Lords Sitting of 28 January 1971

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The EARL OF LISTOWEL on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: THE ROSKILL REPORT
LORD BESWICK: 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 now make a Statement about the Report of the Commission on the Third London Airport; and whether in particular they will say how the matter will be discussed by Parliament, and when it is intended to make a decision about the recommendations of the Report.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, a debate on the Report of the Commission is to take place in your Lordships' House, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Molson, on February 23. I cannot say when a decision will be made on the recommendations of the Report, except that it will not be made until they have been debated in both Houses of Parliament.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Now that the full Report has been published, will the noble Lord take the opportunity to express adequate thanks to Mr. Justice Roskill and his Commission for the quite superb job of work they have done? Secondly, would he not agree that the abuse to which the Commission were subjected by people, even before the Report was published, was quite intolerable? Furthermore, may I ask the noble Lord whether, when we come to the debate on February 23, the Government will be in a position to say something about the possibilities of an alternative solution to
1058
our problems other than that of creating a third London Airport?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first I should like to associate the Government, and I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House, in the thanks to Mr. Justice Roskill and the other members of the Commission for their very long and arduous work. Whether or not one agrees with their recommendation—some people do and some do not—one cannot but be extremely grateful to the Commission for their public service in this respect. I did not think it was part of the Answer to the noble Lord's Question; but I am grateful to him for making the point. So far as his second point is concerned, we shall certainly take that into account.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a great many people feel that what is required is not so much a third London Airport as a third British airport? Is he aware that in the North of England there is considerable support for the siting of such an airport in South Yorkshire? When the debate takes place will he be in a position to say what consideration has been given to the views of the West Riding County Council, among others, in their evidence to the Commission?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, of course, my Lords. The issue referred to the Commission was to inquire into the timing of a need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area; to consider the various alternative sites and to recommend which site should be selected. I have no doubt that everything the Roskill Commission have said will be carefully studied.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord's original Answer to mean that the Government are to await the debate in the other place before reaching a decision? Does that mean that the Government are incapable of making up their own minds on the subject?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the other place, and indeed this House, would be among the first to complain if the Government were to make up their mind before they had listened to the advice given.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask another question. The noble Lord said—and I can quite understand why he said it—that he cannot give a date by which the Government will announce their decision on the recommendations. Can he give some indication of the time-scale within which the Government propose to work?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, except to say that the Government appreciate very much the need to end the uncertainty which has affected people living in the areas which were selected as the four possible sites for the Airport.

DOG LICENCES REVIEW
3.10 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: 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 the review of all matters concerning dog licences covers not only the cost but also the basis on which persons are licensed to keep dogs, and when the review is likely to be completed.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the review of dog licensing on which Her Majesty's Government is engaged covers all aspects of this subject and not only the cost of a licence. Several Government Departments are involved. No one would pretend that the present arrangements are very sensible, and it is not easy to find a simple and straightforward way of improving them. I cannot say when the review will be completed, but it is hoped that a decision will be reached before long.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. I would ask that when the Government reach a decision they will bear in mind the great difference between the commercial uses to which dogs are put and their use as private pets and for charitable purposes.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, do I gather that the noble Lord is advocating two forms of licence?
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite correct. I do not think that these uses should be treated on the same footing.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I will certainly bear that in mind.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask how it comes about that dog licences are now the responsibility of the Chief Whip?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be felt in some quarters that that is not entirely inappropriate. As I think the noble Lord knows, the Whips have to answer for various Departments, and on this occasion I happen to be answering for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

PROFESSIONAL BODIES AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
LORD JANNER: 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 the Charity Commissioners could be requested to declare at the earliest possible opportunity what policy they propose to adopt, so far as concerns professional institutions which are registered as charities and wish to be placed on a register for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Bill.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME AFFAIRS (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, it would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to make such a request to the Charity Commissioners, but I have no doubt that they will take note of the noble Lord's Question. The noble Lord or the professional institutions in question may wish to approach the Charity Commissioners direct.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in the event of this unfortunate Bill becoming an Act, is it not important that the professional bodies, who are doing excellent work in the country, should know what exactly will be the position so far as they are concerned? Does he not think that in these circumstances a Statement should be made by the Government at some stage as to what will be the position?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, a number of professional associations have made representations to the Government, and after consideration of these representations it has been decided to introduce an Amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill in another place which will enable professional associations that have a negotiating function to be placed on a special register and thereby benefit from all the privileges accorded to trade unions by the Bill. The Charity Commissioners may feel that it would be desirable to wait and see in what form the legislation goes on the Statute Book before deciding about the position of those professional associations which are registered as charities.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that unless something definite is known about the position of these professional bodies, it places them in a serious position in the event, as I say, of this unhappy Bill becoming an Act? Should they not know exactly what their standing is in respect of the Charity Commissioners?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is putting the cart before the horse. The Charity Commissioners cannot review the position of these professional associations before they know in what form the law is likely to be placed on the Statute Book.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, are we to understand from the Answer that has been given that professional institutions are to be allowed a privileged position and still be closed shops?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not know how carefully the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has studied the position of those professional associations which are also registered as charities. There are very few of them—the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives are the most conspicuous—and their position is an unusual one, in that they were originally registered as charities and later took on negotiating functions as regards the wages and terms of employment of their members.

PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES
3.15 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 a maintenance allowance cannot be drawn through the Post Office and the amount deducted through P.A.Y.E.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords I am afraid that this system would not work, because it is not practicable to use the P.A.Y.E. machinery to collect maintenance payments.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is an entirely negative answer to a very important social problem? Does he realise that in consequence of using the present practice poor women—thousands of them—are compelled every week to visit the magistrates' court, often with their children, to see whether any money has been paid in? And is he aware that, as a result of this practice, 3,000 men are committed to prison every year? Does he not think that the time has come when there should be a change of mind?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very well aware of all that the noble Baroness has said and that there is a very serious problem. But I am afraid that the suggestion she makes is not practicable. The noble Baroness is probably aware of the Payne Committee Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts. The Report went very carefully into the use of P.A.Y.E. and it was found to be impracticable. On the other hand, we are strengthening the machinery for enforcing maintenance by the attachment-of-earnings procedure when Part II of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, comes into force later this year.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, would it not be possible to carry out my noble friend's suggestion if it were not a question of P.A.Y.E. but of drawing the money at a post office? Is it not a fact

1063
that very many women find it distressing to go week after week to a magistrates' court to get their maintenance allowance?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is possible for these maintenance allowance payments to be made by post, so that people do not have to queue up for them. I am afraid that the question is how to recover the payments from the defaulter, from the deserting husband. Although payments could be made perfectly easily, the problem is how to collect the money.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, would it be possible to get us a little nearer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has in mind if the payment could be made through the offices of the Ministry of Social Security, which is already, in many cases, dealing with benefits to deserted wives? The question I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare is: are there a sufficient number of Social Security offices accessible throughout the country to be within reach of the women who would otherwise find post offices inaccessible?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think this would be difficult and I should like to go into it a little more carefully. The offices of the Ministry of Social Security are already heavily overburdened and, as I say, the present rules are such that these payments may be made by post, which I should have thought the most convenient way in nearly all circumstances.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while everybody is concerned not to add to bureaucracy and numbers will the noble Lord consider my noble friend's Question again? It is quite clear that there is here a matter of great anxiety and personal suffering, and it may well be that a further examination might yield a more satisfactory answer.
LORD ABERDARE: Certainly, my Lords, I shall be glad to do what the noble Lord suggests. There is one other thing that I might mention. At the moment a Departmental Committee, the Finer Committee, is considering the income of the one-parent families. That goes wider than what the noble Baroness has in mind, but the Committee will be considering this point.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that if a payment is made through the magistrates' court the magistrates' clerk is kept informed whether the payments are up to date, and it also enables him to pursue the husband if necessary?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in order that he may be more enlightened on this subject may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether he will read a book, written by Professor McGregor and published yesterday, called Separate Spouses? It was written as the result of an inquiry financed by the Nuffield Trust? The committee which conducted the inquiry had as its chairman Sir Jocelyn Simon, the President of the Divorce Court, and the book deals with this subject in detail. I hope that the noble Lord will have it as his bedside reading. If he does so, perhaps in a week or two he may change his mind.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for the suggestion.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that with the minimum of good will it is perfectly possible for the employer of the deserter to pay into the local magistrates' court the amount allocated?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to attachment of earnings, I agree that this is a hopeful way in which this kind of problem can be tackled.

