Lords Sitting of 29 July 1971

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

FOULNESS AIRPORT SITE AND UNEXPLODED MISSILES
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 what numbers of missiles, since records were kept, have been fired into the sands in the vicinity of the proposed new airport at Foulness; what proportion of these missiles remain unexploded and what is the estimated cost of clearing these unexploded missiles before any construction work can safely begin.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, from 1942 to 1970 inclusive, nearly two million rounds were fired into the Maplin Sands area but not all of these contained high explosive. It is not possible to say how many of the high explosive rounds remain unexploded in the sands. The proportion of"blind"rounds, that is shells which should have exploded but failed to do so, should not be large; but a considerable quantity of unfused high explosive shells were fired, particularly in the period 1942 to 1945, and, being unfused, should not, of course, have exploded. Clearance measures are now being considered; their costs have not yet been assessed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all very interested in the information he has given? Is he further aware that the estimate I have been given is that 20 per cent. of these missiles are unexploded? And would he agree that this is scarcely a suitable foundation for an airport runway? Will the cost of clearing these be included in any future estimate for the construction of the Foulness Airport?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord is interested in my reply; otherwise, I imagine, he would not have asked the Question. I do not exactly know what percentage of shells are unexploded; I should have thought it would be much lower than the noble Lord's estimated figure. Although it would not form a very good basis for a runway, there were certainly hazards at the other three sites that were open to the Government, though not particularly of that character. With regard to the costs, that is a matter for my right honourable friend.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord also aware that my research has shown that below these 1·9 million missiles there are a number of cannon balls which were fired there from the beginning of the 19th century? Is he also aware that, though I am a very powerful advocate, I hope, of vertical take-off, this is not the system I had in mind?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am beginning to think that it is I who should be asking the noble Lord questions about this matter, and not the other way round. I think it is unlikely that there are cannon balls, because the range has been used for only about 100 years; and even if it is so, I think it unlikely that they would go off because they did not have a charge of high explosive in them.

MALTA: EXPENDITURE BY SERVICEMEN
3.11 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimate of the total amount spent in Malta by the British defence forces and their dependants in the financial year 1970–71.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, just under £14 million.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, does this not mean that, on average, each member of the population of Malta supplies between £40 and £50 worth of goods and services as a result of our troops being

617
there, and has my noble friend drawn the attention of the Prime Minister of Malta to that fact? Is it not also true that the ability to attract future investment to this island, on which its prosperity must depend, will, in its turn, depend on the stability and security of the island which our Forces help provide?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody would quarrel with what my noble friend has said, and of course I made this point to the Prime Minister of Malta when I saw him the other day.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that although probably every Member of your Lordships' House recognises the past history of Malta and the services rendered to the United Kingdom and the Allies in two wars, nevertheless, and even despite the fact that the expenditure is not the really serious aspect of the problem, the fact is that Malta really now has no strategic value? If some assistance could be rendered to the Maltese Government on behalf of the Maltese people, that would be advisable, but not for the purpose of retaining Malta as a strategic base.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the facilities we have at Malta have no strategic value. I certainly agree with him that the price which has been asked is too high, and we shall have to make up our minds how much it is worth paying for them.

GOVERNMENT AID TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the amount of Government aid and defence aid granted to Commonwealth countries in terms of its value per head of population of those countries.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will, with the leave of the House, circulate the full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With
618
regard to economic aid for the calendar year 1970, the five countries which received the most aid per head of population, excluding those countries with populations under 15,000 are: Gibraltar, £45; Seychelles, £32; Malta, £23; Solomon Islands, £20; St. Lucia, £20. In these countries there was no defence aid.
Following are the details referred to:
The following are the figures requested, which for military aid are for the financial year 1970–71 and for economic aid the calendar year 1970. The calculations are based on estimates of population in mid-1970.

Country

Bilateral Aid Programme Per Capita 1970

Military Assistance Per Capita 1970–71

£

£

Cyprus

0·31

—

Gibraltar

45·18

—

Malta

22·51

—

Gambia

1·10

—

Ghana

0·62

—

Nigeria

0·17

—

Sierra Leone

0·37

—

Kenya

1·03

—

Tanzania

0·15

—

Uganda

0·45

—

Botswana

4·31

—

Lesotho

0·68

—

Malawi

1·70

—

Rhodesia

0·30

—

Swaziland

7·67

—

Zambia

0·59

0·01

Mauritius

2·09

—

St. Helena (including dependencies)

67·03

—

Seychelles

32·29

—

Bahamas

0·05

—

Barbados

2·33

—

Cayman Island

22·80

—

Honduras (British)

19·28

—

Jamaica

0·90

—

Montserrat

50·00

—

Trinidad and Tobago

0·56

—

Turks and Caicos Islands

101·30

—

Virgin Islands (British)

60·6

—

Associated States

Antigua

6·75

—

Dominica

18·70

—

Grenada

3·80

—

St. Kitts

13·79

—

St. Lucia

20·31

—

St. Vincent

12·86

—

Guyana

4·67

0·04

Bermuda

0·06

—

Falkland Islands

21·90

—

Ceylon

0·36

—

Hong Kong

0·05

—

India

0·08

*

Malaysia

0·60

0·14

Pakistan

0·09

—

Singapore

3·84

2·44

Fiji

4·50

—

Gilbert and Ellice Islands

15·00

—

New Hebrides

14·27

—

Papua

*

—

Country

Bilateral Aid Programme Per Capita 1970

Military Assistance Per Capita 1970–71

£

£

Solomon Islands

20·36

—

Tonga

5·70

—

Western Samoa

0·06

—

Notes:
(1) Excludes (a) general unallocated economic aid amounting to £10,862,000 in 1970, and (b) general unallocated military assistance of £2,222,000 in 1970–71.
(2) * means less than ½p.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, does this not mean that, if Mr. Mintoff's demand that we henceforth pay four times the price is granted, Malta will be receiving more than twice any other Commonwealth country in any part of the world? Can my noble friend tell the House approximately how much of Malta's gross national product is dependent on British expenditure?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is fair to join the two figures together as my noble friend did. The figures which I gave him are the result of an undertaking to provide aid under conditions which obtained in 1964, and we are carrying out this obligation. With regard to his second question, about £8 million a year comes from tourists to Malta, about £10 million from British settlers, and, in all, about half the gross national product comes from British sources.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that Malta was once part of our Empire, and that Malta is to-day what we made it? Would he not also agree that many of Malta's difficulties arise from the closure of the Suez Canal, which has meant that the port and docks find it hard to operate? Would not the noble Lord also agree that, while it is fair and right that we should make a contribution, although it should not be an unfair contribution, in the present circumstances we hope for a degree of generosity from Her Majesty's Government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that that is a slightly wider question than the original one, but we are carrying out the obligation we entered into in 1964.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think my noble friend misunderstood my first supplementary. I was not seeking to add the two sums, although they are both
620
helpful to the people of Malta. What I was seeking to say was that at present we are granting £5 million aid and Mr. Mintoff is asking that that sum be increased to £20 million. In that event the aid would rise from £23 to £92 per head, which is the figure that would mean treating them twice as favourably as any other Commonwealth country.

SUNDAY SPORT: LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS
3.15 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: 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 to what extent local authorities are empowered to allow facilities for the playing of organised games on Sunday.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the statutory powers of local authorities to provide facilities for sport and recreation are not drawn in terms of Sunday use, except that the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1890 forbids the closing of parks or pleasure grounds on that day. The matter is therefore one for individual local authorities to decide for themselves.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Wrexham Rural District Council decided last week to organise games on Sunday, and to pay for these from the rates? Will he agree that that is illegal?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord had put that question direct to me I should have been given a better opportunity to answer it. The 1780 Act prohibits the opening of places on Sunday to which people are admitted on payment. I do not think that covers the point to which the noble Lord is referring.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think it desirable that the Government should bring to the attention of local authorities the importance of the social amenity provided by organised games on Sundays, and ask them why they do not provide them?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not taking any particular view on this point. The law is there, and the local authorities have charge of their own grounds.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am asking the noble Lord whether he will take a particular view and prod local authorities on the subject.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not quite sure in which direction the noble Baroness is trying to get the Government to prod. Does she want more games on Sunday or fewer games on Sunday? It has been the view of successive Governments that the Crathorne Committee Report should be implemented by a Private Member's Bill, and all Governments have been giving help. It is perhaps unfortunate for all of us that none of these has reached the Statute Book.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should not like the Minister to go away with the wrong idea. Of course I believe that children should be allowed to play games on Sunday; children living in overcrowded areas should be given this opportunity. It is a very good thing for all boys in the streets to have organised games.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think this is within the bounds of the law already.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, the Minister said he was not too sure in which direction the noble Baroness was moving. I can assure him of the fact that if I ask a question she is bound to ask a supplementary.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether it is more wicked to play cricket on Sundays or to listen to political speeches?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure there is value in both.

THE SUMMER RECESS
3.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms make any statement about the date on which the House will be expected to return after the Summer Recess? I understand there may well be imponderables, but it would be convenient if we could have such information as is possible.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am afraid it is rather difficult to forecast exactly when the House will return after the Recess. It depends really on how much time will be required for the Report stage and Third Reading of the Immigration Bill. Until between us, through the usual channels, we can get some idea of how much time is required, it is difficult to indicate. If those stages can be taken fairly quickly, then it may be possible for the House to come back on October 18. On the other hand, if more time is required it will mean coming back on October 11 and 12, and then adjourning until October 18.
While I am on my feet, and with the leave of the House, may I say that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can understand the noble Earl's difficulties, and I thank him for what he has said.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.21 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Ninth Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Committee's Report was as follows:
MEETING WITH THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
The Committee have heard an oral report on the evidence which was given on July 7, 1971 by the Chairman of Committees and the Leaders of the three Parties to the House of Commons Procedure Committee on the four

623
subjects of proposed co-operation between the Houses, viz.:

(a) distribution of Bills between the Houses;

(b) joint pre-legislation committees;

(c) joint post-legislation committees; and

(d) a joint committee to examine or debate subordinate legislation.

The Committee will give further consideration to the question of the proposed co-operation in the Autumn.
AMENDMENTS TO LEAVE OUT CLAUSES ON THE REPORT STAGE
The Committee have considered the practice of putting down amendments to leave out Clauses or Schedules on the Report Stage and the opinions expressed by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition on this subject (H.L. Debates, July 1, 1971, cols. 491–7).
The Committee endorse the guidance then given to the House to the effect that it is undesirable, as a general practice, to move amendments on Report to leave out whole Clauses or Schedules, where the purpose underlying the amendments is to probe rather than a genuine desire to leave out the Clauses or Schedules in question. The proper time for such probing is the Committee stage.
PROCEDURE ON DIVISIONS
The Committee have given further consideration to the experimental procedure on Divisions and recommend:—

(a) that the Question should be put a second time after three minutes from the calling of the Division, instead of after two minutes, as recommended in the Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee on 3rd May, 1971;

(b) that the experimental procedure on Divisions should be continued until Christmas; and

(c) that at the end of six minutes from the calling of the Division, the Question should be repeated by the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, but that the words at present used to invite those Peers who have not already voted to proceed to the Division Lobby should be dispensed with.

ITALICISING OF WORDS IN MOTIONS OR QUESTIONS FOR EMPHASIS
On 7th July, 1971, a Starred Question was asked in which certain words were italicised in order to give them emphasis.
The Committee are of opinion that it is not in accordance with the custom of the House to italicise or underline words in Motions or Questions put on the Order Paper in order to give them emphasis.
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The Committee have considered the way in which amendments are recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, particularly in any Committee or Report Stage which extends over more than one day. They note that at present there is no indication of the point reached in a Marshalled
624
List of amendments at the end of a day's proceedings, unless the House has completed its consideration of the List. The Committee recommend that the Minutes should give details of the last amendment considered and disposed of.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I refer briefly to this Report? There is some very important material in it, and I hope that noble Lords who do not always see these Reports may take the opportunity of looking at this one. May I comment very briefly on two aspects? There is in this Report an endorsement of the views expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and myself, on the undesirability on Report stage of moving, for probing purposes only, to leave out clauses. We discussed this matter and there was general agreement. This situation was brought about by circumstances which were not wholly within the control of the Opposition at the time. I am sure that this conclusion is right and I support the endorsement of the Procedure Committee.
It ought however to be formally recorded, so that there is no misundering—and I am sure this is the intention—that this endorsement still does not in any way remove the right of noble Lords to move to leave out clauses on Report, provided that that is precisely what they mean. That is really the basis of that part of the Report. I mention it only so that if, in future, noble Lords in any part of the House choose to take such action, it is understood that this will not be quoted against them. Of course the purpose of moving to leave out a clause on Committee stage is really to draw attention to the fact that one is going to have a debate on the Question, that the clause shall stand part of the Bill, and one may vote against it. I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, agrees with that.
There is a second point to which I wish to refer, and this may save my speaking on the Motion with regard to the amendment of Standing Order No. 50 which provides, as does the Report, for the continuation of our new procedure on Divisions. This, I think, is working extremely well and is of great convenience to the House. I believe it is right to alter the period before the second call from two to three minutes. Some noble Lords may find it disturbing to wait a

625
little longer in the Division Lobby; but, bearing in mind that the Clerks sometimes take more than two minutes to come from distant parts, I think this decision is right. I am sure we are right to continue the experiment a little longer and not to come to a final decision at this stage.
Finally, I should like to make a protest which I have made before, that we ought not to produce temporary Amendments to Standing Orders, because the House then has to amend an Amendment to a temporary Standing Order. I am sure that in future, if we are going in for this sort of experiment, it would be better merely to suspend the Standing Order and for the House to record what it wants, so that we do not have to come back and keep making Amendments to what is essentially a temporary Standing Order. In fact, there ought not to be such a creature in existence.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, can help me here, because I do not seem to be in complete agreement with what my noble friend said in the first part of his speech. Is it not a fact that on Report stage we never have the Question put, That a clause shall stand part of a Bill? Therefore, there is no opportunity, unless one moves that the clause be left out, of discussing the clause as a whole.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I think I ought to remind the House that the Question before it is, That the Report be now considered. If we want to consider it, we ought to wait until the next Question which is, That the Report be now agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this enables me to make another speech and I much appreciate it. I do not wish to proceed further upon this matter, but it would be interesting if the noble Earl
626
felt like repying to my noble friend. My impression is that in either place one cannot vote against a clause in this sort of way, unless one really means to throw it out. Furthermore, on Report we do not have debates on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I reply to the procedural point of the noble Lord, Lord Royle? The noble Lord is of course completely correct, that on Report stage we do not have to move that clauses stand part of the Bill. That is done only on Committee stage. But the point in the Procedure Committee's Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred is the recommendation that if, on Report stage, a noble Lord wishes merely to probe, he should not move the omission of a clause. He should move that a clause should be omitted—which he is still perfectly free to do—only if he really wishes the clause to be omitted.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOL): My Lords, I think we are now in order. All that I should like to say on the two substantive points is that I endorse completely what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has said. I am of course reminded, in discussing the question of Amendments to leave out clauses on Report stage, that the discussion which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I had was on the night of the great flood in your Lordships' House. I should also like to say that I have taken note of, and I have some sympathy with, the subsidiary point which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, made about Amendments to Amendments to temporary Standing Orders. I thought he had a point, and perhaps this is something which we can bear in mind. But on the two substantive points, I cordially support what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has said, and indeed the Report of the Procedure Committee.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask how one would raise on Report any matter in regard to a clause? If one wants to ask questions or to be clear about an amended clause, how does one do it unless one has the opportunity of putting something on the Marshalled List?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer is to put down an Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIVISIONS
3.28 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Amendments to Standing Order 48 and Standing Order 50, agreed on May 12 last, be continued in force until the Christmas Recess in the next Session of Parliament; and to move the following Amendments thereto—
Standing Order No. 48
Paragraph (3), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4A), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has in fact made my speech on this point and therefore I shall not make it. But I would make one point. I hope the House will agree to this change from two minutes to three minutes. We have had a very large number of Divisions this Summer, and the House has become almost professional in the way it divides. But we have not had any Divisions of what I might call an amateur kind, called by an individual Back-Bencher. To expect him to find a second Teller and get those two names recorded at the Table in two minutes is, I think, asking rather a lot. It can be done by those of us who are doing it regularly, but for somebody who is not familiar with the procedure I think it is too short a time. So I hope that the House will agree to the three-minute rule.
Moved, That the Amendments to Standing Order 48 and Standing Order 50, agreed on May 12 last, be continued in force until the Christmas Recess in the next Session of Parliament; and to move the following Amendments thereto:—
Standing Order No. 48
Paragraph (3), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4A), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee I should inform your Lordships that this is a Consolidation Bill with Law Commission Amendments, and as such falls within the fourth category of Bills referred to the Joint Committee. In so far as the Bill is not pure consolidation, but gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission, it may be discussed in the House and in Committee of the Whole House. In this case the Joint Committee are of the opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commission are for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and they approve the recommendations, without amendment, and further state in their Report that in their opinion there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 295 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 22 agreed to.
Schedule 23 [Consequential amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 3:
Page 340, line 7, after (" 1965 ") insert (" (as amended by the Civil Aviation Act 1971) ").
Page 340,line 19, at end insert—

(" "the said section 118"" section 27 of the Act of 1962"(in both places)

" the said section 164"" section 45 of the Act of 1971 ".")

