Lords Sitting of 21 January 1971

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

DISABLED PERSONS' ACCESS TO PUBLIC TELEPHONES
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): 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 encourage the Post Office, and authorities in charge of premises to which the public are admitted, to provide public telephones accessible to the disabled.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I am informed that the Post Office seeks to meet the needs of the disabled, so far as is practicable, in the provision of public telephones. The provision of telephones on premises open to the public is usually a matter for those providing the building, and local authorities have been asked to draw developers' attention to Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply and to ask him two supplementary questions arising out of it. First, would the Government encourage authorities providing telephones accessible to the disabled to signpost them as being suitable? Secondly, does the Minister think that the relevant sections in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, apply both to existing and to future premises?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to the point about signposting. I will let the Post Office have her suggestion, but I think there may be
584
difficulties in adopting it. One difficulty that occurs to me is that there are so many different forms of disablement that it might be misleading to signpost these telephones. The answer to the second supplementary question is, No. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act refers only to future buildings, not to existing buildings. But in the circular which we sent out after the Act was passed we drew the attention of local authorities to existing buildings and to the need to encourage the provision of facilities where possible.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the folding doors are removed, as has been done with the kiosks at King's Cross Station, a wheelchair will have easy access?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was not aware of that. I will certainly take note of it.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, to supplement what the noble Baroness has said, may I say that some of us are not entirely pleased with the words "so far as is practicable", which I believe are used with regard to the Post Office. I am not sure whether Her Majesty's Government agree that this is really all that is practicable. There are hooded telephones which, if they are fitted at the right height are quite simple to operate; and such simple measures as removing a door here and there are often all that is required.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the words "so far as is practicable" refer to existing telephone kiosks. It would be a very large undertaking to adapt all of them. But I realise that where there are hooded telephones, which can only be put into buildings, this is a suitable way of making provision for the disabled.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although Government Departments, including the Department of Health, from time to time issue circulars advocating the provision of adequate facilities for disabled persons, the public at large need a great deal more education, and there should be criticism of the lack of initiative on the part of local authorities and local bodies? Is the noble Lord aware, for example, that it is quite possible for a publican to refuse entry to a public house because a

585
man may be a nuisance to the other customers? The public really ought to be more educated in this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that is a question which it is beyond my scope to answer.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the doors on outdoor telephone boxes are often so heavy and so strongly sprung that they are difficult for senior citizens or disabled people to open? Would he encourage research into a lighter type of door such as I understand exists in Holland?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I will certainly bring that point to the attention of the Post Office. I know that they have looked at it and that they find real limits to what is practicable in order to make a kiosk which can withstand both the weather and the attacks of vandals.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Post Office, as was the previous Ministry, are inter-tested in the Question that has been tabled to-day for Answer, but that, while one has every sympathy with the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, followed up in the supplementary question of the noble Viscount in regard to entrances to kiosks, such severe damage has been occasioned to public kiosks in this country that the cost involved has been almost intolerable for the Post Office to bear?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES
3.13 p.m.
LORD JANNER: 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 no issues of National Savings Certificates are on sale other than the new decimal issue of which a maximum holding of £500 is permitted; and what steps they will take to enable people to invest more than £500 in National Savings Certificates.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords the decimal issue of National Savings Certificates is the only issue at present on sale. It is quite exceptional for more than one issue of certificates to be on sale at the same time. A maximum of £500 of the current issue may be held in addition to existing holdings of earlier issues which have separate maximum permitted limits. The decimal issue has been on sale for less than four months and the amount of money so far invested has been very satisfactory. The question of raising the limit is kept under continuous review.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he thinks that it would be of advantage to National Savings in general, and to individuals who want to help the State and are quite prepared to invest their monies, to reconsider the maximum permitted limit so that a more substantial amount can be held by people who want to invest more than the £500?
EARL. JELLICOE: My Lords, of course I take the noble Lord's point, but I should like to make it quite clear that the low initial limit is intended to prevent widespread switching from other forms of Government security. I think this is the 13th issue. As the noble Lord may know, the limits for the 12th issue have been raised, and I can assure him that in the consideration which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present giving to measures aimed at bringing about a genuine increase in total savings, the possibility of increasing the limit on holdings of certificates will most certainly be borne in mind.
LORD JANNER: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government are able to consider offering slightly more generous terms to try to attract more investors to this type of saving?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is, of course, a very generous Government, as the noble Viscount is fully aware. I should like to make two points to him in reply, and I think both are not unimportant. The first is that candidly I do not think that the present terms are

587
ungenerous. Given the fact that these certificates are not subject to income tax and surtax, the yield on them amounts to 9·36 per cent. in the pound, which is not an unsubstantial yield. The second point I should like to make is that the sales of this decimal issue have amounted to over £125 million in the 15 weeks since they have been on sale, and that compares with a much lower sum of £53 million for the equivalent period for the previous issue.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and thank him for his reply. Is he aware that I did not say that the terms were ungenerous? I inquired whether the Government might be able to offer a little more generous terms.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was indeed aware of that.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? Is it true that under decimalisation they are going to have 10½ Apostles? Shall I repeat it? I worked out in the middle of the night that there will be 10½ Apostles.

JUSTICES' SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
3.16 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will eliminate the delay in granting subsistence allowances to magistrates who live less than three miles from the courts in which they serve the community.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Government are fully conscious of the views of magistrates on this matter and would like to make this provision as soon as possible. But, while the expenditure would be comparatively modest, any increases in expenditure, however desirable, are difficult to justify at the present time. The question whether the new allowances may be introduced soon must await decisions on the estimates for the next financial year.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is that not a most unsatisfactory reply in respect of a Question that has been raised year after year, and in respect of which an Answer was given in another place to the effect that this provision would be made? Is it not rather mean to fail to give a person, who gives of his or her services in such a splendid manner as our magistrates do, the opportunity of at least being able to have a meal, instead of having to rush three miles home and three miles back again before the next sitting? Will the noble Lord please consider this matter, at long last, and provide what it is obviously the duty of the Government to provide?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the 1968 Justices of the Peace Act made it possible to reimburse magistrates with subsistence and travelling allowances wherever they lived, and also to reimburse them for loss of earnings. The previous Administration did not feel able to implement these powers because of the financial situation at the time. I would reaffirm that the Government accept that these allowances are extremely important for all magistrates and that it is desirable to introduce both of them when sufficient resources are available.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the very strong feeling among magistrates on this matter, who regard it as petty and mean, in view of the fact that this power has been on the Statute Book so long? Is he aware of the fact that when in Kensington, for example, applications for betting licences are heard, the bookies go round to the Angus Steak House while the magistrates go into Lyon's for a sandwich and coffee?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have made it plain that we are sympathetic to the case. The Magistrates' Association have made representations; the legislation has been on the Statute Book for two years—the noble Lord indicated a rather longer period than that. Noble Lords ought to await a decision on the estimates for the next financial year.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how disappointed we are at his reply? He is not following the recent words of his noble Leader who said that this Government are being

589
very generous. The noble Lord's reply is that the Government are being very parsimonious. Is he aware of the intense feeling that there is among magistrates? A bench may have been sitting for a long period of time and have to adjourn for some sustenance. If a person is outside the three-mile limit his refreshment is provided, but if he is inside the limit he must pay for it himself or must inconvenience the remainder of the bench by travelling home—probably two-and-a-half miles or so—and come back again after an hour or an hour-and-a-half. This rule is interfering with the working of the magistrates' courts.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will bear in mind that there are many magistrates—I have sat on two courts where I know this to happen—who live within three miles of the court, but there is no public transport? Therefore they cannot get home and back in the normal lunch period.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have said that we are aware of these considerations. We are not seeking to argue against the case which has been made, very correctly, by magistrates over a considerable period of years. Noble Lords should not take what. I have said this afternoon as being an argument the other way: I have said that we accept the case and we should wail to see what the Estimates contain for the coming year. It is a question of the allocation of resources.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider more fully the obvious grave dissatisfaction that exists on this matter? Will he also contrast this decision with the quite justifiable decision about large increases in pay for judges and the fact that the Government found it possible to reduce income tax?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think every question that has been put in this discussion has to a certain extent been based on a misunderstanding. I have said that the case has been accepted, and it was accepted by the Administration of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. When the Bill went on the Statute Book regulations were not introduced implementing the new powers, because of the financial situation. I have not said that these will not be introduced.
590
What I have said is that I cannot anticipate decisions that will be taken.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question which I do not think is based on a misunderstanding? Can he give us any idea of the approximate cost to the public of these services which he has said we should have difficulty in affording at the present time?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Approximately £500,000, my Lords, for both allowances.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the amount allowed for the sustenance of those who already obtain it has been increased in recent times? Is he further aware that this question arose before 1968? It has been before Governments for years, because it is realised by those who seek the services of magistrates that they should at least have the opportunity of getting a meal, if nothing else, so as to prevent their having to rush from one place to another. Will the noble Lord say that he will bring to the attention of his right honourable friend who is dealing with the matter the anxiety of people throughout the country on this issue?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. We are well aware of the strong feelings of magistrates. I must repeat that it is the 1968 legislation that is relevant here. There was no power before that to reimburse meal and travel costs for people who lived within three miles of their court, nor was there any power to reimburse people for loss of earnings. Both of those powers have been on the Statute Book since 1968 and both of them, I hope, will be implemented as soon as possible.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would it not be rather more straightforward on the part of the Minister to give the appropriate answer? Will he ask the magistrates to do what the electricity workers and the Post Office workers have been asked to do; namely, to consider the national interest?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, my Lords. We accept the case here and we hope to introduce these allowances. The question is entirely one of timing, and if

591
noble Lords will be kind enough to wait until next month when the Estimates are published we can then see what the future portends.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, when the noble Lord gave a figure of £500,000, was he referring to the total expenditure on subsistence and travelling of magistrates at present? If so, can he tell us the extra sum by extending payment to those who live less than three miles away?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. My figure was for the additional sum. It falls under two heads: it is the addition for subsistence and travelling and the addition for loss of earnings over the whole field. It is those two items taken together.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are few things more infuriating than taking on a really big job for the Government, unpaid, and then being beaten down by 5s. 9d. for your expenses, as I was many times on the Royal Commission on Medical Education?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, let me say that members of the Royal Commission on Medical Education are not in the same position as magistrates, who are the subject of all these questions.

SEAT BELTS IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
3.26 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: 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 why there is no law to compel the provision of seat belts for drivers and passengers of commercial vehicles.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the fitting of seat belts is compulsory in commercial vehicles up to 1½ tons registered on or after April 1, 1967. Belts are unlikely at present to be so effective in preventing injuries to drivers of heavier vehicles, in which cab strength is a significant factor. The
592
Government intend, however, to reexamine the case for belts when cab strength standards have been established.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Can he tell me the reason for not fitting a third seat belt for the central person on a bench seat of a van up to 30 cwt., and cars with benches, as is obligatory in America?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think the usual commercial vehicle under 30 cwt. normally has a third front passenger in the middle and the Government are loth to legislate unnecessarily.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if that is the case, is the carrying of a third person in such a vehicle prohibited?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord to let me write to him on that point. At the moment I am not aware of what the position is.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on that question of bigger vehicles and the strength of the cabin, is it not a fact that seat belts do not necessarily have to rely upon the cabin structure, but rely instead on the floor of the vehicle? Can the noble Lord undertake to look at this matter with great seriousness?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. We are always willing to look at this with great seriousness. It is a most important factor. The heavy lorry normally has little in front of the driver. Therefore, injury to the occupants of heavy commercial vehicles is normally total, and a seat belt would not help because the cabin will have been crushed either from in front or from a shifting load behind. Until the Economic Commission for Europe has done its work on cab strengths and seat-belt anchorage points, the Government do not wish to introduce legislation.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the seat of a heavy goods vehicle is designed so that the driver has to sit very upright, with no armrests, and therefore tends to lean forward with his forearms on the steering wheel for support? Does the noble Lord

593
not agree that this position makes the wearing of a seat belt particularly necessary?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. This is one of the points which the expert committee of the E.C.E. is examining at this moment. When the recommendations are forthcoming they will be regulated for the whole of Europe.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, is not the fact that there is very little in front of the driver of a heavy lorry of extreme importance? Naturally, in a head-on collision the driver would be thrown through the screen, with very serious head injuries; and if he were colliding with something of equal height he would receive even more serious injuries.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend is missing the point that when there is little in front of you the cabin is crushed on impact. If you are in a lighter vehicle and have a hit of a "nose" in front of you, a safety belt has an enormous effect on safety. If you have nothing in front of you and a vehicle crashes into you, the cabin is crushed. This is not the case with cars.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought the object of a safety belt was to prevent the driver or the passenger from being thrown against the windscreen and the steering wheel. Surely this situation exists in a motor lorry as it does in a motor car.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that noble Lords are still misunderstanding me—I apologise if I have been incoherent. The effect of a heavy commercial vehicle having a front collision is normally that the cab is crushed and as a result injury takes place. Where the driver's cabin is crushed, a safety belt will have little effect. Serious injuries to drivers of heavy vehicles are almost entirely due to these cases of crushing.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords will the noble Lord say when he expects this European report to be produced?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. It is expected within
594
the next two years, and this means that in three years' time vehicles will be coming off the assembly lines throughout Europe bearing all the safety precautions which are necessary. When we have the cab strength right will be the time to incorporate the seat belt requirements.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that it will be two years before we know whether a driver sits upright in a cab on the road?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that he is held in such great affection that if we have the misfortune that the present Government are still in office in three years' time, we hope it will be he who will be able to give us the answer that he is unable to give us now?

POST OFFICE WORKERS' STRIKE AND PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make a short business statement about arrangements during the postal strike. On Tuesday I said that copies of the Minutes would be available in Her Majesty's Stationery Office bookshops, but I am afraid that it has not proved possible to arrange this. However, Hansard will as usual be available in those shops. Your Lordships will be aware that arrangements are already in operation, and are working well, for the business of the House to be announced in the Press and on the wireless. If any noble Lord is in any difficulty, he should telephone the Printed Paper Office in this House, the number of which (as I think most of your Lordships know) is 930–6240, between the hours of 9 o'clock in the morning and the time of the rising of the House, or 5 o'clock on days when the House does not sit.

COINAGE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment of this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Attachment order in respect of maintenance payments to cease to have effect on the occurrence of certain events]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a purely drafting Amendment for the correction of a slip. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, after ("England") insert ("or Wales").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedules 4 [Enactments providing benefits which are not to be treated as debtor's earnings]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and the Amendment standing in my name in relation to Schedule 6 are both consequential on the passage, since the Bill was introduced, of the Family Income Supplements Act 1970, Section 14 of which amends Schedule 6 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. That Schedule should now be reproduced as amended, and the amended section repealed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("The Family Income Supplements Act, 1970").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to
Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the second of the two Amendments, which I have already explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 56, at end insert—

("1970 c. c. 55.

The Family Income Supplements Act 1970.

Section 14")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the law relating to what used to be the Post Office Savings Bank and is now the National Savings Bank. The law was, in fact, consolidated before in 1954, but since then substantial changes have been made by the Post Office Savings Bank Act 1966 and the Post Office Act 1969. The Bill incorporates Amendments recommended by the Law Commission and its Scottish counterpart. All the recommendations are minor and most of them correspond with recommendations made and approved by Parliament in 1969 when the law relating to the Trustee Savings Bank was consolidated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner would very much have wished to be present to give a welcome to this Consolidation Bill and to the two others with which the House has just dealt. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for him to be here this afternoon

597
and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to express on his behalf his regrets. I wonder whether your Lordships will also allow me to express the pleasure that I know he must feel in seeing this substantial measure towards comprehensive consolidation achieved by your Lordships' House. It must be a great pleasure to him, and I think the House would share it, to say "Thank you" to the Law Commission for the extremely valuable work that they have done in this connection. We benefit from their labours almost every other day. It must be a pleasure to my noble and learned friend particularly, as the intellectual progenitor of the Law Commission, to see how satisfactorily they are accomplishing their most valuable work. I wish to say no more except to mark the sense of gratitude I feel, and I am sure we all feel, at what has been done this afternoon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I ought to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for what he has said both on his own behalf and on behalf of his noble and learned friend. We are getting on with this business both of consolidation and of law reform, and I can assure the House that the zeal with which we are pursuing the matter equals that of the noble and learned Lord and of his noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner. It is important to remember not only that this could not be done without the Law Commission but that it cannot be done and will not be able to be done without the continuing support of both Houses of Parliament, for anybody can obstruct individual measures of reform proposed by the Law Commission—unless, of course, they are Consolidation measures which I can pass through Parliament probably without much difficulty. But individual Back Benchers of both Houses have been content to use Private Members' time to advance these other projects. Otherwise we should be at a loss to get on with the extensive work which lies before us. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power of chief registrar to suspend business of registered friendly societies and branches]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("14 days") and insert ("one month")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, may I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together as they cover the same point? When the Chief Registrar proposes to make an order forbidding a society to contract new business, subsection (2) of Clause 6 requires him to serve notice on the society not less than 14 days before making the order. The Friendly Societies Liaison Committee has submitted that this period of notice is too short, and during the debate on the Second Reading I undertook to look into the matter. The purpose of these two Amendments is to extend the period of notice to one month. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("14 days") and insert ("one month").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power of chief registrar to require production of documents]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 29, after ("section") insert ("(including any explanation provided under subsection (3)(a) above)").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) of Clause 7 provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with the requirements imposed by virtue of that clause may be used in evidence against him. Subsection (3)(a) enables the Chief Registrar to require persons producing the society's books to provide an explanation of them. This Amendment makes it clear that such an explanation is a statement within the meaning of subsection (6). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Citation, construction, extent and commencement]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 42, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4) of section 10 and")
The noble Lord said: The effect of subsection (3) of Clause 14 is to extend to Northern Ireland the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 10. The Northern Ireland Parliament has now itself made such provisions, and there is therefore no point in extending subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 10 to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of other enactments]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 16, line 46, leave out ("56(3)") and insert ("56 (nomination of sum payable on death of deceased member) in subsection (1) after the word "person" there shall be inserted the words "or persons" and for the words from "not exceeding" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "or any specified amount of money so payable shall be paid at his decease, but the total amount which may be nominated under this section shall not exceed £500"; and in subsection (3) of that section")
The noble Lord said: Section 56(1) of the Friendly Societies Act 1896 provides that a member of a society may nominate a person to whom any sum of money payable by the society on his death shall be paid. This Amendment, designed to facilitate the consolidation of the Friendly Societies Act, makes it clear that a nomination may be made in favour of more than one person and that the amount nominated to any nominee need not comprise the whole amount payable by the society on the member's death. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 16, line 49, at end insert—
". In section 57(1) (payment on death of nominator) after the word "member" there shall be inserted the words "or as the case may be the amount specified in the nomination, but in any case".
. In section 58(2) (payment on intestacy of member who was illegitimate) for the word "trustees" there shall be substituted the words "society or branch"."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment so far as section 57(1) is concerned, and so far as section 58(2) is concerned this corrects a drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE: moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 21, line 24, at the beginning insert—
". In section 9(1) of the War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1915 (investment of funds of friendly societies in Scotland) the words friendly society or' shall be omitted."
The noble Lord said. Section 9(1) of the War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1915 enabled friendly societies and trade unions registered in Scotland to invest in the name of the Accountant of Court in loan stock raised for the purposes of World War I. The provision and its application to friendly societies is now spent, and the effect of this Amendment is to make it no longer applied to such societies. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD ABERDARE: This Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment.
I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 52, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 93.

The War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1915.

In Section 9(1) the words "friendly society or".")

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 20, at end insert—

("1968 c. 55.

The Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968

In section 6(1) the words "Subject to subsection (5) of this section".")