THOS. COOK & SON: POSITION OF STAFF
3.21 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the following Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,—
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their statement that they intend to dispose of the publicly owned company, Thos. Cook & Son, Ltd., what consultations they have had with the trade unions concerned and whether they will make a Statement as

1065
to the procedure to be followed and the terms that will be required to safeguard the interests of its employees?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Sandford will answer this Question at a convenient moment after half-past three.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, your Lordships will have noted with deep regret the sudden death of Lord Upjohn. This means that it will probably be necessary for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to sit judicially next week. Therefore it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Committee stage of the Wild Animals and Forest Law Bill should be taken after the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, instead of in front of it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I only wish to echo what the noble Earl has said in expressing deep regret at the death of Lord Upjohn. The consultations have clearly and satisfactorily covered this change of business. It was helpful for the noble Lord to make this statement, in view of the difficulties of circulating Whips.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 relating to the fixing of betting days at licensed tracks and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.24 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is concerned, in the main, with hospital endowments which were given on or before November 5, 1946. These are the endowments to which Section 7(2) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 applies, and in the Bill they are termed "relevant endowments". The most important single provision of the Bill is that all these endowments will be taken over by a central trust, to be called the Scottish Hospital Trust, instead of being held severally by the various hospital boards. The Bill also provides that the income from these endowments will be distributed by the Trust by a single comprehensive scheme; this will be by Statutory Instrument subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. The Bill mainly follows the recommendations made by a Working Party under Professor Robert Browning, of Glasgow, which considered the allocation of hospital endowments and reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1969.
Before dealing with the Bill in any, detail I will explain why it deals only with pre-November, 1946, endowments; that is, only with endowments which were given before the setting up of the National Health Service was announced. The principal reason for not bringing later endowments within the scope of the Bill (and, indeed, the reason why they were excluded from review under the 1947 Act) is that these donations were given to specific hospitals in the full knowledge that the hospitals were shortly to become, or had become, the responsibility of the Secretary of State and in the belief that these moneys would be devoted to purposes of that particular hospital. To make such endowments subject to review now would be unjust and would quite posibly discourage people from leaving money to hospitals in the future.
In bringing forward proposals for review and re-allocation of pre-1946 endowments, however, we are continuing a principle which was introduced under the 1947 Act. When the National Health

1067
Service was set up, the endowment position of the different hospitals varied very widely. Some had little or no endowments; these were particularly the former local authority hospitals, including many mental hospitals. Others, and especially the large voluntary hospitals in cities, were very richly endowed in comparison. In an integrated National Health Service, it was thought right to do something to narrow the gap between the poorest and the richest hospitals; and this was done by a series of separate schemes, prepared by the Hospital Endowments Commission and introduced in 1954 and 1955, whereby capital holdings were transferred between boards so as to provide each board of management with a minimum income of £2 per bed per annum. Regional Hospital Boards were given a small block of capital, and enough capital to produce an annual income of about £100,000 was transferred to the Scottish Hospital Endowment Research Trust.
These arrangements proved fairly satisfactory; but 15 years have passed since they were made, and circumstances have changed in that time. There have been changes in the location and numbers of beds on which the last re-allocation of capital was based; it has come to be recognised that more needs to be done for the patients and staff in our long-stay hospitals; and the value of money has so changed that if £2 per bed was a reasonable minimum in 1954, it certainly requires to be increased now. While part of the intention of the Bill is thus to bring tip to date the arrangements for ensuring that every hospital board receives a reasonable minimum income from pre-1946 endowments, the centralisation of these endowments is a new step. While obviously many of the boards have managed their endowments with prudence and skill—and this naturally applies especially to the major boards, such as those responsible for our teaching hospitals—it was the Working Party's view that a central trust, comprising members specially skilled in finance and investment matters and advised in its day-to-day investment management by an expert in the field, would overall be able to achieve a better performance and a maximum income consistent with the best use of capital.
1068
The report of the Working Party which has provided the basis for the main provisions of this Bill was the subject of consultations with hospital boards and other interested bodies. The redistribution of income which we are proposing is bound to mean that some boards will lose in order to help others; naturally some, but not all, of these have expressed objections, while on the question of centralisation of the investments some boards have maintained—and we accept the justice of their claim—that they have done perfectly well in the management of their own endowments. But we have accepted the view of the Working Party that the success of a centralisation policy, which we are sure is the right one, depends on its being applied to all pre-1946 endowments—the arrangements would lose very much of their value if boards were allowed to opt out of them. And while there will be a loss of income for some in order to raise the level of others, we believe that those who have been most fortunate in the past in receiving large sums in legacies and donations are also those who are most likely to benefit in this way in future. As I have said, later donations are not affected by our proposals. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State have said in another place, we would wish to make it very clear that hospitals and hospital boards will still be able to accept donations and legacies. They represent a most useful source of supplementary income which is free from any central control.
Now may I turn to the details of the Bill? Clause 1 of the Bill establishes the Scottish Hospital Trust, and prescribes its duties and obligations in relation to the endowments which will be transferred to it. Clause 2 provides for the pre-November, 1946, endowments to be transferred to the Trust, apart from income which boards have accumulated from such endowments, and the sum which has been transferred to the Scottish Hospital Endowment Research Trust. The Trust will continue to function under its own statutory provisions, and its financial position is not affected by this Bill. There are one or two cases where we consider that special arrangements should be made

1069
either to exclude endowments from transfer or to attach special conditions to the transfer, and the clause also makes this possible. Clause 3 sets out in detail the powers which will be given to the Trust. Apart from the normal powers of trustees, one or two points are of special interest. The Trust will be given certain special powers in connection with narrower range investments and investment in unit trusts and property unit trusts. We think it is right in this case to relax some of the normal limitations on the powers of trusts, since the Scottish Hospital Trust will be required under the next clause to appoint an investment expert as adviser. Under Clause 3, the Trust will also be able to make loans to hospital boards against their own shares in the Trust capital it will be able to accept, as well as the "relevant" endowments, any other endowments which a hospital board may wish to transfer voluntarily to the Trust for investment and management on their behalf. It can give advice to hospital boards on the management of such endowments; and there is specific provision empowering the Trust to accept any new endowments which may be offered directly to it in the future.
Clause 4 requires the Trust to appoint an investment expert as adviser on the management of its funds. This is the provision which justifies the special investment powers to which I referred under the previous clause. The adviser may be an expert or a firm, and may be employed by the Trust as a member of its staff or appointed on agreed terms. Clause 5 and Clause 6 are mainly formal in character. They provide for voluntary transfer of post-1946 endowments to the Trust; for the capital value of relevant endowments to be calculated by methods prescribed in regulations; and for the arrangements relating to borrowings by boards.
Clause 7 deals with the distribution of the income of the relevant endowments. This will be carried out under schemes to be made by the Secretary of State from time to time. So far as the distribution of income is concerned, the Trust will act solely as an agent of the Secretary of State. A new scheme will be made at any time when it is found desirable to alter the arrangements. For example,
1070
the intention is that as a start the minimum level of income will be £3 per bed (as recommended by the Working Party), the balance being distributed to boards in proportion to the capital which they have transferred to the Trust under Clause 2. Later, some other figure may be thought to be appropriate. The schemes made under this clause will also prescribe the purposes for which income is to be used: both in general terms and, in some cases for specific purposes, such as the award of prizes and the upkeep of memorials, where such purposes are contained in existing schemes and the boards concerned want them to be retained.
Your Lordships may be interested to note that, for the first time, the State Hospital at Carstairs will benefit. This hospital, which caters for mentally disordered patients requiring treatment in conditions of special security, has not been included in previous distributions because it is not established under the National Health Service; but we feel that its need for some endowment income is as great as that of other psychiatric hospitals. It performs similar functions, and there is interchange of patients and staff between Carstairs and the other hospitals. Your Lordships will also have noted the ample opportunity which will be given for the expression of opinion on these schemes before they are made. All hospital authorities will be given an opportunity of making representations on them—this will be done by circulating a draft of the scheme. Thereafter, the scheme will be laid in draft and be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. We acknowledge that hospital authorities should have every chance to make their views known when we come to the arrangements for distribution of income, which naturally will always be a subject of prime importance.
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the administrative expenses of the Trust, its other administrative arrangements, and its obligation in regard to the audit of its accounts. Clause 10 is a consequence of one of the provisions of Clause 3. As I mentioned earlier, the new Trust will be given certain extended investment powers, and we think that the same powers should be given to the Research Trust, which is similarly served by investment experts. Clause 11 provides that regulations, other than those of a Procedural nature made

1071
under Clause 8, shall be by Statutory Instrument subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure—the same as is being provided in regard to the income distribution schemes to be made under Clause 7. Clauses 12 to 14 and the Schedule do not, I think, call for any comment, being of a formal nature.
This Bill, or one very like it, was first introduced by the previous Government, but the Dissolution of Parliament prevented any progress being made then. In the debates in the other place it has been generally welcomed by both sides and a number of improvements have been made to it. I think that it represents a sensible revision of the arrangements for handling the pre-Health Service hospital endowments, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill should now be read a second time.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, once again I can give wholehearted support to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. The Bill was considered very extensively in Committee in another place, in five sittings, during which time the Minister accepted two Amendments from the Opposition and gave a certain number of undertakings. When it came to the Report stage he moved a new clause and seven Amendments giving effect to improvements suggested by the Opposition. In the circumstances it would be churlish of me to say anything more on the matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
3.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill arises from international negotiations which led to the adoption of amendments to the International Convention on Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil for the purposes of tightening the control on the deliberate discharges of oil into the sea.
1072
The Convention, as amended in 1962, and as brought into effect for United Kingdom ships by the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 and 1963, ought in theory to be an effective measure. In wide areas of the sea from which oil could possibly float on to our beaches no discharges are allowed except in mixtures in which the quantity of oil is hardly detectable. In addition, a special restriction on new ships of over 20,000 tons means that even in the middle of the ocean the number of ships still discharging substantial quantities of oil from tank washings should be progressively reduced. Nevertheless, the results from all this have been disappointing. The pollution of the sea has continued to be a menace, even apart from the results of collisions and accidents such as the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Pacific Glory".
The main trouble is that the Convention provides so many loopholes or excuses that it is not regarded seriously by the less responsible shipping operators. Enforcement of a control on the activities of ships on the high seas is difficult for obvious practical reasons. It is not assisted by the form of the present Convention; for example, the 100 parts per million definition of a polluting mixture is a major stumbling block because of the difficulty of proving to the satisfaction of a court that what was discharged in fact contained more than 100 parts per million of oil. From a common sense point of view it may be perfectly obvious that it did, but proving it is another matter. The result is that only in one case has a successful prosecution been undertaken against a ship for a discharge of an oily mixture on the high seas; and that was a case in which the facts were not disputed.
Another major difficulty is caused by the distinction between prohibited zones and other parts of the sea where, apart from the new ships of more than 20,000 tons, there is no restriction on the discharge of oil: for example, even if a ship has not been seen discharging oil it may be apparent from the condition of its tanks, or even from entries in the oil record book, that it has in fact done so. It may have done so legally outside a prohibited zone, but equally it may not, and nobody can prove it. This provides a standing temptation to the irresponsible