Page 353, line 9, at end insert—
(" The Civil Aviation Act 1971 (c. )
In section 14 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971—

(a)in subsections (6) and (9)(c) and (d) for the words"subsections (1) and (2) of section 158 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962"and"section 153 of that Act"there shall be substituted respectively the words"subsections (1) and (2) of section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"and"section 209 of that Act ";

(b)in subsections (7) and (9)(d) for the words"section 82 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962"and"Part V of that Act"there shall be substituted respectively the words"section 128 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"and"Part VI of that Act."

In section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 for the words set out in the first column below there shall be substituted the words set out opposite to them in the second column below:—

" section 118, 119, 123, 134(2) or 170(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 "

" section 164, 165, 169, 187(2) or 237(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ".

" the said section 118 "

" the said section 164 ".

" section 27 of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 45 of the said Act of 1971 ".

" section 122 of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 168 of the said Act of 1971 ".

" section 129 of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 180 of the said Act of 1971 ".

" section 130(2) or 133(1) of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 181(2) or 186(1) of the said Act of 1971 ".

" the said section 27 "

" the said section 45 ".

" Part III of the said Act of 1962 "

" Part III of the said Act of 1971 ".

In Schedule 5 to the Civil Aviation Act 1971—

(a) in paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (q) and (bb) shall be omitted and after paragraph (ee) there shall be inserted—

" (ff) sections 22, 40, 48, 49, 118(2), 127, 128, 129, 149, 165(3), 181, 182, 183, 186, 192, 206(6), 209(3)(b), 210(2), 213(3), 216, 223, 225 to 241 (except section 230 as applied by section 13 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958), 245(7)(b), 255, 281(6)(b) of, and Schedule 10, paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 19, and Schedule 20 to, the. Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ";

630
(b) in paragraph 6, sub-paragraphs (f) and (l) shall be omitted and after paragraph (m) there shall be inserted—

" (n) sections 206(6), 225 to 241 and 281(6)(b) of, and Schedule 10 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 20 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ";

(c) in paragraph 7, sub-paragraphs (c) and (g)shall be omitted and after paragraph (h)there shall be inserted—

" (i) sections 149(3), 165(3) and 225 to 241 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ":

(d) in paragraph 8 for the words"section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 ","the Town and Country Planning Act 1962"and"Section 70(2) of the said Act of 1968"there shall be substituted respectively the words"section 223 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ","that Act"and"Section 225(2)(b) of the said Act of 1971 ".")

The noble and learned Lord said: In rising to propose this series of Amendments, which I think I can deal with together, subject to the agreement of the noble and learned Lord opposite, I would say simply that they are all technical, draftsman's Amendments. They are caused by the neck-and-neck race between this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, and the Civil Aviation Bill. We think that the Civil Aviation Bill is likely to come into force before April 1, 1972, which is the date set for the commencement of this Bill. It therefore becomes necessary for those references to be translated with effect from that date, and that is the purpose of these Amendments. It could have been done the other way, but it would have required double references in the Civil Aviation Bill owing to the date at which it comes` into force. That is the only purpose of any of these rather complicated Amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 24 agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 381, line 47, at end insert—

(" 1971 c.

The Civil Aviation Act 1971

In Schedule 5 paragraph 8(3) ")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 22):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Amendment of qualification for unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and injury benefit]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before I call Amendment No. 1 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: Bearing in mind that there is a great deal of business to be completed to-day, I will not take up the time of your Lordships too much, but I would tell the Committee that although there appears to be a large number of Amendments down to this Bill, in fact the number of points to be debated is very small—not small in quality, but small in number—and the Amendments are related. With permission, despite what the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, has just said, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. They relate to a subsection of the clause which deals with unemployment and sickness benefit. Taking sickness benefit first. I would point out what the Minister in another place said when speaking on this clause. I believe that on Second Reading in this House the Minister also told your Lordships this. The Minister in another place stated:
" We have witnessed over the past years steady increase in the proportion of male workers covered to a greater or lesser degree by employers' sickness schemes, but of course they are not yet comprehensive "—
and note this, my Lords—
" and as the hon. Member has said, they are of varying quality."
That, I think, is very relevant to this clause.
I wonder whether I may refer again to the paper, General Problems of Low Pay. This deals with only three industries: contract cleaning, laundry and ancillary workers in the National Health Service. We see that these workers were interviewed concerning sickness benefit and asked what conditions obtained in those industries. We find that for men in the laundry industry 22 per cent. receive full pay for a month or more when they are sick, 23 per cent. sick pay but less than full pay for one month or more and 33 per cent. receive no sickness pay at all. There were 23 per cent. who said they"did not know ", but, my Lords, I suspect that one would know whether one received pay when sick, so I think we may safely assume that a proportion of those also did not have any sickness benefit.
When we look at the figures for workers in the National Health Service we find a slightly happier picture. There, 75 per cent. of the men would receive full pay

633
for a month, but only 41 per cent. of the women would receive it. That is an interesting point. When we come to the women working in industry we find again that the percentages are different: 89 per cent., if working part-time, did not receive sickness pay, and in the laundry and dry cleaning trades 57 per cent. of the women full-time workers did not receive sickness pay.
I do not want to labour the point and I know that I may have selected something which is not typical, but I think it is all too easy to say that these figures are not typical. This Bill, as I see it, deals with the low-paid worker. As a professional, I have always been fortunate to have an adequate salary and to be fully protected by my employers in the event of sickness, but it is one of the ironies of life that if one is badly paid because one is badly educated, one invariably lives in poor housing, one's children are educated in old and neglected schools and one is, as a result, much more vulnerable to sickness, unemployment and all the other problems. So this will be the group who will be hit by any change which takes place through this Bill.
When we look at unemployment benefit, with 800,000 unemployed at the moment we realise that no small section of the population is concerned. This matter is of particular concern to those working in the building trade or the catering trades, people who, as we all know, are much subject to short-time working. To lose three days' benefit several times a year seems grossly unfair. Again, if one is at the lower end of the pay scale every major change in one's budget means an added difficulty. Recently I saw a suggestion that a Bill of this kind would attempt to deal with scroungers. I absolutely refute at this Box that the average worker is a scrounger. In my experience, both here and as a magistrate, I find that rogues and scroungers will find a way round any piece of legislation we introduce. We must always consider that we are dealing with ordinary people and that it is ordinary people who will feel the benefit or the disadvantage of any legislation which we introduce.
I have been told that if there are hardships there are always supplementary benefits. That is so, but this only means shifting the payment from one fund to another, which in the event means related
634
benefits. I said on Second Reading that this is a mean Bill. I see nothing to cause me to change my opinion, and this is one of the worst clauses in the Bill. Very generously, we are giving the Government two opportunities here. By Amendment No. 1 we would take out subsection (1) and leave the situation as it is at the moment. Those concerned would be paid for the three waiting days. If, on the other hand, advantage is taken of Amendment No. 2, the introduction of the change will be postponed until January, 1976. Noble Lords may ask why this is suggested and I will give three reasons; there may be others. This would give the unions time to demand that all employers should provide a scheme to cover all workers for sickness, unemployment and injury and it would give employers time to accede to that demand. Secondly, the date suggested will be after the present Government have to go to the country, and I guess that they will be replaced by a different type of Administration. Thirdly, if we have entered the European Economic Community by that time there will be an opportunity for the Government of the day to prepare schemes in co-operation with the countries of the Six. I beg to move.
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): I am very happy to try to answer the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, although I shall have to depend largely on the arguments I put forward on Second Reading, because this is a major part of the Bill and I could not possibly accept her proposed Amendments. I went into this in some detail on Second Reading. I shall try to avoid going over all the, figures I gave then, but I ask to be excused if I cover some of the same ground.
The noble Baroness mentioned the provisions for social security in the E.E.C. and naturally both of us are interested in making comparisons. I think there is one comparison that should make us very thankful for our own scheme. That is that it is a national, comprehensive scheme and makes universal additions for all those who benefit under it

635
As it is a national scheme, we must now allow it to ossify. We must review its workings from time to time and ensure that those who subscribe to it—employer, employee and taxpayer—as well as those who benefit, get the best value for their money. This, I suggest, will not only mean reviewing the administrative arrangements from time to time but also will entail fundamental changes in the scheme when we have to find new priorities. That is what we have done on this occasion, as I tried to explain on Second Reading. I suggest that we must not consider this Bill in isolation. It marches hand in hand with the National Insurance Act, recently passed in this House, which made substantial increases in benefits.
To mention just one improvement which was universally acceptable to your Lordships, there was the new invalidity benefit package. We should like to do more. We should like to increase the benefits and to bring in new selective benefits, but there is a limit to the financial resources available. One way of providing more money is by a careful review of existing benefits. It was as a result of that review that we put this particular benefit, the retrospective payment for the three waiting days, into the scales against other priorities. We came to the conclusion it was no longer justified. I should like to emphasise this, because it was not all that clear in our last discussion that this payment is never made now during the first three days. The whole point of the three waiting days is to disregard short isolated periods of absence. Payment is made retrospectively only if someone is absent for two weeks or more in a period of 13 weeks. This was useful and a good benefit when the scheme was introduced, but in terms of priority we feel that it is no longer justifiable. It may be that the noble Baroness does not agree with our priorities but that is the reason why we have taken this step.
I have already given some of the reasons why we have reached this judgment. To save a long catalogue, I would just list the changed circumstances to-day compared with those when the scheme was stated in 1948. Since then, there has been a four-fold increase in personal disposable income and an eight-fold increase
636
in personal savings. National Insurance benefits have increased very substantially in real terms as well as in money terms. Thirdly, we now have earnings-related supplements to benefit which are payable from the third week off work, which is just about the same time that this payment was made. Fourthly, there are many more working wives, earning much higher wages. Fifthly, there has been a substantial growth in employers' sick pay schemes.
As our attention was drawn to this by the noble Baroness, may I repeat the figures? The coverage in the year 1961–62 was only 56·5 per cent. of all male employees but in April, 1970 employers' sick pay schemes covered over 72 per cent. For manual workers, the corresponding figure, while lower, was still nearly 65 per cent. of all full-time male employees aged 21 and over. These are the reasons why we consider that this particular benefit no longer has the same priority as others. It has nothing to do with scroungers. That is quite another point and has no relevance to our reasons. Times have changed and there are more urgent priorities for the £19 million that can be saved (at the present rates of benefit) and used in other directions, such as the invalidity benefit package I have mentioned.
The noble Baroness also spoke to Amendment No. 2 and here I could not accept that we should delay this change of priority. We have already committed (as it were) the money elsewhere in the invalidity benefit package and under the National Insurance Act. Naturally we want to do all we can to encourage employers to increase the number of sick pay schemes and I am sure that pressure will be put on them by the trade unions to do so, but this is a matter for voluntary negotiations. I hope that, as a result, more workers will be covered by these voluntary schemes. I regret that for these reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: While I should like to thank the Minister for his words, I confess that I did not expect him to accept either Amendment. I am eternally hopeful, however, and sometimes a Minister has a change of heart. I am interested in the figure which he gave of 65 per cent. of manual workers

637
covered by sick pay schemes. That still leaves 35 per cent. not covered—a very large number of people. Though we talk in percentages, they mean millions of people. I suspect, though I have no way of checking this, that it is those on better pay who get the fringe benefits. I feel that it is rather like talking gaily about 2 per cent. unemployment being necessary. That is fine, if you do not happen to be part of the 2 per cent. I reject entirely the noble Lord's proposition about working wives. The fact that a wife happens to be working is no reason at all for not paying benefits. And I would point out that the Government are not giving the money, they are simply redistributing it in a slightly different way. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Before the noble Lord answers, if he can speak again, could I ask a question on discrimination? Apparently a man is discriminated against if he has a working wife. Are women discriminated against because they are married? I see that the percentage of women who get sick pay is very small.
LORD ABERDARE: There is no discrimination here at all. I am not quite sure to what the noble Baroness is referring.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord has said that there is no discrimination if a man may not benefit if he has a working wife. That is discrimination against a man on certain grounds and I want to know why there are fewer women.
LORD ABERDARE: I never said anything of the sort. I do not think that the noble Baroness was listening. I was giving various reasons why, in the changed economic circumstances of today, with more money coming into the home and with better National Insurance benefits, we thought the priorities no longer justified the payment of benefit after two weeks of the money that would have been paid for the first three days' sickness. There is no discrimination at all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I was not talking about the first three days'
638
sickness but about sickness pay, about the figures which my noble friend gave.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think that perhaps my noble friend is referring to the figures which I gave from General Problems of the Lower Paid and here we must absolve the Government, who are not actually concerned. I quoted this in aid and said that employers seem to give more benefit to men than to women. That is discrimination, but on this occasion we cannot expect the Minister to reply.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: In other words. I was attending to every word the Minister said and I was correct.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees puts the next Amendment, it may he a convenient time to have a Statement and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS
3.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I shall with permission repeat the Statement which is being made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place on shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde. This is the Statement:
" The group which I invited to advise me about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders has reported. Their report is now available in the Vote Office.
" Their principle findings are that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited, as organised in 1967, was doomed from the start as a result of the faulty concept of structure within which it was organised; the burden of eventual loss with which it was saddled; and the inadequate management with which it was provided. The Group therefore conclude ' that any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified '. The Group also state that the present order book is dangerously thin for U.C.S. in its present size, particularly in view of the low level of orders coming into the industry.

639
" Nevertheless if the order book is concentrated at the Govan and Lint-house sites; if ship production is standardised; if the management is radically reformed; and if much more productive and realistic working agreements can be negotiated with the men who would be employed there—on these conditions, the Group think it should be possible to form a new company which would retain a viable shipbuilding capability on the Upper Clyde with prospects of some eventual expansion.
" The Government accept these conclusions. But the Group's conditions are fundamental and the enterprise can go forward only if they are met. In particular I must emphasise the need, if this venture is to succeed, for first-class management and for satisfactory undertakings by the unions in relation to working practices and wage rates.
" If these conditions are met the Government believe that private capital should be forthcoming, particularly from Scottish sources, and the Government would be ready to provide some of the initial capital.
" If the new venture can be established on the basis I have described, some 2,500 men will have the prospect of continued employment there. Another thousand men, and probably more, should be able to find work with other shipbuilders on the Clyde. Some too may be retained in work by other interests acquiring U.C.S. facilities from the Liquidator. For the rest, a considerable number are likely to be needed for the completion of ships already building. Thus only about 400 men in all will become immediately redundant, although others will do so at intervals during the months to come, as ships are completed. The Government will of course do everything possible to assist those who lose their jobs.
" If the Court grants the company's application for a winding up order, the liquidation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited will proceed.
" While we are seeking to establish whether the conditions for a viable shipbuilding enterprise can be created, on the lines recommended by the expert
640
Group, I will have their continuing advice. I am grateful to them for the work they have already done.
" To ensure meanwhile that the Liquidator has the necessary working capital, the Government propose to allow him to retain for a limited period the monies advanced under existing arrangements with the provisional Liquidator. If during this period further sums are needed, then, provided there has been satisfactory progress in fulfilling the conditions I have outlined, funds will be made available from the consolidated fund and estimates will be presented to the House in due course. If Government money were to be provided for a continuing operation legislation would have to be introduced."
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place, but I think he will agree, as a Scot, that this is a particularly black day for Scottish industry. Is the noble Lord aware that male unemployment in that part of Scotland is already running at 10 per cent.? And, of course, we have just had the announcement that Plessey will close next month, so adding to this number.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions. When the expert committee say that it might be possible to concentrate at Govan and Linthouse, does this mean the complete closing down of Scotstoun and Clydebank? Secondly, with regard to the number of men involved, is it not a fact that the figure of 400 is a little misleading? Will it not mean that at least 5,000 to 6,000 men's jobs will be lost, even when the operation is completed? Further, has the noble Lord made any estimate of the number outside the yard whose jobs will be lost as a consequence of this action? Is not the total likely to be somewhere in the region of 15,000 to 18,000? I should also like to ask just how much this is going to cost public funds. What will be the losses entailed? Indeed, has any estimate been made of what will be the cost to Government funds in regard to redundancy payments on top of all this?
Finally, the fifth paragraph of the Statement says:
" If these conditions are met the Government believe that private capital should be forthcoming, particularly from Scottish sources, and