—[Lord Aberdare.)
LORD BESWICK: Before the last of these Amendments is put, may I say that the reason we have not in any way queried or questioned the noble Lord about these Amendments is not simply because of the eloquence he has displayed but in the confidence which we have in those who advised him.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. As he knows, all these Amendments were agreed with the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
3.54 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In their White Paper of November, 1969, the previous Government welcomed the recognition of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Civil Air Transport which they had set up, that the private sector of the industry should be encouraged to form what it called a "second force" airline. They said that they would welcome the emergence of such an airline by amalgamation of two or more existing independent carriers if it resulted in a
602
strengthening of the industry as a whole and contributed to the realisation of the Government's policy objectives. They subsequently withheld approval of the proposed purchase of British United Airways by British Overseas Airways Corporation in order to provide further time for the desired amalgamation to be achieved.
We share the view of the previous Administration that air transport makes an important contribution to the economy and that the principal objective of civil aviation policy must be to encourage the provision of air services by British carriers in satisfaction of all substantial categories of public demand, at the lowest level of charges consistent with a high standard of safety, an economic return on investment and the stability and development of the industry. There are, of course, various ways in which this highly desirable goal might be achieved, but we agree with three further points set out in the previous Administration's White Paper. First, there is a place—indeed, I would say a need—in the industry for privately owned airlines. Secondly, the benefits of competition should be actively pursued wherever the practical considerations allow. Thirdly, the industry should be strengthened as a whole. The industry would not have been strengthened if the previous Government had allowed B.O.A.C. to buy British United. Not only would the rest of the private sector have remained fragmented, but it would have removed any possibility of strengthening that part of the industry for many years. Moreover, one large United Kingdom monopoly would be under less competitive pressure to advance the interest of the consumer and to strengthen the industry's contribution to the economy by exploiting future opportunities.
The Government recognise that the scope for future opportunities for the second force is limited by the way in which international routes are already shared. Neverthless, the existence of a new strong airline would enable a second British carrier to be licensed on those international routes where our bilateral agreements with other countries permit this and where it would be likely that the traffic carried by British airlines could be increased. Such an airline would, moreover, be able to sustain and develop extensive charter services and serve those

603
domestic routes where it was desirable to offer the public a choice of airlines. Some of these roles will be exacting and the new airline will need to be strong. How was such an airline to be established? The nucleus of such a strong airline is being created by combining the operational skills and resources of Caledonian and British United into a powerful unit. Such a new airline will be able to offer a more secure future to those that work in it than is possible under present arrangements.
The increasingly high capital investment required in the air transport industry means it is essential that airlines must be sufficiently strong if they are to survive. One of the current dangers in civil aviation to-day is that of fragmentation into many small airlines. The purchase of British United by Caledonian means therefore that the general objective of strengthening the industry as a whole is being promoted. However, when the present Government came into office we found that discussions and subsequent negotiations between British United and Caledonian had been going on for some considerable time, and it quickly became apparent that it was unlikely that a successful conclusion would be reached if we did not take the policy of the previous Government to its logical conclusion.
The problem was that, having examined the financial position and prospects of a merger of their operations with British United, Caledonian came to the conclusion that little was to be gained by a straight combination of the existing route networks and that if the second force was to get off the ground some limited route transfers would have to take place. Only then would there be a fair prospect of achieving the degree of viability necessary to attract the large financial backing required. Accordingly, in our statement of policy of August 3 the Government indicated that if an independent second-force airline came into being we should be prepared to make some exceptional transfer of routes from the public sector to the new airline to provide it with a sufficient basis at the outset. I should now like to put this question of route transfers into perspective.
First, the new airline must be given a viable base now. It has been the lack of a firm base at the outset that has
604
bedevilled the private sector of the industry in the past. No airline can succeed if it is not given the necessary opportunities to survive. The Edwards Committee recognised both this and the fact that fundamental viability would not be achieved by the amalgamation of B.U.A. and Caledonian. Some limited concession of Corporation territory was said to be required. The Committee recognised, however, that what B.U.A. had been seeking might be considered unreasonable and that it would be neither economic nor acceptable to handicap the Air Corporations unreasonably. The present Government share this view. We also have some sympathy with the view expressed by the previous Government in their White Paper (paragraph 41); namely, that they could not
"accept that the formation of such an airline should be made conditional upon the transfer to it of a significant part of the Air Corporations' route networks."
It is the word "significant" which is crucial, and this brings me to my second point.
We are, I think, all agreed that the Air Corporations should remain our principal flag carriers. They are serving the nation well and there can be no question of undermining them by any wholesale or frequent transfers of routes. On the other hand, while the Air Corporations themselves cannot be expected to be pleased at the possibility of giving up any routes it is for the Government to decide what is in the best interests of the nation and of the industry as a whole. The importance and value of creating the second-force airline is such that it is the view of this Government that there should be some modest and exceptional transfer of routes.
Clearly, everything depends upon what the previous Administration meant by "significant" and what we mean by "modest". I do not pretend that the transfers proposed by the Government are insignificant. They are not. On the other hand, they are relatively small. An amount equivalent to between 2½ and 3 per cent. of B.O.A.C.'s current annual revenue is involved, which at the present time means from £5 to £6 million. But forecasts of inter-continental traffic point to an average expansion of about 14 per cent. a year up to 1975. Against that background, the transfer can only be described as modest, even though in the short

605
term certain sectors of the air transport industry may be entering a period of retrenchment.
I would, furthermore, stress two fundamental points. First, this is an exceptional measure, providing the new airline with what they have accepted is a viable base. Secondly, the Government do not intend to put any public money into this venture. The suggestion of the Edwards Committee that the Airways Board should have a stake in the second force has been rejected as it would have inhibited competition. The Government are instead providing the private sector with the opportunity to prove itself. Because the owners of British United had decided to sell it or else consider putting it into liquidation, it seemed to the Government that if the concept of the second force was to be achieved, it must be achieved quickly. It is for this reason that the Government consider it important that the new airline should be serving the routes to be transferred by summer, 1971.
My Lords, I now come to the purpose of the Bill and the mechanics of the route transfers. While the Government would prefer the arrangements for the transfer of routes to be made through the normal licensing machinery, we recognise that the Air Corporations could not be expected willingly to give up even a small sector of their routes. They would be likely to contest B.U.A./Caledonian's application and any Order that might have been made, so that the transfer of routes would have been delayed. The Government therefore indicated that they would, if necessary, use their powers under Section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act 1967 and under Section 1(3) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960 to ensure that the intended outcome was not unduly deferred, and they decided to introduce the present Bill. The Government are satisfied that they have adequate powers under these sections to prohibit the Air Corporations from providing certain air services and to grant the new airline a temporary exemption from the licensing requirement in respect of those services.
The Government have already announced their intentions with regard to the transfer of the West African routes. As soon as all the precise routes to be made available have been identified, the
606
new airline will apply to the Air Transport Licensing Board for the necessary licences. If necessary, the Government will prohibit the Air Corporations from providing these air services, and they will do this by setting them out in an Order which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. If necessary, the Government will grant to the new airline one or more exemptions from the obligations to hold an air service licence, but as a temporary measure only to prevent delay. The new airline will in any event have to satisfy the licensing authority in due course.
In determining the routes to be transferred, the Government have been seeking to provide the maximum benefit to the new airline's viability with the least impact on the Air Corporations. The Government are continuing their discussions with the Air Corporations and Caledonian/B.U.A. and hope to announce the remainder of the transfers shortly. The possibility of some reallocation or readjustment of routes now or in the future is rot ruled out. Clearly, we want both airlines to have the most coherent and profitable route networks, but as the principal objective at this time is to get the second force off the ground it has been necessary to concentrate on the routes which might form a straight transfer and to leave subsequent adjustments to the proposed new licensing authority to examine in depth and detail in accordance with the Government's policy.
My Lords, let no one think that the Government have no interest in the health of the public sector part of the industry. They have. Indeed, a major part of the Civil Aviation Bill which we plan to introduce is designed to strengthen this part of the industry, by putting B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. under the strategic control of the Airways Board. The second Bill that is due for Second Reading by your Lordships' House later tonight—the Air Corporations Bill—is concerned with this subject, enabling B.O.A.C. greatly to increase its borrowings and so further to expand its business, which has in recent years so admirably combined growth with profitability. The increases in borrowing limits proposed—from the present £120 million to £250 million and, by Order, to £380 million—are large. But B.O.A.C.'s estimate is that borrowings on this scale over the next five years or so will be needed if their fleet is to be

607
re-equipped as they would wish. And the Government wish this, too. They want B.O.A.C. to remain in the van both in the aircraft and in the service they offer to their customers. Borrowing powers Bills give Parliament a chance from time to time to look at individual nationalised industries and to take their pulse. B.O.A.C. fully justify, in our view, the confidence that this second Bill will show Parliament has in them.
I should like to end on this note. The public sector has played in the past the predominant part in the development of British civil aviation, supported by successive Governments. This will continue. The private sector has also significant achievements to its credit. These too, the Government believe, should continue. While there can be no certainty of success for the new airline, I hope that the whole House will welcome equally the chance that the first Bill gives the second force to prove itself and the opportunity that the second Bill will give B.O.A.C. to carry further its past achievements. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denham.)
4.7 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for the way in which he has introduced this Bill. May I say at the outset that although it was my suggestion that a wider discussion on aviation should take place on the first Bill it was never my intention that the two Bills should be introduced as one, and I shall have certain things to say now on the second Bill, which I assume we shall take separately.
This is a debate on civil aviation and it was hoped that the keynote throughout what was to be said would be one of expansion. Though there is no special reference in this Bill to this, it would be quite impossible for me to go on to say what I have in mind without some reference to the unhappy news which we read this morning about Skyways Coach Air. This is a most extraordinary story, a most sad story, and it seems to me to indicate a complete lack of any ordinary commercial expertise on the part of this Government.
Skyways, one of the pioneers of independent air transport operating com-
608
panies, has suffered various vicissitudes but throughout its life the new ideas which it put into operation have always seemed to me a justification for the independent air transport operator. The people behind the company throughout (although the ownership has changed somewhat) were in truth pioneers. They were enthusiasts in aviation. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has just taken his seat opposite. He is a member of the board of the Skyways company, and I shall be interested to hear whether he has anything to say in this debate.
It so happens that by a curious development, almost an accident, the company found itself in the position that a 50 per cent. interest in its equity was publicly owned. It would appear to be this fact, and this fact alone, which has led to the present situation. It really is ironic that Mr. Rylands, the dean of the independent air transport operators in the country to-day, as I would call him, should be facing the situation that he does this morning because of the Government's prejudice against publicly-owned industry. So far as I can see, he is damaged for that reason, and for that reason only.
I would ask the Minister whether he will tell us something about the history of this matter. I have not had the opportunity to get the details, and I can only go on what is in the Press, but, so far as I understand it, it was not until December that Skyways were told that Transport Holdings would have to take out of their company the 50 per cent. holding which they had had up to that time. How much time were they given to find a new source of capital? What real opportunities in real life were given to the Skyways Company to go out and get capital to replace that which Transport Holdings were instructed by the Government to extract from the Skyways Company? I ask the Minister whether, even now, he cannot say that something is to be done to ensure that this company can be kept in existence to give the good service, as it has done, to the public and to provide employment for its staff.
For nearly two decades there has been an increasingly coherent and increasingly bipartisan appeal for the overall administration of, and the forward planning responsibility for, civil air transport to

609
be taken out of the cockpit of Party political controversy. I have myself said with reasonable consistency over that period that the comparative merits of one air transport operator over another should be judged, not by Party political criteria but by ascertainable and objective facts and figures about safety and service to the public. As the various statistical tools developed, this became not only desirable, but practicable.
What we wanted primarily was an administration or licensing authority with full authority and proper independence. Of course there have been licensing authorities, but they have had neither the authority nor the independence to do the job required. One remembers that at one time licensing functions were attached to the Air Transport Advisory Council, and a former Member of this House, the late Lord Terrington, enjoyed great respect and affection as chairman of the council; but neither the A.T.A.C. nor the Air Transport Licensing Board which succeeded it could be said to fulfil the role which the situation demanded.
If I may be excused for quoting myself, I find that I wrote in 1964:
"Something certainly should be done about the A.T.L.B. Its present position is undignified as well as inefficient. Almost every major decision since it was established has been taken outside Therese House. The decisions affecting the whole of the British effort to North and South America were taken without informing, let alone consulting, the A.T.L.B., and the present appeals procedure from decisions which are taken by the Board is illogical and intolerable."
History is now repeating itself as regards the British effort in West Africa. Without any consultation with the present Board, the Government are superseding their responsibility; and if these matters are to be referred to the Board at some time, as I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, they are, they will be referred to the Board with instructions that they are, in practice, to carry out certain processes. That really is not the way that we should deal with civil aviation. Such an action, I understand, could have been challenged in the courts; and the only purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the action cannot in fact be challenged in the courts.
In July, 1967, there appeared to be the beginnings of a real breakthrough. The then President of the Board of Trade set
610
up a Committee to conduct a real grassroots review of the air transport industry. It was an impressive Committee, with a chairman who commanded confidence. It conducted a most searching inquiry. It reported in May, 1969. Its findings as to general principles commanded wide support. There was, as the noble Lord said, a White Paper from the previous Administration, which again, in general, had all-Party support. But now we have this Bill, probably the most pathetic piece of legislation that it has been my misfortune to touch. It does not purport to implement anything in the Edwards Report. The Minister in another place even says that it is not really necessary; that they have the power to do what they want to do with regard to the reallocation of routes. What a sad reflection on a dynamic society dealing with a modern industry that 3½ years after the Edwards Committee was established, and nearly two years after it reported, we have only this non-Bill!
But the practical implication of the Bill is more serious. The Bill, though declared unnecessary, is the occasion for a reallocation of routes in a licensing operation. The Edwards Committee did not take the view, the Labour Government did not take the view, and certainly I never took the view that all routes for all time would be the inalienable property of the two nationalised Air Corporations. But if routes are to be reallocated, if licences are to be revoked and reissued, that should be the responsibility of the new licensing authority, the proposed new Civil Aviation Authority, which both the previous Government and the present Government committed themselves to establish. This is the real tragedy of this bit of Parliamentary time-wasting. Just when we were about to move into a new era of air transport responsibility, when we should indeed by now be considering constructive legislation to establish the Civil Aviation Authority, the Government produce this sad Bill to give legality to an action which they claim is legal, anyhow, and which they ought not to be taking, whether it is legal or illegal.
I believe that the action which Her Majesty's Government are taking under the cover of this Bill is unwise and unfortunate from all points of view, Certainly it is unwise and unfortunate

611
from the viewpoint of the Corporations. It is bound to cause uncertainty and loss of morale. I believe it to be unwise and unfortunate from the viewpoint of the newly constituted company, Caledonian/B.U.A. I say so here, and I have said so to Mr. Adam Thomson. It gets him and his new company off to a bad start. All those interested in aviation have watched the rise of Mr. Thomson with interest and admiration. I wish him well; I have always wished his company well. But he must have so many problems of reorganisation and so much to do in the re-grouping of personnel that he could well be spared the extra problem of fitting in a slice of yet another company—and a slice which comes in involuntarily. I know that he had a case to make out as regards attracting new capital, but is it really going to give confidence to investors if the money is put into routes which may well be lost again? If one Government can take powers to do a thing like this, then another Government could use similar powers to undo it. And one of my right honourable friends, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, has said that they will indeed reverse this when in the course of time they again assume responsibility.
How much better if Caledonian/B.U.A. had made out a case for these or other routes to the new Civil Aviation Authority! How much more security there would be for whatever route changes might be agreed! Post-war history will show, I think, that in practically every case where route patterns have been established by a Government Department, and not as the result of discussion and analysis by a licensing body, they have always proved impermanent. It was so at the beginning when the wartime Coalition Government recommended, and the first post-war Labour Government implemented, the idea of three separate Corporations. Very soon, after experience, the neat pattern was redrawn and British South American Airways disappeared. Similarly with that curious short-lived episode of Atlantic operations by Cunard-Eagle. They, too, were the product of something which happened in a Government Department; and they, too, quickly passed on when the economic facts of the situation became
612
clear. Looking at the matter solely from the point of view of British air transport growth, I should have been much happier and more confident if the proposed West African changes had been examined by a professional body.
Will the Minister confirm that this is the last territorial demand that he will make upon B.O.A.C.—the last transfer of business in this way? I should like him, if he is going to give an undertaking, to spell it out. It has been said that this was "once for all". But there was some qualification added to those words later. It is vitally important from the point of view of B.O.A.C. morale that there should be no doubts as to what their position is.
What about compensation? If one accepts the position that routes are not the property of the operator, then in the ordinary way there can be no question of compensation, but this situation is somewhat different. The circumstances of the transfer are quite different from the case in which a company was granted a licence for a period of years, and it was known that if they did not fulfil the conditions of that licence then it was open to be taken from them. These routes have been developed without any question of their being held only for a term of years. Money has been spent which is now to be lost as a result of this Government's action. Aircraft have been bought and will now be under-utilised. Will some way be found to give proper compensation to the Corporation for their loss of good will for the material damage suffered?
Then there is B.E.A. I understand that some threat still hangs over their head. Can the Minister say exactly what is the position there? If, as is reported, he is contemplating some reduction of B.E.A.'s Paris frequency, what is the position about traffic rights and the B.E.A./Air France pool? Is proper consideration being given to all these factors? Again, I would ask the Minister: would it not really be better, if an Authority is to be established with responsibility for these matters, that any proposed changes of this kind be left to the full consideration of that Authority?
That brings me to the question of the legislation required for this long-awaited

613
Civil Aviation Authority. I freely admit that one might say that the previous Administration might have made more progress on the preparation of the necessary Bill. I know that there are some complicated issues involved. But will the Minister give an assurance this afternoon that the Bill will be given the necessary priority in the legislative programme? While this still remains in the offing there are bound to be uncertainties which can do no good at all to the British civil air transport effort. I hope that his right honourable friends are getting all the support they need in their claim for Parliamentary time.
There is one other thing I want to say about the structure of the proposed C.A.A. The one aspect of the promised new organisation which has aroused controversy is the proposed inclusion of the Air Registration Board within the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Department would tell the Minister, I personally was always against this inclusion. Certainly at this point of time it may be administratively more tidy to put everything together, but there is nothing in practical experience which suggests that a bigger organisation is necessarily better, or that a tidier pattern is necessarily more efficient.
There are bound to be growing pains when the C.A.A. assimilates its other functions. Why complicate the process by lumping in the A.R.B.? No one questions the technical expertise of the A.R.B. Its executive leadership has commanded the highest possible respect. Walter Hardingham and Sydney Tye are names which stand out for their contribution to aviation progress. The Air Registration Board has been similarly fortunate in having men like the late Lord Brabazon and his successor, my noble friend Lord Kings Norton to take the chair. I know that my noble friend Lord Kings Norton would have wished to say something this afternoon, but he is abroad on business. I hope that he will be back in time to give his view at a later stage of this Bill. The Board itself, as I think the noble Lord will agree, is extraordinarily well balanced as between the different interests directly concerned. Why then disturb this position? Why not concentrate on making a success of the reconstitution of all the other responsibilities
614
which will be grouped under the new Authority?
I hope the Minister will be able to say that he has listened to the various representations that have been made, and that it is not too late to take them into account. I should also like to add this comment. If it is hoped to compromise with some form of Advisory Council, instead of the present Board, the power of that advisory body will have to be really effective if men of the right calibre are to be found to serve on the advisory body.
Finally, my Lords, I want to say one thing more about the effect of the announced route changes upon the fortunes of B.O.A.C.—and here I may well upset some of my own friends. The changes will be bad financially and psychologically. The staff, rightly, have protested. But I must say this: some of those who have protested most loudly have themselves, by their recent go-slow tactics, done more damage than Conservative Ministers. Those employed by the two Air Corporations are not among the lower-paid workers of this country. They cannot make out the same case as the Post Office workers, for example. They do not have any old-time capitalist boss to struggle with. They are privileged to be employed by a publicly owned, public-spirited organisation. Their masters are in truth their fellow citizens.
When, with others, I helped to set up those Corporations nearly a quarter of a century ago we always hoped that they would pioneer new social techniques as well as technological techniques. We spoke then of participation by the workers in the development of the organisations through which they earned a living and served the public. Many—indeed, one might say the majority—have responded. They have created modern advanced organisations of which they can be proud. But some—possibly a minority—talk more of wage-increase percentages than methods of management participation. Their action in hurting the travelling public is a more potent argument for private enterprise than anything the Government have said in favour of this Bill. I very much hope that the majority will ensure that the minority are not allowed to damage the good name of the Corporations which they serve. Meanwhile, my Lords, I hope that the Minister