1073
to dump oily wastes even within the prohibited zones under cover of bad weather or darkness. Thus, the need for a more readily enforceable Convention has been apparent for some time.
Meanwhile, there has been technical progress in the oil tanker industry, in which I am glad to say the British have played a leading part. I refer particularly to the development of the load-on-top method of operating, whereby a discharge of oily waste from tank washings at sea is almost entirely avoided and the residues are retained on board to be mixed with the next cargo. This is an economical and sensible method of operating which has been widely adopted on a voluntary basis. It has already greatly reduced the amount of oil being regularly dumped into the sea and has demonstrated that serious pollution of a deliberate nature is avoidable everywhere at sea. But this is technically inconsistent with the Convention.
For these reasons the United Kingdom proposed a revision of the Convention as part of the programme of work undertaken by IMCO after the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, and amendments based on our proposals were adopted in October, 1969. They were published by our predecessors in Cmnd. 4347 in May, 1970. With these amendments the concept of prohibited zones and other areas of the sea where restrictions do not apply disappears completely. Subject to limited exemptions, discharges of oil at sea will be prohibited everywhere. The effect of the restrictions for tankers is, first, that no oil whatever may be discharged from their cargo spaces within 50 miles of the nearest land. This means literally no oil, and the old criterion of 100 parts per million in an oily mixture is no longer relevant. Beyond 50 miles from the nearest land, discharges of oil or oily mixtures will be prohibited except within certain conditions which have been tightly drawn to allow the operation of the load-on-top method, provided that it is carefully and responsibly operated, but wholly to exclude the wanton dumping of oily wastes. The restrictions for other types of ship differ slightly to take account of their different operating methods and of the fact that oily water separators can be used for discharges from them.
1074
These restrictions should in themselves be more readily enforceable than the present ones, but there are other complementary provisions to aid enforcement. Some of those minor exemptions which at present weaken enforcement because they provide an excuse for those who seek ways of evading the controls, are to be abolished. And the records that are required to be kept in oil record books on all ships have been greatly extended so that they will provide an accurate account of the fate of all the oil which has been taken on board the ship. This we expect will be a most important aid to effective enforcement.
Implementation of the amended Convention is the main point of the Bill, and Clauses 1 and 4 provide the necessary powers. The exceptions to a total ban to which I have referred will be made by Regulations under Section 1(3) of the 1955 Act. The opportunity has also been taken of making other changes in the law on oil pollution which do not require international agreement. Experience of prosecution over the years, particularly for offences in harbours and territorial waters, has revealed several problems and weaknesses in the law, and this Bill seeks to provide remedies for them. Most of them are matters which arise only seldom, but it is worth while trying to remove hindrances on those who undertake prosecutions wherever practicable. That is the reason for Clauses 2, 3 and 5. It is also proposed to amend the Continental Shelf Act 1964, to make the restrictions on drilling rigs consistent with those that apply to ships.
A change of rather greater magnitude is proposed in the penalties for illegal discharges of oil. The 1955 Act creates a number of offences and prescribes a variety of penalties for them, and these penalties were all reviewed when this Bill was in preparation. Many of the offences seldom if ever occur in practice, and there was no ground for thinking that the penalties provided for them were inadequate. However, this is not so in respect of the offence which is at the heart of the legislation; namely, that of making an illegal discharge of oil into the sea, whether into United Kingdom waters under Section 3 of the 1955 Act, or into the high seas under Section 1. The 1955 Act already provides for a fine without limit for such offences upon conviction on indictment.

1075
However, it is rare for proceedings to be taken on indictment for these offences, and indeed it would usually be impracticable to do so because the master of a ship is seldom available in port for very long. The need, therefore, for exceptional powers for magistrates was recognised in the 1955 Act, which provided for fines within the unusually high maximum of £1,000. But what was thought to be sufficient penalty for oil pollution in 1955 is no longer so regarded now. There is, moreover, the consideration that it has up to now been easy for the unscrupulous to escape detection and only a small proportion of the offences committed are ever brought to court. The scale of the penalties therefore needs to take this into account and to provide a very real deterrent.
Accordingly, the Government propose a substantial increase in the maximum penalty upon summary conviction. This intention will receive general support; but during the Bill's passage through the other place the Government were criticised for not going far enough, and in view of the unanimity of opinion on this point the Government accepted the proposal to raise the maximum penalty to £50,000, which is now embodied in the Bill.
There is a further matter which has not yet appeared in the Bill but on which I hope to table a new clause early next week in time for the Committee stage. The international Convention relating to intervention on the high seas in cases of oil pollution, accidents and collisions, which was signed at Brussels in November, 1969, clarifies the rights of a coastal State to take action against a ship on the high seas which has been involved in a collision or an accident or a stranding and is threatening to damage the coasts and related interests through oil pollution. We welcome this clarification and have ratified the Convention. However, it has drawn attention to a gap in the United Kingdom law.
The Convention sots out the rights of the United Kingdom, for example, to take action against foreign ships outside United Kingdom waters, but it is not concerned with the power of the Government to take action against ships that are within United Kingdom jurisdiction
1076
—that is to say, United Kingdom ships wherever they may be and ships of any flag within United Kingdom territorial waters. In such cases the Government at present have no power over those who are dealing with the accident or casualty, or the collision; nor, I understand, can they take direct action themselves without running the risk of civil proceedings for compensation. In practice, in circumstances such as the "Pacific Glory", any cases in which the Government would feel justified either in issuing directions to the owner or salvage ship, or in taking direct action themselves, are likely to be rare, and normally it is possible to proceed by consultation and co-operation; and that is what has occurred in the case of the "Pacific Glory".
Nevertheless, it has to be recognised that there can be a genuine conflict of interest, and we cannot rely on the owner of every ship that comes within our jurisdiction to be ready to co-operate in cases like these. If such a case should arise, the Government must not be left powerless to act in protection of the reasonable United Kingdom interests which are threatened by oil pollution. I therefore propose to put down a new clause giving the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the power to issue directions to the owner or salvor of a ship which is threatening pollution damage, and also to take direct action if necessary.
My Lords, we are carrying through with this Bill a policy that was already being pursued by our predecessors, believe that the measures proposed in and under this Bill, together with parallel action by other maritime nations, will deal more effectively with one aspect of the problem of oil pollution; namely, pollution caused by deliberate discharges of oil into the sea. This is a practice which can be stopped and must be stopped. The methods now proposed for stopping it are, I believe, realistic, and I am glad to say that they have the full support of the British shipping interests. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
3.53 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I rise to comment on this Bill in place of my noble friend Lord Kennet, who is indisposed. We welcome the Bill as a necessary and competent measure, and we shall be glad to see it get its Second Reading. I have only one comment to make. We are pleased that the Government, in their wisdom, did not seek to reverse the Amendment carried in Committee concerning the penalties for criminal acts in connection with the discharge of oil. In these days of oil carrying, with the huge amounts of finance involved, the original penalty of £5,000 seems to us to have been somewhat derisory and we feel that the new penalty of £50,000 is very much more appropriate. We welcome this Bill.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, as one who took part in the discussions related to the original Conventions on this matter may I say how glad everybody interested in it is that the Government have proceeded so promptly to bring this measure before your Lordships? I also agree that the Government are to be congratulated upon their sense of realism in their wilingness to impose upon the very wealthy interests concerned in the commission of these offences a fine which has some kind of deterrent effect.
On the particular issue, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said. There are points on which some people would like to see a more drastic attitude adopted: to say, in effect, that not a single drop of oil should ever be put into the sea. But, my Lords, it is far more important to be practicable than to be perfectionist; to help the interests which are doing and have done their best to secure a satisfactory result, as the great oil companies and our shipping companies have done, rather than to aim at something which, in effect, is unenforceable.
It is well known that there has been sitting for many years in this country an Advisory Committee, formed on a voluntary basis. When I say that its successive Chairmen have been the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and now the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I think your Lordships may well feel that the opinions of this House have been reflected throughout the negotiations which have now led to a successful conclusion,
1078
and that you will have no hesitation in passing this measure rapidly.
3.55 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I rise for a moment to give the warmest possible support to this Bill. I do so because I am the President of the British Sub-Aqua Club, which is the national club of amateur divers, some 12,000 trained divers, in this country. We see the effects of the pollution of the sea by oil on birds on our beaches, and things of that kind, but the members of the British Sub-Aqua Club see the result of pollution when they go under the water and see the effects on vegetation, fish and so on. Therefore, anything that can be done to avoid and prevent pollution of this kind will obviously be warmly welcomed by this body of people with their practical knowledge and experience of what goes on under the water.
During this last year, Conservation Year, the members have carried out an exercise which has never been done before in the world; namely, a wide examination of the effects of pollution under the water. This is neither the time nor the place to go into the details, but they are very concerned with what is happening under the water, which your Lordships, unless you are under-water divers, and the public, unless they are under-water divers, do not understand or appreciate. Therefore, this Bill is very warmly welcomed by these practical under-water divers who know that any steps Her Majesty's Government can take to stop the pollution of the seas is well worth while.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I also congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill. I was at the NATO meeting last year when, at the Science Committee, the Canadians rather chided us for not having sufficiently severe penalties for this sort of oil pollution. So it is particularly gratifying to see that the Government have now taken steps to rectify this. However, I wonder why there is a sort of escape clause in the Bill, where it says that it has to be proved that the escape or delay in discovery was not due to want of reasonable care? I should have thought that any escape or delay in discovery should in itself be regarded immediately as something that ought to be treated with a penalty.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their warm reception of this small but important and very necessary Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It deals with another aspect of oil pollution, which we have just been considering in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill. While that Bill is concerned with prohibiting the discharge of oil, this Bill is concerned with questions of liability and compensation should pollution occur. The subject is not an easy one, and I hope your Lordships will excuse a certain amount of technicality in introducing the Bill. It is quite deliberate that these two Bills are being taken on the same day at the same time, so that it will be possible for your Lordships to see how the whole situation is being considered. In another place, through nobody's fault, they dealt with one Bill only, and in due course they will, I hope, get this Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, if your Lordships pass it.
I understand that this is a subject which even lawyers do not find simple, but I will do what I can to explain what the Bill sets out to do. None of us, certainly, can have forgotten the "Torrey Canyon" disaster which occurred in March, 1967. As a result of that disaster, involving huge expenditure in clearing up contaminated beaches and in trying to ensure that oil on the sea did not reach shore, a number of studies were started in IMCO (Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation) at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government. One of these was a study by the Legal Committee of IMCO of the question of legal liability in cases of this kind. The Comité Maritime International, an international organisation comprising a large number of national maritime law associations and responsible for a considerable number of international Conventions in the maritime field, simultaneously set up a sub-committee, under the chairmanship
1080
of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, to consider this problem. The IMCO Legal Committee and the C.M.I. sub-committee worked in close collaboration with each other, and the draft articles ultimately produced by the Legal Committee for consideration at the Brussels International Legal Conference on Maritime Pollution Damage of November, 1969, owed much to the work of the subcommittee.
Although approximately half (about £3 million out of £6 million) of the Government expenditure was eventually recovered in the "Torrey Canyon" case, it was plain that the existing state of the law was far from satisfactory. In particular, there were doubts whether in some circumstances clean-up costs were recoverable as damages, especially if the proceedings were based on negligence. Again, the figures at which shipowners were currently entitled to limit their liability were too low; and again there were considerable jurisdictional difficulties in bringing proceedings at all. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brown, remembers all these things only too vividly.
The International Legal Conference at Brussels was attended by 48 countries. The United Kingdom delegation was led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, and a great deal of the credit for the successful outcome of the Conference is due to him personally. It is unfortunate that he is out of the country at the present time. No doubt he would have added much to our consideration of this Bill to-day. The Conference adopted a Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. The purpose of introducing this Bill is to enact the legislation necessary to enable Great Britain to ratify the Convention. The main provisions of the Liability Convention are as follows. First, there is strict liability on the shipowners for oil pollution damage caused by escapes of oil from ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo—that is, loaded tankers. This liability extends not only to loss or damage caused by oil pollution but also to reasonable cleaning-up costs and to damage caused in the course of cleaning up. It is, however, subject to certain exceptions, such as act of war, act of God, et cetera. Liability of an owner is unlimited if the discharge or escape was his fault. Secondly, there is an increase in the level of limitation of owner's

