the R.A.F. to provide the necessary insurance. So the decision to withdraw the Manston unit was taken only after very careful study of all the factors, and I believe that it represented a proper sense of priority, given the nature of the Service requirements for which the Ministry of Defence is responsible.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord before he leaves the subject of Manston. I think he says that the argument is, basically, that of cost. I wonder whether he can advise us what it would cost for the R A.F. to purchase two more helicopters. He has already given an indication of what it costs to run these 14 helicopters a year which I think amounts to £1 million.
LORD SHACKLETON: I cannot give that information; nor should I regard it as an appropriate way of looking at the problem. Helicopters need to be established for certain particular service purposes. It is perfectly arguable that what would be required is not merely another two helicopters for Manston (and there are other areas of the country which are at some distance from helicopter bases). It is necessary to look at the totality that can be made available, and I shall go on to give some figures. If one were doing thorough cost-benefit studies it would be arguable that the sort of money that would need to be spent for that pur
106
pose might be better spent in some other direction from the point of view of saving life—perhaps in regard to highway accidents, fire rescues, and so on. So I do not think we can look at the matter only in terms of providing two more helicopters to replace the Manston service, bearing in mind that there are still very extensive facilities available.
I think the noble Earl wants us to consult various public authorities before we alter the pattern of the Service's helicopter Search and Rescue organisation—whether the responsibility for aerial search and rescue for members of the public should be made a formal responsibility of the Royal Air Force. I should like to reply to this point against the background of certain wider studies which are now in train. I am glad to be able to inform noble Lords, if they are not already aware of it (I am not sure whether it has yet been announced), that the Board of Trade, which has responsibilities for safety at sea, has in being a committee which is making a wide review of the marine Search and Rescue organisation in the United Kingdom. A number of outside bodies, as well as Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, are being consulted.
It is within the terms of reference of the committee to consider the contribution which can be made to search and rescue operations by helicopter aircraft, and the committee will take fully into account the existence of the facilities operated by the Services and the considerable amount of information which the Services have now amassed as a result of the assistance they have given to civilian authorities in the past. I cannot anticipate the findings of this committee. I think I might say to the noble Earl, in passing, that I should not be surprised if his debate to-day provided a further stimulus to the committee.
I should however like to add a few further details about Service helicopter operations—the sort of information which the committee will be considering—and this is in amplification of what was said by the Minister of State for Defence Administration in another place. According to the latest figures over the period of two years, ended on March 31, 1969, Royal Air Force helicopters responded to requests to assist in sea-rescue operations in aid of members of the public on about

107
750 occasions. On by far the largest number of these occasions, 600 of the total, the helicopter proved to be unnecessary on arrival, because rescue was already being effected by other means or because the request was, in one way or another, a false alarm.
On those occasions on which helicopters played an active part in operations—roughly 140—they brought 285 people ashore. We estimate, however, that the helicopter was probably essential for saving life on only 20 of these occasions, involving 32 people. Over the same period of two years the records of Her Majesty's Coastguard show that there were 4,605 marine and coastal incidents, during which 5,377 people were rescued. The helicopter operations I have described brought ashore little over 5 per cent, of the people involved in this total of recorded incidents. And, as I have mentioned, only in a very small proportion of these cases was the use of the helicopter probably essential for saving life.
Noble Lords will say that a life is without price, and that one ought to do nothing to diminish the facilities that are available. None the less, I think one is bound to look at this matter in cost benefit terms, by which I mean that one needs to look at it properly and see what are the right sort of facilities that ought to be made available in order to provide the maximum safety that our dangerous civilisation can allow us. Therefore I have given this information not to depreciate in any way the courageous and effective operations which have been conducted by Service helicopter pilots in assisting members of the public in distress, but to put into perspective the relative value which must be attached to the helicopter among other means of effecting rescue in coastal areas. They attract very much publicity, but we must not exaggerate the contribution that they make or suppose that they can, or should, replace the patient, valiant and long-tried work of such bodies as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Her Majesty's Coastguard. The figures that I have given noble Lords do not support any such conclusion. It will be for the Board of Trade Committee to reach a balanced view in the light of all the factors.