615
will be able to answer the specific questions that I have asked, and will take into account what I have said in determining future policy.
4.30 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill and for making a reference to the Board of Trade announcement last August (which has saved me the trouble of requoting it to your Lordships) concerning the formation of the second-force airline, as it is to the formation of the second-force airline that I wish to confine my remarks this afternoon. So far as I understand it from what the noble Lord has already said, unless remunerative routes are transferred to this second force it must start off by being in the red; in fact, nonviable. Does not this point to the fact that if these routes are not transferred there is not enough business—and when I say "business" I mean payloads, passengers, freight and mail—to enable the new airline to establish itself?
The inference seems to me to be that it is essential that this new air force shall be viable from the word "Go". As a corollary, are we to assume that the private enterprise that backs it is not enterprising enough to go out after new business, pioneer new routes, and take the financial brunt of introducing new types of aircraft, in the way that State Corporations have done over the years, which has put them in the fine position they are in to-day? It seems that from its inception this new force is to be feather-bedded by being handed routes and frequencies that have been pioneered and built up over the years by the State Corporations—and, mark you! my Lords, by public money—otherwise, it will not be able to compete.
I have not seen any notice or suggestion that compensation is to be paid to the Corporations for handing over these routes—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has made strongly and well. I understand that neither British Overseas Airways Corporation nor British European Airways will hand over any of these routes voluntarily: that, I think, was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I have read that the earnings of the routes to be handed over will
616
represent only a small proportion of the Corporation's total earnings. But, large or small, does this not really mean the handing over of public money to private interests and investment?
What are the routes concerned? We are informed by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that very shortly we shall be told what they are. So far as I understand at the present moment, the proposals are to take over some of the Atlantic routes from B.O.A.C. and the routes to West Africa, notably to Ghana. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that there is possibly a proposal to take over some of the frequencies of the Paris route from B.E.A., if not this year then next year. I think I am right in saying that there was a proposal that B.E.A. should give up the Gibraltar route, but when the public and the Government of Gibraltar heard about it they raised such a hullabaloo that the proposal was hastily dropped. It may be that in respect of routes to other places similar trouble may arise locally. When it is proposed that the services they have had all these years should be given to somebody else, those concerned do not like it.
We have heard a good deal about competition, and it is perfectly true to say that healthy competition can and does make for better service. I would stress to your Lordships, however, that it can also make for bankruptcy. On this particular issue we are talking about—the flag-carrying of international civil aviation—I assure your Lordships (and I can do so from personal experience) that the competition put up by foreigners on the international routes is as much is, if not more than, the British can handle. There seems to be an illusion that if two operators are put on the same route the business is automatically increased. That is not so. One merely divides the capacity and the earnings, because when it comes to frequencies, which regulate the service, they are generally split 50/50 as between the British and their foreign opposite numbers. The foreigner is naturally not going to give up his 50 per cent. Therefore, if one is going to put a second operator, or a third operator, on the route one is merely dividing the British share of the business, to nobody's advantage.

617
If any of your Lordships are sceptical of what I am saying, I would counsel you to try to get in on some of the negotiations which the Foreign Office has to undertake in obtaining routes and permissions to fly foreign. To go a little further down the line, you might consider sitting in at some of the meetings of the International Air Transport Association, I.A.T.A., which deal with fares and even meals: the size of meals to be taken on aircraft is argued, discussed and agreed. I can assure your Lordships that the competition is fierce and the battles are tough. I know, because I have been at some of them.
On the object of forming this second airline, after listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said I hazard a guess that the intention is to make sure that some of the bigger independent airline companies are kept in being, with qualified staffs, their fleets, and the technique and know-how which they have built up; and, secondly, there is the desire to increase the British share of world markets in civil aviation. With regard to the first, I think everyone will agree that some of the large independent companies have done a very good job and have provided considerable travelling facilities for the general public, notably in the charter field. On the second issue, I repeat that it is a fallacy that one can increase business by putting a second or even a third operator on to an existing route. The frequencies are decided by international agreement, and so the payloads are merely split up. When routes have been established and run for many years it is surely not a good plan to change horses in mid-stream and put in somebody else to operate them. To increase new business you need to go out for new routes and improve the methods of the business you already have. If it is in the public interest that this second force is to be formed, would it not be better that it be induced to set about improving its existing business, to go out after new business, and pioneer new routes in the way the Corporations have done, rather than that it should be made viable from the start by hiving off routes from the State Corporations—which I submit is not in the public interest?
4.38 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate, including the expert speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, who has a full knowledge of this matter. While I do not want to introduce any asperity, I want to introduce a little iconoclasm in respect of the speech delivered by the noble Lord who spoke first. It is very important at this juncture to look at the purpose behind this little Bill. I thought at first that I was at a Welsh funeral, where some of our Welsh colleagues receive such great praises that, if they are not on the right hand of the Lord Himself, I have no doubt they are not very far away. But when we look at this Bill in a little more depth we see that its purpose, more than anything else, is to prevent British Overseas Airways Corporation and others from taking up a legitimate case against the Government, as I think they could rightly do.
If I wanted to define in one sentence the policy of the Government, I would say it is now almost axiomatic that they have become Conservative Maoists. Their purpose and their philosophy is to socialise the losses and private-ise the profits of enterprise. We were told (I will not quote the exact words), rather brashly, by the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. John Davies, a fellow Welshman, that people were existing in the morass of a subsidised existence. We were told that public enterprise never showed any zip or any talents for making profits; that it needed the fierce winds of competition. I can say with knowledge here that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have suffered the fierce winds of competition from every corner of the earth. Like most noble Lords in this Chamber, I have had the privilege of travelling pretty well all over the world many times, and I have always been proud to be travelling with B.O.A.C. or in any of our aircraft. I have always had a sense of security about their safety. I have had a great sense of security about the aircraft of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and I have been privileged to have as a friend of mine a senior captain on one of these great routes.
I happened to be in the South Pacific when the great conference was being held

619
and this nationalised industry of the airlines was dynamic enough to be holding discussions in Honolulu with Americans, Australians, Japanese and others about the new routes that are being developed in the South Sea Islands between Tahiti, Samoa, Fiji and Western Samoa. All that area is expanding. Small island territories like Tonga are building hotels—in Tonga, for instance, they are building the Dateline Hotel—and these are being prepared for the new type of holiday-maker coming in from New Zealand and Australia. In this area our publicly owned airlines were behind no one so far as enterprise, enthusiasm and (this is a point I should like someone to take up) in trying to charge a fare that would be lower than any other in the Pacific area.
What is the purpose of the Bill? As I have said, in my view State industry is under attack. I do not want to be too bitter about this, but I regret that the philosophy of this Government seems to be the most abrasive Conservative philosophy that we have seen for a long time. I think it is just as abrasive—and I am old enough to remember it—as that of the Government of 1931, if one takes the relative increased affluence throughout the world. There seems to be some absurd view that by doing these things we shall get rid of the incubus of inflation that now spreads all over the world.
What is the fact about this acquisitive society in which we live, whether in the United States of America or anywhere in the Common Market, which is receiving great eulogies at the present moment? We are all suffering from inflation, and I regret to say that none of these things, such as robbing and hi-jacking B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., will in any way increase the economic health of this country. Lest it be said that I have exaggerated the position, I took the trouble to look up some references, and I find that a quiet, sedate magazine and weekly journal like the Economist describes this as coming close to making a gift of public assets to private investors. We had a typical example in 1962, when there was the B.O.A.C.-Cunard deal, very similar to the present one.
We were told in the other place the other day, when, incidentally, two Ministers contradicted one another, that this
620
would be the one and only bite at the cherry. From the speech to which I listened to-day—and I apologise because I had to move out of the Chamber for a while—that now seems to be contradicted again. If B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are cut away, and if they increase their trade and their opportunities and develop new airlines there is no guarantee, despite this Bill, that another bite at that cherry will not be taken.
Again, I should like to point out that when the Edwards Committee spoke about the new second-force airline they were remarkably sympathetic to the private airlines. In fact, when the Labour Government were in power they were by no means as doctrinaire as this Government because even in the Edwards Committee we found a slight justification (but not without compensation, as in this case) for some activities on the part of private airlines. They wanted to form a merger of British United Airways and Caledonian Airways, British and Commonwealth Shipping, which owns 92 per cent. of B.U.A. share capital. They agreed earlier to sell some of this, and at that time B.U.A. was one of the largest private airlines in existence. This plan was not approved by the Labour Government, but the proposal now is that Caledonian Airways should take over B.U.A. It is interesting to note the names of the principal shareholders. The Minister, Mr. Noble, speaking in another place the other day, was asked by a Member where the money would come from. He replied, "I am not concerned where the money comes from". That is a new philosophy for a Conservative Government and I want to know whether the noble Lord agrees with that. We were told categorically in the other place that the Party in power is not concerned where the money comes from. Are they not concerned whether it is Russian money, American money or anybody else's money?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I wish to make a small point because I do not think it would be wise to let this go further. It is, of course, necessary for the companies to be British owned in order that they may get licences.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Well, my Lords, that should have been made clear.

621
The noble Lord says that it is necessary for the companies to be British owned in order for them to get a licence. But there is nothing to stop an American company or any other company from having a share so long as it does not have the major holding. The principal shareholders of Caledonian Airways include Sir Isaac Wolfson's Great Universal Stores; the owner of Global Tours, one of the main travel tour operators in the country; Lyle Shipping, a Scottish shipping company; Hogarth Shipping; National and Commercial Development, the merchant banking subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland; the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation; and Airways Interests (Thomson), whose head is Mr. Adam Thomson, the Chairman of Caledonian. But these are by no means all the private interests involved. It was stated in the Daily Telegraph that about £30 million will be needed to complete the deal, and that this is being supplied by financial backers whose identity was not known to Mr. Noble, the President of the Board of Trade, when he announced the deal on August 3. He said that it was not his job to ask where the money would come from.
Caledonian Airways subsequently declared that they were British, although the Daily Telegraph said that 4 per cent. of their shares were held by Scottish Air International, an American firm. I want to know—and I think we should be told—whether this is true. I think it is a proof of the brashness and of the doctrinaire approach of this Government, who are rushing in where angels fear to tread. This is a purely doctrinaire piece of activity. As I said that I did not want to develop this subject too bitterly, I should like to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he can guarantee to your Lordships that the money that will be in this concern will be money that is entirely British and that there will be no outside interest in it whatsoever. Quite frankly, I do not believe that at this juncture that guarantee can be given to either House of Parliament.
Finally, I think this matter is of importance all over the world, if we are worshipping, and if we are falling for, the apotheosis of profit at the expense of safety. I want to know whether the safety factor will be as high with these interests as it has been with the public airways
622
concerned. In the special review of safety performance of United Kingdom airline operators published by the Board of Trade in 1968 it was shown that the safety levels of the private airlines were significantly lower than those of the Air Corporations over the 10-year period between 1955 and 1965. Perhaps this is an appropriate note on which to end this (I hope not too long) speech, for to me this question of safety is of more concern than the profit factor. I know that so far as the second Bill is concerned there are the borrowing powers, but before B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. had those borrowing powers they informed the Government of their new projects, their hopes of advancing into the most modern types of plane in the world today. I want to know that we are not having the same brash approach to safety as the President of the Board of Trade had to the question of the money being put into this concern.
This Administration's approach is the same all along the line. Now it is even becoming so undignified that it is after the poor beer houses of Carlisle because they are making a little profit. This is nothing like the Conservative Party of history. It is a Poujadist back-seat Tory Government that is just about capable of running a fish-and-chip shop, and swanking about it. I sincerely regret its unphilosophical and unpatriotic approach to British airways.
4.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I do not think I could possibly follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, even in his jocular vein, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will deal with his arguments very satisfactorily. I would remind the noble Lord that a Government White Paper was published a year ago by the Party then in power which I think answered many of the questions he raised to-day. If he would like me to send him a copy, I should be glad to do so.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Denham on the clear and lucid way in which he introduced this Bill. He is no newcomer to aviation; if my memory serves me, he used to reply on behalf of the Government in 1963. It is notable that he has missed taking part in aviation matters for the past six years. I should also like to congratulate the Government on introducing, not this

623
"sad Bill", as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, described it, but indeed this very important Bill, in a very proper and firm way. They have immediately implemented a policy they announced soon after taking office. If I may say so again to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, it took his Party over twelve months to come to any conclusion at all, and then a pretty unsatisfactory one.
The advantage of setting up a strong second force is, I think, generally accepted, and was certainly clearly stated in the Edwards Committee Report, and the need for this second force to have a greater share of the scheduled services, at present running at about 7 per cent., is again, I think, accepted on the ground that the second force must have a viable route structure. How one achieves this is apparently now in doubt. The Party opposite have taken a very curious change of policy in the last few months. Despite their support of the Edwards Committee, who in fact stated that they felt that a second force should get a greater share of the scheduled services, and despite their declaration in their White Paper, they apparently claim now that all the transfer of services could be achieved by agreement.
One finds this very difficult to understand or to believe when one sees the reaction of both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Indeed, I am sure that they are right, because as trustees of great public corporations both Boards could hardly willingly give away any of their scheduled services, either in the interests of their finances or of their staff; and one respects them for that. In my view, the Government have taken the only correct action, in introducing this Bill and clearly recognising the importance of the delicate balance of building up a viable second force without causing any real permanent damage to the Corporations.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me? Does he contend that this will increase the volume of traffic?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I think that in time it will undoubtedly increase traffic, when one gets the competitive benefits that will accrue, particularly on the dual designation routes. I wish, if I may say so, the second force every success; and, my goodness! they
624
need it. They are going into the business in a climate in which the airline business generally throughout the world is in a state of depression. They are having to find great sums of money to equip with modern aircraft, and despite this they have found their financial support in what must be a very high risk investment.
Turning briefly to the reaction to this Bill in another place, I deeply regret the irresponsible threats (to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred) that were made in another place: that if or when, in due course, the other Party returned to power the second force routes would be returned to the Corporations. I consider this a very irresponsible way to behave, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not follow in their footsteps. The noble Lord, if I may say so, has always been an enlightened aviation spokesman for the other Party in this House. I was also sorry to see the pounding of the trade union breasts over what must clearly have been a political interest, and I hope that, now that the dust has settled and, as I understand, agreement has been reached, and all the jobs are secure and on the same terms, the second force will be given a fair chance to make a fair start.
I turn to the scheduled services to be transferred. One appreciates that this is a very complicated business involving bilateral agreements. I hope that the Government will see that the dual-designation services will be implemented so far as possible, particularly on the routes to Paris and on the routes over the Atlantic. I was glad also to see that in another place the Government did give an undertaking—and I hope my noble friend will repeat it this evening—that this transfer of routes for setting up the second force airline will be once and for all. I think that in an earlier Statement the Minister said that they are now on their own. This is obviously important for the Corporations, both for their management and for staff. I do not think the Corporations have been particularly complimented today, but they have done a tremendous job over the last twenty years and I personally have the greatest admiration for the way in which they have been operated. I still believe they will have a great future, despite what one has heard from the other side. If no undertaking had been given that this would be a once

625
for all effort, then of course it would have weakened their position.
Finally, I would ask my noble friend how soon the scheduled services will be transferred to the second force airline? How far have the discussions got? And will the financial targets of the Corporations be reviewed at that time? I believe that the Air Corporations Bill emphasises the enormous sums of capital needed now for long-haul operations. I understand that we are dealing separately with that Bill. I conclude by saying that I welcome this Bill. I do not accept what the other side have said about its effects. I believe that it will be warmly received.
5.0 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to the sad news (which no doubt your Lordships saw in the newspapers this morning) of the closing by the Government of the Skyways Coach-Air cross-Channel services. I declare an interest in that I am a director of this company. I have no financial interest, but I represent other interests in the company. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, the Transport Holding Company on behalf of the Government own a 50 per cent. interest in the equity of this company, and there are a substantial number of debentures as a prior charge.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out, Mr. Rylands (with whom I have been associated for close on twenty years) was a pioneer in coach-air services. It may interest your Lordships to know that the first services were those from Blackpool across to the Isle of Man. That service was run in conjunction with the Ribble Motor Services. Right from the start this coach-air service proved to be popular. In the industrial North people started their journey by coach, then continued by aircraft across the water to the Isle of Man.
Then opportunity arose to expand this short-haul, across-the-water service, linked with coaches, to the English Channel. Your Lordships will remember the Silver City Company which operated from Lympne Airport. They ceased to operate from that airport and went to another airport not far away, called Lydd. That move gave Skyways Coach-Air the opportunity
626
to acquire Lympne Airport, recently (some 18 months ago) renamed Ashford Airport by the Prime Minister. Skyways Coach-Air now own this airport, which is the oldest civil airport in the country. Indeed, I remember that some 53 years ago I landed a Camel there for refuelling when on my way to France. So I have long and happy memories of that civil airport which, in two world wars, has been of great advantage for military aviation as well.
These coach-air services across to the Continent—mainly to Beauvais for Paris, more recently extended to Ostend for Brussels, and down to the centre of France to Clermont Ferrand and further South to Montpelier, with special flights to Basle, and so on—have been of immense value to students and others who cannot afford the full air fare. Close on 1 million passengers have been carried by this form of service, without injury to anybody, over the last 12 or 15 years. This record of service to the public cannot be lightly brushed aside in this way. The company has struggled along, gradually improving Ashford Airport runways and installing modern facilities. These improvements are still in progress.
In 1969, the company made a profit on the total capital invested in the business. In 1970, there was a loss of some £50,000. That loss was due to circumstances quite outside the company's control; namely, to restrictions on travel imposed on the French public by the French Government. This company earns an immense amount of foreign exchange. It is not like B.E.A., which has to share with Air France and other companies. Foreign exchange which is earned in France by passengers travelling from France to here is earned for the benefit of this country.
Last year, this company was faced with political conditions quite outside their control. They were exceptional conditions. But there was another factor of great importance. At Whitsuntide, which is a highly profitable time for the company to operate, contrary to their agreement the ground staff went on unofficial strike. The strike was also contrary to trade union agreement. Thus, instead of the company making a big profit, a heavy loss was incurred, because aircraft could not operate. But, worse than that, in August, again a most profitable time of operation for the company, the ground

627
staff threatened to go on strike again. That, more than anything else, has meant that there has been a shortfall in cash during the winter months to carry the company through to the very profitable operations of the summer. So these unofficial strikers, by their deliberate action, have now put not only themselves but hundreds of other people as well out of a job—as well as preventing the public from getting across the Channel, and otherwise inconveniencing them, although nobody will be prevented from being carried by other means in the coming weeks.
What, then, is happening? In the autumn the company has plenty of cash, but it needs money to see it through the lean winter period. Last autumn, not only the board of Skyways but the Transport Holding Company had a good look at future prospects. They considered whether the company should be closed down or kept in being. It was decided that the prospects were very good. The budget estimate for this year was a profit of £200,000 for the servicing of the total capital invested. This figure was looked at by the Transport Holding Company, and it was agreed that £300,000 should, if necessary, be available to see the company through. Provided that there were no unforeseen conditions beyond the control of the company it was expected that it could be shown again to be a viable commercial proposition.
What happened then to make the Government intervene? So far as the record of the company is concerned, nothing. It is running exactly to budget. The figures are 25 per cent. up on the carriage of passengers. Profitability is quite in order. Why, then, should the Minister, early in December suddenly—this was the first I heard about it—say that within 48 hours a receiver must be put in? I told the Minister, "You are crazy. We are just about to enter into a profitable operation over Christmas and the New Year. Are you really going to put a lot of people out of work suddenly like this, and upset all those people who have booked to go across the Channel for Christmas and the New Year? You must be mad." He said, "I am going to do it." We then managed to get somebody to agree to put down a deposit of £50,000 to implement the purchasing of the whole business, and the disaster was staved off.
628
In spite of fog, snow, and other difficulties, the passengers were carried according to budget, and a very substantial profit was made.
In the meantime, the directors—not the Transport Holding Company directors, but the other directors—got busy. Of two big groups one was prepared to go ahead with any amount of money, and another was so interested that they put down £100,000 in cash as deposit to complete at the end of this month. Having done that, they were told that, as from yesterday, they must accept all liabilities of this company, whatever they may be, until completion day in ten days' time. They said, "This is not reasonable. It is not fair or right. We cannot accept unknown liabilities. We are a very big company." They are the biggest in the world in their line of business.
There are tens of thousands of employees, any amount of money, and the company wanted to do the business. Nevertheless, the Minister was adamant. He said, "No", and so the axe came down. Scheduled services are stopping, and people are being put out of work. I really do not understand the sense of this. I entirely agree with the policy and principle of the Government in getting out of what ought to be commercial operations—that is right without any doubt at all—but surely what is important is the timing and the method. The Transport Holding Company, and the directors of this company, when they made the decision to carry on, took a good look at it. They said, "If we meet our budget and make our profit, very well, we carry on. We have a viable commercial proposition. If, on the other hand, we do not meet it, the time to close down in an orderly fashion—when we can get far more money for our assets, our aircraft and the aerodrome—without entering into future commitments, is September". And all plans were made to do so. You do not close down now when two-thirds of the winter is through, when you are through most of the worst period, and when your bookings and prospects are exactly according to budget. It just does not make sense. It is not commercial.
I deplore this hasty and, what I believe to be, unnecessary action in closing down