1081
liability for oil pollution, in the absence of fault or privity on his part (that is, an element of personal fault as opposed to responsibility for the acts of others). The limit is 2,000 gold francs (about £56) per ton, subject to a ceiling of 210 million gold francs (about £5·8 million). His limitation fund for oil pollution will be available to victims of oil pollution damage only and will be separate from any other limitation fund he may be entitled to establish; for example, in respect of personal injury or other property damage under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The third of these points is compulsory insurance with direct recourse by the claimant against the insurer. These are the three elements involved.
At various stages during the International Legal Conference, proposals for a Convention in different forms were put forward and were discussed at length. It was only towards the end of the conference that the United Kingdom was able to gain acceptance for the present compromise Convention. Like any compromise, the Convention does not satisfy everyone completely. In fact, the United Kingdom delegation opposed strict liability on the owner and also the provisions for direct recourse against insurers, particularly the provision which deprives the insurer of almost all the defences he would otherwise have against his insured. It is, however, the view of the Government that the advantages to the United Kingdom of securing the ratification of the Convention outweigh the disadvantages of the provisions we dislike.
The advantages are as follows. First of all, the rules for liability and limitation under the Convention are both considerably more advantageous to the claimant than under existing maritime law. They represent a reasonable maximum burden on shipowners. Secondly, entry into force of the Convention will improve the chances of pursuing and making good claims by Her Majesty's Government and local authorities and other States party to the Convention. Thirdly, British shores will be better protected from loss through pollution from ships not destined for British ports. A substantial proportion of the tankers passing our coasts are foreign and are bound for Western European ports. We should hope that if the Convention
1082
entered into force most West European Governments would subscribe to it. In this event, the tankers bound for any of their ports would have to be insured against polluting the shores of all contracting States, including those of the United Kingdom. Fourthly, there will be greater uniformity in the law as between one country and another. There are increasing signs that some Governments are taking unilateral action. If that happened on a wide scale, our shipowners would be subject to widely differing and in some cases, no doubt, more exacting rules in the various countries with which they trade. On the other hand, if the Convention is brought into force, that would help to forestall unilateral action and to bring about unification of international maritime law affecting oil pollution damage. Such unification would be of advantage to our shipowners and insurers alike.
The Convention is to enter into force ninety days after ratification by eight States, including five with at least one million gross tons of tankers each. It was signed by nineteen countries in November, 1969, and a further ten countries have signed since that date. No country has yet ratified. This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention. It goes beyond the Convention in two respects. First, it contains a special provision relating to claims for the cost of preventing or mitigating damage caused by oil spilled in certain cases not covered by the Convention—for example, fuel oil from a dry cargo vessel. Second, it will apply to all ships (including non-seagoing ships), whereas the Convention applies only to seagoing vessels.
With that background, perhaps the best way of explaining this Bill will be to outline and comment on the principal provision in it, clause by clause. My Lords, Clause 1 makes the shipowners liable for oil pollution damage in the United Kingdom and in the Convention countries resulting from the escape of oil from a ship carrying it in bulk as a cargo—which means, roughly speaking, tankers. It also makes the shipowner liable for the cost of measures taken to prevent or minimise such damage. Clause 2 provides for the exceptions I have already mentioned. These two clauses establish a form of strict liability on the

1083
owner of the vessel carrying oil—a liability which may be compared with that of an occupier of land in England who stores a dangerous or unpleasant thing on his land, if that thing escapes or does damage. Placing this liability on the owner of the vessel will encourage him to make every effort to prevent oil spills. Strict liability on a specified and easily identifiable person also makes it easier for the victim, in that he will automatically know against whom to proceed. In cases involving the negligence of third parties, such as the owner of another ship with which the tanker has been in collision, this claimant will be able to proceed directly against the tanker owner or his insurer without waiting for the determination of responsibility between the tanker owner and the third party.
Clause 3 restricts the owner's liability for oil pollution damage in circumstances covered by Clause 1 to liability under the Bill, and prevents his servants or agents from being liable for such damage. Clauses 4 and 5 restrict the owner's liability for oil pollution damage to the amounts contained in the Convention, and provide for the payment into court of a limitation fund and for the subsequent distribution of this fund. Clause 6 provides for the release of ships and other property under arrest when the limitation fund has been paid into court.
Clauses 7 and 8 deal with two special cases. Clause 7 contains special provisions where proceedings are brought both against an owner under the Bill and some other person under existing principles of law. Clause 8 lays down what is to happen if an owner sets up a limitation fund in another Convention country where damage has occurred both here and in that country. Clause 9 provides that no action shall be brought under Clause 1 more than three years after the damage occurred or more than six years after the original incident.
Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill deal with the arrangements for introducing the compulsory insurance aspects of the Convention. They are as widely framed as possible, having regard to the limits of United Kingdom jurisdiction. They provide that ships, other than Government ships, carrying cargo of more than 2,000 tons of persistent oil in bulk, shall not enter or leave United Kingdom ports or
1084
terminals without having in their possession a certificate of insurance or other financial security, and that such ships, when registered in the United Kingdom, shall carry a certificate wherever they dock throughout the world.
Ships requiring a certificate of insurance fall into three categories: United Kingdom ships, ships registered in other Convention countries, and ships registered in non-Convention countries. So far as ships registered in other Convention countries are concerned, the issue of certificates to these ships is the responsibility of their Governments, and the appropriate United Kingdom authorities will accept these certificates. It will be for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to issue certificates for United Kingdom ships, and Clause 11 provides the necessary powers to do so. These arrangements respect the international character of the marine insurance market; United Kingdom shipowners may place their insurance where they wish—in this country or abroad. But, as the Secretary of State has to be satisfied as to the reliability of the insurer concerned before issuing a certificate, he is to have discretion over the granting of such certificates. As to ships not registered in any Convention country, Clause 10 provides that the Secretary of State may issue certificates to such ships, and may also make regulations recognising countries for the purpose of issuing certificates.
Clause 12 gives effect to the provision in the Convention allowing for direct action by a claimant against the insurer. It entitles the insurer to limit his liability to the figure appropriate to the owner whether or not there was fault or privity on the part of the owner, but allows him only to invoke the defences available to the owners and not to plead defences which would be open to him as an insurer other than that the damage was caused by the wilful misconduct of the owner. Clause 13 gives effect to the provisions relating to jurisdiction in the Convention. It makes it clear that the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction over claims arising out of the Act but precludes our courts from hearing claims for oil pollution damage occurring in other Convention countries if no such damage occurred in the United Kingdom as a result of the same incident. It also provides for the enforcement of judgments for oil pollution damage given