641
the Government would be ready to provide some of the initial capital."
Can the noble Lord tell us just what sums are involved in doing this job? How much are the Government prepared to pay, and how much do they expect to raise from private Scottish sources?
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to reserve our comments on this matter until we have had an opportunity of reading the special report. But on first reflection we should like to ask one major question. The Statement implies that if the new company is formed it will be formed on the site of the Upper Clyde. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would consider the possibility of using a lower Clyde site near the proposed Hunterston Steelworks. I should also like to ask whether, if this is not to be the case, and the proposed new company is to be sited on the existing Upper Clyde sites, this casts any doubt at all on the proposed new steelworks?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I agree that this is a black day for Scottish industry; no one can dispute that. The noble Lord asked whether this involves the complete closure of Scotstoun and Clydebank. The intention is that the ships at present being built there should he completed, and that the remainder of the work should be transferred to Govan. It will then be for the Liquidator to dispose of the Scotstoun and Clydebank yards. I should say that, so far as I am aware, no inquiries have been received in regard to the Scotstoun and Clydebank yards. The noble Lord suggested that the mention of 400 workers becoming redundant is misleading. I do not think it is. What I said was that only about 400 men in all will become immediately redundant. Naturally, there will be a run-down, and the Liquidator will have to decide how to dispose of the workers then. I did say, however, that it is estimated that Scott Lithgow could provide jobs for up to 1,000 men at the end of the year.
The noble Lord then went on to ask about employment outside the yards. That is a difficult thing to estimate. One has seen some rather, I think, exaggerated estimates in the Press about this. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an estimate about it. If there is a continuing
642
activity at Govan, and if the activity at Scott Lithgow increases, then quite a number of those who are providing work outside the yards will continue to do so. But, of course, those who provide the supplies for ships do not do so only for the Clyde; many supply them for elsewhere, as well. The noble Lord asked what losses have been entailed by the Government. Something over £20 million of Government money has been put in, and that I am afraid is the level of the loss. Much of this must have gone, as some of it will rank with other creditors. So far as the redundancy payments are concerned, I can give the noble Lord details if he wants them, but probably he does not.
LORD HOY: My Lords, no. But I wonder whether the noble Lord can help us in this way. Obviously, if we are going to pay off some thousands of men, some estimate must have been made of what it will cost in unemployment benefits, and some estimate must also have been made of the cost in redundancy payments, because at the end of the day we shall be losing some thousands of jobs in the industry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the Liquidator. It is for him to decide what is the size of the forces to be retained, the payments in` lieu of notice, or payments with notice, and redundancy payments. Finally, the noble Lord asked what sums are involved. It is difficult to give precise estimates, but to acquire the assets from the Liquidator, to provide working capital and to improve facilities might cost something like £10 million. The Government hope that this money might he found from private sources, but they accept that some degree of Government involvement may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked whether consideration had been given to moving to a lower Clyde site. Consideration has not been given to this point because of the nature of the present operation, which is an operation of liquidation. The recommendation made by the experts is that the activities should be concentrated at Govan. If it is possible on the conditions they have indicated, that is where what remains of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders should continue to operate. So far as the possibility of

643
steel development is concerned, this has not entered into the picture. My Lords, I hope I have answered the questions satisfactorily.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware whether there have been any inquiries about Govan? He has said that there were no inquiries about Scotstoun and Clydebank. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the importance of taking some action quickly? Many of the men in the yards are highly skilled. If they leave the area the problem of finding employment in any form of development where the percentage of the less skilled is higher will become increasingly more difficult.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. There have not as yet, again so far as I know, been any inquiries about Govan, but this is the first announcement that has been made of the recommendation. Regarding my noble friend's second point, I fully agree with him. The Government are very alive to this point and so of course is the Liquidator. He wants to do the best he can.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I assume that the Government got out some figures before coming to this decision. I assume they have estimated what it would cost the nation if they did not continue to support the shipyards, what the benefits would be and what the alternatives were. Is it not possible to have this information? Leaving out the tragedy of the unemployment involved and all the related problems, there must be some basis on which the decision was made. Is it asking too much of the Government that they should share that information with the nation, and with this House in particular?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that point, would he bear in mind that this has been a very costly and somewhat naïve experiment, which was pushed on to the previous Government by Mr. Wedgwood Benn at enormous cost to the taxpayer? Whereas I perfectly concede, as would everyone in this House, that it is a tragedy for those who are there and have been led astray, it is a little unfair
644
to demand extra millions of pounds for this particular shipyard when other shipyards have introduced better working arrangements with their trade unions, have introduced better management and also standardised ships. All these things have been done in other yards without massive support from the taxpayers of this country. Surely there must be a limit to the manner in which we prop up this particular shipyard.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, if I may say so, I was not asking anyone to put up more money. I was asking on what information the Government have based their present decisions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, is that the Government appointed a committee of experts. After I have sat down, he will be able to get a copy of their report from the Printed Paper Office and when he has read that I am quite certain he will agree that the Government's decision in this matter was right.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Lord not understand even now the questions which my noble friends were asking? Is he aware that there is something called the Central Capability Unit, or Public Expenditure Analysis Unit, which is supposed to be able to make estimates of social costs? Is he further aware that we had no idea, when the Government were facing their decision, whether they had estimated the amount of money they will now have to pay out by way of unemployment benefit and redundancy payments?—because the Government are going to advance money to support this. Can the noble Lord give some indication as to what the total cost will be as a result of closing down these shipyards? I will not pursue further the tragedy involved but we would like to ask whether in fact the Government have done these sums, because only the Government can do them: this Committee would not be in a position to do them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point is surely that here is an enterprise which was set up, admittedly, in a hurry. The amount in losses that they were faced with at the time was seriously underestimated. It has been shown that

645
at least two of the shipyards are totally non-viable. The experts' report has made quite clear (to read the words again) that
"…any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified."
If the noble Lord reads the report he will see that the experts were conscious of the social considerations.
LORD SHACKLETON: Social costs.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am now dealing with the social considerations and will come to the social costs later. No estimate has been made on the social costs for the reasons I have given, that it is impossible at this stage to say how many men will be employed and how many will have to seek employment elsewhere. It must be remembered that as this is a special development area assistance is available. But the major point here is that, on the basis of this report, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be quite unjustifiable to continue putting money into an enterprise of this kind which shows no sign whatsoever of being viable. Governments are prepared to give assistance of one kind or another, especially in development areas, on condition that the enterprise looks as though it might become viable in the long run and not otherwise.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly, but I am sure that your Lordships' House will realise how important this is to Scotland and its economy. I find it difficult to understand how the Government came to this decision without having costed it. The noble Lord has just said that the Government found themselves unable to cost it, and yet, in spite of not knowing what the cost is to be, they have reached this particular decision. Might I also ask whether it is correct, arising out of the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that in this particular yard there was a substantial cut in the labour force, but at the same time the output went up by 87 per cent.? Surely this was a contribution by the workmen along with their employers to help to bring about the viability of the yards?
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I have just been given a copy of the report
646
of the Advisory Group on Shipbuilding in the Upper Clyde. It does not give any of the information I requested. I should like, with permission, to ask again for the information. I have not suggested that the Government should advance any further money, but I should like to have the information on which they have based the decision to implement this report and what it will cost the nation, directly or indirectly, to do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is absolutely impossible to give an estimate of this kind. One does not know how many of these workers will be employed either in the continuing enterprise or elsewhere in shipbuilding, or elsewhere in industry that may he developed on the Clyde. There is no means of costing this. All that can be said at the present time is that here is an enterprise which has shown that it is not viable. As much as possible of it, given the conditions and if the conditions are fulfilled, will be maintained. But this is all that can be justified. For the rest, the Government have said that they will do their utmost to find employment for those who are displaced.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
4.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before I call Amendment No. 4 I have to point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: With permission, I will discuss Amendments 4, 5 and 6 as before, because again we offer the Government an alternative, but I will not repeat the argument other than to say that there is the opportunity to leave matters as they were, which we offer in Amendment No. 4, or to postpone the introduction of the conditions until 1976, which we offer in Amendment No. 5. This deals with another group in the community—not as large a group as those who are unemployed but a very important group. The last figure I was able to

647
obtain of the number of industrial accidents in a year came from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and gave a total of 322,000 accidents yearly. We must ask again which group of workers are likely to sustain accidents whilst at work. I suspect that administrative workers in offices are not likely to sustain industrial accidents, unless they drop the typewriter. It seems that it will again be the people we have been speaking about—the miners, the builders, the shipyard workers. These are the kind of people who suffer industrial accidents—factory workers of all kinds. Although I have searched the replies given by Ministers in another place I could not find any figure given of the extent to which employers' schemes offer coverage. I may have missed it, in which case I shall be pleased to hear it—not necessarily today. When you are a low-paid worker—I am sorry to repeat this and I do not wish to be emotional, but it is a fact—if you suffer unemployment or injury or sickness you need as much help in the monetary sense as you can get, to tide you through what can be an expensive period. I beg the Government, even at this late stage, to leave matters where they are. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I will try again to meet the noble Baroness's points. I hope I shall get the last word this time and not the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who succeeded on the last Amendment. I am afraid that I cannot accept these Amendments, for the reason that we do not feel that we can make any difference in principle between the three-day waiting period for sickness, unemployment benefit or industrial injury benefit. If there is an argument for abolishing waiting day payment, it must apply generally and not just to payments in respect of sickness and unemployment. It would be difficult to maintain the general principle if we were to make exceptions of one sort or another. In fact, over recent years it has been a long-term aim of all Governments to bring the rules for administering industrial injuries and national insurance benefit more into line. This is not only to give fairness between people who are for one reason or another off work, but also to provide a much simpler scheme to administer in already busy offices. All sorts of anomalies creep
648
in if you make distinctions between unemployment and sickness and industrial injuries benefits, one being whether your period of work comes under one heading or the other heading first.
The other point I should like to make is that those who are injured industrially already receive a higher rate of benefits. They get £2·75 a week more than those who are in receipt of sickness and unemployment benefit, so under the new schemes they will be receiving after September £8·75 a week. That to some extent should help to carry them over. They will be receiving this benefit for the full period they are away from work, and after six months they will be entitled, if their injury goes on, to industrial injury disablement benefit and industrial injury sickness benefit. I am afraid that to accept these Amendments would strike at the root of the whole principle we are seeking to put through in this Bill, and that is to switch this money where we think there are greater priorities. We can only beg to differ from the noble Baroness if she feels that the priorities are different.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am surprised when the noble Lord says that you can equate the first three days of a sickness with the first three days of industrial injury. I was always under the impression, as I am sure doctors all over the country were, that the changes in the regulations which laid down that the individual who was sick for three days was not paid unless the sickness went on for a further period, were made because some people suspected that some of this short-term sickness might stem from malingering and that the way to foil an individual who had had a good time out the night before, had developed a headache and had decided to take a day or two off, was to stop payment for the first three days. I was certainly under the impression that this played some part in this decision.
With an industrial injury, a man in a factory who catches his hand in a machine is seen immediately by the manager, by the first aid people and so on. Everybody knows that he is incapable of working. That night he is seen by his doctor and there is absolutely no doubt but that the man has suffered injury. I feel it is extremely difficult to equate that with the individual who may say (it is not so in every case, of course),

649
" I'm not feeling too well and will take three days off ". I am surprised that the noble Lord stressed the fact that you must have one rule for all these people.
LORD ABERDARE: Under the present scheme neither the person who is off sick nor the person who suffers an industrial injury receives payment during the first three days, but it comes as a sort of bonus after two weeks. It is this payment, a kind of bonus payment, which we think is no longer as important as it was. While I am on my feet, may I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the provisions of employers' sick pay schemes, where they are in effect, do cover incapacity caused by industrial injury as well as by sickness.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am quite sure that the Minister will not expect me to say that I accept his arguments. I appreciate that he has to make them. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has a point. Industrial injury is not the same as sickness, and, to me, to argue for anything just because it is administratively more convenient to do when you are dealing with human beings is the worst of all arguments. Nevertheless, I have made my point. In this Bill we are dealing with the lowest paid workers, who can ill afford to be without benefit for these three days. The Minister has repeated several times, and we all know it to be the case that it is a retrospective payment. It does come, but I suggest that we should look at the working of the Act to see why it should take so long to be paid at all. Two weeks seems quite a long time. However, that is not a matter to discuss this afternoon. Making that point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Abolition of local advisory committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.30 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Clause 9 deals with the national insurance advisory committees which, under this Bill, are to be abolished. In another place, the Minister described three functions for
650
these committees. He said they gave advice on the location of offices, and of proposed closures; they gave advice on the personnel who sit on the local tribunals; they interviewed difficult assistance and supplementary benefit cases. The personnel of the advisory committee was described on Second Reading, and was outlined in the principal Act. I should like to emphasise that these are ordinary citizens, and it is an important part of the British way of life that we can always appeal to our peers. It does not matter how good the professional advice is, the fact that ultimately ordinary people can make an appeal to their peers is a vital point.
If we look at the third function of the committee—to interview difficult assistance and supplementary benefit cases—I wonder how far this has been used. I tried to assist a widow on one occasion (I am not certain whether the case would have come under this committee or not) who had her pension book removed because she was held to be cohabiting with a man. The evidence was that she watched television with him. I am happy to say that we were able to get the decision reversed; if that were evidence of cohabitation, it would put a number of your Lordships at some risk. It seemed to me at that time that the fact that we were able, as her own peers, to help this woman was an important point.
These committees have cost the colossal sum of about £20 a week, if my arithmetic is correct. They are manned voluntarily. The Minister in another place said that they had outlived their use and were not being used properly. That is a popular argument when you want to get rid of something. For example, there is the exercise of running down the railways: first, you make it difficult for people to travel on a train; you arrange for the service to be at awkward times or, better still, see that people can travel on the train only if they have a restricted ticket which has to be purchased at the station. I travelled on such a train the other day; there were about 20 people in a coach which could have held far more. If you make anything difficult enough you can justify the argument that nobody wants to use it.
I strongly suspect that these committees have not been used to the full. The national advisory committee at top level

651
is used considerably by the Minister, and the Minister calls its findings in aid on every possible occasion. But it is vital that we should also have local links. This is not the moment to remove a small committee in which ordinary citizens are involved. The amount of money is so small that I beg the Government to allow the retention of these committees and, indeed, to give them more work to do.
LORD ABERDARE: We touched on this matter on Second Reading. I should like to pay a sincere tribute to those who have served on local advisory committees over many years. Our decision to abolish these committees was in no way intended as any reflection on the public spirit of the people who served on them or on the way in which they have discharged their duties.
The noble Baroness said that the local advisory committees provided an appeals system for people with social security problems. The appeals system already exists quite independently of these committees. There is a right of appeal to a national insurance local tribunal against decisions on claims to national insurance benefit, and to a supplementary benefit appeal tribunal against decisions on claims to supplementary benefit. The tribunals have chairmen appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and two other members. In the case of the national insurance local tribunals, the members are drawn from two panels—one consisting of persons representing employed persons, the other representing employers, self-employed and friendly societies. On the supplementary benefits appeal tribunals, one of the members is chosen by the Secretary of State, and the other is appointed by him from among representatives of workpeople. That is really where the appeals system lies, both for national insurance and supplementary benefit matters.
The noble Baroness described the functions of the local advisory committee quite correctly. But these functions are no longer giving them enough work to do, and are no longer required, and so we have decided to abolish the committees. It is true that in the early days of the national insurance scheme they were helpful in advising the Department about
652
which outside organisations to consult in building up these panels. The national insurance scheme has now been running for 23 years, and the Department's local office managers are well aware of the representative organisations in their areas, so that the advice of the local advisory committees is no longer needed.
The second function: changes in local office organisation. This was a function which was useful in the early days but again it is not of any practical application now. The third function (and in a way the most important one) was advising the Supplementary Benefits Commission in cases of difficulty. The committees did very good work and on occasion still do; but it is doubtful whether it is worth keeping in being 141 committees, with over 4,000 people serving on them, for this single purpose which it is no longer so essential to have performed by the committees.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission has specialist officers who are experienced in dealing with the problem cases. There are now the new local authority social services departments, many more social workers than there were, and, I am glad to say, increasing contacts between the social services department and the local supplementary benefits commission officers. They are able to sort out many of the problems previously handled by the local advisory committees.
When Mr. Ennals, a predecessor of mine at the Department of Health and Social Security, wrote to all the local advisory committees asking for the views of the chairmen on their future role, there were not enough constructive suggestions to justify any further use of the committees. The main answer that came through referred to considerable frustration. There is a need now to make use of both the human elements in these committees, and the financial elements. I know that £130,000 a year may not be a large sum by some accounts, but it is still money which we would not want to use, except in the best possible way. Nor do I think it right to use the voluntary services of 4,000 willing people in committees if their usefulness is now no longer what it was. I would pay every tribute to those who have served on the committees. I very much hope that