629
at this moment without giving the directors of Skyways Coach-Air the opportunity to find the money—which they could have found given a reasonable amount of time. After all, the Transport Holding Company took 15 months to decide to come into this business—and they came into it because, as we all know, they originally had an interest in all the buses all over the country and it was a very natural tying up. Of course Transport Holding Company, as your Lordships know, own Thomas Cook & Sons and Lunn-Poly, and so forth. There could not be a more appropriate and desirable link-up. Since the Government are getting rid of Thomas Cook, quite rightly, and Lunn-Poly, quite rightly, there is no point in keeping Skyways Coach-Air on, but it should not be thrown away in this irresponsible manner. Surely it should be done in an orderly and proper fashion. I quite deplore what I would describe as the unnecessary destruction of a service which for all these years, to a million or more people, has given the most wonderful value, and has brought foreign exchange to this country. This action can only be to the disadvantage of the taxpayer.
5.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, until this afternoon I had no intention of coming in on this debate, any more than had the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, for whom I have considerable sympathy. After listening to the noble Lord's moving of this Bill and to various other matters, I begin to smell a smell of cream about this business which I do not like. I am all the more suspicious because a miasma of this smell hangs about many other transactions of this Government.
Let me explain myself. Everybody knows that in any large business, whether it be a public corporation or a major private business, some parts of the business are more profitable than others. That is perfectly normal. It often happens that it pays the owners of the business, the managers of the business, whether it be public or private, to hive off and sell off part of the business for the purpose of reinvesting the capital in the rest of the business. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it is reasonable whether
630
it is a private business or a public corporation. I have no feelings about nationalisation or denationalisation, or anything like that, which would make me take a different attitude; if it was a public corporation or a private business, I would accept it as a reasonable thing to do.
However, it is possible that it is not done voluntarily by the managers of the business but is forced upon them from outside by a Government for purposes which are quite different. It is sometimes forced on them by a Government for the purpose of taking a profitable part of the business and selling it off—or it even appears, in a case like this, of giving it away to somebody for political purposes. As I say, there is a name for this; it is "creaming".
It would be perfectly possible for a Government—I do not believe this is possible even for this Government, although I begin to have suspicions—to do this with, say, the Post Office. For example, we all know that to post and transmit a letter from one address in London to another costs rather less than a penny, because such an enormous number of letters is passing to and fro over a short distance; whereas to transmit a letter from one address to another in the Highlands of Scotland costs about 5s. What is happening is that the Post Office subsidise the transmission of letters in the Highlands of Scotland from its profitable business in London. It would be perfectly possible for a Government, deeply wedded to the idea of private enterprise, to hive off the postage of letters in London to a private corporation, who would do it profitably at a very much cheaper rate.
The public corporation would have to "carry the can" of the unprofitable sector of the business. It would have to raise its prices much higher and would be accused of making losses as a public corporation. What would actually have happened would be that it had been robbed, and the public had been robbed. They would have been robbed of the profits from the profitable part of the business, which would have gone into other people's pockets, and the public would find themselves paying through higher prices, through taxation, subsidy, and all the rest of it, for the resultant loss forced on the public corporation.

631
As we all know, the reason why the airlines have been given a monopoly of certain profitable routes is that, as public corporations, they have the absolute duty to carry certain unprofitable air routes. They cannot just throw them away, any more than the Post Office can throw away the business of distributing letters in the Highlands of Scotland. I am not an expert in the airways field, but it seems to ordinary people such as myself that there is a distinct smell of cream, of skimming the cream off the business and giving it away for the purpose of making somebody else's business more profitable. I hope I am wrong. It may be that the words "Cream for the boys" are only a murmur at the moment; but if this sort of thing goes on, they will be louder than a murmur; they can become a shout. They can become a trumpet call like the call that brought down the walls of Jericho. If so, they may well become a trumpet call that brings down a majority on the heads of noble Lords opposite.
5.19 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the core of the debate to-day is whether or not there should be a second force airline. The noble Lord shakes his head, and I know he thinks that this is not so, but I hope to show that if we are to have a second force airline we should not have been able to act differently from the way in which we have acted. I quite understand that political suspicions are bound to come under consideration in circumstances of this type. I sincerely believe that, just as the noble Viscount has said that it has been his endeavour to keep politics out of aviation, the Government are doing the same and I hope I shall be able to show that.
We listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who speaks with greater knowledge of civil aviation from the Ministerial side than anybody else in this House, or in the other place. I can remember him speaking as Parliamentary Secretary. Even in those days he had much more knowledge than I had and to-day he has immense experience behind him. But I thought he jumped to conclusions once or twice. I do not complain at all of his introducing the subject of Skyways. Furthermore, I certainly do not complain of my noble friend Lord Wakefield of
632
Kendal speaking to-day as a director of the company. As I understood it, his complaint was that the Government have probably done the right thing at the wrong time. Of course the whole country is sad when a private civil airline is liable to go out of operation.
I have been asked about the reports appearing in the Press to-day about Skyways, and it may be helpful if I make a statement about the events leading up to the appointment of a Receiver for Skyways last night. Since the Transport Holding Company acquired a half share of the equity capital of Skyways for £27,000 in 1967, they have had to lend the company £1½ million to keep it going. That includes secured interest. The background is that after last summer, when it became apparent that the company would make a substantial loss in 1970, the Transport Holding Company informed the Government that up to another £300,000 would be needed to help keep the company going through the winter. They sought consent to lend this money on the basis that it would enable the various alternatives to be explored, including the sale of the company or eventual liquidation. However, Skyways is essentially a high risk venture and, after careful consideration, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries informed the Transport Holding Company on December 3 that, in view of the company's past record, the scale of its liabilities to the Transport Holding Company in relation to the likely value of the assets, and the size of the traffic increase needed to meet the forecast budget in 1971, he did not consider that further public funds should be committed for this purpose.
Nevertheless, my right honourable friend agreed that the Transport Holding Company should be given an opportunity to try to find a buyer for their interest in the company. Since then the Transport Holding Company have made every effort to do so. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful and both the Government and the Transport Holding Company consider there is now no justification for putting further money into Skyways. It is of course open to other airlines to apply for licences to run these services. The Department would be ready to consider granting an exemption to an airline for this purpose if it was necessary before

633
the licensing processes could be completed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, surely the critical factor here is how much time was allowed for finding this separate money.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend will be able to correct me on that, but I think it was on December 3 that they asked for this to be done.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, if it will help my noble friend, may I say that 48 hours was all the notice I had. Perhaps I may correct my noble friend on this point. I know of no efforts which the Transport Holding Company made to find other buyers. All the efforts, which were highly successful, were made not by the directors of the Transport Holding Company who were on the Skyways Coach-Air board but by the other directors, and, as I have told your Lordships, the intensive efforts made at a few days' notice were highly successful. That is my complaint: that a fair and reasonable opportunity has not been given to enable the implementation of the £100,000 deposit already put down for completion at the end of the month. That is not the way to carry out commercial transactions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I note my noble friend's criticism of the way in which these things have been done, and also his criticism of the timing. But this decision has been taken and I have discharged my duty of informing the House of the basis on which it was taken.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have listened to this discussion as a complete outsider and layman, but it seems that the crux of the whole matter, which has not been answered, is why the Government did not give an opportunity for these deposits to be implemented. If the company could have carried on—been given a few days' grace—they should have been allowed to do so, because a great deal of public money is involved, in the sense of people having invested money for their holidays. That is a major consideration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord places me in a difficulty, because
634
I, too, read of these matters in the newspapers only this morning and I am not in a position to answer his criticism, which I shall of course pass on to my right honourable friend. But I am quite certain that my right honourable friend took the decision in what he thought was the course of his duty and in good faith.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I think this matter of such importance that, out of fairness to this House, it would be a good thing if the Minister could arrange for a Statement when there has been time for consideration. This matter has been introduced into the debate en passant, and it would be a good thing if we could get a firm statement, which we deserve so that we may know exactly what the position is.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give to this matter the same consideration as the previous Government did to British Eagle?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is a rather different question. In view of the obvious interest which your Lordships have taken in this matter, I will certainly discuss it with my right honourable friend and my noble friend the Leader of the House, and see whether it will be appropriate at a later time to inform your Lordships further. Of course, it will always be open to any of your Lordships to explore the matter further in the usual ways.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that will of course be acceptable and we shall appreciate it if it is done. But is the Minister quite sure that nothing more can be done to help keep the organisation going? Is it really good enough to wash one's hands of the affair like this? If it is a matter of tiding the company over for a short time—and we understand from the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, that it is only a matter of a short time—surely some assistance can be given.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I understand the matter action in putting in a Receiver has already been taken. I am not a lawyer and I am not certain what that entails as regards any further action to help in this matter. But I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said,

635
and I hope that there will be a good outcome from what is obviously a sad affair.
My Lords, as I said, what we are really discussing is whether or not there should be a second force, and I think it would be well if I were to start by quoting from the Edwards Report, to make this quite clear. The Edwards Report said, in paragraph 591:
"A considerable effort is worth making to bring about the second force we propose. The combined experience, resources and skills of the best and strongest of the private airlines would provide a strong addition to Britain's civil aviation strength".
But they also said, in paragraph 421:
"The second force is bound to require some concession of territory from B.O.A.C.; the question is how much and on what terms".
My Lords, that is the context in which we are debating this Bill to-day.
In introducing the Bill, my noble friend made the case for a second force airline and I think quite faithfully reported the attitude of the Party opposite in this regard—and indeed there has not been a very great deal of difference between the Parties on this matter. As he said, the attitude of the Labour Party was to express a welcome in principle to the idea of companies getting together and forming a second force airline, but, they said, with the reservation that there should be no significant transfer of routes. At the same time they also accepted double designation in appropriate cases. Furthermore, they also rejected the idea of State participation.
My Lords, perhaps it would simplify things if I went back a little to see the choice that was open to the Government at the time. The obvious candidate to form the nucleus of a second force was British United Airways. They had proved themselves in South America, thereby demonstrating the obvious advantage of an alternative airline. Had an alternative airline not been in existence when B.O.A.C. decided to withdraw from South America, the British share of the market would then have been lost. They were the obvious nucleus. But they saw no prospect of a transfer of routes sufficient to make what they considered a viable second force, and there were therefore only three courses open to them: absorption by B.O.A.C., liquidation or merger with Caledonian. This was still the situation confronting the new Government
636
last June, the last Government having in the meantime withheld permission for B.O.A.C. to acquire B.U.A.
The Government had to decide, as their predecessors would have had to decide, whether there should be a transfer of routes without which any possibility of a viable second force was illusory, because with the possibility of B.U.A. going into liquidation if it could not be acquired either by Caledonian or by B.O.A.C., and with the key to this matter being the ability of Caledonian to finance therefore the take-over of B.U.A., it was essential that there should be a viable basis for the merger. So the Government decided to accept the Edwards Committee's recommendation, and they announced their decision on August 3 last. I placed a copy of this Paper in the Library, and those of your Lordships who were interested have no doubt seen it. But perhaps I may quote from it. In paragraph 3 it was stated:
"The Government wish the private sector of the civil aviation industry to be given the opportunity to form by amalgamation a 'second force' airline that would till the role of second flag carrier on major international routes as well as sustaining extensive charter services. Such an airline, combining the resources and skills of British United and Caledonian, could provide a powerful additional source of airline management and innovation; its existence would permit the licensing of a second British carrier on those international routes such as the North Atlantic where this should increase the traffic carried by British airlines; and it could serve those domestic routes where it was desirable to offer the public a choice of airlines".
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, asked whether it would necessarily increase the traffic to have double designation. Not in itself; but with the competition which might lead to increased innovation, better service to the public and so on, they might well be able to attract a higher share of the traffic.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he say just a little more on this increase in traffic, because, at a time when the airlines, not only of this country—in fact, less in this country; but certainly the American airlines—are finding it very difficult to make any profit at all, and have grossly over-estimated the increase of traffic, I find it difficult to understand how we can assume that we shall get more traffic.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As my noble friend said in an intervention here, I think this would not come about overnight. It would be a question of developing a larger share of the available and ever-increasing traffic: because it is, after all, increasing at the rate of about 14 per cent. a year. It is a fact, as the noble Lord knows well, that there is an over-provision, particularly on the American side, of capacity at the present time. I do not think that that necessarily applies to all parts of the world, but undoubtedly this might make it more difficult to increase the share in the early stages. Nevertheless, we should hope that by licensing a second force (this, of course, is not a matter for the Government, but we will come to that later) it would be possible, when the new air company felt able to make an application for a share of the Atlantic route, to accommodate them in it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, all the noble Lord's arguments are directed to the situation of double designation, but that is quite irrelevant to the routes we are talking about. There is no double designation along the West African routes. How, then, can there be competition along there?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps if there were fewer interventions I should not have to direct my arguments to those interventions. I merely made a passing reference to double designation as not very much had been said about it. I think I should also put on record what the statement of August 3 said about the second force airline and the transfers. It said:
"The Government therefore consider that some exceptional transfer of routes from the public sector—and possibly some rationalisation including an exchange of routes—will be necessary in the first instance, though not as a continuing process, in order to provide the new airline with a sufficient basis at the outset."
I shall come back to this, so perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue painting in the background.
It has been said that there should be some modest transfer of routes. Noble Lords will have in mind, of course, that the revenue of the B.O.A.C. last year was very nearly £200 million, and the combined turnover of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. together was about £324 million.
638
The proposal is for a transfer of routes not exceeding 2½ or 3 per cent. of B.O.A.C.'s current revenue. My Lords, the choice, then, was either to cede (if that is the right expression) a block of routes, a package of routes, at the present time, so as to make a viable base for a second force, or else to lose the opportunity to have a second force at the present time at all. This was the choice which the Government had to face. It would not make sense to transfer a route which was unprofitable, because that would not form the basis of a sound operation.
I have been asked about this and I can say that one block of routes, the West African block, has already been announced. I am not in a position to announce the rest of the package to-day; but it will be announced shortly, and it will be within the scope of what was contained in the Government Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we were going to get clarification; but in fact we had increased confusion. B.O.A.C. have been told that this was a once-and-for-all operation. The Minister is now saying that the rest of the package will be announced shortly. Does he mean that B.O.A.C. are to be required to make further sacrifices?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would rather not be drawn at all on the exact amount of the package until we are in a position to announce the package. It is the package that is once and for all. This will be announced all at once, and it will then be possible for it to be judged.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord?—because assurances have been given to B.O.A.C. in this matter of the package. Are more routes to be taken from B.O.A.C.? Will he give a straightforward answer to that question? I am not asking him to describe them; I am simply asking whether B.O.A.C. will be asked to make further sacrifice of routes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a matter that is still under consideration, and I regret to tell the noble Lord that I am not in a position to say exactly what the whole package will be. This will be announced at the appropriate time, and I hope that it will be in quite a short time.

639
The question is asked: why should these arrangements not be carried out in the normal way, by application to the Air Transport Licensing Board for route licences and for revocation of existing route licences? And why should the Government use the powers of exemption from the need to be authorised by an air service licence and of making an order that the Air Corporation should not continue to provide air services on particular routes? The Government recognised in their announcement that it was important that the new airlines should be formed as quickly as possible and should have the new routes by the summer of 1971. Therefore the answer to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull is that the hope is that these new routes will be in operation on April 1. There was a strong likelihood that if there were undue delay the second force airline would not come into existence at all; and if it came into existence, then the longer the delay, the larger the package of transfers would have had to have been if the second force airline was to make a return on capital sufficient to attract investors.
There was no certainty that the Air Transport Licensing Board would be able to complete its examination of applications in time to meet this programme. The Air Corporations could hardly have been expected not to contest them. If the Government have the powers, why do they need this Bill?—that was another question implicit in what the noble Lord said. The answers are, first, that there have been suggestions that the powers do not cover the use the Government propose to make of them; and, secondly, it it a fact that the Bill gives Parliament the opportunity to discuss the policy of a second force airline. The Government are satisfied that they have the powers.
Perhaps I may at this point inform the House of what was said at an earlier stage. An Order made under Section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act 1967, it is suggested, cannot limit the basic powers of the Air Corporations to provide transport services but only their ancillary powers—for example, to provide hotels. As to that suggestion, I would say that the history of that section is significant. The section is derived through two consolidations from Section 2(5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1946. In the course of the
640
debate on the 1946 Bill the Attorney General of the day, the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, made it clear that its purpose was to enable the Corporations to be restrained, if need be, not only from engaging in activities ancillary to the provision of air transport services but also from engaging in activities of any kind which might be contrary to the policy of the Government and of Parliament. That was in Standing Committee B's final Report on May 23, 1946, and is reported in columns 169 and 170. So there was never any doubt as to the intention of Parliament and the use of these powers.
I am asked also whether the powers will be used again? The Government have given the fullest possible assurances that the powers will not be used again for further transfers of this kind. If, however, one airline were to withdraw from providing certain essential air services, it is important that there should still be powers to enable those services to be maintained by another operator pending the completion of the licensing requirements. The final form of these powers will be presented when the proposed Bill to set up a Civil Aviation Authority and Airways Board is introduced.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must again interrupt the noble Lord. What he has just said surely contradicts what he said earlier. The assurance upon which the Corporation is relying is that these powers will not be used in order to transfer more routes in this way—or whatever the exact words are. Yet the noble Lord earlier said that there will be further transfers; that the package is not yet compelte. Are B.O.A.C. to sacrifice additional routes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There have been no transfers so far; there has been no package. The package referred to in the announcement of August 3 has not yet been fully decided. That is the position.
I go on to deal with the mechanics of route transfers. Once all the routes to be transferred have been identified and announced, an order will be made, if necessary, under Section 3(5) of the Air Corporation Acts 1967 soon after the Bill receives the Royal Assent, so as to limit B.O.A.C.'s powers in respect of