1085
in Convention countries. Clause 14 excludes from the Bill warships and ships used by Governments for non-commercial purposes and slightly modifies the compulsory insurance provisions in relation to other Government ships.
My Lords, Clause 15 is an important and rather novel provision. It is designed to help a claimant in cases not covered by Clause 1—for example, when fuel oil is discharged or escapes from the bunkers of a dry cargo ship through the carelessness of the crew. In such a case the Convention does not apply, and there does not seem any need to apply its special provisions, such as a separate fund and compulsory insurance. On the other hand, the Government or a local authority which has cleaned up the oil might, if it took proceedings based on negligence, be met by the argument that it was not under a duty to clean up the oil, nor was it protecting a proprietary right; and that consequently it had not in law suffered any damage and could not recover its expenses. The clause will provide that if anybody has suffered or may suffer recoverable damage as a result of the spill, the cost of reasonable cleanup measures will be recoverable, no matter who took them.
I do not think that there is anything in Clauses 16 to 20 which I need mention, except subsection (3) of Clause 20, which enables the different provisions of the Bill to be brought into effect on different dates. In particular, we shall be able to implement immediately the provisions for strict liability and to make the costs of preventive and clean-up measures recoverable. The whole Bill cannot be implemented until the 1969 Convention enters into force, and in addition we may have to reach some arrangement with any signatories of the 1957 Convention who do not adhere to the 1969 Convention. The way in which we deal with these difficulties depends on progress being made at IMCO on the setting up of an international compensation fund for oil pollution damage to be financed by the oil industry.
While the compensation limits provided in the Bill are twice those provided by the 1957 Brussels Convention on Civil Liability, it is possible that the limits may still not be adequate to cover all the damage that could result from a catastrophic mishap. However, the 1969
1086
Civil Liability Convention is not the only step being taken internationally in this field. It was accompanied by a resolution which requested IMCO to prepare a scheme for setting up an international fund to compensate victims of oil pollution damage. The United Kingdom is co-operating fully in the Working Group which is dealing with this question. There are, furthermore, two important voluntary schemes. First, already in force is the Tanker Owners' Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution, called TOVALOP. As its title suggests, it is an agreement between tanker owners to pay larger sums in compensation (£4·2 million or £42 per ton) for oil pollution damage than they are obliged to pay under international law currently in force. Second, the international oil industry have already announced the setting up, from April 1, 1971, of a voluntary fund to pay compensation beyond what is available under national legislation and TOVALOP up to a maximum of 30 million dollars per incident—that is about £12¼ million. This scheme is called CRISTAL—which is short for Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution—and is a kind of super TOVALOP. The tanker owners and oil industry are to be congratulated on the setting up of these funds.
In all stages leading up to the 1969 Convention, in the negotiation of the Convention and in the preparation of this Bill, there have been full consultations with the shipping industry and with the commercial interests involved. The re-insurers dislike the provision of direct recourse against the insurers, but otherwise the various interests appear to be reconciled to the Convention. The United Kingdom has a strong interest in promoting the entry into force of the Convention as soon as possible—the "Allegro"—"Pacific Glory" incident and more recent incidents in the English Channel, along with the recent collision in San Francisco Bay, have highlighted the dangers—and we feel that this essential step towards ratifying will encourage others to follow suit. In this we hope to be first in the field. If we delay until the negotiations at IMCO on the setting up of an international fund are more advanced, there is danger that the momentum will be lost.

1087
Moreover, I think your Lordships will agree that the present state of the law relating to oil pollution is far from satisfactory, and that although the Convention and this Bill do not result in a claimant being absolutely guaranteed a recompense for damage or losses suffered from oil pollution, they will go a long way to improving his position without imposing an impossible or unreasonable burden on the shipping industry. As a substantial improvement of the law in this field I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
4.21 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I start with four congratulations? The first is to the Government for introducing this Bill at all, and to the noble Lord for his clear exposition of its meaning; and the second is to the Government for introducing it first in this House, Thirdly, I congratulate the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution, which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hurcomb. I think I ought to mention again the names of the Chairmen, because he left out one, which seems unfair; and it is a pity to miss anybody out of this praise. They were the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; the present Chairman, my noble friend Lord Kennet, and Mr. Callaghan. Fourthly, I think we ought to associate ourselves with congratulations to the tanker companies on setting up these two compensation funds and on the general part they have played in helping to get this legislation framed, and also in covering the dangers with this finance during the formative periods.
In general terms we welcome this Bill. My noble friend Lord Kennet, who as I explained is indisposed to-day, will probably seek to introduce an Amendment concerning an administrative aspect of it. The Bill gives figures of amounts which constitute total liabilities, and so on. I understand that one of these amounts, the figure of £5·8 million, is already under review internationally, and the 2 Amendment will probably relate to the idea of taking out of the Bill the precise figure at present incorporated in it, and providing the Government with powers, under regulation, to introduce
1088
figures that are appropriate as time moves on.
The second aspect which causes my noble friend some worry—and we are considering this matter—is the provisions in Clause 2 for the defence of people. Under these, I understand, exceptional storms might be a defence; or actions of saboteurs. We want to examine this Bill very closely from those two points of view in order to prevent the courts from being put in the difficult position of having to decide what is or is not an exceptional storm.
With this advance warning of minor difficulties with what we regard as an excellent Bill, I end by repeating that we welcome this Bill very much indeed. I have taken on the task of commenting from these Benches on this Bill at very short notice. I have a previous engagement, and I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I now absent myself.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope that we shall examine this Bill very carefully in Committee, it having come to us first, because it seems to me that it has possibly far-reaching consequences to the insurers where we are having to consider liability under foreign law as well as our own law. There are numerous Committee points that arise. As the noble Lord mentioned, there is the question of the sabotage of pipelines under the sea by foreign war vessels, and the like. Nevertheless, we shall look at all these points very carefully in Committee.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for giving such a warm reception to this Bill. We most certainly excuse him for dashing off. I entirely agree with my noble friend that there are points in this Bill which ought to be looked at very carefully, more particularly because it has come to this House just for the purpose of our looking at it very carefully. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for having referred to the Amendments which he or his noble friend Lord Kennet have it in mind to introduce, and I take note of the proposed Amendments. It is unusual, and quite agreeable, for the Opposition to press extra powers on to a Government. We shall look forward to examining his Amendments to see whether they could fall in with the Convention.