108
My Lords, I am sorry that I have taken rather longer than I intended, but I thought that this question called for a fairly full reply. I have already said that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the inquiries by this Committee. It would not be justifiable to assume that the provision of any helicopter service for assistance to civil authorities would best be undertaken by the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, who have, as I have described, their own essential requirement for markedly different purposes and in markedly different areas than those in which civilian activities of a kind likely to give rise to call for emergency assistance take place.
In this connection one has also to realise that many of these rescues take place because of the really intolerable indifference of the public. I wish that bathers, particularly, and some others would observe the rules in this matter. They ought to learn the flag code of beaches; they ought to obey the orders not to bathe at certain times. Children are always drifting out to sea on air beds or inflatable toys, and there are bathers who think they can swim well in a swimming pool but who cannot manage currents and undertows. The Cornish Air-Sea Rescue helicopters have pulled quite a few bathers out of the sea. And of course anybody going out in a small boat ought to wear the proper life-jacket and not just a buoyancy aid, as so many people do. This is one of the substitutes, if I may so call it, for Air-Sea Rescue helicopters.
The noble Earl asked me what proportion of the cost of the Services' Search and Rescue organisation should be ascribed to assistance to members of the public. I believe he asked me that; he certainly gave me notice that he would, if he did not ask it I will give him the answer just the same. The answer is "None". The organisation exists for essential military purposes and its cost is justified in Defence Votes solely in relation to those purposes. The fact that a very large proportion of the effort of the organisation has been devoted to assisting in cases of civilian distress reflects the willingness of the Services to act promptly in a humanitarian cause. This, after all, is comparable with the long tradition of the sea in these matters, and the Air Force does as the sailors and others do.

109
I hope that I have been able to give the noble Earl and other noble Lords a good deal of the background. I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to digress over a wide field. I should like to pay my tribute to Air-Sea Rescue Units. I have flown with them on a number of occasions; I have even had the interesting experience of being fished out of Plymouth Sound one day on a mock sea-air rescue which was a most enjoyable experience. The efficiency and immediacy with which they go into action and the courage of individuals, for instance, the winchmen—and we have had examples of people going down to the sea at great hazard under difficult conditions—is something of which we are all very proud indeed.
The facilities which are provided could obviously be much larger, but I believe that the decision which the Government took with regard to Manston was inescapable. Meanwhile, I will certainly undertake—but without making any promise, because this is determined by the money that is available—that the Government will carefully consider what has been said in this debate, and I do not doubt so will the Committee that is examining the whole question of air-sea rescue in the future.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, may I point out that he has not answered one of my questions? In the war, when we had the same difficulty—and if I may say so, this Air-Sea Rescue is now spreading all over the world—we to a great extent solved our problems by putting Sir John Salmon in charge of Air-Sea Rescue. Unfortunately he is dead now. He was a very able man and he made a big difference. I asked the question:
110
Who is in charge of Air-Sea Rescue? I know that the Navy has a bit of it, I know that the Air Force have a bigger bit and I know the Coastguards have a bit. Is there a single authority that can go to the Ministry and say that it wants this and it wants that?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there are two limbs to this question. First, there is the question of operational control, and this is solved in different areas with different types of co-ordination in relation to the area of the sea involved. This was a matter that we discussed at the time when the pleasure boat was lost in the Channel. Here the Joint Operations Rooms for the 18th and 19th Groups, Coastal Command, play a crucial part. But there is no single authority for search and rescue when, inevitably, so many different agencies are involved. There are a number of people who take the lead in different areas of safety. Undoubtedly there is an argument for a co-ordinated look at the whole situation. This is precisely what the Board of Trade are doing. But I do not believe that the appointment of a single Air-Sea Rescue Controller whose job, so to speak, would be to fight for resources is the answer to this problem. There is a whole range of civilian rescue and military services going out to sea and into land, and I do not think we can visualise there being a single person. However, I have noted what the noble Earl has said, and if there is any further information I can give him I shall be glad to write him on the matter.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.