641
routes to be transferred. This order will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure and it will be debateable. One or more exemptions will be made if necessary under Section 1(3) of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act 1960 to enable Caledonian/B.U.A. to start to serve the transferred routes on the due date; that is, April 1, 1971. This action will be necessary only if the licensing procedures are not completed in time; and this will not be known until nearer the time.
The next question which emerges is this: does not the use of the powers cut right across the Air Transport Licensing Board's procedure? The powers exist now, and have long existed side by side with the Air Transport Licensing Board. Even if the Government make an Order under Section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act, this will impose no greater limitation on the Air Transport Licensing Board's choice than if, for any reason, an airline ceased to serve a route—for example, it might be Skyway—whether voluntarily, as in the case of B.O.A.C.'s South American service or, another example, B.U.A.'s decision two years ago to stop their service to Alderney; or involuntarily as in the case of an airline going out of business. The powers may not have to be used.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can add a little more confusion to the clarity. What he has just said is that these routes will not be transferred until the due processes of the Air Transport Licensing Board have been completed. That is what the noble Lord said. Is that not so?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD BESWICK: I am paraphrasing what the noble Lord said. I advise him to read what he has said. He has said that it will have to go before the Air Transport Licensing Board and the procedures will have to be completed. That is what he said; and I am about to ask this: suppose, when it goes before the Air Transport Licensing Board, they say, "No, we cannot agree to this because we do not think it is in the best interests of British civil aviation", what happens then?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lords' trouble is that he is so
642
eager and impatient. If only he would wait until I had completed what I was trying to say, he would get the answer.
My Lords, if at the last moment my right honourable friend does use his powers of exemption under Section 1(3) of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act 1960 so that Caledonian/B.U.A. could start serving the new routes even though the licensing process had not been completed, he will follow the normal practice, which is to say that the exemptions are without prejudice to the eventual decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board. In any event—and this is the answer to the noble Lord; I think he talked about the matter being referred to the Air Transport Licensing Board with a direction—there is no reference to the Air Transport Licensing Board. It is straight application and there is no direction. In any event, Caledonian/B.U.A. will have to satisfy the licensing authority that they are fit and competent in all respects, including being under British control, to be granted the licences for which they will be applying.
If noble Lords choose to look at the Civil Aviation Air Licensing Act, they will see that it is there laid down in Section 2 and Section 4 what considerations the Air Transport Licensing Board must have regard to. Among them is the financial considerations, which are important. Also, of course, there are the questions of the nationality of the applicant. It is laid down quite clearly that a licence cannot be given where the ownership of the applicant is not substantially in British hands. The noble Lord said that 4 per cent. of the capital of Caledonian was in the hands of an American company. That of course is diluted by the time you come to the capital of B.U.A. and Caledonian combined. I understand that in fact the ownership is less than 2 per cent. But the noble Lord may wish to know that this is a body of Scottish patriot expatriates.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, all Americans are expatriates so far as Europe is concerned—except the Red Indians. But that does not fit in with the argument.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a Caledonian airline, and surely there is no change—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: There are Welsh in it as well.
LORD DRUMALBYN: All right; but 2 per cent. my Lords! Surely that is not being "substantially controlled". So I do not think that the Air Transport Licensing Board will find any great trouble about that.
I come to the question of compensation. Air services licences are of course not a form of property. They are granted, withheld, revoked, suspended or varied as the licensing authority thinks fit. The law does not provide for compensation to be paid. The Air Transport Licensing Board made clear in their consideration of the liquidation of British Eagle that air service licences were not a form of property or asset which may be disposed of by the holder. There are ample precedents in other industries to demonstrate that compensation cannot be, and is not, paid for the loss of licences which do not create property rights.
The Government had to take a view of what will best serve the interests of the country. We are satisfied that the creation of a new private airline is desirable in the national interest. We are also satisfied that this could be achieved only by some modest and exceptional route transfers. The Government recognise that this course will have the effect of reducing the returns that would otherwise have been secured from the public investment in the Air Corporations; and the Government accept that account of this will have to be taken in fixing their financial objectives. This has been done—I shall mention it when we come to the next Bill. The possible reduction in the annual revenue of £5 million to £6 million has then to be viewed in relation to a combined annual revenue of the two Corporations in the last financial year of £324 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred also to future licensing decisions. This, as he suggested, will be the responsibility of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority, which will be guided in its actions by a statement of policy by the Government which will be debatable in Parliament. This, again, was what was in the Edwards recommendations. The Government intend that the second force should be given a measure of preference over the other operators in the licensing of the new scheduled routes which would
644
contribute to a viable route network in the licensing of a second carrier on existing scheduled routes or in any other section of the market, such as long-haul inclusive tour charters, where there may for a time be room for only a limited number of operators. I have made clear why it is one cannot wait until this has been set up, but it is certainly not the intention that this preference for the new airline should be absolute or automatic. The licensing authority will have to consider each case on its merits, and it will give preference to the new airline only where on balance this would be to the greatest national advantage. My Lords, I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, at any rate on that score.
The noble Lord asked about a Civil Aviation Bill. The position is that the Bill is in preparation and it is hoped to introduce it at the earliest opportunity. This will depend, of course, on the conduct of business in the House, but it is very much hoped that it will be possible to get the new system in operation in the course of next year. The noble Lord referred to the structure of the new Civil Aviation Authority and in particular to the recommendation of the Edwards Committee that the Air Registration Board should be included in the Authority. He asked, why complicate the matter? With respect, we have noted what he has to say—he speaks with great authority—but the proper time to debate this matter will be when the Civil Aviation Bill comes before the House. I have been trying to deal with various questions which have been raised and I think I have covered most of them. There is one that I have not covered, and that is the question of the staff situation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not ask about that. I asked about compensation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I apologise to the noble Lord. Regarding compensation for loss of revenue, I thought that I had dealt substantially with that already. The target fixed for B.O.A.C.—the return to the nation that the Government expect from this nationalised industry—takes into account the transfer of routes. But ought not the nation to be compensated?—that, I think, was the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst. Should there not be some

645
State participation in the second force representing the routes assigned to it? My Lords, both the present and also the previous Government agree in rejecting the recommendation of the Edwards Committee that there should be State participation in the independent airline; it would affect its independence and it would inhibit competition. It is better that the two forces should be independent of one another. There is, as I have already said, no right to compensation for loss or suspension of any licences.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I went into this matter rather more deeply than that and I pointed out that it was not simply a question of loss of revenue. It is going to be the under-utilisation of assets in the future. Do I gather from what has been said that it is proposed to demand that much less return on the public equity because of the damage they have sustained in this transfer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one of the factors in fixing the target for the present period is that there will be some diminution of revenue as a result of these routes. I do not think it is possible to take that matter further. I hope that I have dealt with it fully.
The noble Lord finished his speech on the subject of the staff. He did not ask a question, but he made some pretty cogent remarks. So far as the arrangements for the transfer of routes is concerned, it is clearly in everyone's interest that the transfer should be implemented as smoothly as possible. It has been with this in mind that the Chairman and other senior representatives of Caledonian/B.U.A. have been to West Africa. It is understood that B.O.A.C. staff in Accra wilt be employed by Caledonian-B.U.A. The Government hope that equally satisfactory arrangements can be made with regard to other B.O.A.C. locally engaged staff.
As to industrial relations with Caledonian-B.U.A. the creation of a strong second-force airline will not detract in any way from the terms and conditions of employment of those working for B.U.A. and Caledonian. I think I should make plain that the new airline has made clear its desire to work in co-operation with the unions in dealing with the problems arising from amalgamation and will be negotiating the terms and conditions
646
of employment comparable to those offered by the Air Corporations for similar work. In this way the creation of a new airline will be beneficial to those who work for it, offering better prospects and greater security. Caledonian/B.U.A. are now in full membership of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport and thus a party to the same negotiating procedures as the Air corporations. There seem to be no substantial grounds for the trade unions to fear the consequences to their members of the creation of a second-force airline, although there will certainly be matters for normal industrial relations.
I share the noble Lord's regret that industrial action has been taken by the Corporation's employees at Heathrow and that it has not yet ended. The terms and conditions of employment offered by the Air Corporations are among the highest in British industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said. When constitutional methods exist for settling difficulties, this sort of action can operate only to the disadvantage of British civil aviation and all employed in it, and I join most heartily in what the noble Lord said. Much as we must regret the damage that may result from the irresponsible industrial action, there will certainly be no pressure by the Government on the employers concerned to concede unreasonable demands.
My Lords, I hope that I have covered the points that have been raised. I have sought to demonstrate that this was certainly not a political decision but one taken in the light of the options that were open at the time; and however much one may accept or reject that decision, it was taken in good faith in what the Government believe to be the interests of civil aviation.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I have been asked to intervene in this debate, because many of my noble friends are so dissatisfied with the reply that there is a strong inclination to divide the House? I should be against dividing the House at this moment without warning because, on constitutional grounds, we do not as a rule vote on Second Readings. But I am bound to warn the noble Lord that we shall have to consider the position very carefully, and I shall not be able to guarantee that the Opposition

647
will not divide the House when replies of this kind are given. I speak with respect to the noble Lord, but the feeling which has been communicated to me is very strong.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister finishes, may I ask him this question? Do the Government really think that the substitution of the new second force for B.O.A.C. on any Atlantic route is going to increase the British share of air traffic by one kilo or by one passenger?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought I had dealt with that matter. Given good management, two companies can get a bigger share of the market than one. This varies in different parts of the world. It so happens that, so far as America is concerned, we have not a 50–50 arrangement, as we have in other parts of the world. Again this was something that was recommended by the Edwards Committee. I think it is something we shall have to consider, but it is not a matter that we are considering in this Bill. It is something for the future.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord really is exasperating some of my noble friends. He was asked a straightforward question about the proposed transfer of particular routes. The question is: how can that increase competition? The noble Lord gets up on this occasion, as he has done on others, and tells us about dual designation: that when two companies compete they can get a better share. It is not a question of two different British companies competing on this route. That is the point we are trying to get over, and the noble Lord insists on ignoring it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there is no possibility of two companies' competing on the North Atlantic route?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord should know that what we are talking about is the West African route, which it is proposed to transfer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon if he said North Africa. I thought he said North Atlantic.
EARL AMHERST: I did, my Lords. There is some confusion on this. I should have thought that two operators on one route must divide the traffic between them, because of the international arrangements.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Earl is right in most markets where arrangements are of that character, but he does not happen to be right so far as the North Atlantic routes are concerned.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to differ.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
6.8 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There has already been some discussion of the Bill in the debate that has just been finished. I welcome this chance to say some further words. B.O.A.C. have a record in recent years of which they can be proud, a run of surpluses culminating in an operating surplus of £31 million in the financial year 1969–70. The Corporation's interim statement for the first half of the current year shows a sharp fall in profitability, due in part to the grounding of the 747 fleet through a dispute which happily has now been settled. The immediate outlook for B.O.A.C., as for other airlines, is of more modest profitability. The average return on net assets of 12½ per cent., which the Government fixed as B.O.A.C.'s objective over the four years, April, 1966, to March, 1970, has been extended to cover the six years, April, 1966, to March, 1972. This extension reflects the fact that the return envisaged in the final two years of the period is likely to be substantially less than the 12½ per cent. figure. The average for the four years ending March, 1970, was l7·4 per cent. That is one cause of the more modest results.
More important factors perhaps are some general over-provision of capacity by airlines generally and a progressive fall in average fare levels, which have

649
so far affected the profitability of B.O.A.C.'s competitors more seriously than their own. I recognise, too, that the route transfers will have some impact on B.O.A.C. in the year beginning April 1, when B.O.A.C. will have to alter their plans and redeploy their assets at relatively short notice. I should emphasise however that this is a subsidiary not a prime cause of the relatively modest result that B.O.A.C. are expecting next year, although I would not expect them to make light of it on that account. For the future, it remains B.O.A.C.'s aim to continue their record of profitability, and it will be the Government's objective to help them to fulfil this aim.
This Bill extends the present limits on B.O.A.C.'s borrowing of £120 million which will almost have been reached by March 31. I should mention that apart from the reckonable public dividend capital, to which I shall refer later, amounting to £35 million, the whole of the rest was financed by U.S. borrowings. The intermediate limit of £250 million in the Bill, which is expected to be reached in about three years' time, represents an increase of £130 million; and the further limit of £380 million, representing a further increase of £130 million, is expected to be reached in about five years' time. As with all such estimates, these are subject to a wide margin of uncertainty, affecting not only the size of the Corporation's capital requirements, but also the extent to which the Corporation is able to finance its needs internally.
Let me now summarise briefly the purposes for which B.O.A.C. propose to use these borrowings. Taking the first £130 million, much of the sterling expenditure will be financed from B.O.A.C.'s own resources, but a substantial amount in foreign currency will need to be borrowed over the next 15 months to meet payments due on aircraft already ordered, and especially on the remainder of the first 12 Boeing 747s. Of these 3 were delivered early last year, a further 3 are due this spring or early summer, and the remainder will be due in about a year's time. In addition to these 12 747s, B.O.A.C. are now ordering, with the approval of the Government, a further 4 747s at a cost, including spares, of
650
£45 million, some 80 per cent. of which will be met by borrowing. There will also be substantial sterling investment both on equipment and buildings; for example, a new hangar, needed in connection with B.O.A.C.'s subsonic capacity, and also by way of progress payments on Concorde. Some of these payments can be met from internally generated cash flow and some will require fresh borrowing.
So far as the use envisaged for the second £130 million is concerned, the B.O.A.C. estimate is that very substantial further borrowing for subsonic and supersonic capacity alike will be needed. This expenditure is subject to rather greater margins of uncertainty than the expenditure envisaged in the next two or three years. Both Houses will of course have an opportunity to debate it when an Order is introduced to raise the limits. I should add that this part of the Bill is somewhat academic. Noble Lords will know that it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation for the purpose of setting up an Airways Board. The limit for the Board's borrowing will include the borrowing needs of both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—home and external—as well as the Airways Board's own needs and any public dividend capital of the Airways Board. The Government thought it right in introducing this Bill to provide for borrowing for a full five years ahead in accordance with normal practice in relation to nationalised industries.
Finally, it may be useful to explain the situation as regards public dividend capital. When B.O.A.C.'s capital was reorganised in 1965, in addition to loan capital of £31 million, since repaid, a form of non-redeemable capital called public dividend capital was introduced into B.O.A.C.'s capital structure on an experimental basis. The amount involved was £35 million. Since then B.O.A.C. have been paying annual dividends on it, rising from £3·5 million for 1965–66 to £13 million for 1969–70. The public dividend capital was increased in two stages to £65 million. Only £35 million of this reckons against the statutory limit, because £30 million was created by capitalising the reconstruction reserve which was also set up in 1965.

651
The public dividend capital experiment for B.O.A.C. is due to end on March 31, 1971, unless extended by Order either for a further period or indefinitely. A decision will be made shortly. The order would be subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. In my explanations to-day I have assumed that all B.O.A.C.'s requirements for capital in sterling will be met by advances from the National Loans Fund, but this does not necessarily mean that public dividend capital will not be continued in some form or another. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.14 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not intend to say very much on this Bill but when I have an opportunity of agreeing with the noble Lord, I like to do so. I should like to say how much I agree with him that the financial results of the Corporation reflect great credit on all those responsible. I also add my word of praise to the contribution made by the retired Chairman, Sir Charles Hardie, and extend my good wishes to his successor, Mr. Keith Granville. Mr. Granville has seen many chairmen come and go, and I only hope that after his great experience he will be able to assimilate all the good qualities and characteristics of those chairmen who have succeeded him: if he can roll that experience into one person, then we shall have a very good chairman indeed.
I wish I could say that the labour relations of the Corporation have been as successful as their financial control. The history of the dispute which left the expensive Boeing 747 sitting on the tarmac for so long must surely constitute a classic case which it would be well worth while studying. I make the suggestion to the new chairman that he can do no better than appoint someone to make an independent, outside, objective inquiry into the causes of this dispute with a view to identifying the mistakes so that he can avoid them in the future.
I would also take this opportunity to refer to a most interesting article in to-day's issue of Flight International. The article comments on the well-known fact that the Corporation has been operating with an extremely high average load factor. This is a very profitable opera-
652
tion, but not one which necessarily gives the best service to the passenger. The article, however, also calls attention to the over-booking of the Corporation, and to a particular staff circular which went out on this subject. I know that the problem here is not an easy one; and I know that the parallel problem of the no-show is also extremely difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, I wonder whether on reflection the Corporation feel that the circular was happily worded; whether they think that it reflects credit on them, and whether it is something that ought to have gone out? I have given no notice to the noble Lord that I was going to raise this—and indeed, strictly speaking, it is not a matter for him. I do not expect a reply, but I should like to think that in accepting my congratulations on their extremely fine technical and financial results the Corporation may pay some regard to the criticisms that I have ventured to make.
6.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to intervene and to congratulate my noble friend on introducing this Bill. I see that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has already left his place, but I would mention that I cannot personally accept the view expressed by the noble Lord on the previous Bill. I felt that my noble friend's reply to that Bill was more than adequate, and a great deal better than we experienced with the previous Administration. I wish also to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Berwick, in regard to the outgoing chairman and the new chairman.
I wish to ask my noble friend (I have not given notice of this) as to the position of the Boeing 747. I should like to know whether the pilots' dispute has yet been settled, and whether it is yet known how soon this aircraft will come into service. I am told that the B.O.A.C. 747 Jumbo Jets are the safest in the world; but, of course, they have never flown. Will it not be possible, if the dispute is still going on, for at least the training period to start?
Another question that I wish to ask my noble friend, and one which I think is particularly relevant to the Bill, concerns the Concorde. I am sure that we should all be grateful for any news he

653
could give as to the progress of Concorde. Can he say when it is anticipated that B.O.A.C. will be able to come out firmly, together with Air France, and say, "Here is a firm order"? I apologise for not giving my noble friend any advance warning of these questions, and I shall quite understand if he is not able to reply immediately.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to this Bill. I should certainly like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the tribute that he paid to the previous chairman of B.O.A.C., and in the good wishes that he has extended to the new chairman. I can assure him that his confidence in the new chairman is very fully shared. I am quite certain that the Corporation will be glad to read what he has said, and also that what he has said will curry considerable weight with them.
My noble friend asked me some questions, and I will try to answer them. First, with regard to the 747, I am glad to say that the pilots' dispute has now been settled. The truth of the matter is that a season's operation of the new aircraft has been lost by reason of the dispute, and by reason of the pilots' refusal to train to fly the new aircraft. I do not think it would be profitable to look backward and ascribe blame on this, but we should, I think, congratulate both sides on the statesmanship that they have shown in reaching a fair and reasonable settlement.
On the subject of Concorde, I should like to tell the noble Earl as much as I can. It is not customary to give any indication of cost so far as Concorde is concerned, nor is it possible to say what number of planes B.O.A.C. wish to purchase. All I can say is that B.O.A.C. are extremely anxious to purchase Concorde if it can be flown commercially. We hope that it will prove to be so. It is a remarkable fact that the round trip for Concorde, in comparison with the ordinary subsonic planes, will make a very great saving in time. I am sorry that I cannot lay my hands on the exact figure at this moment. I had hoped to be able to give it to the noble Earl. The future of Concorde will depend on whether it is commercially viable.
654
I should add that there is no question of providing a subsidy for operating Concorde in the forecasts underlying the limits in this Bill. Flight tests so far have gone well, and both prototypes reached mach 2 earlier this month. The British assembled prototype is now embarking on a critical series of performance tests at cruising speed. With those few remarks, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EXPORT OF LIVE ANIMALS
6.28 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the possibility of a carcase trade for meat export in place of live animals. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I should like to thank in advance the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is kindly giving his support, and also particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, who I am sure we are all delighted to see back in her place after her very serious illness. I shall not thank my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, or the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, until I have heard what they have to say, but I am hoping that I may do so very warmly afterwards.
I should like to ask this Question in two halves. First, is what I suggest desirable, and secondly, is it practicable? As to the first half, I hope that I am well enough known in your Lordships' House now for nobody to be under the impression that I am a sentimentalist as regards animals. I can assure your Lordships that I am not, but I am very keen to avoid causing unnecessary suffering—and I stress the word "unnecessary".
I should like to deal first with the question of the actual transport of the animals from this country to the Continent. The observations which have been made on the condition of the animals