653
they will continue to give voluntary service in other ways, where their services would be very much appreciated. However, in the circumstances I am afraid that I cannot accept the deletion of Clause 9.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I noted in the principal Act that when these bodies were established it was said:
" For the purpose of considering and advising upon such questions as the Minister or Commons may from time to time refer to them ".
It seems a little hard to ask these inexperienced people what they should be doing. I would put it the other way round. If I were a Minister I would refer to a committee of this kind far more matters than they have had to deal with. I still feel that if a National Insurance Advisory Committee can give such good service there is a function for the local advisory committees. We are trying to get people to understand their benefits. At the moment there is a great publicity campaign; millions of leaflets are being sent out, and I feel that this particular committee would have some function in this connection.
In this recent case relevant to supplementary benefit and cohabitation, I noted that the Press statement issued by the Department said that the Commission freely admitted that in a service of 18,000 staff, errors of judgment would sometimes be made. This one accepts' it is perfectly reasonable. That is the very reason why I think we still want the protection of a small committee of this kind which can interview cases. I am not saying that they find the answers; I am saying only that the individuals have the feeling of satisfaction that they have not been merely dealt with by"them "—the professional worker—but by one of their own kind. I make this appeal because I feel that this is a mistake—but I see that I cannot change the Government's point of view.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am very concerned with the question—and there has been a good deal of relevant publicity lately—that a woman who is receiving a benefit will be deprived of it if
654
it can be proved that she has a male friend—I put it as broadly as that. In a congested street, if a woman has frequent visits from a man no doubt there will be gossip. My noble friend has put the point that the local advisory committee could protect her in so far as she would be able to explain the position to them. What protection is a woman going to have now if the noble Lord dissolves the advisory committees? I am very concerned. Perhaps he will tell the Committee how the machinery will operate. Will somebody regularly go round spying on these women? Who will do it, and what appeal will these women have from the decision?
LORD ABERDARE: As the noble Baroness knows, there are different rates of benefit for single people and for married people. It would therefore be quite unfair if two single people who were in fact living together were able to"get away with it ", as it were, and get more benefit than a married couple. This is the fundamental reason why it is necessary for those who work in Social Security offices to keep some sort of check on the people who are getting the benefits, to make sure that they do not cheat the rules. If a person is dissatisfied with the ruling of the local office, then he has a right to go to the appeal tribunal.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask the noble Lord this question? I am glad that he has answered in that specific manner. He has said that the position is that there may be two people living together and getting a benefit; or we may say that one person is getting a benefit and the other is working. Does he apply the same test to men? If a man is receiving a benefit while living with a single woman, is the man also deprived of his benefit if it is discovered that they are not married?
LORD ABERDARE: The benefit is the wife's benefit. It is given by virtue of the fact that she is a man's wife. She has not paid the full contribution. It does not apply to the man who has paid his full rate of contribution. But, with due respect to the noble Baroness, we are getting a long way from the local advisory committees which we are supposed to be discussing.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But—
LORD ABERDARE: I should be grateful if I could have the last word on this point; the noble Baroness has had it on all the others—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But the noble Lord has not answered my question. He specifically referred to two single people. I recognise that he is speaking about two single people. I am not speaking just about the wife's benefit; I am speaking about two single people where the guilty party is the man. I am only asking this question: Is he going to send round his inspectors to tell the man that in no circumstances must he live with this woman?
LORD ABERDARE: This has nothing to do with morals.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: Yes, it is morals.
LORD ABERDARE: No; it is a matter of administering the rules. A woman does not pay the same contribution as a man if she opts out, and therefore receives a lesser benefit, and so it is unfair if she gets away with receiving a single person's benefit although she is cohabiting with a man.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is morals.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MINERAL WORKINGS BILL
4.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments he now considered.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 150 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
" (5) Every order under this section shall be so framed as to secure that the amount which, by virtue of the order, may be deducted from payments under a mining lease or mineral rights order by the lessee or other person concerned in respect of each ton of ironstone extracted under that lease or order is not less than the amount which he was entitled to deduct under section 3(2A) of the Act of 1951 in respect of each ton so extracted in the year ending 31st March 1971."
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The House will remember that the Bill is designed to strengthen the resources of the Ironstone Restoration Fund. To this end, Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to specify a new rate of contribution payable to the Fund by ironstone operators. These contributions are levied on the tonnage of ironstone extracted. Under the existing law the operators recover half of their contributions from the ironstone royalty owners so that, with certain exceptions, the burden is shared equally. Under Clause 2 the Secretary of State is to specify how much of the contributions at the new rate will be recoverable by the operator from the owner.
As the clause originally stood it would have been theoretically possible for the Secretary of State, having raised the operator's contribution per ton under Clause 1, to lower the existing owner's contribution. This is not the intention. He will be consulting those concerned before he makes any order, and it would not be right to attempt to suggest at this point of time what level of contributions by owners will ultimately be considered to be appropriate. But it would of course certainly not be appropriate to fix the rate at less than the rate which has been applicable since 1951. The clause, as amended by the addition of the new subsection, therefore secures that the rate of contribution payable by an owner in consequence of an order made under the clause cannot be less than the rate which he was liable to pay under the 1951 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2–4.]
Clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert"and "
Clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out"increase in the cost of labour and materials"and insert"change in the cost of labour and materials and of other items relevant to the cost of carrying out any such works as are referred to in section 9(1) of the Act of 1951 "
Clause 3, page 3, line 38, leave out from"enacted)" to end of line 39.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. With the leave of the House I suggest that we consider these Amendments together. The House will recall the explanation given to them on the earlier stages of the significance of the"standard rate ". Under the Mineral Workers Act 1951 operators have been entitled to receive from the fund payments representing the approved cost of mandatory restoration work in so far as it has exceeded the"standard rate"determined by the Minister in 1955. The standard rate was then fixed at £110 per acre and it represented the average cost to operators of complying with the restoration requirements of their leases in 1950.
Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to vary the standard rate by order. The new words introduced by Amendment No. 3 require him to take account, not of the"increase"in the cost of labour and materials but of the"change ", thus allowing for the possibility—rather remote, perhaps—that the costs may go down. The other changes in the wording require him to have regard not to the general cost of labour and materials but to the cost of labour and materials relevant to the restoration work. These Amendments, of which Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential upon No. 3, will I hope commend themselves to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMIGRATION BILL
4.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESIIAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Witidleshain.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF SHANNON in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Recommendations by court for deportation]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 7, line 44, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" twenty-eight ").
The noble Lord said: Owing to a misunderstanding regarding which Amendment was before the Committee when we last met I have already delivered my speech on this Amendment, much to the bewilderment of the Minister in charge and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. That spech appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT and therefore I do not think it necessary to repeat it now.
All I wish to say is that the object of this Amendment is to change to 28 days the seven days which are allowed to potential deportees on their appeal, and I am suggesting to the Committee that seven days is an unfair limitation. They are often in custody, there are difficulties in regard to legal discussion and difficulties in connection with solicitors reaching them, it may be by long journeys. I am encouraged by the fact that it is normal for the court of quarter sessions or assizes to grant 28 days for an appeal, and I hope that the Minister will respond to this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The result of the noble Lord's error last week is that I have been able not only to listen to his words but to read them as well, so I come even better prepared than would normally be the case.

659
The effect of the Amendment would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has pointed out, that 28 days' notice would have to be given instead of seven before a recommendation could be made for deportation. The provision in the Bill is modelled on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, Section 8(1) of which provides that no recommendation for the deportation of a Commonwealth or Irish citizen is to be made unless he has been given seven days' notice of the relevant statutory provision about eligibility for deportation. There is no corresponding provision in the existing law with regard to aliens, and the Bill seeks to extend the existing law to citizens by giving them the same period of notice as Commonwealth citizens previously had.
The existing provision of the 1962 Act has worked satisfactorily so far as the Home Office is aware. Generally, courts do not serve the notice of eligibility for deportation until conviction, and thereafter the convicted person remains in custody until the court decides whether to recommend deportation. At the present time the period spent in custody is seven days, but if the Amendment were accepted it would be 28 days. This would mean in practice that most people would, after conviction, be kept in detention unnecessarily for up to an extra 21 days. We have had time to look at the implications of this Amendment and we believe that, despite the good intentions of the noble Lord, in practice the Amendment would not operate to the advantage of those whom it is intended to help.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, maintained that seven days might be too short a period for a person to decide whether he would contest the allegation that he is eligible for deportation, but I would point out to the noble Lord that it is open to any person who is in that position to apply for a further adjournment if he finds it necessary, and I am advised that it would be most unlikely that the court would refuse any reasonable request of this nature. I understand the motives of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, but I think the implications in practice point towards leaving the period where it is at seven days rather than at 28 days.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, even
660
now appreciates that this Bill brings in quite a different category of person than does the 1962 Act. I can recognise the difficulties of my noble friend's Amendment in the case of a person remaining in custody for this extra period of 21 days. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would consider the fact that we may find a fairly large number of Commonwealth citizens who have come to this country and have remained here for many years, and for reasons which perhaps we may dispute but they may feel are sufficiently strong, they have not taken out registration. In other words, it may well be that a Commonwealth immigrant could be in this country for some 10, 15 or even 20 years and suddenly he commits an offence and subsequently finds himself liable for deportation. I can see that if time was given he might be able to provide grounds which would mean that the deportation order would not be made against him. I see in a later Amendment to this clause the noble Lord is extending the period. If the noble Lord opposite cannot go to 28 days, I wonder whether he would consider 14 days? I think this would remove some of the difficulties and would perhaps meet the case put forward by my noble friend.
5.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I should be glad if the noble Lord would look at the Amendment again, or at my noble friend Lord Shepherd's suggestion for a shorter period. As the noble Lord is aware, and certainly from my experience I am aware, most people subject to deportation orders are in custody, and although it is a relevant and important point that if the Amendment were accepted they would be in custody for an additional 21 days, I think the important thing is that they are unlikely to know of, or be in a position to exercise, all their rights. Seven days is a very short time, in fact only time to write one letter from the prison and get a reply. I know that the clause provides that certain information shall be given to them, but I think they should have more than seven days. Although the noble Lord gave a very careful reply, he really did not deal with this one issue. If they are going to be deported they are not going to be released from prison, so they are not going to get away with it.

661
I also have it in mind that many of these cases will concern the whole family. Not only is it the man against whom the deportation order is made, but all the members of his family. I think this is far too serious a question to be dismissed lightly. We should be quite sure that any Commonwealth citizen who is considered to have transgressed in such a way that he is liable to deportation should at least have 28 days in which to prepare his appeal. I hope the noble Lord will think again.
LORD JANNER: May I add one further word? There was a time when notice of appeal in respect of any criminal matter in which a conviction had taken place was as short as seven days. The policy in these matters has been to extend the time, and it has been extended so as to enable a person to take proper legal advice and to consider the position in all its aspects. I wonder whether, in circumstances where not only the person against whom the order is made but the whole family is involved, on second thoughts the period of seven days will not be considered to be unreasonable? I should say 21 days at least, so as to give the man a proper chance of taking such advice as he needs and also considering the position.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I appreciate what has been said. I have looked into this question, and I am confident that nobody in the position that noble Lords are concerned about will be left without sufficient time to obtain proper advice. We must remember, first of all, that a convicted person will not be starting from scratch as regards obtaining legal advice. He will have just been through a trial, or at any rate the submission of a plea of guilty if that is the case, and almost invariably he will have been legally represented. His solicitor or counsel will have been present at the time of his conviction and will be able to get in touch with him straight away. I should like to re-emphasise the point—it is a considered one—that I am advised that no court would refuse a request for a further adjournment to give a convicted person more time if the allegation that he was eligible for deportation raised any question of difficulty at all.
I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the point he raised, as to
662
whether I appreciated the category of person we were dealing with. The sort of person he referred to as being resident here—he mentioned 10 years or 20 years—will be exempt from deportation. He will not be subject to deportation proceedings if he has been ordinarily resident here for five years by July of this year. That is in Clause 7 of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord surely appreciates that we are legislating for the future, not only for those already here. Somebody who has been here at the moment for only three years might very easily be liable.
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, he would not be. The person who has been here three years, as noble Lords will find when we come to the relevant provision will become exempt when his further two years are up. Anyone here before the end of July becomes exempt when the period of five years is completed. I do not think there is a great deal between the two sides of the Committee on this matter. I really do feel that the people who need legal representation will be able to obtain it; and the court will make sure that they are able to do so by granting an additional adjournment if they think it is needed. The fact that there will invariably be a solicitor acting in the case is also relevant.
We must carefully take into account the fact that the individual, if the Amendment were accepted, would be likely to spend a longer time remanded in custody than otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham has practical experience, as I have, of this. I have known of cases—not very frequently, but there have been examples—where after protracted representations the individual himself asks to leave; he says,"For goodness sake, please let me go. I have been held in detention long enough while representations are considered ". We need to safeguard the interests of the individual concerned.
LORD SHEPHERD: I only wish to intervene a second time for this reason. First of all, we are legislating for the future. The noble Lord himself said we regard this Bill as permanent legislation. It may be, as the noble Lord said, that a person who is in custody may say,"I have had enough. Please let me go: I

663
will go willingly ". But if this person is deported it affects the family; the wife and children will be deported as a direct consequence of his own deportation. So there is quite a serious matter here.
LORD STONHAM: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me over a particular case? He mentioned that if a citizen had been here five years the Act would not bite. I received a letter only this afternoon from an Irishman in Dartmoor Prison. It started off by saying:
" I am serving a five year sentence and am liable to be deported at the end of it ".
What advice can one give? The prison sentence will not count towards his five year residence; at least, that is what I assume. My experience is that people in this situation usually have quite a bit of time to serve in prison before the recommendation made by the court in sentencing them has to be considered. So the argument"Please let me go"does not have much effect in cases of that kind. That is a typical case, one of the kind that has prompted me to take part in this discussion. What do we do with chaps like that?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is very difficult to give immediate advice on an individual case across the Floor of the House, and I would not wish to do so. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said. The question of the amount of time the person is likely to spend in custody is a critical one. We have considered this point, and really do not think that the Amendment would operate to the advantage of those who are recommended for deportation.
LORD BROCKWAY: I agree with the Minister that there are cases where persons in detention are actually asking that their period of detention shall end earlier, because of their desire to get out of that situation. I am aware of that. There are just two points I should like to make. The first concerns the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. This will arise on Clause 7. If I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have Amendments to Clause 7 which will be dealing with the point that he has raised on this clause. Secondly, I very much hope that the Minister, having listened to the influential
664
advice which has been given during this debate, may look at the matter again before we reach the Report stage; and I will consult with other more experienced persons than myself before the Report stage. Immediately, I would ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 68B:
Page 8, line 17, after (" deportation ") insert (" provided that no court shall make any such determination in the absence of evidence given by a qualified medical practitioner ").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 68B. The purpose of this Amendment is that when there are questions about the age of a person who wishes to enter this country and who may be subject to deportation, the evidence of a qualified medical practitioner should be taken. At the present time decisions are often reached without any such consultation. Even in the higher courts decisions are reached without direct medical evidence. These persons often have no evidence of their age in the way of registration; no registration in the territories from which they come has been made. Often they are not honest in the replies which they make to many questions, and their credibility is doubted. In my experience, when credibility has been doubted on other answers that doubt has very often extended to their declaration of age. I strongly suggest that before decisions upon age are reached, some medical evidence should be required. That is the whole point of the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The existing law about the deportation of Commonwealth citizens on conviction of an offence provides, in Section 7(1) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. that the age of 17 is to be the minimum age for deportation. I should point out that the Home Office has no record of any case in which the determination of the age of the offender has caused the court difficulty, or in which it has been subsequently alleged that a person under 17 has been deported. Moreover, while medical evidence as to age is a reasonably accurate indication in relation to young people, it is not sufficiently