1089
It might be helpful if I just commented on his other point. The noble Lord talked about "exceptional storms"; the actual phrase used is:
"exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon;"
It may help him and his noble friend Lord Kennet to know that that phrase is taken from Conventions in the nuclear field and is the best expression that could be found in the circumstances. My Lords, I should again like to thank noble Lords for their response to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALE OF THOS. COOK & SON: POSITION OF STAFF
4.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I believe it might now be convenient if I were to answer the Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. The Government recognise how important this decision is from the point of view of the staff, whose interests and welfare will be kept very much in mind both by the Government and the Transport Holding Company. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries has already had a preliminary meeting with Mr. Coldrick, the General Secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, at which he assured him that, in the event of sale, the pension rights of the staff would be safeguarded. The unions will be fully consulted at all stages about the detailed arrangements which will now be worked out in conjunction with the Transport Holding Company.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to this Question here. His Answer is, to some extent, satisfactory, but I am bound to complain about the fact that a major announcement that was made yesterday came in the form of a Written Answer to a Written Question in the other House. This was an extremely important announcement about the hiving oil of a section of a nationalised industry. I am bound to ask whether that procedure was followed to avoid the questioning that
1090
would inevitably have ensued upon such an announcement had it been made both in this House and in the other place. Was it done because the Government realised that there was something in the nature of a political storm building up about these proposals, which apparently we are going to have one after another, for the hiving off of profitable sections of the nationalised industries? This is a matter to which we shall have to return, because it is extremely important.
The noble Lord has told us that there has been a preliminary meeting with the General Secretary of the T.S.S.A. I am bound to mention the fact, as a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, that the N.U.R. also have members employed by Cook's, and they ought to have been brought into consultation at the same time as the T.S.S.A. I am not entering into inter-union rivalry in this House about a matter of this sort; I make the comment in passing.
The Minister particularly mentioned the fact that the pension rights of the employees of Cook's had been discussed. The pension rights of this staff are not the only thing that matters in this connection. There are some 5,000 employees of Cook's, and the conditions of service of Cook's, I am proud to say, are much better, generally speaking, than is the case in privately-owned travel agencies. We want to ensure that their conditions of service, built up over the years as a result of trade union action, will be safeguarded if this enterprise is to be sold off. As I understand it, negotiations on a productivity agreement are in progress, and we regret the fact that their outcome might be interfered with by the Minister's announcement yesterday.
Finally, Cook's is an undertaking which deals with a tremendous amount of foreign exchange and with tourist agencies the world over. What I want from the Minister is an unequivocal assurance that, as a result of the Minister's decision, this service will not fall into foreign hands; it must be kept in our hands in this country. I hope sincerely that the Government will take notice of what I have said, and of the feeling of many of my noble friends on this side and of the trade unions which are particularly concerned in this deplorable decision by the Minister.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord raised four or five separate points. On the first point, that of the form in which the announcement was made yesterday, I should say that it was certainly not done in that way for the reason which he suspects. What my right honourable friend wanted to do became involved in certain other matters to do with arrangements for business in another place, and I am sure that your Lordships will not expect me to comment upon that. Secondly, I made it clear in my original Answer that the meeting with Mr. Coldrick of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association was only a preliminary one. Of course, many further consultations with other unions are also due to take place and they have been invited to raise with the Transport Holding Company the matters which they regard as of the greatest concern.
The noble Lord is perfectly right, that pension rights are not the only matter to be considered. There are other questions relating to conditions of service, pay and compensation which will also need to be considered, as will the question of which of those items will need to form part of the necessary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, very properly also asked a question about the banking interests involved in Cook's, and I certainly agree with him that it is of the utmost importance that these, too, should be safeguarded. In answer to his final question, I want to reiterate that it is very much the view of Her Majesty's Government that it is most desirable that Cook's should certainly remain within British control, but if foreign concerns bid for a share in Cook's that will not be unwelcome.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I raise with the noble Lord a matter which may have escaped his notice and also that of Her Majesty's Government? The noble Lord may be aware that within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster facilities are provided by Thos. Cook & Son for Members of Parliament in the other place and for noble Lords to obtain rail and air tickets, and to make touring and travelling arrangements. May we have an assurance that those facilities will remain if Thos. Cook & Son is hived-off to some outside firm? Or are we to understand that the facilities also will be hived-off, thus causing considerable
1092
inconvenience to Members of another place and to noble Lords?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I cannot give assurances on all the details of how Cook's will operate in the future, though, clearly, an arrangement which is of such mutual convenience is unlikely to be altered without the most careful consideration. Of course, the original Question—and I shall certainly be willing to give any further detail which may be required—related to welfare, pay and conditions of service of the staff, and I do not think it would be proper for me to be drawn too far into discussion of the general details.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand that Her Majesty's Government have decided to hive off this very important transport arrangement, without regard to the convenience of Members in another place and of noble Lords? I cannot speak of those in another place, but I can offer an opinion on behalf of noble Lords. Are we to be inconvenienced and are our needs to be ignored? Are we to understand that Her Majesty's Government have come to a decision to hive off this very important travel arrangement without regard to our interests? Is this not shameful? Is this the fashion in which to treat Members of your Lordships' House? The noble Lord may wish to avail himself of these facilities some day, perhaps for the purpose of making a visit overseas. If he is to be told that he must go down to Fleet Street, to the Strand or to some other place some distance away, instead of obtaining the facilities nearby within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, will he suffer that inconvenience without expressing a very strong protest against the decision of his Government, and is not now the time to make the protest? May I have an answer to this very important question?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord has nothing to protest against yet.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not rather strange to hear—
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I did not hear the interjection. May I be made familiar with the interjection?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think we are getting out of order. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Sandford be allowed to answer.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to repeat my assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that of course the convenience of Members of this House and of the other place will always be considered very fully. I have said that, and I repeat that assurance. But I should also like to repeat that the original Question to me was concerned with the welfare of the staff of Messrs. Cook's.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it seems that not enough thought has been given to this matter. Can this House be told how this business is going to be hived off? Is it going to be given to the highest bidder? There could be real distress and inconvenience caused to Ministries, as well as to Members of both Houses. Also, can it be shown that thought in depth has been given to this matter, and can we be assured that this is not another little bit of hiving-off from public enterprise everything which makes a little profit, so that once again we "socialise" the losses and "privatise" the profits?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall certainly deal with that point if the noble Lord will put down a Question.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us why this is being done? We have not yet had an answer on that. Furthermore, this business was originally bought because, when they were private enterprises, the railways considered it a fit investment for their money and an improvement in their business. Is it not an improvement in their business now? Also, when a business hives off something for its own good reasons, it is usually able to use for its own purposes the money thereby resulting. Can Her Majesty's Government tell us whether the money from Thomas Cook is going to be handed to the railways, so that they can use it to improve their system?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is quite another question. If the noble Lord will put it down I shall do my best to answer it.
LORD REA: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that the House of Lords will not be hived off?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is not for me to answer.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, perhaps we are not very profitable.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
4.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: 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 Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Declaratory provisions with respect to 1960 c. 38 s. 1(3) and 1967 c. 33 s. 3(5):]:
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved to add to Clause 1:
Page 2, line 14 at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in this Act shall enable the Board of Trade to limit the powers of either of the said corporations in respect of more than one route unless the order is considered and approved by the Air Transport Licensing Board.")
The noble Lord said: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not be surprised to find an Amendment tabled to this Bill. The noble Lord replied with characteristic courtesy and care to the discussion on the Second Reading, but I doubt whether even his best friends would agree that he met the various points of criticism that had been raised. The burden of the criticism was that the proposed transfer of routes from the Air Corporations to the newly constituted Caledonian/B.U.A. company was unfair to the Corporations; did not mean any increase in traffic for the British air transport industry; and, further, that if transfers were to be made, they should be made by the properly constituted licensing authority and not by the political decision of the Minister. It was the latter point which, in particular, I tried to make.
I will not go over all the ground again, but I must emphasise the importance of the early establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority so that any allocation of route patterns as between one organisation and another can be considered professionally, objectively and non-politically, with the supreme intention of maximising all British air transport resources. I expressed the view then—and I am not alone in this—that much higher priority should have been given to the necessary legislation establishing the Civil Aviation Authority, and I was appalled to hear from the noble Lord that it is not now expected to have the Authority in business before some unspecified time in 1972. I hoped to strengthen the case of the noble Lord and his right honourable friends for a higher priority in the allocation of Parliamentary time, but I am not quite sure that the noble Lord appreciated the point, and I certainly did not recognise any thanks from him.
I say again that it really will be intolerable for the industry if the provisions of the Bill that we are now considering hang over all the operators for something like another eighteen months. How can one expect the Corporations to plan ahead, to buy equipment, to decide on their advertising budgets, to organise their sales campaigns and to deploy personnel if all the time there is the nagging doubt that a proportion of all this money and effort is to be spent on a route which may be taken from them by the simple, unchallengeable order of the Minister? I am suggesting in this Amendment that there should be a limit to the occasions on which the power vested in the Minister by this Bill should be exercised.
We tried on Second Reading to get some assurance from the noble Lord that in the case of the B.O.A.C. there will be no further demands, now that they have been told to surrender the West African routes. At one time in the noble Lord's speech I thought he was giving me this assurance. He did in fact say—and I quote:
"The Government have given the fullest possible assurances that these powers will not be used again for further transfers of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/1/71, c. 640.]
However, this appeared to be in flat contradiction, as I said then, of an earlier
1096
statement (reported in column 638 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) in the Second Reading debate on January 21, in which the noble Lord said:
"… 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 today."
I hope that the noble Lord will take this opportunity to make quite clear that the assurances to which he referred in column 640 really mean that the B.O.A.C. have made their contribution and will not be asked for any further surrender of routes, at any rate until such time as the matter can be argued out properly in front of the new Civil Aviation Authority.
I cannot forbear, before I leave this Amendment, from putting one further question to the Minister about the alleged benefits of competition which will accrue from the transfer of the West African routes from one organisation to another. The question was asked a number of times in our Second Reading discussion, and always the noble Lord contrived to refer to the advantages to British operators, in certain circumstances, of double designation. It is of course a fact that on a limited number of high-density routes there may well be benefits accruing from double designation, and the consequent competition. But what a number of my noble friends are unable to see is how, if a block of routes is transferred from one virtual monopoly to another virtual monopoly, there can be any increase of beneficial competition. I wonder whether the noble Lord could have another attempt to enlighten us on this point.
With regard to the Amendment itself, I can well imagine that, with the most able advice at his disposal, the noble Lord can be severely critical about my wording. The Bill itself, as the noble Lord will appreciate, does not lend itself easily to simple amendment; but what I have in mind is, I think, quite clear. We want to limit the uncertainty that has been created by the talk and the action about the transfer of routes from the Corporations to another company. The problem would not have arisen in quite the same way if either the previous Government or the present Government had made more progress in the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority. But since, according to the noble Lord,