655
when they arrive on the Continent have not shown that they have suffered any visible harm. They seem in fairly fit physical condition. One R.S.P.C.A. inspector said that some were sweating a little, but that may have been purely from fear. And of course, there is this other side: animals are living creatures, and are quite capable of suffering extreme fear and terror from an experience which is quite new to them. I think that that element should be considered.
Also there is the question of whether in very bad weather the animals may suffer considerably. British ships refuse to take animals when the weather is really bad, but foreign ships will sometimes take them when our own ships have refused to do so. And once the animals are on board a foreign ship we have no further control over them. Then there is the question of the preliminary inspection. Before they are embarked, animals are supposed to be inspected at the ports by the veterinary inspector. He cannot possibly get more than a general impression of them. If he is confronted by a pen of 100 sheep, how can he possibly go through each one and examine it individually to see whether it is sound in foot and limb? He cannot do that; he can only get a general impression. Therefore, it seems that this inspection requirement does not convey any real assurance that some animals do not suffer a great deal.
When they get to the other side, of course the story is rather different. Most of the countries to which we export animals are signatories to the Balfour assurances. One of these lays down that the animals shall not travel more than 60 miles from the port of disembarkation, that they shall not be re-exported, and that they shall be humanely killed. I should like to quote from a report which was made by two R.S.P.C.A. veterinary inspectors who went over to Belgium and followed the course of two loads of young calves which had gone there from England. I do not want to quote at too great length, but there are several paragraphs which are very significant. One says:
"This investigation was carried out by Superintendent Butfield and the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer as a result of complaints from a number of sources about the transportation of live calves to the Continent for both immediate slaughter and onward fattening."
656
The report describes how the calves arrived at the port and what they were like when they arrived; and it continues:
"We were unable to establish what happened to the British Friesian calves. The replies to our questions on this were polite but evasive and there is a strong suspicion that these calves stay only for a short time in Belgium or Holland, and then go to various other countries, notably Italy."
This, of course, is a breach of the Assurance.
The report goes on to describe something of the conditions at the slaughterhouse where the calves arrived in Belgium:
"The veal calves arrived at the Ostend lairage from Zeebrugge at midnight on Friday, 23rd; they were in good condition, having travelled well. One was blind in one eye and it was noticed that they seemed very out of breath with the exertion of loading and unloading. Also, their vision seemed to be defective as one could go right up to them before they appeared to see you. The owner of these calves had accompanied the lorry from England ….
"The slaughterhouse at Putte is 186 kilometres from Zeebrugge and where the calves disembarked."
My Lords, 186 kilometres is, of course, a good deal over the 60-miles limit.
"The calves would arrive at Putte at 5 a.m. and the owner of the calves told us that he insisted that they were given something to drink on arrival. We ourselves arrived at Putte at 9.30 a.m. the following morning, by which time about half of the calves had been slaughtered.
"Slaughtering methods and the slaughterhouse itself can only be described as barbaric. The method of stunning used was to hit the animal over the head with an ordinary carpenter's claw hammer. I examined some of the heads of the killed calves and found no bullet holes but in one or two cases fractured frontal bones. The calves may, or may not, have been stunned by this method. The calf was then hoisted by the hind leg by a travelling hoist and its throat was cut. Out of deference to us, the slaughterman was requested by the Manager to use a Cash pistol while we were there, but he resented having to use it and was not proficient in its use. The pistol had not been greased for some time and was not working satisfactorily.
"The calves were crowded into a killing pen about 6'×12', one end of which was the bleeding area. When a calf had been stunned it was shackled to the hoist and dragged through other living calves which were sometimes actually thrown into the blood bath by the unconscious calf on its way up the hoist. There was only a galvanised pipe preventing the live calves going into the rest of the slaughter-house and these calves were all killed within sight of each other, and also could see only 2' from them, their fellows' throats cut and could see the pile of decapitated

657
heads in one corner. The floors and walls of the killing area were covered with blood. The carcases of the calves were inspected for their whiteness and I was also able to examine the digestive organs and the livers of these calves, which proved beyond doubt that they had been fed on a wholly liquid diet."
I will not weary your Lordships with any more from this report, but I have read enough to show pretty convincingly that humane slaughter as we know it is not practised on the Continent. Of course, I admit at once that what I have quoted relates to only one slaughterhouse, and that that is no proof that the same conditions obtain in others. But I should have thought it unlikely, if they can obtain in one, that the others were a great deal better. They may be slightly better, but not a great deal.
We now come to the question of whether the proposal in my Question is practicable. The trade is a very large one. I have some figures here. For the year ended December 31, we exported 59,000-odd calves and bulls; nearly 46,000 calves; 54,000 heifers; 33,000 bullocks; 387,000 sheep and 86,000 pigs. And the trade is growing. I had a very interesting talk with Mr. Forder, the General Secretary of the Meat Trade Association, and he told me some interesting facts. He said the method the Continental buyers use is to come over to our cattle markets on the East Coast, where they run the prices for these calves up to such an extent that our own people cannot buy them back. The result is that the National Farmers' Union, I gather, is practically split in half over this subject. The dairy farmers are naturally only too glad to get very high prices for the bull calves they want to get rid of, but the meat breeding side of the farming trade are naturally annoyed that they cannot afford to buy their own calves back. Therefore, it seems to be a 50/50 situation so far as the farmers are concerned. And I hope your Lordships will not be under any impression that I do not realise the importance of considering the farmers' point of view in this whole subject.
So far as the mechanical side is concerned, it is perfectly simple. We have quite enough slaughterhouses to deal with the traffic. We have enormous refrigerated transport. I have an illustration here of some of these enormous 10-wheel trucks which are refrigerated, which act on the
658
drive-on, drive-off principle, so that the Continental buyers could have what is to all intents and purposes fresh meat. That is one of the objections which Mr. Forder said they raised, that they like fresh meat rather than chilled or frozen. But it would be fresh meat; quite as fresh as anything we ever buy in London.
There are other aspects of the economic situation. As I have no right of reply perhaps I had better anticipate a few points which my noble friend may possibly raise. One is this. No doubt the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food feel that the trade brings in foreign currency and is a valuable contribution to the balance of payments. I do not deny that for a moment; but there is an answer to it. Imports of meat and meat preparations are now running at something like one million pounds per day. Every pound of meat exported, whether it be alive or dead, must be replaced by imports, many of which come from the very countries to which we export. Each year we get less meat for greater foreign currency outlay, while each pound of imported meat brings with it the risk of disease, such as foot-and-mouth disease and others.
Another point which may be raised is one that I have already mentioned; namely, that our Continental buyers prefer fresh meat. My Lords, so do we. Why should we he deprived of it? We also prefer to benefit from our investment via taxes in the production of the animals which provide home-killed meat, and we resent such benefits going to foreigners who have contributed nothing.
There is another point that may be raised. The Ministry may say, "We are asking our Embassy staffs to investigate recent allegations of cruel treatment in foreign countries". My Lords, that is worse than useless. The Embassy staff in a foreign country can do nothing. They have no power as to how the animals are going to be treated once they are within the boundaries of a foreign country. All they can do is to protest and to point out that the Balfour assurances are not being observed. What can we do, my Lords? The only solution seems to be to ban altogether the export of live animals for slaughter. Naturally, there would have to be some exception in respect of animals exported for breeding purposes, but that could be overcome in exactly the same

659
way as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced into his Ponies Bill——by raising the price. It seems to me that would be perfectly practicable. I am not, of course, asking for any decision to-night, but I sincerely hope that the Government will think over this proposal very sincerely, and I am quite sure that my noble friend who is to reply will convey to the proper quarters everything I have said.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like, as briefly as I can, to support the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in everything that he has said this afternoon. I have been a member of this House for a great many years, and in my membership the point I am most proud about is the humane approach which this House takes, regardless of Party, to matters of this kind. One can be quite sure that when one raises a question on the sufferings of animals or their wellbeing one will get a sympathetic House. That is partly illustrated by the fact that in spite of the momentous debates we have had this week, on the European Common Market and the Disestablishment of the Church of England, we can still find time to discuss a matter of this kind, and even find a respectable number of speakers.
After all, one has to realise that the number of domestic animals in this country approaches the number of human beings. The number of animals which we use for human consumption is something approaching 20 million, but in addition we have our horses, our dogs and our donkeys which, thank God!, we do not use for human consumption, although I would not say that they are not so used in other parts of the world. Therefore we have a moral responsibility for the welfare of these animals. I think that we in this country have accepted that responsibility to a far greater extent than have the people in any other land. So when the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to whom I am grateful for having asked this Question, deals at length with the economic side of the matter, I regard that as being of minor importance. I am sure there is nobody in this House who would wish to make a profit out of the sufferings of the animals that are being exported.
However, since we have spoken about economics, let me put the matter in its
660
proper perspective. The total receipts for the sale of animals in 1969 was something of the order of £16 million; the total purchases of animals from abroad amounted to £450 million. So this is not a vital trade from the point of view of the balance of trade. But are we to assume that if we prohibit the export of live animals abroad we should not be able to sell those animals on the Continent in the form of carcases? What is the objection? After all, practically the whole of the £450 million worth that we imported last year arrived in this country in the form of carcases; it certainly did not come as live animals. There is no reason at all why we should send live animals abroad—animals for which, incidentally, the British taxpayer has contributed by way of subsidy.
From a humane point of view it is quite wrong to send these animals abroad, assuming that the conditions are anything like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has described. He is quite right; the experience that he described is of a very limited nature and it may be argued that there is no evidence that it prevails throughout the whole of our exports. That may be so. All we are asking of the Government is that they should find out. They have the moral responsibility for the welfare of all the animals we have in this country, and it is their duty to find out the conditions under which these animals are slaughtered abroad; and if those conditions are anything like what has been described, beyond all doubt the export should be prohibited.
I am sure that the Government will be in agreement so far. I should like to pay a tribute to them for the way in which they have been handling the Ponies Act. I admit that in the first instance they were very much opposed to it, and I had a certain amount of difficulty in persuading some noble Lords, including members of my own Party, because it was a non-Party matter, to give it support. But now that it is an Act of Parliament I must pay a tribute to the way in which it is being implemented. I think the Government and all the officials concerned are doing everything possible to carry out the spirit and the letter of that legislation, and I have no doubt at all that if we were to pass a measure prohibiting the export of live animals abroad

661
it would receive the same kind of consideration and be implemented in the same spirit as the Ponies Act.
I do not think that I need say any more. I hope that the Government will be willing to investigate this matter and satisfy the minds of enormous numbers of people in this country who are very disturbed about this trade. If they can give a satisfactory answer, that the noble Lord's description of the conditions is inaccurate and not true, even then I should be very doubtful whether it was a right thing to export live animals, but at any rate my mind would be very much eased, and so would the minds of many others. So I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able to give us a sympathetic answer to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has put.
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, as the only agriculturist who has so far spoken in this debate, I should like first of all to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that on humane grounds there is a strong case for slaughter before export of animals destined for slaughter abroad. But the case really rests on how far we, as a nation, are prepared to sacrifice financial advantage in the interests of humanity. No animal enjoys being taken out of its environment, crammed into a lorry and racketed about all over the country, put into a railway truck and loaded into a ship. It hears strange noises that are foreign to it, and it often gets extremely rough handling. There is therefore bound to be an element of cruelty.
There is even an element of cruelty in transporting animals in our own country. Legislation is so devised that for all practical purposes we could not do it better: but if animals are put into a lorry and driven two or three hundred miles, there is obviously an element of cruelty. I do not suppose any of us likes being taken out of our environment. For instance, sometimes when I go home from this House I have to travel in a rush-hour train, and compared with the environment of this House I find it extremely disagreeable. But I have the advantage that to a certain extent I do it voluntarily, and I know that my agony is going to be short lived. If am desperate, and
662
provided the noble Lord, Lord Soper, whom I see in his place, is not on the train, I can fight my way through to the bar and indulge in the evils of alcohol to help lessen my suffering. Of course, animals do not have that advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, has spoken about the Balfour assurances. He is quite right in saying that we export only to the countries that have signed those assurances. We have passed a lot of legislation in this House, but much of it does not always get put into practice as we should like, and once animals have left these shores, even if we do export to countries that have signed the Balfour assurances, we have no control to see that those assurances are kept. The noble Lord pointed to the instance of calves being re-exported to Italy. Of course, that is completely illegal under the Balfour assurances; but what can we do about it? There is also the question of sheep. Take the export of sheep to France. I have exported sheep to France and I did not know this: I thought they came under the Balfour assurances, but apparently they do not; they have no protection at all. You can export animals for slaughter. You think they are going to be slaughtered on arrival, but the importer can evade the issue by saying he wants them for growing on or fattening up a bit more. That obviously depends on the types of animals and the age.
It is an extraordinary thing that as one travels South and gets nearer the sun, nearer the Equator, the callousness, the cruelty, to animals appears to increase. I should think that would be a very good subject for one of the more donnish of your Lordships—we have plenty of them—or noble Baronesses to write a thesis on: why, when you get nearer the sun, nearer the Equator, cruelty to animals increases. It would make a very interesting study, I am sure. We have some theses on the most absurd things, such as if you throw a cat out of building why does it land on four legs? Why cruelty to animals increases the nearer you get to the Equator would be a far more interesting thesis to write than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked one or two questions. I do not want to forestall my noble friend on the Front

663
Bench. The noble Lord appeared very mystified as to why we export meat when we are probably the greatest meat importers in the world. Of course, the reason is financial advantage. I agree that the trade is not very big—only £16 million—but the price of beef and mutton in the Common Market countries is three times the price here. We can export animals to the Common Market and get a far better price, even having to pay the Common Market tariff. At the same time we can buy far more cheaply from the Argentine. So the reason for this situation is financial. We can sell to the Continent far more expensively and for our own interests, and buy cheaply in South America.
The real difficulty about the actual banning of the export of livestock is how to differentiate between those animals which are to be used for breeding and fattening. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that, as in the Ponies Act, an increase in price would be appropriate. That is a possibility. But such a scheme would be difficult to operate. As I have said, while you may be exporting animals for slaughter, the person buying them may not slaughter them but will re-export them. This is a difficult problem. However, a great deal of this trade, especially that which goes through to the Kent ports, is in old cows which really could be slaughtered in this country, because no importer could excuse himself by saying that he wanted them for growing on. These cows are useful only for processing, and certainly they should be slaughtered in this country.
Serious allegations have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in regard to cruelty to live calves during transport to the Continent. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture is inquiring into these allegations. If they are proved correct, then I consider that this trade should be banned. I do not think that this allegation applies to pedigree stock. No slaughterhouse is a nice sight, not even those in this country. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that slaughterhouses on the Continent are horrible places, although they vary.
I would end as I began, by saying that the case rests on the question of how far we are prepared to sacrifice financial advantage in the interests of humanity. This
664
is a question that the Government must answer. They must take a decision on it. In research into human diseases apparently there is no depth to which we will not go in torturing animals. I suppose there is some excuse here, as it is to help human beings. Yet I think it is degrading of human beings to force dogs to smoke in order to see whether they get cancer of the lungs. When our only excuse is financial advantage, as in the export of live animals for slaughter, the excuse wears very thin indeed. Although it will be to the disadvantage of farmers who deal in this trade, I should certainly ban it if the allegations of cruelty in transit are proved. I have no doubt that they are correct, and therefore I sincerely hope that the Government will introduce legislation to stop this trade.
7.6 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I hope that nobody will suggest that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, should be slaughtered before he endures the horrors of public transport. It might be better if he could be covered by the Balfour assurances, but I fear that he cannot. What is interesting is the history of this particular trade. In history there have been occasions when profitable interests have been subjected to considerations of humanity. A great example was the abolition of the slave trade, under pressure from Clarkson and Wilberforce, which caused a Mr. William Rathbone, of Liverpool, a prominent citizen, to be hissed on 'Change because he opposed a trade that was profitable to some of his fellow citizens.
The interesting part of this trade is that it is comparatively new. If your Lordships take the Report of the Balfour Committee on the Export of Live Cattle, which was published in 1957, you will realise how comparatively new the trade is. That Committee was appointed because of public disquiet about the nature and importance of this trade. The members of the Balfour Committee worked like beavers, with great devotion. They went to the ports; they went across the Channel; they inspected slaughterhouses. They did a great deal of work personally. Among those who did this work was the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.

665
The general opinion of the Committee was that this trade was undesirable. They decided that slaughter before export would be desirable, but they came to the conclusion that the alternative of the carcase trade was not feasible. They reported in 1957. Their reasons for that decision were, among others, that we could not then provide suitable containers, we had no slaughterhouse facilities for slaughtering on this side of the North Sea, and we could not produce the right kind of Interfrigo wagons which are necessary for the traffic in carcases, as an alternative to live cattle. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, has pointed out to-day that all those possible objections raised by the Balfour Committee are not now relevant, because we have the slaughtering facilities, we have the refrigerator wagons and we have all the requirements which precluded the Balfour Committee from condemning the trade outright.
Having examined the trade and shown some disquiet at what they saw, the Committee produced a complicated and careful scale of regulations for the prevention of abuses. I will not go into the details of the regulations: they can be found in the Report of the Balfour Committee. They are most complicated. They involve conditions of transport, the types of boat in which the animals should be shipped and the kind of weather conditions in which they should be transported. They also regulate the kind of food that should be provided. There is a great deal of detail concerning the conditions under which this trade should be carried on.
But, my Lords, the Committee did not like the trade. And they are not the only people who have not liked it—because, after all, our Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Soames, did not like it either. He said in the House of Commons in 1964 that undoubtedly the best way, from all points of view, of exporting meat is in carcase form, and the trend from live exports towards this was what the Government hoped to see develop as far as possible and as soon as possible. I rather believe that Mr. Prior has said something, perhaps less committal, but indicating that he himself dislikes this particular trade. I only hope that the present Government will try to live up to what the former Government hoped to live up to in regard to the abolition of this trade.
666
From what has been said, I think that our hearts bleed for the conditions of these animals in the process of transport; and, as we know, from time to time scandals occur and deaths occur. There was one occasion which excited a lot of attention in November when a number of calves were killed, and a Question was raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. There have been other cases since then. But my heart is beginning to bleed a little for the Minister of Agriculture, because he is now faced with an awkward dilemma. We have this intricate code of regulations, not to mention the Balfour assurances; and we have, I suppose, a small Inspectorate attached to the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for seeing that these regulations are operated. But if they are to be operated effectively—and they are not now operated effectively—the Ministry of Agriculture will require an army of inspectors, just at the moment when Mr. Prior says that he wishes to diminish the personnel of his Department. It will need as many inspectors to administer these complicated regulations as it would require extra police to administer our speed limits if we chose to enforce them, which unfortunately we do not.
That is one side of the Minister's dilemma. The other side is that if this is not done, if these regulations are not effectively enforced, he will "catch it" from the animal welfare societies. I used to regard welfare societies, on the whole, as rather starry-eyed humanitarians, unduly concerned with attacks on hunting foxes and stags. But to-day they are very different: they include highly expert and dedicated people who are on the go all the time, following trains, inspecting lair-ages, looking at animals, going across the North Sea to meet them when they come in these cattle ships. They know how to calculate the force of the winds, and if the weather conditions are within the scope of the regulations. They are at it all the time, and they will keep on at it.
Unless the regulations are effectively enforced, the number of Parliamentary Questions which will fall on the Minister of Agriculture, the number of letters which, when the postal strike ends, will reach the Ministry, will require him either to appoint an army of veterinary inspectors, or to increase his secretarial staff to deal with the Parliamentary Questions

667
and the letters. The simplest thing would be for him to stop this squalid, inhuman, and doubtful economic private interest on the part of a relatively few farmers. If it should be suggested that to interfere with this trade might create difficulties if and when we go into the Common Market, then the obvious reply is that if we go into the Common Market we should go with our own moral standards unimpaired.
7.15 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not want to go into the humanitarian aspects of this case, but I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Somers. There is only one matter on the humanitarian side that I would mention; that is, that as your Lordships know, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. However many safeguards are provided for animals, such as lairages at the port or at the airport, the animal will be upset and it may take him a week to get over his nervousness. Therefore, I am against all export of animals on the hoof.
I come from Kent, and I have made a careful study of meat for export to the Continent. I am firmly in favour of prohibition of all livestock for immediate slaughter abroad. Before coming to this conclusion I took the opinion of farmers, butchers, and slaughtermen, and they were all in favour of carcase export only, as against cattle and sheep on the hoof. The National Farmers' Union are an exception to this opinion, but they are usually wrong. They think that this might upset our home fatstock market stability in the seasonal glut, when the home market has difficulty in disposing of the supply. With this opinion I disagree.
I admit that the Continent give preference to home-produced meat, home butchered meat from imported fatstock, imported fresh meat butchered abroad to their specifications, imported chilled meat and imported frozen meat, in that order. But if they cannot get the first two—that is, the meat on the hoof—then they will have to buy our carcase meat. Again, carcase meat has the advantage of not being affected by foot-and-mouth disease; and carcase meat is also cheaper to transport.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government why we should subsidise the
668
Continental consumer with our meat subsidies? Why not put an export tax of £10 per head on cattle carcases, 10s. on lambs, and £1 per head on sheep carcases? In this way they would recover all the subsidies given to the British farmer in order that our housewives can buy cheaper food.
All British meat sold abroad can be replaced at less cost with frozen meat from our Colonies, the Dominions and also the Argentine, thus helping our balance of payments. I do not think we should take any notice of the National Farmers' Union on this matter. I do not think it will have an appreciable effect on our fatstock market in this country. Northern Ireland used to export nearly all fatstock on the hoof, and they have now come round to the carcase trade. It fell flat for a period, but now I believe it is going ahead well and is liked by everybody. Surely we can educate the Continent to like our meat.
7.20 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the Question which has been put by my noble friend Lord Somers is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the possibility of a carcase trade for meat export in place of live animals."
It is quite obvious that, if that is practicable and there are not overwhelming objections, it has enormous advantages for the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. That suffering can take place either in the transit itself or in what happens to the animal after it has been landed on the Continent.
On March 10 last year I asked an oral Question in this House, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, has referred, about an accident that had been brought to my attention in which, in a ship voyaging between Southampton and Havre, 26 out of 128 calves had died. There was a storm and the cases broke loose and all sorts of horrors occurred. I received a detailed Answer on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and I was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, and by various noble Lords in all parts of the House. Perhaps as a consequence of that Question, a good deal of further information has been sent to me.