665
accurate to determine age with the precision, in terms of days or weeks, that would be needed in this context. A court would not be able to act on medical evidence with any assurance, and it is likely that any doubtful case would be settled by such evidence as a birth certificate, or evidence of relatives as to date of birth. In fact, careful enquiries are invariably made to establish a person's age before serving notice of eligibility for deportation. I might add, for the information of the Committee, that deportation of anyone under the age of 18 is exceedingly rare. I can also confirm that the Secretary of State is at all limes prepared to consider representations after a court has made a recommendation and before a deportation order is made, and that he would certainly wish to examine any suggestion that the offender was below the minimum age.
LORD BROCKWAY: I have listened to the Minister. I will not pretend that I am satisfied, but I appreciate the position, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.17 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 8, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 69. Clause 6(3), which we are seeking to delete. It says: cerned with the interpretation of Clause 3(6). Perhaps at this stage I might apologise to the Minister, and indeed to the Committee, for the fact that I was not able to be present on the last occasion when that clause was being discussed, because I should have liked to say something about it. May I remind the Committee of what Clause 3(6) says:
" Without prejudice to the operation of subsection (5) above, a person who is not patrial shall also be liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if, after he has attained the age of seventeen, he is convicted of an offence for which he is punishable with imprisonment and on his conviction is recommended for deportation by a court empowered by this Act to do so."
Then we come to this subsection (3)(b), which we are seeking to amend, is con
" For the purposes of section 3(6) above—
666
(b) the question whether an offence is one for which a person is punishable with imprisonment shall be determined without regard to any enactment restricting the imprisonment of young offenders or first offenders; "
The question I want to ask is whether that is really right. If the law says that in certain cases, because of the youth of the offender or because it is a first offender, the court should be precluded from being able to impose a penalty of imprisonment upon that person, is it right that you should leave with the court the power of recommending that that person should be deported?
There must be cases, indeed there must be many cases, where the penalty of deportation is a much more severe penalty than any imprisonment that the court might be able, in the ordinary way, to impose. It seems to me to be odd and anomalous that you should say to the court,"No, you cannot send this person to prison because he is too young"or,"because it is a first offence ", but that the court should nevertheless be able to say that they recommend this person for deportation.
I am concerned about the whole question of whether it is right for courts, and especially perhaps for magistrates' courts, to have the power to recommend deportation at all. It does not seem to me that a court of law is well contrived or well equipped to decide questions of deportation. After all, a court is concerned with two things. Firstly, whether it is proved that a particular person has committed a certain offence. Secondly, if it records a conviction, the court has to decide what penalty is appropriate. But the courts—and, I suggest, particularly the magistrates' courts—have very little opportunity of going into all the matters involved when the question of deportation is being considered. They are very ill-equipped and there is a danger—I should have thought a grave danger, because no direction is given as to the sort of principles to be followed—of a considerable variation of practice between one court and another.
I realise that these are general objections to courts having the power to recommend deportation. But if we are going to leave courts the power to recommend deportation, would it not be sensible to circumscribe that power and say: you can recommend deportation if

667
you think fit, but not in a case where you have no power to send the person to prison? It seems to me that this would be a sensible and logical way of avoiding some of the injustices which may occur while a court has this power. I recognise at once that the Home Office is not obliged to act upon the recommendation of a court. But I suggest that if the court—possibly wrongly—does recommend deportation, it will be more difficult for the Home Office to overrule or disregard the recommendation, than in a case where a court makes no recommendation at all. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary is always reluctant to disregard a recommendation by a court, and this would, to some extent at any rate, relieve him of that embarrassment.
Finally, nobody need worry if the power to recommend deportation in cases of this kind is taken away from the courts. There is always the residual power in the Home Secretary, whether a person is recommended for deportation by a court or not, under Clause 3(5)(b)—that is, not conducive to the public good. There is always the residual power in the Home Secretary to say,"Even though the court has made no recommendation I, in my wisdom, am going to make a deportation order ". Therefore nothing is lost by way of control. But what is gained by this Amendment is that we bring the law into a state of common sense and logicality; we simply take away from the courts the power to recommend deportation in this limited class of case. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I support the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has moved. The cases with which we are dealing are cases which, either because it is a first offence or because of the age of the offender, are not punishable with imprisonment. In principle, it seems to be loading the dice too much against immigrants to insert this special provision, the effect of which is to allow an offence not punishable with imprisonment to be treated as if it were. That requires a great deal of justification. For this reason and the others which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has given, I hope the Government will regard the Amendment favourably.
5.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I shall certainly try to put the case for the Bill as it stands, despite the fact that I am no lawyer and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has supported the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. The effect of paragraph (b) as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, correctly described it, is that a court is allowed to recommend deportation in the case of first offenders and young offenders, despite the fact that under other legislation it cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment on them except in special circumstances. I agree that, at first sight, it seems rather odd; indeed, the noble and learned Lord made reference to this matter last Thursday. But this is very far from the purpose of the clause, as I shall seek to show. The purpose is to give greater latitude to the courts, and to allow them to recommend deportation without having to impose an inappropriate penalty.
If I may deal with first offenders: the First Offenders Act 1958 provides that a first offender shall not be sentenced to imprisonment by a magistrates' court unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. This might preclude the court from recommending deportation. Yet, particularly in the case of a person who has committed an offence against immigration control—for example, art illegal immigrant or a person who has overstayed his authorised leave—it surely would be right that the court should recommend deportation, without necessarily imposing a penalty. It would, I suggest, be ludicrous if illegal immigrants had to be fined or, in certain circumstances, imprisoned for a first offence, rather than that the court should be able to recommend that they should be sent back to their country of origin. That would be the effect if we removed paragraph (b). The court would no longer have the latitude to deal with the case of a first offender who was an illegal immigrant, and would not be able to recommend his deportation.
In the case of all young offenders, the same sort of practical considerations apply. Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 provides that no court shall impose imprisonment on a person under 21, unless it is of the opinion that no

669
other method of dealing with him is appropriate. Clause 3(6) of this Bill precludes a court from recommending the deportation of any offender who at the time of conviction is under the age of 17. So what we are dealing with here is the liability to deportation of those aged 17 to 21.
The effect of removing paragraph (b) would be that, broadly speaking, a court would be unable to recommend an offender under the age of 21 for deportation, unless satisfied that the only appropriate means of dealing with him was to pass a sentence of imprisonment. A recommendation could be made only in conjunction with such a sentence. It would preclude the court from making a recommendation in a case where imprisonment was not called for, but where deportation was the best course in the public interest, or in the offender's own interest, or in both.
In deciding whether to recommend the deportation of an offender aged 17 or over, a court will naturally take very full account of his age as well as his other circumstances, and will make such a recommendation only when it feels that it is in the best interests of the person concerned. In cases of evasion of immigration control, or possibly in cases where a person aged between 17 and 21—perhaps a visitor—has committed certain minor offences, it may well be in his best interests that he should be absolutely or conditionally discharged and a recommendation made for deportation.
The point was also made by my noble friend Lord Windlesham on the last Amendment that, in the final event, the Secretary of State will give the very closest consideration to a recommedation before confirming it. But I know that my right honourable friend feels that it helps him in his final decision to have a recommendation from the court. This is the reason for this paragraph (b). It is to give sufficient latitude to the court to be able to recommend deportation, without the necessity of imposing a penalty which in the particular circumstances might not be suitable. In conclusion, perhaps I may point out that these provisions are exactly the same in their effect as those in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. There is nothing
670
new in them, and they do give the courts the flexibility they need when dealing with the practical problems that arise.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I am filled with confusion here, though I am quite ready to be put right, and to be put right quickly. Under Clause 3(5) a person who is not patrial is liable to deportation for three different reasons, which are laid down. It is not necessary so far as I know that he shall have been sentenced before the Home Secretary is able to exercise this right. What we are talking about is not these three basic reasons but the case where a man has settled here all right and then commits offences and gets into trouble with the law. Therefore, to say"if he was an illegal entrant ", as the noble Lord did, seems to me to have absolutely nothing to do with it at all. It may well be that I have misunderstood, but I should like to be put right.
LORD ABERDARE: This applies to any person who is not patrial. It may be a visitor to this country who misbehaves. I mentioned minor offences. It may be, say, shoplifting. If such a person is brought before a court for an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, the court may then recommend his deportation. What this clause says is that although under other Acts he may not he sentenced to imprisonment except in special circumstances, he can still be recommended for deportation.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: What confused me was that the noble Lord said that one of the offences he might have committed was to be an illegal entrant. If he is that, he is liable under Clause 3(5). He does not have to be sent to prison first, surely. However, it may be that it is only a small point.
LORD FOOT: I am not sure that it is a small point; I think it is a point of some substance. May I deal first with the case of a person who commits some breach of the immigration laws themselves? As I understood the noble Lord, what he was saying was that in a case of that kind it may be appropriate to deport the person but inappropriate to impose any penalty upon him. I acknowledge that there is some virtue and some sense in that. If a person

671
is brought up on a charge of having committed some breach of the immigration rules themselves—having broken the conditions on which he is staying here, or something of that kind; or, indeed, having come into the country illegally—I think it may be perfectly proper to retain the right of the court to recommend him for deportation. But that point could be met by deleting this paragraph, as I am suggesting, and then putting something else in its place which would enable the courts to retain the power to recommend deportation when they are dealing with an offence against the immigration laws themselves. That is a matter, surely, of drafting, and something which can perfectly easily be dealt with.
But when we turn to the question of the young offender, I am afraid that I do not follow the noble Lord's argument at all, because what I understood him to be saying was this. Supposing a young offender is brought up on some criminal charge and the court considering what to do with him is deprived of the power to recommend him for deportation, it will be obliged, as I understood the noble Lord to say, to impose some penalty of imprisonment upon him as being the only course that was open to them. But surely that is not so. I had a case professionally only last week in which a German girl was charged with shoplifting. She was brought up before the court; she was found guilty and was fined £3 and recommended for deportation. You can perfectly well fine an offender; you have not got to send him to prison. If he comes up charged with an offence of stealing or something like that, you can impose upon the young offender a fine and, having done so, you are not under any obligation to recommend him for deportation. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, and if I have done so it is my obtuseness. But as I understand the argument there seems to be no difficulty whatever in dealing with young offenders just as we deal with them to-day if you take away from the courts the powers to recommend deportation where they have no right to send them to prison.
LORD ABERDARE: This is an extremely complicated matter, but as I understand the position and the noble Lord has mentioned the particular case
672
of a young offender—there is no power under which that young offender can be sent to prison. That is common ground between us. It is only in the case of an offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment that a court can recommend deportation. Now there might be a case different from that which the noble Lord cited. It might be the case, say, of an Irish boy of 18 who commits an offence such as I mentioned—shoplifting, theft, or some such criminal offence. The court might feel that it was not appropriate to inflict a fine on him, let alone send him to prison. In a case like that, what we want the court to be able to do is to recommend that he should be deported; to be able to give him an absolute discharge with a recommendation for deportation. This clause is the way in which that is achieved.
LORD FOOT: I do not know whether it is within the rules of the Committee for me to speak again.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD FOOT: I do not think that this difficulty exists at all. Take the case of the young Irishman who commits some criminal offence like shoplifting. What are the options open to the court? It can do anything. It can give him a conditional discharge; it can impose a fine; or, if it is satisfied that there is no other proper course open, it can even send him to prison. It can do any of those things. But where a court considers that the offence is worthy of a conditional discharge, or of a minimal fine of £3 or £5, or something of that kind, should it be within the power of that court, which takes such a small view of the matter, to be able to recommend the appalling penalty, as it may be, of deportation? Even if it is not able to do so, it is still open to the Home Secretary, when the case is reported to him, to consider the whole thing on its merits, and if he is satisfied the person should be deported, then he can make the appropriate order. Therefore I do not really see what the noble Lord's difficulty is. It may be my obtuseness, but at the present moment I am not satisfied that what we are trying to achieve could not be achieved if the Government were prepared to reconsider this matter and possibly introduce some Amendment of their own at the next stage.
BARONESS WHITE: May I say one word on this matter? I think we are all in agreement that where there is a breach of the immigration law deportation may be a perfectly appropriate way of dealing with a young offender, or even more with a first offender. That would be perfectly logical. But, putting that on one side, when this point was debated in another place the Secretary of State made great play with the position of a young Irishman who might get into trouble here and who might do better at home. I think we should put that out of our minds, because deportation for an Irishman would be neither here nor there, for he could get on the next boat, and return here without let or hindrance. If, on the other hand, the person concerned was someone from a far more distant place in the Commonwealth, this could be a much graver matter. That, rather than the position of the Irish, is what we should be concerned about in this possible treatment of a first offender or a young offender. I do not think one can be happy about the very careful explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, although we are most grateful for it. Speaking for myself, I am afraid that I did not find it entirely convincing.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I hope I may be forgiven for intervening, but are not the Government here introducing the question of transportation, not deportation? This is making transportation a form of punishment. In many cases the sending of a Pakistani back to Dacca would be a greater penalty than anything a magistrate might impose on him.
LORD ABERDARE: I think the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, are not at all relevant, in view of the fact that we are here repeating the provisions which exist in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady White: we are at one so far as breaches of the rules of entry are concerned. As regards the other cases, all I can say is that we think it better to leave these matters to the discretion of the court. The person concerned may not come From Ireland; he may come from France, which, after all, is not very far away. There may be instances where it is more suitable, and in the best interest of the young offender of whom we are thinking, that he should be
674
sent home. I understand that a young person is not normally deported but is given an opportunity of an assisted departure, so that no stigma is involved. It is to help the offender and to deal with him in the best possible way that we need the latitude which this subsection gives us. If I may, I will certainly discuss the matter again with my right honourable friend in the light of what has been said, but noble Lords will have read the proceedings in another place and will know that there are difficulties over this very complicated matter.
LORD GARDINER: The Minister has repeated what we were told on the last Amendment, that the justification for this must be right because it is in the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. To save repetition in discussion of future Amendments may I respectfully say that I do not accept that as an argument. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who said two years ago that we established one of the less liberal and one of the most arbitrary systems of immigration law in the world, in the civilised world at any rate. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may himself not strongly disagree with that. In some respects, of course, we are improving this Bill and making it more liberal; but concerning Commonwealth citizens we are making it less liberal because we are downgrading them to the level of aliens. The fact that this has been part of our immigration law for a very long time is not a very strong argument, in view of the fact that we had one of the most arbitrary and illiberal immigration laws compared with the laws of any other country. I have not yet understood why it is so desperately important that so many of these recommendations for deportation should be capable of being made by magistrates' courts, having regard to the fact that the Home Secretary has the power in his own hands. May not something be said for the view that consistency is more likely to be achieved by the Home Secretary than by a thousand magistrates' courts all over the country?
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Annan, L.

Hall, V.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Serota, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Stonham, L.

Burgh, L.

Janner, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wade, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Diamond, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyle, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Norwich, V.

Foot, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Masserrene and Ferrard, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monck, L.

Amory, V.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Oakshott, L.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gage, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barnby, L.

Garner, L.

St. Helens, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Blackford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Bradford, E.

Hacking, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brecon, L.

Hailes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strang, L.

Cawley, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Strange, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hastings, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Hatherton, L.