1097
there will not now be a new licensing authority before some time in 1972, it seems to me essential that some limit should be placed upon the power of the Minister in this regard.
There is a great deal of indignation in the country, expressed again on the Back Benches to-day, about the transference of publicly owned assets to other, privately owned, companies, and I had great difficulty in restraining my noble friends from voting against this Bill on Second Reading. But in this Amendment, and in what I have said this afternoon, I am trying to be constructive. I am trying to put forward this matter in a constructive way, and I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to accept the Amendment in my name. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may make a few comments on the Amendment. Anyone who attended the Second Reading debate on this Bill, or indeed has read the Report of it, would have been amazed, I am sure, by the antics of the Party opposite. During the Second Reading we witnessed the spectacle of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition taking his seat some two minutes before my noble friend finished his winding-up speech. The noble Lord then rose to his feet and, rather like a reverend, venerable headmaster, complained bitterly that the Government's reply, which he really had not heard, was not satisfactory; and he ended by muttering some dark threats about dividing. Then we saw the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—normally, one would judge, most fluent and very clear thinking on aviation matters—showing, I would suggest, on Second Reading, an astonishing lack of grasp on the simplest of points by intervening in my noble friend's winding-up speech no fewer than twelve times. Now, to-day, we have before us his clearly wrecking Amendment of the Bill, which I hope my noble friend will advise the Committee to reject.
The real meaning of this wrecking Amendment is, of course, to limit, at least for a period of time—it may be twelve months; it may be longer—a large chunk of the Government's package of routes to be handed over to the second force. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, well knows, the present system under the A.T.L.B.—or, indeed, possibly
1098
that under the new C.A.A.—is not the quickest of procedures, particularly when the appeal system is working. The real effect of the Amendment, if it is allowed to pass through the Committee, is, I would suggest, first to create an atmosphere of doubt as to the viability of the second force; secondly, to damage severely the immediate prospects of that second force; and, thirdly, to force a withdrawal of some of the financial backers of the second force. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows about these matters better than any of us here, as he has personal experience in the independent airline field and was, I believe, a director and shareholder of British Midland Airways.
The simple essence of the Bill is to follow the Edwards Committee recommendations to create a strong and viable second force. To achieve this, the Bill before us is simply planning the transfer of some 5 per cent. of the scheduled services from the Corporation to the second force. I do not believe that this package can ever be described as a very large package or as a very damaging package to the Corporation. It will give the chance to the independents, the second force, to operate on a viable route structure. I think that Lord Beswick's Amendment seeks to delay or even to scupper the second force.
One may ask: why should the Government have to take a decision on the second force so soon after taking office? I believe that the answer is simply because the previous Government were humming and hawing for so long as to what they should do to assist the second force that ultimately the position of the independents became critical. It is generally known that by June of last year, B.U.A., the largest by far of the independents, representing some 80 per cent. of the entire independent market, was on the point of liquidation. If this had happened I think that even Lord Beswick would have agreed that it would be a major setback to the setting up of a second force.
The Government took, in my view, a very proper and wise decision to implement the Edwards Committee recommendations with a firm declaration. The Opposition during the passage of this Bill through the other place have made some pretty damaging statements. I can give

1099
two examples. An Opposition spokesman in another place said:
"Throughout we have resisted the giving away of Corporation routes."
Later he went on to say:
"We shall not be bound by these shameful acts and will on return to office return these routes to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.".
I cannot for one moment consider that to be a responsible Opposition statement, and I believe that Lord Beswick is running a fairly close second to those statements if he thinks his Amendment is based on the interests of the industry or the good of the second force.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I did not want to introduce any asperity into this debate—if there is one thing about a Welshman it is that he can avoid using asperity until the last moment, when he knows that he has won. I know the noble Earl's background. His opportunities have been great indeed. Did he inform the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to make these statements this afternoon? For although it was expressed in a quiet, gentle, cultured way, I think it was a deep attack. I should like to know whether or not the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was informed of the speech which the noble Earl has now made.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I did not inform the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition because I was simply stating what had happened.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Yes; but it is the way that what happened is interpreted that counts. It was the interpretation that the noble Earl gave. I wish to say to the noble Earl that here there is a dichotomy of philosophy. We look at things differently from the noble Earl, but that does not mean that there is any venom or viciousness about it. I will repeat some of the statements that I made in the debate the other day. These routes all over the world have been acquired at the price of taxpayers' money. Unlike the noble Earl, many of us in this House know these routes. I know 99 per cent. of them and have travelled on them in the Far East and elsewhere. If only the public knew the situation! It is like the blueprints and prototypes of aeroplanes made for private enterprise in the past. There is some
1100
justification for spending money so long as we let the taxpayers know. Cheap newspapers write articles about the failure of public enterprise to serve the public, and then suddenly in airways—and we have some of the finest in the world under public enterprise—a package deal is made. My own grandfather, being an old radical, taught me how to read the true Conservative philosophy. I remember reading huge tomes on how Conservativism was the nucleus, the psyche, the centre of the Christian approach to society.
I am sure that in both Houses there are some Conservatives who regret this Poujadist approach to the system of society in which we live. The old acquisitive society is in change from one end of the world to the other and we must expect certain areas of public service to go into public ownership. Even on this side there may be some who disagree, but I hope that when the Leader of the Opposition or some speakers on this side of the House, within the gamut of our limited ability, try to clarify our thoughts and our opposition to this hijacking of public enterprise air routes, it will not be thought that our motives are ulterior. I hope they will think that we are trying to get an understanding. I agree with one part of the noble Earl's speech. If it is a game of "ins and outs", if when our Party get in power we say that we shall reverse this or that piece of legislation and the other side say the same, there will be no public or private enterprise that will feel safe in such a cat-and-dog system of society. I beg your Lordships to realise that there is more in this Poujadist approach than just a few cheap quarrels or debates across the floor of either House of Parliament.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I could start by saying this to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I do not want to embrace such a wide range of subjects as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, although he did raise some very interesting considerations which are well worth a debate on a different occasion, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to debate them in the future. I have looked carefully at my speech and, with respect, I think that I replied to all the points the noble Lord made. I did not give the answers that he wanted: that was not possible in the nature of the case.

1101
I wonder whether I may suggest that perhaps he started the debate with a misconception. There never was any question of the announcement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Trade made in another place being the whole of the package. There never had been any question of that.
I think it would be right for me to remind the Committee of what he did say. My right honourable friend said on that occasion:
"I promised the right honourable gentleman that at the first possible moment I would give him and the House the information that was available on route transfers. It has been decided that a part of the route transfers will take place."
My Lords, I am not quite certain that those words were absolutely apt, because they may have conveyed the impression that the transfer was taking place at that minute. In fact he went on:
"There will be some other parts of the transfer to be negotiated and we are discussing it still with the airline concerned."
A little later he said:
"That is the extent of the route transfers that have been agreed so far"—
he is talking once again about the West African route—
"and I am announcing them to the House at the first opportunity."
He goes on:
"I can say the West African link is well below the figure I have given to the House and there will therefore be some balance to be added on top."
Perhaps I may say, if I need to excuse myself on this—I am always willing to do so—that I had assumed that the noble Lord was aware of what had been said on that accasion, and therefore I think we got into a little bit of an argument about what the package was, when the transfer had taken place and so forth. The fact of the matter is, of course, that there never has been any question about it; the Government have visualised that there should be a transfer equivalent to between 2½ and 3 per cent. of the revenue of B.O.A.C., amounting to some £5 million or £6 million and this does not necessarily mean that all the transfer will be on B.O.A.C.
I should have liked very much to be able to announce the package now or at any rate to promise that I should be able to announce it before the Bill gets a
1102
Third Reading. But, for reasons of which noble Lords are probably aware, this is not now going to be so easy. My right honourable friend has had pneumonia and things have been retarded a little. But I hope the noble Lord will accept from me that there was no doubt at all in our minds that we had made the position absolutely clear that there would be a transfer of a package. The noble Lord quite rightly quoted the words that I used. The Government have given the fullest public assurances that the powers will not be used again for further transfers of this kind. That means that once the package is over he need not worry, and the Corporations need not worry, about the position between now and the time when the Civil Aviation Act comes into effect.
My Lords, I quite sympathise with the noble Lord's position on this and readily acknowledge that I ought to have thanked him for the full support that he gave to the setting up of the Civil Aviation Authority. I should like to recognise that and I hope that he will continue to give it the fullest support. I have stated what we hope to do there. I hope that it will be possible to get the new Authority, and the Airways Board, into action by 1972, but it means introducing legislation this Session if that timetable is to be achieved. All I can say is that the legislation is in preparation, but, of course, the noble Lord will know as well as I do that it is very difficult at this stage in the Session to say whether the Government will be able to introduce all the legislation that they would wish to in the course of the Session. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates this position; I am sure he realises that we are as anxious as he is to get ahead with the legislation to set up a Civil Aviation Authority and an Airways Board.
I hope I have satisfied him that it is not the intention in any way to make further transfers of this kind, but it would not make sense to start by handing over a package to the new company, the company which is going to be in competition, unless there was a satisfactory base from which it could operate and expand. I do not mean "expand" at the expense of the Corporations; I mean "expand" partly because civil aviation is expanding all the time and partly because we wish it well in competition as a whole.