669
My noble friend Lord Somers said that, on the whole, our shippers took steps to avoid suffering in transport and I very much hope that he is right. But, of course, accidents will occur. But the serious matter is, of course, what subsequently happens to the animal after it has been landed on the Continent, and over that we have no control whatsoever. The utmost that can be done is to enter into arrangements with various foreign countries. Those arrangements may have good consequences, but, if there are such appalling incidents as were referred to by my noble friend Lord Somers, we have no control whatsoever.
For those reasons, if it is practicable, we should all desire to substitute a trade in carcase meat for the export of these animals alive. The question is: is it practicable? Here, my Lords, I suffer from the disadvantage that does not apply to many Members of this House, that I have no direct experience and knowledge of farming. What decided me to intervene in spite of that disadvantage were two facts. First, my noble friend Lord Selkirk wished very much that he could have been in the House this afternoon in order to support Lord Somers, Lord Silkin and others in this debate. Unfortunately, he has recently been indisposed and his doctor will not let him yet come to this House, though he has every hope that he will be with us next week. He hoped that I would express his view and ask for a sympathetic answer from my noble friend Lord Denham when he comes to reply.
But there is another reason, also, that emboldens me to think that those who express this preference for exporting carcase meat are right, and that is the view of Mr. Christopher Soames when he was Minister of Agriculture—and a very good Minister of Agriculture—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, has referred. I will not quote again what he said. The noble Baroness quoted the important sentences from what was really an interchange in the House of Commons which took up a couple of pages of Hansard, and she quoted the vital passage. That was the view of a very good Conservative Minister of Agriculture expressed as long ago as May 11, 1964. In case there are any noble Lords who want to look up this interchange, they will find it
670
in Volume 695 of the Commons Hansard at column 14.
If people who know as much about farming as Mr. Christopher Soames and my noble friend Lord Selkirk think that this is practicable, I hope that the Government will also consider further the practicability, and whether we cannot bring about a reform which will avoid so much unnecessary suffering, the avoidance of which is otherwise impossible because we cannot exercise control. I do not wish to say anything further, except how much I admired the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, who came down to the House for a noble purpose in spite of her recent serious indisposition.
7.28 p.m.
LORD HIVES: My Lords, as a farmer I was horrified to hear the description of the slaughter of these calves, and as a stockman it made my blood boil to think of what happens. There are only one or two points I should like to make. The value of the trade to the farmers in this country is that it comes mostly at a time when we are in surplus and when our markets are fairly full. As a farmer I do not like the cruelty, but I wish to keep up the volume of this trade. Every speaker has mentioned the cruelty and has asked how it can be stopped. One way is to kill our animals here. But even then the cruelty will still be present, because we import very much more than we export. One lever we would have would be to say, "We do not like the way you kill your animals. We do not do L in that way, and we will not buy your products which are slaughtered in that way". That would be a very cogent argument to use to persuade the people on the Continent to revise their methods, and it would probably stop this cruelty.
7.30 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide ranging debate on a subject which I know is of concern not only to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the discussion but also to every noble Lord in the House. Your Lordships will not expect me to make any startling announcement tonight, or to announce any new policies, but everything that has been said in this debate, every suggestion that your Lordships have made for dealing with this matter, will be considered very carefully

671
by my right honourable friend and his advisers. Most of the debate tonight has concerned the welfare of the animals. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that all other considerations were very minor compared to that. But the Question itself has economic implications, and I have to answer the Question on the Order Paper, so I will start with that side of the subject.
I will first give your Lordships some figures about United Kingdom exports of live animals. I am not quite sure whether the figures which I am about to give agree with those which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, gave, because he said them rather quickly and I was not able to check them as he went along. Excluding exports of breeding animals and animals exported to the Irish Republic, our exports to the Continent in 1969 comprised some 66,000 cattle, worth about £3 million; some 260,000 sheep, worth about £2 million, and some 70,000 pigs, worth about £1 million. The total value of the trade in 1969 was, therefore, £6 million. During the months January to October, 1970, we exported some 216,000 animals, also worth about £6 million. The largest importers of our animals were Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Thus we are talking about a sizeable trade. It can offer a profitable outlet for some of our livestock production, particularly at certain times of the year, and it benefits our balance of payments—though, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, the net benefit while we still need to import meat to satisfy our requirements is less than the export figures may at first suggest.
I know that there are many people—and this includes almost every one of your Lordships who has spoken to-night—who think that it would be preferable from the animal welfare standpoint, and possibly from the commercial standpoint also, if the trade in live animals on the hoof were to be replaced entirely by exports of meat on the hook. The Government would be very happy to see the trade develop in this way, but we must be cautious about attempting to achieve this through Government direction or regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, and my noble friend Lord Cones-ford both quoted a statement by my right honourable friend Mr. Soames in another
672
place on May 11, 1964. Merely to set the Record straight, I should just like to quote what he said further on. This is in columns 15 and 16 of the same issue of Hansard—in fact, on the next page. He said:
"Our arrangements are that we have a free market for foodstuffs, and meat in particular, which, by and large, has enormous advantages for this country, and we would not lightly tamper with the existence of that free market which involves a good deal of importation and some exportation".
I quote that further statement merely to set the Record straight.
My Lords, Continental buyers can already buy our carcase meat if they wish, and some of them do. For example, in the first nine months of 1970 we exported some 6,350 tons of mutton and lamb, 4,500 tons of pork and 3,500 tons of beef to France. I am afraid that I must disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, in saying this, but we must recognise that there is a demand on the Continent for our live animals and that it is unlikely to be diverted to a carcase meat trade if we ban live exports. This is because the Continental buyers see advantages in buying our live animals. In the first place, they obtain the whole animal, including the hide and offals; and, secondly—and no doubt more important from the point of view of the buyer—the buyer can control the way the meat is prepared for the consumer in accordance with the traditional practices and requirements. Continental methods of dressing and hanging the carcases are, of course, different from those in the United Kingdom. In addition, so far as store animals are concerned, the buyer can control the way in which the animals are fattened and the time at which they are slaughtered. From the purely economic point of view, therefore, we could not be sure of maintaining our export earnings if we concentrated exclusively on carcase meat.
Those, my Lords, are the economic considerations, and I should like now to turn to the welfare aspects of the trade. The welfare of animals in transit, both within this country and to destinations abroad, is safeguarded by statutory regulations which make provision, among other things, for proper penning, ventilation and access, and for feeding and watering as necessary. Transport is not permitted if, for any reason, animals

673
cannot be carried without unnecessary suffering. In addition, cattle, sheep and pigs for export must be rested for at least 10 hours in approved lairages, and during that time they are examined by an official veterinary inspector to ensure that they are fit to be shipped. My Lords, I will not go too deeply into the examinations of the inspectors, but in the case of the export of calves, for instance, with which my noble friend Lord Somers dealt at some length, it has been decided from experience that a calf is not really fit to travel unless it is 100 lb. in weight, and to allow a certain safety factor that limit is increased to 110 lb.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, perhaps I may say that there are very few calves under 100 lb. Most calves are very nearly that at birth. This means a very young calf indeed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. His knowledge on this subject, I am sure, is greater than my personal knowledge, but I am at the moment speaking for the Government, and I have not the necessary knowledge to refute what he has said. But the theory is that when the inspector comes to the conclusion that a particular calf is below the weight he feels it should be, he then weighs it to find out whether it is all right. I just mention this as one way in which the inspectors work to show that they do go to a great deal of trouble to see that the regulations that are in force here are carried out.
These regulations are effective up to the point of disembarkation, but further safeguards exist in respect of cattle, sheep and pigs for immediate slaughter under the terms of the Balfour assurances about which your Lordships have heard. These place a limitation of 100 kilometres on travel following disembarkation and require that the animals shall not be reexported and shall be adequately fed and watered and sheltered while awaiting slaughter, and that they are slaughtered only after being stunned either electrically or with a captive bolt pistol. Countries which have undertaken to conform to these conditions are Belgium, Holland, Italy and West Germany, and, for cattle only, France. Animals for immediate slaughter are allowed to go to these countries only. It is considered that these
674
regulations and the terms of the assurances provide reasonable welfare safeguards for animals exported from this country.
Noble Lords will have heard that the R.S.P.C.A. submitted a report in November relating to calves exported to Belgium for immediate slaughter. Inquiries have been made with the full co-operation of the Belgian authorities, and they are taking steps to see that the 100 kilometres travel limitation is observed in future. This was one of the points of complaints in the report. Your Lordships will have heard the appalling allegations of conditions in the abattoir at Putte. I should like to repeat what was said in a Statement in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Stodart, in answer to a Question about the transportation of calves. He circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in which he said:
"Belgian law concerning the slaughter of animals is no less stringent than ours. It requites that animals to be slaughtered should be stunned either electrically or by a captive bolt pistol or anaesthetised and it makes provision for the welfare of animals awaiting slaughter. On general hygiene grounds, the Belgian authorities have in the meantime withdrawn their approval of this slaughterhouse."
My Lords, this is the one at Putte. My information is that that withdrawal on general hygiene grounds (which includes animal welfare in this respect) is still effective. Investigations are being carried on by the Belgian Government, and Ministry officials are keeping in close touch about this. Investigations into other aspects of this report are also proceeding.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the tribute he paid to Her Majesty's Government and to Ministry officials about the way in which the Ponies Act is being enforced.
To sum up, my Lords, there are benefits from the export trade in live animals which we could by no means be sure of securing if exports were confined to carcase meat. Present requirements safeguard the welfare of our exported animals so long as those requirements are properly observed, and it will continue to be the Government's aim to see that this is being done. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said (though I am not sure whether I have it right) that we must always weigh the economic advantage against humanitarian aspects. I think it is the view of us all that the

675
humanitarian aspects must be paramount. The Government recognise the deep concern which is felt over this matter and will continue to co-operate closely and to watch all aspects of this trade. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Somers for having drawn our attention to this matter.

ALCOHOLISM
7.45 p.m.
LORD SOPER LORD SOPER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the urgent necessity of taking immediate steps against the growing evil of alcoholism, and when they will make the statement on the subject which was promised in the Gracious Speech. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and immediately to say that I fully understand the reason for which my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek finds it impossible to speak, I understand that he had a peremptory engagement. I am taking the opportunity of saying that in your Lordships' House.
Since I last ventured to attract the attention of your Lordships to the problem of alcoholism, there are three considerable developments or changes which have taken place in the general alcoholic scene. The first is an increase in the incidence of alcoholism—an increase which will be difficult to put into precise categories, but is nevertheless the overwhelming experience of all those who have some part in this field. That is perhaps best exemplified by the vast increase in the case-loads of those engaged in the information centres, in the kind of work done by the National Council on Alcoholism—an increase in alcoholism generally—and secondly, the multiplication and differentiation of the kind of efforts and services being rendered and effectively used to combat this menace. For example, there is the Merseyside Council on Alcoholism which provides an integrated and comprehensive service which I think is without parallel anywhere else in the country. There is the kind of fellowship such as the Richmond Fellowship, in close association with a hospital which in itself provides an alcoholic unit. There are 15 National
676
Health hospitals which are now fitted out with such units; and there are various rehabilitation centres. There is the Bridgehead Organisation which has already found the money for, and caused to be opened, at least 10 hostels for custodial or semi-custodial treatment or supported housing for alcoholics who would have been sent to prison otherwise.
These are indications of a widespread interest in a growing evil. But perhaps the third of these developments is the most significant. It is that, I suppose for the first time, there has appeared in a gracious Speech a reference to alcoholism and an intention of a Government to treat it, not separately, but as an integral part of the Welfare Services. It is because of the urgency of this new development; it is because of the potential as well as the actual achievements of organisations which could be more fully stretched; and it is because of a lively sense of favours to come which is one sense of the gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for entering upon this particular and vital issue with determination and, I hope, with speed, that I venture to attract the attention of your Lordships again to this problem.
I feel that it is necessary still in talking about alcoholism to make a couple of preliminary observations, both true of the speech which I now try to make. I am a teetotaller, but this is not an extension lecture in a teetotal campaign; neither is the effort of the various organisations seeking to combat alcoholism one to become residual legatees of the Band of Hope movement. In fact it is a matter of experience now to all who have any knowledge of this very serious evil that it is clinically observable if not differentiated and that it contains (and I say this with due deference to the collar that I wear) more to do with economic and medical and environmental concerns than perhaps it does in the first instance with moral concerns.
What is the state of alcoholism as can be more or less accurately described? Alcoholism is a stress condition, so I am given reasonably to understand—and my experience would bear this out—which is marked by a compulsive attitude to, drink which is progressively accompanied by black-outs and by a deterioration, both in character and in

677
condition, until it reaches the most pitiable stage, of which I hope that your Lordships have not personal evidence, but, if you have, you will know exactly what I mean.
It is calculated that there may be about 400,000 to 500,000 male alcoholics in the community at the moment—enough to fill Wembley Stadium five times over. We do not know how many female alcoholics there may be; they are likely to be more secretive, with bottles in the wardrobe; and though I read the other day more comforting assurances that their numbers may not be very prolific, the evidence which comes our way in the work which we seek to do would not confirm that optimism but would contradict it. It is difficult to describe in particular terms the incidence of alcoholism, but I will venture two comments, two illustrations, which are probably significant. One of them is this. The National Council on Alcoholism embarked, with the full co-operation of a large firm which of course shall remain nameless, on an investigation of the alcoholic problem that might affect members of its staff; and after careful investigation over a period of three years they are quite satisfied that between 22 per cent. and 23 per cent. of the staff of that particular industrial plant have what is called "an alcoholic problem".
There is another illustration. The Camberwell Reception Centre over the past three years has received something like 8,000 derelict people every year, of whom 2,000 are attested alcoholics. I do not know what is the relationship between alcohol and the public purse, though I remember that it was Sir Josiah Stamp who, as chairman of a Royal Commission on alcohol before the last war, reckoned that the deterioration or impairment of the gross national product was between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. It is calculable, I think, that at least that absenteeism which is a marked feature of the alcoholic, even in a secondary and not a tertiary stage, and the "absenteeism at work", which is one of Dr. Glatt's felicitous phrases for the conduct of the alcoholic when he is at work, must be a very large drain on the national economy. When one adds to that the calculations of the relationship between alcoholism and the middle kind
678
of crime—to say nothing of the repetitive appearances of those who get blind drunk and form almost the despair of local magistrates—when one thinks of the kind of misery which alcoholism produces domestically and in so many respects, surely it would be foolish to entertain any hopes that this is a passing phase and is not worthy of a serious debate.
What is to be done? I fully believe that Her Majesty's Government will, within a short time (I shall hope to hear this from the noble Lord who will reply) tell us of their plans. My purpose, if it is not presumptuous so to say, is to plough some fields a little and scatter some good seed, hoping that it will be "fed and watered"—perhaps I ought not to pursue that particular verse, because I believe that even the most optimistic supporters of the Government would not equate God's hard with every activity to which they are committed. Nevertheless, surely obvious advantage can come from a collation of the evidence from and an assessment of the problem by those who are engaged in day-by-day activities in relation to it; and in that regard I would say how gratified I am that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has thought fit to take some part in this debate. I hope that what is said to-day will at least be taken into serious account by those who will be formulating a policy to spend the £2 million which I understand they have already offered to make available as a subvention.
Let me begin with preventive medicine and speak fairly quickly, as the hour is getting late. I hope that there will be a serious and radical reduction in the kind of commercial advertisement, particularly on television, that equates the drinking of alcohol with virility and generally presupposes that to be fully adult drinking is a sine qua non. One of the astonishing and most pertinent of the discoveries about alcoholism is that whereas one man can imbibe quite a large quantity of alcohol and still, so to speak, keep his head, there are others whose chemistry is such that a very small intake of alcohol will immediately cause them to behave in almost a corybantic, to say nothing of a disastrous, fashion. That is true and it ought to be said, and it ought not to be assumed that drinking is a perfectly innocent and worthwhile activity in which all can take a fairly lush part because it has

679
no harmful effects in what people are pleased to call moderation. There are many people who are moderate drinkers who are alcoholics. It is for this reason that I believe that education should begin in the negative sense of not equating the drinking of alcohol with normal activities, but at an early stage there should be that kind of negative reduction of what I think to be a thoroughly dangerous and thoroughly powerful enlightenment, so to speak, of the unenlightened, and preparation for the activities which later on are so hard to break.
I reflect, my Lords, that if we were suddenly confronted with alcohol as we were, more or less, suddenly confronted with hard drugs, we should immediately take a Muslim attitude rather than the permissive attitude which is now almost part of our make-up. I want to see a vastly increased educative programme in the schools so that youngsters will know what it is they are going to do and be invited to do. I am sure that this is necessary. I reflect that the Cohen Report insisted that all education is imperfect and incomplete unless it contains health education. I want the facts. I am not at this moment asking for a teetotal pamphlet or that every injunction about alcohol should be preceded by the statement that it is the devil in solution. I am asking, and I believe it is reasonable so to ask, for some of the youngsters whom I see as alcoholics in the work to which we are committed, to have a chance of knowing what the facts are before they become enmeshed in the habit. I am sure that this ought to form a part of the curriculum at the teacher training colleges.
There is another aspect of this identification, or shall we say this process of education. It is preventive medicine, and it consists in the fuller use of that most magnificent kind of enterprise, now the characteristic of the National Council, whereby it is possible surreptitiously, quietly, without sentiment, without shame and without embarrassment, for the alcoholic to go and find out in the early stages of his disease what it is all about and where he can get help; or better still, in some cases his wife can so do. There is need for a vast increase in the number of information centres. There are already 10 in the large cities and there ought to be 200.
But, my Lords, preventive medicine is all very well for those who have not contracted the disease. What is to be done for those who have? I would not venture into the field which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has already cultivated so intensively and knows so intimately; but I would comment, after a long experience now, that medical treatment, in close conjunction with hospitalisation, is probably the best method in the initial drying-out. But after that I would not put too much emphasis on Antabuse, or the various drugs which are nauseating in relation to alcohol, and I would not put too much emphasis—this, I hope, will not be misunderstood—upon moral abdurations and counselling.
In the hostels with which I am connected, I am satisfied that the best treatment for the alcoholic in the rehabilitation stage is that he should be relieved of undue stress and should feel that once again he "belongs". In the simple friendship and understanding of such hostels, in such domestication, we entertain high hopes and have reason to cherish good results. I am sure that there are a few alcoholics who can be treated where they are and without reference to this kind of rehabilitation process, but for the vast majority at least for a little while this is probably necessary. Therefore, I hope that it is part of governmental policy to deal with the general area of what we do with a man who is repeatedly drunk and disorderly or alcoholic.
It is a colossal idiocy to assume that we can do him any good by sending him to prison. What is necessary is the multiplication of the kind of rehabilitation centres which afterwards lead on to something which could be called supporting houses. Here is a magnificent opportunity for the Government to support and criticise, discipline and encourage the small kind of house in which the recovered alcoholic can stay, if he is unmarried and unprepared or unable to go back to his family or with no family to go back to. We have tried this experiment and the results are excellent.
There is one curious aspect of alcoholism—not so curious to those who know what alcoholism is—and that is that there is no cure; there is only a condition of permanent convalescence. The recovered alcoholic will remain immune from the tendency to relapse only if he has rather