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Teviot, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ilford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Windlesham, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be convenient to your Lordships if I say that it has been agreed between the usual channels that it might he convenient for the Committee to continue on Monday with the consideration of the Bill. It might not be at an early hour, because there are other proceedings on the Education (Milk) Bill, but I think that this might be convenient to all noble Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for informing the Commit-
676
tee that we shall be meeting on Monday, and we readily agree to this suggestion. However, I am bound to say that it seems to me strange that an important Bill of this nature, affecting the future of many of our people, should be treated in this haphazard way. We are now in the fourth day. I thought we were to start early—but we did not start until ten minutes to five—and were to go on until 8.30 p.m. The noble Lord now tells us that we will perhaps have another late start on Monday. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can help us, but I feel that a word of protest at the

677
way the Bill is going through the House is justified. In view of the announcement of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, certainly we shall meet on Monday and I hope that it will not be too late before we start the Committee stage.
LORD WADE: Is it possible for the noble Lord to give any indication of how late the House will sit on Monday and similarly what the position will be, so far as it is possible to forecast it, on Tuesday?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think this shows that Statements about business should be made by the Government Chief Whip and not by the Minister in charge. If your Lordships would like further details about this, perhaps the Opposition Chief Whip and my noble friend the Government Chief Whip would like to have a further word and advise the Committee accordingly.
LORD BESWICK: I think it is only fair to say that the proposal that we should meet on Monday was made from this side, but the noble Lord's colleagues agreed to it.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 9, line 6, leave out (" fourteen ") and insert (" twenty-eight ").
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(6) provides that a deportation order shall not be made on the recommendation of a court so long as an appeal is pending and that for this purpose an appeal shall be treated as pending until the expiration of the time for bringing it, or, in Scotland, until the expiration of 14 days from the recommendation of the court. The need for the reference to 14 days in Scotland is because one form of appeal in Scotland, by way of bill of suspension, is not subject to a time limit. The point was raised in another place and it was suggested that some longer time limit was desirable, and on Report my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate undertook to consider altering the limit to 28 days. This Amendment is introduced as a result of this further consideration. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exemption from deportation for certain existing residents]:
5.58 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 9, line 11, leave nut from (" section ") to (" was ") in line 13 and insert (" any person who on the 31st of July 1971 ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 70A and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take with it Nos. 70B, C and D. It will not be obvious from the Marshalled List of Amendments what is the aim of this series of Amendments. Therefore, it may be to the advantage of the Committee if I explain their general purpose. The first purpose is not to suggest an advantage to Commonwealth citizens but, perhaps rather strangely, to suggest an advantage to those who are not Commonwealth citizens but who nevertheless are immigrants. The object is to extend to all residents from Saturday next (I am interested in that date in the Bill; it suggests that it was thought that the Bill would have passed much earlier than it is likely to do) and not merely to Commonwealth citizens the provisions for exemption from deportation. A stated object of the Bill is to provide uniform treatment for Commonwealth citizens and aliens. If so. I would urge that aliens should have the same privileges as Commonwealth citizens as regards exemption from deportation. That is the first effect of this series of Amendments.
The second effect of these Amendments would be to delete the requirement that an individual who has qualified for exemption should remain in this country without interruption, if he is to retain that privilege. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the previous Amendment, because it is true that this difficulty would be overcome if the individual applied for British nationality after five years. But I regret that many Commonwealth citizens to-day are reluctant to take British nationality, and one of the influences in that direction is the series of Immigration Bills which has been introduced.
I am interested in the fact that this requirement was not in the Bill as it was introduced into the other place. It has only been introduced into the Bill as presented to your Lordships' House, and

679
events which have taken place in this Committee since its introduction make it quite inconsistent. In this Committee we carried in Clause 1 an Amendment which insisted that Commonwealth citizens here should retain their status. If Clause 7, as printed in the Bill, is carried without the Amendments which I propose, then the Amendment which we carried to Clause 1 becomes inconsistent with the rest of the Bill, because the status of Commonwealth citizens will be changed. I beg to move.
6.2 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What Clause 7 does is to exempt certain residents from deportation. Under subsection (1) of Clause 7 Commonwealth and Irish citizens who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the end of July, 1970. are not liable to deportation on conducive grounds if there has been no break in their ordinary residence here since then; nor are they liable to deportation for overstaying, or for breach of conditions, or as members of the family of a person ordered to be deported, or on conviction of a criminal offence, if they have been for the last five years ordinarily resident and there has been no break in their ordinary residence here since the end of July, 1971. This was introduced as a safeguard to the position of Commonwealth citizens established in this country and I mentioned it in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he spoke on the first Amendment. The lawfully settled Commonwealth immigrant in this country who has been here for five years, or who settled here before the end of July, becomes exempt from deportation proceedings when his five-year period is up. That in general, is the current picture.
As the noble Lord may know, in the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act there was a cut-off point; Commonwealth citizen became subject to control for the first time, and consequently they became subject also to deportation for the first time. The reason was that you cannot really have a restriction on people coming into the country when there is no way of enforcing their departure if they evade the controls. But exemption was provided for somebody who had been established lawfully in this country for five years. This subsection is intended as a safeguard, and I do not think the argument
680
that it is inconsistent with Lord Wade's Amendment is one that I would necessarily uphold. We are studying the significance of Lord Wade's Amendment at the beginning of the Bill. We are not absolutely certain as to its effect on the detailed provisions of the Bill. What we want to do is to study both the general principle and the detail of the Bill in the course of the Recess, and perhaps to discuss some of the implications with the noble Lord.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway for speaking to these four Amendments. I think they are linked. I was proposing to reply to all four together, and it may shorten our proceedings if I do so. The first Amendment, No. 70A, seeks to extend to aliens the exemption from deportation conferred by the clause on Commonwealth citizens. Amendment No. 70B seeks to provide that all aliens and Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident at the end of July, 1971, shall be exempt from deportation on conducive grounds, notwithstanding that their ordinary residence may not have been continuous since the end of July, 1971. The third and fourth Amendments, Nos. 70C and 70D, seek to provide that aliens and Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident at the end of July, 1971, shall not be liable to deportation for overstaying, or for breach of conditions, or as members of a family, or on conviction by a court, if at the relevant time they have for the last five years been ordinarily resident here, notwithstanding that their residence has not been continuous since the end of July, 1971. As to continuity of ordinary residence, it may be helpful to explain that a person who goes temporarily overseas, intending to return to a home which he continues to maintain in this country, does not cease to be ordinarily resident. So absence on holiday or on business trips does not break the continuity of ordinary residence for this purpose.
I hope that I can be helpful to the noble Lord on the last two of his series of four Amendments, but on the first, No. 70A, I am afraid that we cannot see a case for extending to aliens the safeguards contained in the provisions of Clause 7. Indeed, the word"safeguard"is inappropriate in their case, for a reason that I will give in a moment, whereas in the case of the Commonwealth

681
citizen, I think it is an appropriate word to use. It does not seem to us that there is any logic in saying that aliens who are ordinarily resident here at the end of July this year shall be exempt from deportation on conducive grounds. They are already liable to deportation on this and on other grounds, no matter how long their residence, and they will have no exemption in the future. They have not been exempt in the past, and they will not be in the future. So the question of residence hardly seems to arise; for there is in effect no change in the present position. It would be a quite arbitrary act suddenly to say to one small group of people who happen to be in this country on a particular day that they are in a different situation from any other immigrant who had been here in the past and gone away again, or might come here in the future.
Similarly, on Amendment No. 70B, we are not convinced that there is a case for providing that persons without the right of abode who were ordinarily resident from the end of July, 1971, shall never—I stress the word"never"thereafter be liable to deportation on conducive grounds, no matter how long they have been away from the United Kingdom and ordinarily resident elsewhere. The Amendment would, for example, exempt from deportation an alien or a Commonwealth citizen who was ordinarily resident here at the end of July, who then went away, let us say, for a period of ten or twenty years, and who on return was deemed by the Secretary of State to be a suitable case for deportation on conducive grounds. This would mean that account could not have been taken of whatever had happened to that man in the intervening twenty years. He may have been engaged in all sorts of unsatisfactory international activities, but none the less it would not be possible to deport him again on grounds of his exemption by previous residence.
I move on now to Amendments 70C and 70D, the last two of this series. These Amendments provide that aliens or Commonwealth citizens who were ordinarily resident at the end of July, 1971, should not be liable to deportation for overstaying or for breach of conditions, or as members of families, or on conviction by a court, provided that they have had five
682
years' ordinary residence, notwithstanding that this had not been continuous since the end of July, 1971. So far as aliens are concerned. I have explained that we do not see merit in the proposal, since they have never previously been exempt from deportation on grounds of residence, nor will they be under the Bill. But as regards the Commonwealth and Irish citizen, since five years' continuous ordinary residence has conferred exemption in the past, we are inclined to think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put his finger on a good point here. He will not be surprised to hear that we think the Amendments are defective in their drafting, in that, apart from anything else, they would not require the ordinary residence to be continuous. But, subject to this, we see sonic merit in what he has proposed. He will appreciate that I only saw these Amendments this morning.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, I appreciate that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: They were on the Marshalled List for the first time today, and therefore there has not been the opportunity to study them quite as closely as I should have liked. But I can give him an undertaking that if he feels inclined to withdraw these—I do this, not for tactical reasons but on their merits—we should like to study them further. I am afraid I am not with him on extending it to aliens, but as far as Commonwealth citizens are concerned we should like to study his proposal and see whether it is possible to make a change upon the lines he proposes.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have listened to the debate with great interest. I am not wholly happy about what my noble friend has said, principally because I remember a number of cases where a Commonwealth citizen has been convicted in the courts and the judge or magistrate has expressed regret that he was not able to recommend him for deportation since he had been in this country for over five years, although he had certainly not succeeded in showing himself to be a good citizen of this country during that time. I know that these arguments are nicely balanced, but I hope my noble friend will bear in mind that there is another side to this matter as well as

683
that which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway has so forcefully put.
LORD BROCKWAY: I rather surprisingly appreciate what the Minister has said in response to these Amendments. In view of the fact that he has indicated that there will be further consideration of the last two, with some acceptance of the principle behind them, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Exceptions for seamen aircrews and other special cases]:
6.13 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 10, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to Clause 8. May I just read out the first subsection:
" (1) Where a person arrives at a place in the United Kingdom as a member of the crew of a ship or aircraft under an engagement requiring him to leave on that ship as a member of the crew, or to leave within seven days on that or another aircraft as a member of its crew then unless…"
Then certain conditions are set out. One of them, which removes from him the right to enter without leave, is if he has at any time been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and has not since then been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. Here I should like to ask a question, because I am concerned about the weight of the words"at any time ". Suppose a seaman comes here on a ship and is obliged to leave on that ship when its time is up, and suppose that some 10 or 15 years ago he had been refused leave to enter, perhaps on some purely technical grounds—his documents were not in order or something of that kind—is it really necessary that that sort of person should require leave to enter in such circumstances? I am merely asking the question. I realise that it is a very small point, but it does not seem to me to matter much whether a person has at some previous date been refused admission to come in, when you are considering the case of seamen or the crew of an aircraft. I merely want to ask the Minister whether he thinks those words
684
" at any time"are not too weighty and do not carry the matter too far.
LORD DENHAM: There might well be occasions, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, says, when this particular provision, by having effect after a long period of time, might seem a little ridiculous. But the subsection itself is important, because if anybody has been refused entry to this country it is a reasonable presumption that it would be a good idea to look into the reasons for that refusal and see whether they still apply at the time when he applies to come in again. As the noble Lord will realise, once the person has come in again he does not have to seek fresh permission every single time subsequently. Once he has been allowed to come in after this special examination he is then clear of this particular subsection. All he has to do is to apply to the Customs officer or the immigration officer and put his case. In the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, talked about I think this would be purely a formality.
LORD FOOT: May I ask one further question? If a person is refused leave to enter at any time, is a sort of black list kept? When, for instance, a seaman comes in on a ship, is he required to state whether he has ever been refused permission to enter this country? Do people ever look to see whether his name appears on a black list? Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me what happens.
LORD DENHAM: I am not absolutely clear as to how large and how thorough a black list is kept, but of course a list of the members of a crew would be handed in to the immigration authorities, and this would be checked through. It might well be that someone would be missed, but it would be up to the officers of the ship or the aircraft, or whatever it is, to make clear to the crew members that this provision existed and that anyone who had been refused entry would have to be re-examined. I imagine it would be possible for somebody to be missed who should have applied again, but I think that on most occasions the procedure will work all right.
LORD FOOT: With the leave of the House, I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 71D:
Page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, the purpose of which is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 8. I regard this subsection as so dangerous and as going so far beyond the ordinary scope of the Bill that I hope the Committee will give very serious consideration of the Amendment. I will read the terms of the subsection because I think they are of such a character that they will almost themselves convince the Committee that this clause seeks to give the Secretary of State powers which ought not to be admitted—
" The Secretary of State may by order exempt any person or class of persons, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the order, from all or any of the provisions of this Act relating to those who are not patrial.
An order under this subsection, if made with respect to a class of persons, shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
What is the effect of the subsection? It is to give the Secretary of State this quite extraordinary power to control whole groups of people who are not specified in the Bill at all, and to give the Secretary of State the power to do this by Statutory Instrument subject only to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. I want to suggest very strongly indeed that it is in principle wrong that fundamental Amendments to the immigration laws should be made by the order of the Secretary of State in this way without the necessity of passing any further Act of Parliament. I take as an illustration the Act of 1968 in which many of your Lordships were deeply interested. That is an Act which, for the first time, denied to British citizens holding British passports the right to enter this country, and this House recognised that a very deep principle was at stake when that Bill came before it. Because that principle was at stake there was a debate and a division representing every group in this House.
If this subsection had been the law at that time there would have been no necessity whatsoever for the Government to bring before this House the Bill of 1968. It would have been possible for
686
the Secretary of State to employ these extraordinary powers by which, under this section, any person or class of persons can become involved. I want to urge on the Committee that this is a power which we should not give to the Secretary of State, the more particularly when it can only be conditioned by the negative procedure of annulment and not by the positive procedure which we believe should be contained in the Bill.
One cannot foresee the future, but as one looks at the Commonwealth and at the political changes that are taking place within it, can members of this Committee really say that a situation may not arise of equal importance to the Asians of British citizenship in East Africa, and yet the Secretary of State under this subsection would have the right by order to come to a decision as to their fate? Terribly important principles are involved in this whole sphere of immigration, and if there are to be fundamental changes in immigration law they should be brought about by definite Acts of Parliament and not by an order as stated in this subsection. I beg to move.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I feel that this particular section refers in specific cases to the crews of ships or aircraft who may be coming here, but may I give a few small examples—
LORD GARDINER: Would the noble Lord forgive me? He may well be excused for thinking that because of the marginal note. I would hope that the Minister who is going to reply will help us about the marginal note. From the marginal note, it is true, that it looks as if this clause is dealing simply with seamen; but when you read on it is quite obvious that it is not dealing only with seamen at all.
LORD DENHAM: If the noble and learned Lord will take another look at the note, it says—
" Exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases."
Those words apply to this particular case, I am sorry if the noble and learned Lord is confused, but if he looks again at the note I think he will find it reasonable. I can set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, at rest. The kind of people

687
who are given exemption by Statutory Instruments made under the existing law, and whose exemption is likely to be continued by an. Order under Clause 8(2). include, for example, members and officials of other Governments here on business, consular officials, and officials of international organisations. The exemptions given are in conformity with our international obligations. These obligations do not remain constant and are subject to alteration from time to time as new international organisations are set up and new international agreements are made. It is not therefore practical to delimit the full extent of exemption once and for all in the Bill itself. This is the reason for the subsection to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, objects. He suggests that this clause in the Bill could be used to control whole groups of people—he mentioned specifically the Kenyan-Asians—without the necessity of passing a further Act of Parliament. That cannot be done. The power given by Clause 8(2) is a power to exempt from control people who would otherwise be subject to it, and not to impose control on people who would otherwise be exempt. From the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, read out the subsection I had the impression that he was taking exception to the Negative Resolution procedure at the end of it. That was put in as a safeguard by the Standing Committee in another place.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I hope that my noble friend, with whom I am in constant agreement on this Bill, will not press this Amendment. If there is a thoroughly bad Bill, which exerts objectionable restrictions on a limited number of people which it defines, and then the Secretary of State is given the right to make exemptions, we all ought to be thoroughly grateful for that.
BARONESS WHITE: While not in the least disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to go farther than he has done. The trouble over this particular clause is that it is so wide. For example, it has been suggested that under this provision the Secretary of State could exempt from all the controls persons from the European Economic Community as a class of person. It may not be in the minds of the Government
688
so to do, but it could be done. If it is intended to apply only to limited groups of people, such as those described by the noble Lord, would it not be possible to describe them in Schedule 2 to the Bill, instead of leaving a part of the Bill which looks so wide when it is intended to be extremely narrow? In another place the Minister of State there said that he would look at the drafting again, because objections were taken to the form of expression. It is misleading, if one appears to be legislating for a wide field but in fact intends to do so on a narrow one. It does not seem to be good legislation. Therefore could we ask the Government to have a further look at this? If there any objection to describing in the Schedule the classes of people who are covered? They were given in detail in another place. If that Schedule has to be amended to take account of any change in our international obligations, it could be done, and there would be no possibility of misapprehension as to the real intentions of the legislation.
LORD DENHAM: We will certainly consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said. The reason the clause has been drawn so wide is so that, with international agreements being fairly frequently made and different circumstances arising with each, the subsection should enable the provisions to be made in conformity with these international obligations. The noble Baroness was worried about persons from the European Economic Community, and whether this subsection could provide a backdoor method of bringing in nationals of those countries. There is no question of that. Entry to the European Economic Community does not involve exempting nationals of member countries from immigration control, but only of giving them preferential treatment in certain respects under the immigration rules. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that Clause 8(2) will not be used to give effect to the free movement of labour provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord's assurance is of great value to the Committee, but it will be of little value outside. In view of the explanation of the noble Lord I fully understand the reasons why this subsection has been put in. I do not think it ought to have been in Clause 8, which really deals with seamen