1103
The noble Lord said that I spoke of alleged benefits of competition. He said that the transfer of the West African routes would not add to competition. I quite agree with him, but that was not the point. The transfer of routes was to give a secure base. On the other hand, he said, "How can there be any increase in competition?" The answer to that is that unless we set up a viable second force there can be no increase in competition; and it is with the object of increasing competition that we are setting up a viable force.
I referred at an earlier stage to what the Edwards Committee had said. They said that a second force is bound to require some concession of territory from B.O.A.C. The question is how much and on what terms? We discussed terms last time and why it was impossible to set up a viable force if compensation was required; and also I made the point that in any case a licence is not a form of property and no compensation is therefore payable for the transfer of a licence.
That brings me to the particular point of the noble Lord's Amendment. He is quite right in thinking that, as it stands, the Amendment will not do. I could give him several reasons why if he wishes, but I do not want to stand on drafting points. The first reason is that it is not really possible for a declaratory Bill, which declares that certain powers exist in other enactments, to include a provision which is manifestly outside the terms of those other enactments. The second is that the Amendment would be totally ineffective because this Bill does not convey, or purport to convey, any powers; and therefore there can be no question of the exercise of any powers under it. The powers which may be exercised are conveyed by the other enactments referred to in the Bill and the Amendment would in no way affect the exercise of those powers. Thirdly, I might say that I know of no precedent for a proposal of this kind whereby an Order made by a Secretary of State, and subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, would require prior approval of an independent body such as the Air Transport Licensing Board.
Perhaps I could clarify what I said on the previous occasion if I put it in this way—and I have carefully examined these
1104
words. The noble Lord has indicated that what he wants to ensure is that route licensing decisions are taken by the body that exists for the purpose, the Air Transport Licensing Board. The decisions will indeed be taken by the Licensing Board. Caledonian-B.U.A. will have to apply for licences to serve the routes transferred to it and the present licences will have to be revoked. The Government have no power to tell the Licensing Board what licences it should grant or revoke, and these decisions will remain within the discretion of the Licensing Board.
The Government do, however, have the power, under the Air Corporations Act 1967, to tell the Corporations that they must cease to serve particular routes; and they have the power under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960 to grant exemptions that will enable Caledonian-B.U.A. to serve those routes pending the completion of the Air Transport Licensing Board's procedure if they are not completed by the desired date, which is April 1, 1971. It is not the present Bill that confers those powers; it merely declares the powers that exist in other enactments.
I would again thank the noble Lord for the spirit in which he has moved his Amendment to-day. I fully appreciate his difficulty, because there is a real difference of opinion between the two sides of the House—as was evident in the difference between the Government Statement on August 3 and the previous Government's White Paper—on whether routes should be transferred or not and, if so, on what terms. But, recognising those differences and the fact that his Amendment as it stands at present would be ineffectual, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment and be content with the assurances that I have given.
5.11 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord has made a very conciliatory speech, and I have listened carefully to what he had to say. But before coming to his remarks I think I should say something about what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He saw fit to give us a bit of a lecture on Parliamentary procedure. One of the elements of Parliamentary courtesy is to inform a colleague, a noble Member of the House, that he

1105
proposes to attack him. I think it is doubly necessary to give notice if the attack is not based on valid assumptions or on facts. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition did not criticise the speech of his noble friend. He said in terms that it had been conveyed to him that there had been strong feeling on these Benches. Undoubtedly there was feeling on these Benches, and undoubtedly it was conveyed to my noble friend. He then took the trouble to get up and, in a helpful spirit, say that he was not proposing to divide the House on the Second Reading. If the noble Earl is going to make an attack of this kind, he should get his facts right, and even before that he should let the noble Lord concerned know that he proposes to raise the matter.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just want to say that I had no reason to try to be discourteous to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It certainly was not an attack on him. I was simply interpreting what he said. If I was wrong, and he was only interpreting what others had said to him, then I withdraw the comment.
LORD BESWICK: I am obliged. I now go on to congratulate the noble Earl. I congratulate him on his ability to count up to twelve. Certainly it was the fact that I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on 12 occasions. That might have been a measure of my impatience, but it might well have been due to the fact that the explanations given by the noble Lord opposite were not exactly clear. That was the feeling on this side of the House. In any case, of those twelve interruptions of mine, 8 per cent. of them were to say that the noble Lord was answering questions that I had never put.
I turn now to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said this afternoon. He has criticised the wording of my Amendment. He understands the difficulty of amending a declaratory Bill of this kind. Nevertheless, the fact is that if the Amendment is carried the Bill will go back to the other place, and it will give them an opportunity to reconsider the whole issues involved. We think that this should be done.
1106
The noble Lord says that there is a difference of opinion; and that of course is the case. I am not proposing to discuss with him now how the A.T.L.B. will come into the procedure by which these transfers are ultimately effected. The fact of the matter is that the Minister, by a political decision, is taking action which many people believe to be wrong—wrong, as I argued, in the interests of the companies concerned as well as in the interests of the Corporation. The noble Lord says it is justified because it speeds up the process. The noble Earl said (or was it the noble Lord?) that it would take too long to go through the processes of the Board. But the point that I have made, and the point that I make in all sincerity, is that in the long run it may well be the quickest way of deciding this issue. If you make a decision quickly by Ministerial order, then you find in two or three years' time, when there is a change of Government, the thing is upset again. I cannot myself believe that anyone is any the better off.
It is because I think that these matters ought to be dealt with differently that I have suggested that we should have another look at the whole business. I propose to give the other place an opportunity to do this by amending the Bill in the way that I suggest, provided that I get a majority of noble Lords to support me. In any case, I propose to press the Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he answer this question—because I think it is pertinent? His honourable friends in another place have said that they do not believe there should be any transfer of Corporation routes to the second force. Could a second force to-day be viable with its present small structure?
LORD BESWICK: That is a matter for discussion. There are great technical arguments. The noble Earl introduced into the matter, irrelevantly I thought, the fact that I have had some experience in these affairs. That I have; and because I have, I am not prepared to give a categorical answer here. But I would say that if you had a properly constituted Board that would be the body which would be able to give a sensible answer to a question of this kind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I cannot of course prevent the noble Lord from pressing this Amendment to a Division if he wishes to do so. But before we go to a Division, I think it is right to point out that this is a Bill on a very narrow issue. It was discussed fully in another place, where there was a Division on the Third Reading, which was carried by forty votes. The noble Lord is now proposing to send it back to the other place on this very narrow issue and on
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
a completely unviable Amendment. This Amendment will do this House no credit at all. I strongly recommend noble Lords not to press this Amendment, and if they do, I strongly recommend my noble friends to oppose it.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Foot, L.

Royle, L.

Achibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Arwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Birdwood, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stocks, B.

Blackett, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Norwich, V.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Rea, L.

Williamson, L.

Fiske, L.

Reading, M.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fletcher, L.

Reay, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Audley, B.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Avebury, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

Reigate, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Berkeley, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brecon, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Just, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandford, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Sandys, L.

Buckton, L.

Hankey, L.

Selsdon, L.

Conesford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sempill, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Sherfield, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Headfort, M.

Somers, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hereford, V.

Strang, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hylton Foster, B.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ilford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ironside, L.

Suffield, L.

Dudley, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

Jessel, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Leathers, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhevie, B.

Effingham, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD HAWKE: I wanted to make one small point—a point of some importance—which I do not think was made on Second Reading or has been made

1109
on the Committee stage to-day. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he has the statistics of what proportion of the world trade on these flights is at the moment held by B.O.A.C. I ask this as I have a suspicion that it is a very small one, because there are many airlines going to South America and West Africa. B.U.A. are an extremely enterprising body. In my humble opinion, B.U.A. are more likely to win a larger share of this trade for Britain than B.O.A.C. Therefore, I should like to hear those figures, if my noble friend has them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I do not have them. I shall be glad to see if I can get them. These are, after all, commercial secrets, and I am not sure what figures are revealed. I will certainly see if I can get them and let my noble friend know. I quite take his point.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
5.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before that Question is put to the House, there is one question that I should like to address to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. As conceivably he may agree, we have here another case where legislation is coming forward in the wrong order. Any legislation for the increase of borrowing powers really ought to come after the legislation which sets up the new Holdings Board. Clearly, if the Board is going to have any work to do at all, it should be in the matter of the allocation of capital resources of the two
1110
Corporations. However, it has not come about that way. I simply want to ask the noble Lord now when he expects we shall get the legislation setting up the proposed new Holdings Board.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought I had indicated during earlier discussions that we hoped it would be possible to have legislation in the course of this year; and the Bill is in preparation. Of course it is not possible to guarantee that there will be legislation in this Session. At any rate, we are extremely anxious to have the Airways Board and the Civil Aviation Authority set up at the earliest possible moment, and certainly in the course of 1972.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again. The noble Lord has referred to legislation setting up this proposed new Licensing Authority but not, I think, to legislation referring to the Holdings Board. Am I to understand that there will be one Bill dealing with the two matters?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the intention is that there shall be one Civil Aviation Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.