681
more support than the average citizen who is not so afflicted. So it comes about, in one of the houses for which I am responsible, where we put up some 14 residents three years ago, that we cannot get rid of them. In fact it would be wrong to get rid of them, because they are not and never will be fully able to support themselves in the hurly-burly of a world which most of us meet. It seems to me that there is a continuing problem here which has resolutely to be faced.
There are not a few of those unfortunate people for whom we seek to care who will be in permanent need of staying in a supporting house for a long time, perhaps to the end of their days. I hope that the Government will take into account the similar experience of many other splendid institutions now endeavouring to battle with this disease. In the long run, alcoholism is part of the stress and conflict of the world in which we live and, but for the grace of God there go us. That is not a pious platitude. It is a fact that every one of us has an upper limit to our endurance, and that for some people that is not so high as for others. I am in no mood to criticise, though I do not in any way reject moral principles and the value of encouragement to nobler and better ways. I should like to see a society in which the typical stress of the cut and thrust is ameliorated by a deeper sense of belonging. I know that this at the moment is beyond the competence of any Government to provide. But it is not sufficient to get people to stand on their own feet. The feet of many alcoholics are broken and their legs buckled and they find it intolerable to bear their own weight.
I hope and believe that the Government will set about the task of ameliorating their condition and of facing what, after all, is not just an occasional or evanescent problem but probably one of the greatest problems that is conjoined to the kind of society for which we have opted. While we are in process of changing that society into a more kind and friendly one, I entertain the highest hopes that the Government, having put this matter into the gracious Speech, will do what we believe they can do—that is, render support and encouragement and enlightenment to those who will be joined with them in this enterprise so
682
that they may be encouraged to believe that alcohol is a disease which can be conquered.
8.6 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that even at this late hour the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Soper for raising this extremely important question. We have listened to a deeply moving and deeply knowledgeable speech, as always, from my noble friend. I am always delighted to follow him, and it is particularly good this evening that we should be tackling the question from, as it were, opposite ends of the spectrum. My noble friend told us that he is a teetotaller. I am not. I regard alcohol as one of the normal pleasures of life, so I do not follow him down the stony path of abstinence. But it is significant that although we approach the problem differently, we come to the same conclusions about the importance of the treatment of this dreadful disease. The fact that it is a progressive disease makes it worse; and it is a disease created by society.
In our society the pressures towards drinking are tremendous. The nondrinkers, especially males, are often looked upon as outsiders, as rather boring people. Alcohol is pleasant, and easy to get. But many people are unable to cope with it at the social level and go on progressively towards drunkenness, and often to alcoholism itself. At that point society, having created the problem, repudiates them. They are a nuisance to their friends. They create a private hell for their families. They are sacked by their employers. They are often viewed with distaste and despair by their doctors. A stigma is attached to alcoholism in all its forms; and because of that stigma much of it is kept hidden, and the problem is very much greater than people realise.
My noble friend Lord Soper referred to the problem of alcoholism in industry. The Medical Council on Alcoholism produced an excellent report in 1968. They estimated that the cost to industry in one year was £100 million, and that it was probably much higher. The tragedy is that neither side of industry appreciates the size of this problem, and so they do not co-operate as they should with people who are trying to eradicate it. The

683
Council report that the Institute of Directors say that there is no problem among directors. The Institute said:
"We examine 7,000 to 8,000 directors each year and never find more than seven. When they are found they are booted out."
This does not seem likely, or constructive, or even Christian. On the other side of industry, we find that industrial medical officers and trade union officials must often cover up alcoholism they find because of the fear of the dismissal of the men concerned.
This is the sort of problem that we are up against; and it is made worse because, as it is not recognised, industry does not give the help asked for in collecting statistics, in allowing clinics and in allowing information centres. This shows us what we are up against.
In the past, my Lords—that is, in the 18th and 19th centuries—the largest number of people suffering from this disease came from the working classes. That was because poverty created intolerable living conditions, working conditions were unbearable and the majority of people came from those classes. But to-day the disease is disproportionately high among the professional classes. This is not always realised. Further, it strikes the professional classes between the ages of 40 and 50—this is the peak period—just at the time when most men and women should be at their most productive in their professions. In other words, it is the affluent society that is now creating a different kind of alcoholic problem.
My noble friend referred especially to the increase in the rise of alcoholism among women. This is, I think, peculiarly disturbing. It is true that in the last twenty years deaths from alcoholism among women have been doubled. He also referred to environmental causes. This must be particularly true of women because of the fashion to drink "short" drinks and spirits. Surely many of those isolated blocks of flats, where the women are alone all day, smaller families with fewer children, boredom and the lack of community life which their parents used to have all contribute to the drinking problem among women. Since society is much harsher in its judgment of drunkenness in women, their drinking, as my noble friend said, is carried out alone, at
684
home and in secret. For this reason it is not only difficult to detect but extremely difficult to help. Indeed, solitary beings in general are those who are particularly prone to this disease: widows, divorcees, men separated from their wives, and people who are not so much homeless as rootless.
This brings us again to the problem of drink and crime. As my noble friend said, it is almost crazy to send alcoholics to prison. Yet in 1967, 35 per cent. of prison accommodation in this country was taken up by alcoholics. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 makes provision to abolish imprisonment if alternative accommodation which gives treatment is available. But the operative word is "if", and such accommodation is very rarely available. We all know about the relationship between traffic accidents and drinking, but we do not know nearly enough about the relationship between serious crime and drinking. I think one of the saddest things that I have ever read comes from that remarkable book, The Frying Pan, by Tony Parker. This is what a prisoner who was also an alcoholic said to him:
"I do not want to stop drinking, you see; drinking is my life. To give it up I would have to be a completely different person and not preserve even the last little thing of myself at all. I would like to control it, but to give it up altogether is beyond thought.… Drunk and incapable: that is the only possible way that is for me."
Noble Lords will know of the seriousness of this problem; they must have met many examples in the work they do. Although I have said that it is not now such a mass problem, I believe that it is much more insidious, and we can cope with it only through greater knowledge and, as my noble friend said, through education. We must first of all educate public opinion to see alcoholism as a disease and not merely as something immoral. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Platt, with us to-night, because one of the other things I think is so important is to educate our medical students and doctors much more fully in this disease; to recognise the disease itself rather than simply its physical causes; to learn to treat the whole family as well as the patient; to learn to use the public services which are available. Above all—and perhaps this is much more difficult—they must be trained to recognise those patients who are especially at risk.

685
I entirely agree with every word that my noble friend said about education in the schools. We need to have more sensible education in the schools which treats this as a problem of general health education and not as something separate and special. Lastly, I think we need to educate Governments—and I mean all Governments—and local authorities in the need to spend more money on the problem. In 1968 there were only 407 beds available in the United Kingdom for treatment of this disease, and all these beds and the units were in mental hospitals. They were pitifully few. Often an alcoholic, when asked to go into hospital, will say, "I am not mad; I am not going into a mad-house", and will refuse treatment. I know that the documents that we have are often somewhat out of date, and so I have given the noble Lord the Minister of State notice of some of the questions that I want to ask him; and this is the first one. Is urgent consideration being given not merely to providing more beds but to providing them in general hospitals and in outpatients as well as in mental hospitals?
There is an excellent Paper on this problem by the Office of Health Economics (it was published in 1970), and it is interesting that they and the Medical Council on Alcoholism recommend very much the same things. They underline the almost desperate need for urgent action. They urge recognition of the problem by the public, industry and the professions, and above all, they say, it is essential that greater provision for treatment must be provided. One of their main recommendations, again as my noble friend said, has been for after-care.
Both the Office of Health Economics and the Council underline the need for more halfway houses and hostels. On the splendid work of the Richmond Fellowship which my noble friend mentioned, I should like to give an example of how things do not always work out as they should. The Fellowship runs an excellent halfway hostel in connection with two mental hospitals, and so on. It is splendidly run, and provides accommodation for 16 men and women who are alcoholics. There are many urgent cases waiting for admission, but grants are very few and some local authorities do not take up the places which are available at that hostel. Indeed, two-fifths of all
686
referrals are not taken up for financial reasons. In this day, in this civilisation and in this country, this seems to me to be tragic and indeed disgraceful.
The Medical Council go on to say:
"As a public health problem, alcoholism does not seem to be receiving the attention it merits. More than half the authorities have no special scheme for public education and information about alcoholism. Little literature was available, appropriate visual aids were lacking and few talks were given to the public and school children."
The House would be glad if the noble Lord could report some progress on these particular points. Everybody interested in this problem will know of the great part played by the voluntary societies. My noble friend has mentioned many of them, and it is impossible to think of the problem without also thinking of Alcoholics Anonymous, and many, many others. But we want to know whether the Government can give those voluntary societies still more support. As well as that, perhaps the top priority is to have more research. We do not really know the ætiology of the disease yet; we do not know whether the causes are cultural, physiological, psychological, or probably a mixture of all three. Even so, we do not yet know how to vary the treatment for the different patients, however the illness may have been caused.
Out of the liquor trade in general, including taxes and so on, the Government receive £1,500 million a year. If only 0·1d. could be levied off, it would give us £625,000 to spend on research. We know that this is a tragic, wasteful and increasing disease. It is the third health hazard after heart disease and cancer. We know that it is partly hidden; we know that it is curable if it can be detected in time. Surely, my Lords, it is our duty to do everything in our power to mitigate the suffering that it causes and to prevent its occurrence.
8.22 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I have joined this debate because I felt that as a medical man I should support the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in bringing this tremendously important problem to your Lordships' notice. I have to confess straight away that because of the inadequacies of medical education, to which the noble Baroness has quite rightly called

687
attention, I cannot speak with either the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, nor the factual knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, on this subject.
I am an Englishman and, on the whole, I like and support things which are typically English. But we can, on occasions, go a little too far. Much as I respect the proper feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on the question of the export of animals versus carcases, it seems to me to be carrying the typically English view a little too far when we put that debate in front of the problems of alcoholism and leave them until 8.20 at night. It is quite amazing, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I am sure would tell you, how little the importance of this problem is recognised. This afternoon I have spoken to Members of this House who are absolutely ignorant that a problem like this even exists. This is partly because the alcoholic, at any rate in the first part of his career, is able to conceal it from his fellows, and in the later part of his career drops out of society and drops beneath the surface. It is also because alcohol, unlike certain other addictions, is a drug which the majority of people can take in moderation without becoming what society would normally call an alcoholic. I speak, as the noble Baroness has admitted she also speaks, as one who enjoys alcohol, but like a good many other people I am—with some difficulty occasionally—able to keep it in check. Having decided that, as a medical man, I should put my name down as one of the speakers in this debate and support the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in urging the Government to give us an early statement on what they intend to do about this problem, I then had to decide what aspects of the problem I could speak on at all with any authority and, at the same time, be as brief as possible.
I do not think it would be profitable to compare, or try to compare, the size, the immensity, the seriousness of the problem with that of, for instance, disease due to cigarette smoking, traffic accidents and so on. Those are totally different problems, each important in their own way. But what makes the alcoholic, perhaps, so tragic is that before he kills himself—which a person can
688
do through contracting lung cancer or through traffic accidents—he has brought misery on so many other people, notably his own family. So alcoholism becomes an immense social problem out of all proportion to the other causes of self-inflicted illness to which I have referred.
At this late hour I do not think I should go further into the question of alcoholism as an addiction, but I should like to say something about education. It has been interesting to me to come into a society, such as we have in your Lordships' House, and learn—I will not say almost every day, but certainly every week or every month—of the inadequacies of medical education. It is quite surprising how we doctors live in a little world where what we like to see is somebody who is ill who wants our advice, whom we can help with a simple remedy and, preferably, watch getting better. We delight in making a diagnosis of a difficult case. But preventive medicine and the social problems of people do not interest us nearly as much as they should. Our education in these subjects varies from the non-existent, at one extreme, to the totally inadequate at the other extreme.
I hope that whatever we say about medical education and its inadequacies, we shall not once again point at the general practitioner and say how ignorant he is of these problems and all the things that he ought to do. I think we should point to those who have a responsibility for medical education and for the curriculum in medicine. I will say no more except to support the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in asking the Government to please give their closest and most sincere consideration to this problem, and I hope that at an early date they will be able to let us know of the measures which they think are practical that can be taken by the Government.
8.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everybody who has spoken in this debate. Short as it has been, it has been of great interest to me. May I say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, how much I appreciate the fact that he has given us this opportunity of debating the subject of alcoholism. I know, and all your Lordships know, about his very deep interest in the subject and of his very practical concern. He

689
spoke with deep knowledge and all that he said will have made a great impression and will be taken into account. We had some words together on the day that I suppose is the busiest for him and the slackest for me—on Sunday last—and I told him that we were not yet in a position to give him many details of how the extra allocation of money would be spent. He, I think quite rightly, decided that this was a much better time to have this debate, rather than after any decisions had been made. I would thoroughly agree with that. I think it has been extremely useful.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that I am sorry we have kept him so late. I am glad that he has stuck the course because his contribution was most useful. But, of course, the drill with Unstarred Questions is that they are taken in the order in which they are put down, and their relative importance does not decide the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I rather suspected that that might be the answer.
LORD ABERDARE: Only last week we were discussing here the problems of drug misuse—problems which, above all, affect young people. In that debate several noble Lords drew attention to the "generation gap" and to the danger of society's applying a double standard in its attitudes to alcohol and drugs. We should be in no doubt to-day that alcoholism is a form of drug dependence, an illness requiring the skills of doctors, nurses, social workers and others if it is to be overcome. It is generally recognised to-day that people who are addicted to alcohol require treatment. But one of the most intractable features of the disease is precisely that it is so often not recognised, or not recognised early enough, so that the social drinker slides unnoticed into the stage of addiction with its severe medical and social complications.
One reason for this is the enormous scale on which alcohol is consumed. The figures are quite startling. In the year ending March 31, 1970, we drank no less than 18 million gallons of spirits, 42 million gallons of wine, and 1,206 million gallons of beer. How are we to divide the consumers of this large quantity into
690
normal social drinkers, on the one hand, and alcoholics, on the other? Even the heavy use of alcohol—the tradition of the "night on the town"—is, up to a point, sanctioned by society in a way that the misuse of other drugs is not. This increases the difficulty of identifying the real alcoholic who urgently needs help. Various methods have been devised of estimating the incidence of alcoholism in the community. It is extremely difficult to arrive at accurate figures. The noble Lord, I think, used the figure of 400,000. Well, my figures are upwards of a quarter of a million alcoholics as defined by the World Health Organisation.
The problem is a medical and a social one and involves the health and social services on a broad front. Guidance issued by my Department to hospitals, local health authorities and general practitioners has emphasised the need for coherent deployment of services, including those of the voluntary organisations, mentioned by many of your Lordships, which play a vital part in this field. The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, asked me some questions about the hospital services and their provisions. The hospital services are provided at the moment by mental illness hospitals, and by psychiatric departments of general hospitals, most of which play a part in treating alcoholic patients. In addition, there are 14 specialised alcoholic units in England, with a total of 298 beds. Those figures for the United Kingdom come up to 19 units and about 405 beds, but owing to the postal strike it has not been possible for me to verify the figures from Scotland. In 1969 there were 6,689 admissions to hospitals of patients with a primary diagnosis of alcoholism or alcoholic psychosis.
Alcoholic patients have complex needs for hospital treatment. The essential job of specialised units is the treatment of their addiction as such. But sometimes alcoholism may be associated with mental illness and require treatment in a psychiatric department. Or sometimes it leads to physical complications which may require treatment in a general hospital. This points to a very flexible approach in our development of hospital services for alcoholics. Like the noble Lord, I am well aware that successful treatment of the alcoholic is only the beginning of a

691
long and complicated process of rehabilitation. Each individual is a separate problem and community care needs to be well organised and in a combined operation, in which doctors and laymen, statutory and voluntary agencies, work together closely as a team. Hostel accommodation in a therapeutic community may sometimes be a necessary adjunct to treatment, especially for those alcoholics who are otherwise homeless.
The full range of local authority services are also available to alcoholics. These include support for them and their families, and help in rehabilitation. The guidance we have issued to local authorities in recent years has emphasised the need for close integration between all those providing services, including voluntary organisations. We have emphasised the importance of increasing the number of hostels, run either by local authorities or by voluntary bodies, specifically for alcoholics. So far no hostels for alcoholics have been established by local authorities, but a number of them are providing financial support to voluntary bodies who have made residential and other provision for alcoholics.
I readily recognise, and greatly welcome, the substantial contribution made by voluntary bodies in the field of alcoholism. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, mentioned some of them. The National Council on Alcoholism is doing a most useful job in publishing information and in encouraging the setting up of information and counselling centres, of which there are now 10 in the United Kingdom. The Medical Council on Alcoholism carries out a vital role in the instigation and co-ordination of scientific research ranging through medical, psychiatric and sociological to statistical research; and it also operates a consultant advisory service.
Alcoholics Anonymous is working quietly and with considerable effect through groups of recovered alcoholics in providing counselling and support, as also are the Al-Anon Family Groups, a fellowship of relatives of alcoholics. A number of other voluntary organisations are providing a wide range of residential care, including units which have developed to the stage where they are largely run by the residents themselves.
692
The National Association of Voluntary Hostels provides a consultative service for the accommodation of the homeless, including alcoholics, who are in need of residential care. My Lords, these are just some of the voluntary bodies who are doing splendid work in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, mentioned others. One of them I was pleased he mentioned, the Merseyside Council on Alcoholism, because I shall have the pleasure later this year of opening their annual conference.
Your Lordships will remember that when the present Government came into office we looked urgently at the whole range of social services to identify areas of special need, and that, following this review, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place last November that he had decided to make extra money available to the National Health Service, including £2 million, over the next four years, to improve facilities for alcoholics. There will be increased expenditure by both hospital and local authorities, and an increase in grants to voluntary bodies.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has initiated a specific review of existing services for alcoholics on which to base his plans. Discussions have started with the statutory authorities and voluntary bodies active in this field. Furthermore—and this applies particularly to the valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelvn-Davies of Hastoe, on the question of drink and crime—an important report on habitual drunken offenders will shortly be available; and this, too, will be taken into account in the same review. It is in the light of all this that my right honourable friend will be formulating his policy and announcing his plans as soon as possible, and it is in the light of those facts that I warmly welcome the debate that we have had this evening.
I thank all those of your Lordships who have made valuable contributions. The seeds mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will not fall on stony ground. The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, made some very wise remarks about alcoholism in industry and in the professional classes. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, gave us his views on the medical side of the problem. All these

693
ideas are of the utmost value, and I can assure your Lordships that they will be fully taken into account in this review before we decide how the money can best be applied. Prevention, treatment and support all have claims, and I can assure your Lordships that we are as anxious as those of your Lordships who have spoken this evening to see progress.
AUSTRALIAN, MERCANTILE, LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [H.L.]
CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [ELL]
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
GREAT SOUTHERN CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
JOHN HOLLIS TRUST FOR EMPLOYEES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
LUTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (ORE BERTH) BILL [H.L.]
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SCUNTHORPE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on January 19 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.