689
and air crews. These are specific categories—
LORD DENHAM: There is reference to other special cases—
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will permit me to finish, perhaps we may get on a little faster. I said that Clause 8 deals with seamen and air crews. This is a particular type of employment, and different types of people will enter this country. If subsection (2) is to deal with diplomats and the like, they fall into a completely different class of employment from that of seamen and air crews—
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I—
LORD SHEPHERD: if the noble Lord will let me finish, I am trying to be helpful. My noble friend Lady White suggested that this provision could be put into Schedule 2. That may be a way out. I wonder whether the best course would be to put subsection (2) in a separate clause on its own, with a rubric stating that it refers to diplomats and those who come within that general definition. That would take them well away from seamen and air crews.
LORD DENHAM: While we are looking at what the noble Baroness has said, we will naturally look with equal care at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I cannot commit the Government to change this clause, but we do feel, without having studied what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, that the drafting of the clause is correct. If the noble Lord will look on the next page of the Bill he will see that it deals not only with seamen, for there are also provisions relating to the Armed Forces and to diplomats.
LORD BROCKWAY: I do not at all regret having moved this Amendment. The discussion which has taken place has strengthened my view about the great danger of the inclusion of this subsection. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge that I ought to welcome this subsection because it would exempt certain classes from the bad provisions of this Bill. To that extent I would welcome it, but the Bill does not only impose restrictions upon certain classes of Commonwealth immigrants it gives privileges to other sec
690
tions of Commonwealth immigrants. There will be great danger under the subsection that they may be exempted from some of the privileges. I am thinking of the patrials, who have particular privileges. It may be, in the circumstances of Commonwealth development, as it was in the case of the British Asians in East Africa who had British citizenship, that their rights will be limited under this subsection. Therefore I make no apology at all for raising the matter. In view of the Government's having said that they will give consideration to the points that have been raised, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Further provisions as to common travel area]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71E:
Page 13, line 2, after (" instrument ") insert (" a draft of ").
The noble Lord said: I will detain the Committee for only a moment on this Amendment. I will take with it Amendment No. 71 F. These Amendments raise the issue as to whether there is to be a negative or a positive treatment when matters come before the Houses of Parliament. That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. It can be raised again on Report stage if we do not get satisfaction, and in view of the fact I am prepared not to move these Amendments this evening.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Immigration Appeal Tribunal and adjudicators]:
6.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 71G:
Page 14, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(" (a) the Lord Chancellor shall appoint adjudicators and shall continue to appoint members of the tribunal ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 71G. It is of some psychological importance. The Amendment suggests that the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Secretary of State, shall

691
appoint the adjudicators as well as members of the Appeal Tribunal. The object of the Amendment is that it should be quite clear that there is impartiality in the appointment of these officers. The Secretary of State is really a party to the dispute, and there is a fairly strong feeling among those who make these appeals that it is all a part of the Home Office set-up. That feeling will be strengthened if the Home Secretary is to have responsibility for the appointment of adjudicators. The position might be assisted a little if that right were in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This matter was considered with some care in 1967 by an independent Committee which was set up to consider the establishment of a system of immigration appeals. It was the Committee on Immigration Appeals, under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson, which reported in August, 1967. What the Wilson Committee said on this particular point, in paragraph 153 of their Report (Cmnd. 3387), was as follows:
" We recommend that the appointment of adjudicators should be vested in the Home Secretary, who will be guided by any general recommendations made by the Council on Tribunals under Section 4 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. We have no fear that the independence of the adjudicators will be any less complete because they are appointed by the Home Secretary."
The previous Government (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was Lord Chancellor at the time and no doubt considered this matter) accepted this recommendation of the Wilson Committee and it was included in the Immigration Appeals Act 1969.
The argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in moving the Amendment was perhaps met to a certain extent in that the Lord Chancellor appoints members of the Tribunal, the appellate body. These are key appointments, and the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for them was thought in itself to be sufficient guarantee that the appeals system would function impartially. They of course review the decisions of the adjudicators, who are in a position of a court of first instance in this respect. When the Immigration Appeals Bill was being prepared a couple of years ago it was represented to the Home Office by one or two bodies concerned with the
692
interests of immigrants that if the adjudicators were to be manifestly impartial, and if their decisions were to command the confidence of the immigrant communities, they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This view, as I say, did not attract support from the previous Government; nor, I believe, did it attract much support when the Bill was being debated in Parliament, and it is not a point of view that has been pressed subsequently. We do not believe that the fears which were expressed at that time have been borne out in practice.
I gave some statistics last week when we discussed the appeals system in another context. In an 11-month period from July 1, 1970, the number of appeals before adjudicators which were allowed was 147, compared to 681 that were dismissed. This is really a test of confidence. If there had been no appeals allowed by the adjudicators against the Home Office at all, people might have begun to wonder whether the appeals system was as valuable as had been suggested. But the rate at which appeals are being brought is running now at about 200 a month. I think this shows that people do have confidence in the independence of the adjudicators and that the Government of the day—we agree with our predecessors on this—took a wise decision in accepting the recommendation of the Wilson Committee that the adjudicators should be appointed by the Home Secretary.
LORD BROCKWAY: Once more, I will withdraw this Amendment, although I am entirely unconvinced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Appeals against exclusion from United Kingdom]:
6.46 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a person who, on an application duly made, is refused a work permit or is granted a work permit subject to conditions may appeal to an adjudicator against the refusal or the conditions.")
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government will be able to consider this Amendment sympathetically. In the first

693
two subsections of Clause 13 there is provision for an appeals system in certain circumstances. Amendment No. 72 seeks to provide an appeals system where a person who has applied for a work permit has had it refused, or has been granted a work permit where the conditions imposed were in his view clearly unfair. These work permits are a matter of considerable importance, particularly in the smaller Territories and the position is often less understood in those smaller Territories when a work permit is refused. They feel that they are perhaps being treated less well than some of the larger territories.
I should have thought that if the noble Lord could accept this Amendment two things would arise. First, if an applicant felt he had been treated wrongly he would be able to have the matter reviewed. Secondly, it would provide a true feeling of impartiality to the whole system, which, I would agree with the Government, has in the past worked well. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The aim of the Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, explained in moving it, is to give a right of appeal to the immigration appeal authorities where a person was refused a work permit or perhaps where it was granted only subject to conditions. I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord moved the Amendment, but am afraid it is defective, and seriously so—not in a way so that it could be tidied up by improving drafting or anything of that kind. It would confer the right of appeal, not on the prospective immigrant at all but on the prospective employer, because it is the employer who applies for the work permit. Secondly, it refers to a work permit being granted subject to conditions. But this is not so. The permit is granted to the employer and the conditions are then applied to the holder when he arrives here.
But, leaving these problems on one side for a moment, we are not convinced that there really is a case for an appeal on these lines where a work permit is refused. In considering this we must remember that the system of work permits—or, previously, employment vouchers, but at any rate a document of entry for the purposes of work—is not a new feature. We have had these
694
for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens for almost a decade. The Wilson Committee, to which I have just referred and which was set up to consider the establishment in the most appropriate form of an appeals system, did not receive any representation that a right of appeal against refusal of a work permit or an employment voucher was desirable, and they made no recommendation that this should be established. Later on, after the Committee had reported in 1967, certain bodies concerned with immigrant interests suggested to the Home Office that such a right of appeal might be provided. This was again before the advent of the present Administration, and no doubt these representations were fully considered by my predecessors at the Home Office when the Immigration Appeals Act 1969 was introduced and subsequently went on the Statute Book. Since the Act came into force in July 1970 we have had no experience that the decision to confine the immigration appeals system to the range of decisions which, under that Act, are subject to appeal was in any way wrong one.
Further, there is the point that the immigration appeal authority really would not be at all well fitted to deal with appeals about work permits. These would inevitably raise difficult questions in the field of industrial relations and employment policies. To a large extent they would turn on the availability of local labour. It is difficult to see how the adjudicators could really make judgments on matters of that kind.
Noble Lords who are familiar with the subject will know, too, that the trade unions have an interest in the issue of work permits. If they feel that their members' jobs are likely to be affected they make representations to the Department of Employment, and the Department takes these into account in deciding on the issue of work permits. Here again, it does not seem that the immigration appellate authorities would be the appropriate bodies or would really be able to come to any useful judgment on matters of this sort. As I have said, the work permit is issued on criteria which are dependent on questions such as the availability of local labour, and we do not believe that an Amendment on these lines, suggesting that matters of this sort

695
should be brought under review by the immigration appeals system, would be in any way practicable.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am most grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The effect of Clause 13(3) which I am seeking to delete is to prevent certain classes of person—and for the moment I will not deal with whom they are—from appealing against a refusal of leave to enter this country until they have left the United Kingdom.
The first comment I would like to make upon that is that the rule is absolute. There is no discretion given to anyone, even in the cases of the gravest possible hardship, to say"No, we will allow you to have your appeal heard in this country and we will allow you to stay in this country sufficiently long for that to be done ". If a person falls within the class dealt with by this subsection then that person must leave the country before he can initiate an appeal or have his appeal heard. My own belief is that this can give rise to great and undeserved hardship. I think there may be many cases of people who seek to enter this country without, for example, a certificate of patriality although they may be patrials, or without an entry clearance although they may he entitled to an entry clearance they have not provided themselves with those documents because of innocent mistakes.
May I give one example? One of the classes of person dealt with under this subsection is the person who is a patrial by virtue of Clause 2(1)(c), that is to say a person who
" is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has at any time been settled in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more ".
That sort of person is required under this subsection, before he goes out of the country, to obtain a certificate of patriality in order that he may get back. If he fails to do that and he seeks to
696
come back into the country and says"I am a patrial ", he will be told"If you have not armed yourself with a certificate of patriality we are afraid that you must get out of the country before you can appeal on the grounds that you are in fact patrial."
How easy it would be for such a person—say someone coming from East Africa, who has been resident here for five years and has achieved patriality—how easy for that person to go for a holiday on the Continent, unaware that he has to obtain a certificate of patriality, and then to seek to come into one of the ports of entry and to be told"No, you have not got your certificate of patriality and we are not entitled to go into the matter as to whether or not you are a patrial. If you want to appeal against this refusal of entry you must go away again and initiate your appeal from outside."
Not only can people be caught in an innocent mistake of that kind but also, I suggest, this provision can bear with uneven hardship upon different classes of person. If a patrial, or a person who claims to be a patrial, is refused entry because he has not got a certificate of patriality, all he need do if he is well-to-do is fly over to Paris, and get in touch with his legal advisers; if the matter is one of pure technicality he can have his appeal heard and all is well. He is not seriously inconvenienced. But what about the case of the dependant of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident in this country, who has come from halfway across the world, and to do so has possibly used a large sum of money representing the savings of a long period? That person, that dependant—that child, it may be—arrives at Heathrow without having armed himself with the entry certificate he ought to have, possibly as the result of error, possibly because he was not properly informed or possibly because the document is defective, through no fault of his own. That person cannot just fly over to Paris and get it all put right: that person is bound to be put on the next plane taking him back to Asia and may never be able to contemplate coming to this country again, with all the expense it may involve. Therefore, this provision, as I see it, may bear with most uneven hardness on these different classes of people.
The last question I would ask the Minister is this: what really is the object

697
of this provision? Why is it necessary that somebody should go out of the country before he can initiate the procedures of appeal? What harm would be done if people in those circumstances were allowed to remain in this country just for the short period necessary for their appeals to be heard? The Minister will know, as I do, that these appeals can be dealt with very rapidly, and indeed are dealt with very rapidly. He will know that the great majority of appeals against refusal at the port of entry are dealt with in 24 or 48 hours. What real harm would be done if we were to allow these people to stay in this country—in detention it may be—for the period necessary for their appeals to be heard? I beg the Minister to consider this matter because I think that already, under the system operating to-day, particularly in the cases of dependants of Commonwealth citizens in this country and seeking to come into this country, very great hardship is occasioned when somebody, particularly a child, comes here not armed with a document he should have. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I preface my reply to this Amendment by saying how much the Government appreciate the work that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, does in his capacity as Chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service? This is a body made up of representatives of voluntary organisations representing immigrants' interests which employs counsellors at all the ports in order that people wishing to enter this country who encounter difficulty for some reason or other may know what their rights of appeal are and are able to exercise them. I know of the very close interest which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, takes in the work of the service and I should like to place on record the Government's appreciation.
Through his knowledge of the immigration appeals system he has picked up in this Amendment what is, I think, undoubtedly an issue of considerable substance and importance. There are considerations relating to the policy both of the previous Administration and of this one, which I ought to rehearse in answering the case he has made. The Amendment deleting this part of the clause as he correctly said would give the ordinary
698
passenger a right of appeal exercisable at the ports in all circumstances, whereas the Bill provides that only the holder of an entry clearance or a work permit shall be able to appeal before removal. Section 2 of the Immigration Appeals Act, consistently with the recommendation of the Wilson Committee to which I have already referred, provided for all passengers to be able to appeal before removal from the United Kingdom. But this provision in the Act of 1969 has not been introduced, as the noble Lord knows. Instead, the last Administration introduced a non-statutory right of appeal for the holders of entry clearance and work permits. The Bill seeks to preserve that situation, the de facto situation, by giving statutory backing to the arrangements introduced by the previous Government, and in addition to give all other passengers—those not holding an entry clearance or a work permit—a right of appeal after leaving the United Kingdom.
The reasons for this are as follows. The Wilson Committee, in recommending comprehensive rights of appeal at the ports in 1967, had chiefly in mind the case of immigrants or their dependants who had sold up their home and arrived in the United Kingdom for permanent settlement and who were then refused entry. Such decisions caused great hardship and distress. But Parliament, with the agreement of both Parties, subsequently decided in 1969 that Commonwealth citizens seeking to enter as dependants should be required to obtain entry certificates before setting out, and this was given effect in Section 20 of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. So since 1969 it has been mandatory that a person coming to this country as a dependant should have an entry certificate before he starts out. This system has been working for the last two years with a right of appeal against refusal to issue an entry certificate, and a right of appeal at the ports in those rare cases where the holder of a certificate is refused entry.
I think I am right in saying that in one of the cases mentioned by the noble Lord just now—the dependant arriving with an entry certificate who for some reason is challenged (it may be thought to be forged or something of that sort)—has a right of appeal if he is in possession of an entry document.
LORD FOOT: I entirely agree with that, and if I said something misleading I withdraw it. I agree that if he has a document and the issue is whether or not it is valid, he has a right of appeal without having to go back to his place of origin.
7.7 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In drafting this Bill the Government came to the conclusion that the requirement under the 1969 Act of an entry certificate was a desirable one and one that in the interest of the dependants themselves and their families here should be continued, and that a dependant should apply in his country of origin for an entry certificate before setting out. If a right of appeal exercisable at the ports before removal were now introduced the Commonwealth citizen coming for settlement would not benefit from it, because he would still be required to obtain an entry certificate or employment voucher, or, under the new system, a work permit. The categories of person who would benefit would, in the main, be people like visitors and students who do not come for settlement but for a relatively short period. We must accept that it may cause hardship, for a visitor or student to be refused entry, but the hardship is not comparable with the refusal of entry to a person coming for settlement. So the frame of reference has altered since 1967, and the case for introducing a right of appeal exercisable for the residual categories of passengers is different now from what it was then.
There are other factors in addition which have led the Government to adopt the solution contained in the Bill. One is the very steep rise in traffic at the ports over the last three to four years. On Second Reading I mentioned that in 1966 ten million passengers a year were arriving, mainly as visitors, at the ports of entry in this country. By 1970, the figure had risen to 14 million; that was an increase of 40 per cent. in four years. But the total number of passengers who were subject to control—that is, those who do not have a right of entry—had increased more sharply even than that, by 73 per cent. over four years. With the advent of jumbo jets and improved facilities for people coming with their own cars this trend of very sharply increasing
700
numbers coming through the ports is likely to increase. This has put very great pressure on the Immigration Service and it has led, unfortunately, to delays at some ports.
If there were to be rights of appeal exerciseable at the ports, this would either mean accepting long delays, or requiring a large addition to the numbers of officers in the Immigration Service so that they could be free to take part in appeal hearings, to process appeals, and to present the cases. These are tasks which have to be carried out by the immigration officers who are presenting the case for one side, and very often a counsellor in the service of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is presenting the case to the adjudicator for the person who may have been refused entry. Therefore, there is here a question of manpower in the Immigration Service, and, with these huge numbers at the peak times—as anyone knows who comes through the Channel ports, or particularly London Airport—the delays that may result can build up quickly if there are not enough immigration officers at their posts.
In deciding not to go beyond the present arrangements—and I emphasise that the Bill preserves the de facto status quo—and introduce rights of appeal exercisable at the ports before removal, the Bill will be in line with European practice. Nevertheless, all passengers will have a right of appeal after removal from the United Kingdom. This arrangement serves two purposes. First, from the date of the introduction of the new arrangements every immigration officer will know that if he refuses admission he will be doing so in the knowledge that he may thereafter be required to account for his decision to an impartial authority. Secondly, if the United Kingdom were to enter the E.E.C., this arrangement would fulfil our obligations towards E.E.C. nationals.
I hope that has not been too full a reply. As I say, this is a considerable issue of policy. There are these considerations of European practice, of the sheer practical implications at the ports because of the increase in numbers, and the fact that since it is now mandatory for a dependant to have an entry certificate, the situation has really changed greatly over the last three years. I have

701
had some first hand experience of this, but people who are not quite so close to it might think that for the dependant in India who applies for an entry certificate at one of the High Commission posts, an appeal in this country might not be very useful, but in practice the appeal in this country is of great value, because the family very often are established in this country. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is familiar with many cases of this sort. It is very often in the Midlands that the appeal is held, and the relations attend. They represent the appellant, and incidentally they have great confidence, going back to an earlier point, in the adjudicator. If the appeal was held overseas, the system might not have earned the confidence of people in this country quite so quickly as it has. It is for reasons of this sort that, although I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, I am afraid there are these considerations which point in the other direction.
7.13 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I was trying to follow him carefully, and I do not think he dealt adequately with the point about a returning patrial who had failed to furnish himself with evidence of his patriality. I think this is important. People do not always appreciate that they need to have these documents if they leave these shores and then wish to re-enter, perhaps after some considerable time. They may, nevertheless, be qualified under Clause 2(1)(c) or (d), and it is precisely against that that they may not appeal until they have returned home, possibly from some very distant country indeed. This worries me considerably, because the mere holding of a passport does not necessarily indicate that one has qualified for patriality under Clause 2(1)(c) or(d). I wonder whether the noble Lord could say a little more about that aspect.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I adhered to issues of policy, because this is a fairly big issue and one which has been considered over a period of time, and there are really quite large considerations on the other side. I will deal with the noble Baroness's point, because I agree that it is a worrying one. I do not think that the results will necessarily be quite so adverse as the noble Baroness
702
fears. The man who is patrial by virtue of Clause 2(1)(c), needs a certificate of patriality, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, correctly said, if he wishes to establish on returning to this country that he is exempt from control. But this does not mean that if he does not have such a certificate, which will be an endorsement in his passport, he will be refused entry. What it means is that he will be examined by an immigration officer; that he is not exempt from examination by an immigration officer. He will be in the same position as somebody who is subject to control and will, in all probability, be admitted as a returning resident under paragraph 50 of the Immigration Rules, Control on Entry.
LORD FOOT: If a patrial, in circumstances such as the noble Baroness describes and as I described earlier, goes out of the country with a passport, but not knowing that he ought to get a certificate of patriality endorsed on his passport, and then seeks to come back, of course the immigration officer will examine that person. But if the immigration officer is not satisfied from what lie hears that this person is indeed a patrial, then, as I understand it, under the rules he is obliged to say,"No, I refuse you entry ". Once he has done that—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—then the patrial, or the alleged patrial, cannot pursue his appeal except by going out of the country and initiating the appeal from outside. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to look at this point very carefully. We are dealing in paragraph (c) with an extremely small category of people. I think the noble Lord may have a point here. I am sure that the answer I have given him is correct, and I think that in 99 cases out of 100 he would be examined by an immigration officer, and the immigration officer would then fall back on the immigration rules which deal with returning residents. I take the point about what happens then if, having done so, the immigration officer still says,"I am not satisfied ". In fact the case has then to be referred to a chief immigration officer, who is required to review it. Inquiries are then made; people are rung up. If, at the end of the day, the decision is taken"No, the passenger cannot be

703
admitted in this category ", then I should like to consider the point the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made. On first hearing it—and I did not have notice of this particular point—I think he is probably right that an appeal would not lie at the ports, and it may well be that this is something we ought to have a look at again. We are in complicated territory here, and I think I ought to study that particular point with some care.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: The only point I want to make is that, listening to this debate, one is confronted with a very strong case involving ignorant people who become confused and make mistakes, and an immense administrative problem, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made perfectly clear. We on this side of the Committee have not exercised the sentimental argument very much over this Bill—just a little, but not very much—and I do not want to do it now. When you visualise the kind of case that the noble Lord put before us, of the kind of mistake that we all make when travelling abroad, and consider what it must be like to be sent home a couple of thousand miles, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, ought to look at this point a good deal more deeply. If he had to come to the Houses of Parliament and ask for more money to employ more immigration officers, then, so far as I am concerned, this would be a reasonable increase in civil servants to which I certainly should not object. I feel that he has slightly diverted us on to technicalities. Admittedly, what he said is true, but he has lost the real evil of these cases. Even if they happen only twice a year, they ought to be stopped. But, so far as I can see, there is no means under the present arrangements of stopping them.
LORD GARDINER: While the Minister is considering this matter, may I ask whether this is the position? If a patrial goes from here to Italy or Russia for a holiday and has his wallet, containing his passport, stolen and—wrongly, as it turns out—his story is not believed because he has nothing at all to show and can only say that he had a passport and has lost it, will he have to go back to Russia
704
before he can appeal if the Bill remains as it is?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The two points to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, have referred relate to the first part of subsection (3), whereas the issue of policy which we have been debating is contained in the last two lines of page 14 and the first two lines of page 15. As I said, I should like to look at the position of the people who are patrial under Clause 2(1)(c) and the Clause 2(1)(d) people. They are the only people who are concerned, and not the people who have the right of abode under Clause 2(1)(a) and Clause 2(1)(b), who represent the overwhelming majority. As I said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has raised a special case which I should like to look at, and I should like also to look into the case of the visitor who loses his passport in Moscow.
Let me return to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, because what he said was on the central issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, knows, this is a major issue which has been debated for some three or four years. The difficulty with dependants, as the previous Administration found, is that if you establish a system to catch the two cases a year to which the noble Lord referred, they will become the pattern if a right of appeal here is provided. Why should only those two people use it? I regret to say—and this is common knowledge to those who study the subject—that here we have one of the standard methods of evasion of the immigration control. The system of mandatory entry certificate clearances with an appeal in this country, but with the certificate being issued by the British High Commission post abroad, was established precisely to bring this means of evasion to an end.
The noble Lord talked about public expenditure. These diplomatic posts are frequently staffed by immigration officers. We have attached to the British High Commissison in Delhi a chief immigration officer who serves as a second secretary and has considerable staff. He has with him five or six entry certificate officers who are skilled immigration officers. They carry out inquiries there and then, because if there is going to be an argument about a family relationship

705
—whether or not somebody is a son or a nephew or is under the ages of 16 or 18—these inquiries can take quite a long time to complete in Asia. It seems to us, as it seemed to the previous Administration who had to deal with what had become a practical problem—Mr. Callaghan said this in his evidence to the Select Committee—that we ought to resolve such matters at the other end. Both the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that these appeals could be cleared very quickly at the ports, and that is quite true with the system as it operates at the moment. It would certainly be true if the two dependants of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, were exercising an appeal here. But it would not be true if there were a general appeal for all passengers, which is what the Amendment proposes.
The Canadians have had gravely discouraging experience with their appeal system. That is one of the systems investigated—and commented upon very favourably—at the time of the Wilson Report on Immigration Appeals, because of the delays that had set in owing to the nature of the system, after somebody had been admitted. A public inquiry was held under a Mr. Sedgwick into this matter of somebody being admitted, perhaps on business or to visit some friends, for a week or two. Under the system, such a person could appeal, and it was taking 15 or 18 months before he had exercised his full appeal rights. The Canadian Government said, and Mr. Sedgwick, who was carrying out the public inquiry on their behalf, also said, that this was really a misuse of the appeal system, because at the end of that time all things were no longer equal. The man was there. He had to be allowed to work. He could not be held in custody for that period. He had done nothing except to arrive and exercise his legal rights. It was a grave practical problem. He may even have had a child in that time, since he had been working there for 12 or 15 months. Naturally, the appeal system became overloaded, and very often a person could not be asked to leave after such a period.
Therefore, there are these practical problems and the question of dependants is the central one. We must be clear in our minds that the Bill preserves the
706
current situation: nobody who now has a right of appeal exercisable at the ports here will be losing it. When the entry certificate procedure was set up, those who are closest to the subject felt that the procedure represented a distinct step forward in terms of practical administration, and that the arrangements set up by Mr. Callaghan—which are, broadly speaking, being adhered to—constituted the best solution.
LORD FOOT: May I thank the noble Lord sincerely for the full explanation he has given, and of course I agree with a great deal of it. I, and my Party in this House, opposed the 1969 change of front at the last moment, when the previous Government decided to introduce the compulsory entry certificate for dependants in the place of origin, but I have to acknowledge that there are advantages in the system. There are counterbalancing disadvantages, but there are advantages. It is of some advantage to have an appeal here in this country where the sponsor of the dependant is available, even though the appellant himself is not available. So I am not criticising the general system.
But we are dealing with two matters. We are dealing with the question of the patrial, which is a very specialised point, and the noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will have another look at that to see whether anything can be done. But, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have said, what is really important is the person who comes from the other side of the world, perhaps innocently and not knowing that he has not complied with regulations. Even if you maintained the general principle that, in the ordinary way, persons who come here without the necessary entry certificate or entry clearance must go out of the country before they can lodge an appeal, I should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of man to allow the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion when it appeared, on the face of it, that a person had come here honestly and innocently and was the victim of a mistake and a misunderstanding. I should have thought it was possible to enable the Secretary of State, for example, to exempt such persons from the provisions of this clause.
I ask the Minister to consider whether that can be done, because the present

707
state of affairs, even if only two or three people a year come here, perhaps using up the savings of five or ten years in order to do it, and are then sent back, and particularly if children are involved, is really intolerable and is something which we ought to be capable of dealing with on some administrative basis. I shall withdraw this Amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has. I hope that he will be prepared to consider that final suggestion, too. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74:
Page 15, line 2, leave out (" at a port of entry and ").
The noble Lord said: In the light of the previous debate, I do not intend to move this Amendment.
7.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 15, line 4, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" need not ").
The noble Lord said: In this case, too, the discussion would be largely a repetition of the debate that has taken place previously. I would only say in respect of it that, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, knows, very often immigrants come to Heathrow or elsewhere in a state of ignorance, in a state of confusion; and sometimes it has not been the fault of the individual immigrant that he does not have the certificate of entry. This subsection says that an appeal shall be refused if it appears that the appellant has entered the country illegally. I suggest that that is going rather far. I should have hoped that in this instance an appeal might be allowed directly to the adjudicator in this country, without the necessity for the appellant to leave the country first. That would seem to me to be a more just and fair attitude towards these particular persons than what is now proposed. Therefore, for the purposes of hearing the Minister's reply I move this Amendment. Perhaps I may say that I think Amendments Nos. 74A and 74B may be taken together. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: Clause 13(4) repeats in substance the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. It continues the present situation, in which an appeal against refusal of entry cannot succeed if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant is an illegal entrant; that is, that he sought to enter without examination or in breach of a deportation order.
It is right that a person who is being refused entry as an illegal entrant should be able to challenge the refusal on the ground that he is not in fact an illegal entrant. But in the view of Her Majesty's Government there is no reason for departing from the view taken by Parliament in 1969, that in such a case the right of appeal should extend no further. Anyone who believes that he has a valid claim to admission ought to present himself in the proper way, and not try to circumvent the control. If he chooses to make an attempt at evasion, he must accept the consequences of his illegal action. It will subsequently be open to him to seek admission lawfully and to appeal from overseas if his application for an entry clearance, or for revocation of a deportation order in force against him, is refused.
The restriction on an illegal entrant's right of appeal does not mean that no illegal entrant will ever be allowed to stay. In such cases, any compassionate circumstances and all other relevant factors are taken into consideration, but this is and should remain a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State and not for the appellate authorities.
LORD BROCKWAY: In view of the earlier discussion we had I do not want to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.34 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 5, leave out (" appears ") and insert (" is proved ").
The noble Lord said: This is rather similar to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was making, but my point is a little different. What I am worried about is the words"if it appears that ", which appear both in the second

709
and in the fourth lines of this subsection. The subsection in full says:
" An appeal against a refusal of leave to enter shall be dismissed if it appears that the appellant was at the time of the refusal an illegal entrant, and an appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance shall be dismissed if it appears that a deportation order was at the time of the refusal in force in respect of the appellant."
What do the words"if it appears"mean? Clearly they must mean something less than"if it is proved ", but how much less? This is a matter of semantics. But suppose somebody comes before the adjudicator, seeking to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter, how is the matter presented to the adjudicator? Does the representative of the Home Office say:"We are of the opinion that this appellant was at the time of refusal an illegal entrant ", and is that sufficient to make it appear to the adjudicator that he was an illegal entrant? Surely it ought to be proved as a matter of evidence; and if it ought to be proved, what is the objection to deleting the words"if it appears"and putting in the words"if it is proved "?
The second question I want to ask is this. When one uses the words"if it appears ", it does not answer the question: appears to whom? Does it mean appears to the immigration officer, does it mean appears to the Secretary of State, or does it mean appears to the adjudicator? If it means appears to the immigration officer, then all the immigration officer has to do when he goes before the adjudicator is to say,"Look—it appears to me that he is an illegal immigrant ", and from that moment onwards the adjudicator is precluded from inquiring into the matter any further and has to dismiss the appeal. If, on the other hand, it means that it must appear so to the adjudicator, if it is a matter fat the adjudicator's decision, then what he has to do is to examine the evidence and decide if it is proved to his satisfaction. Therefore you might as well have the words"if it is proved"in the first place. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why these words have been used. I have no doubt he will tell us that they have appeared in some Act of Parliament or some rules before. We have already heard that many times. But if the words are defective, they are made no better by having had an earlier appearance. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord correctly forecast in his penultimate sentence, Clause 13(4) repeats in substance Section 2(2) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. The latter provision used the words"appears to him "—that is, to the adjudicator but—it is clear enough from the context, without an express reference to the adjudicator, that that is what is intended here. The verb"to appear"has a more precise legal meaning than may be apparent at first sight. It is commonly used in statutory provisions to indicate the conclusion drawn by a court or tribunal from the evidence before it. It is so used in the 1969 Act and also in the provisions of this Bill. This use of the word does not imply any contrast between appearance and reality, but refers to the conclusion which emerges from the scrutiny given to the facts.
In practice, I doubt whether there is all that much difference between the word"appears"and the words"is proved ". An appellate authority would be expected to form his conclusion from the evidence before him on the balance of probabilities, whichever formula is used, and the substitution of"is proved"would not introduce a stricter standard of proof. In certain circumstances, however, the words"is proved"might not be altogether apt, because they could be read as implying that in every case it will be necessary for the respondent to the appeal to bring forward positive proof that the appellant is an illegal entrant or, as the case may be, subject to a deportation order. Positive proof may not be necessary in some circumstances; for example, if the appellant admits that he is an illegal entrant the appellant's own admission would probably be sufficient to enable the adjudicator to dismiss the appeal on those grounds.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and although it may be difficult to meet him on the question of proof, I think he put forward a very strong case when he asked the question about"appears to him"and said that he thought it might even mean appears to the immigration officer or to the Secretary of State. That is certainly not intended. OF course what is meant is: if it appears to the adjudicator and he satisfies himself on the evidence that the conclusion he arrived at is a proper one. If that can be made clear in the drafting

711
and would satisfy the noble Lord, it might be possible to adjust the wording, although I cannot commit the draftsman to an exact form of words.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Would it not be clearer if we had the words,"if the appellant at the time in question was an illegal immigrant "?
LORD FOOT: I do not know whether anyone else wishes to speak, but I am quite happy to leave this question in the way it has been left by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. However, may I ask one question? The noble Lord said at the beginning that the words,"if it appears ", appear in other legislation, but he went on to quote earlier immigration legislation. I wonder whether he can tell us if his advisers have been able to point to any other Statute where this phrase has been used? If so, and there is a precedent for these words and they mean that the tribunal concerned is satisfied on the balance of probabilities and so on, I should be reassured.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I cannot answer the noble Lord's question offhand, but it is a very relevant question. I shall make inquiries and write to him with the answers and I shall also see whether we can compose an alternative form of words.
LORD FOOT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.44 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 15, line 10, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: On a previous occasion in Committee I expressed appreciation of the quite extraordinary way in which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave his mind and interest to everything we are discussing. I want to add something else now. If before Report stage he has actually to consider every issue which he has promised to consider, he will not only have to be working overtime in the House itself but also outside the House. I welcome his promise to give consideration to so many
712
Amendments and I hope that this Amendment may be added to the list.
There are two reasons why I urge that this subsection be deleted. The first is the extraordinary power it again gives to the Secretary of State. It allows him to certify that a person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal to allow him to enter this country on the ground that his exclusion is"conducive to the public good ". That is a terribly vague phrase. To give a Minister that power with such a vague phrase, on his personal responsibility, without any reference to an adjudicator or an appeal tribunual, seems to give one man quite extraordinary powers. I ask the Minister to look at this phrase"conducive to the public good"and its vagueness. Is not the phrase"in the interests of national security"more often used when this power is given to the Secretary of State? That at least is rather more definite. Perhaps the Minister will look at this phrase and consider whether the Home Secretary really ought to be given these powers to deny the right of appeal on a ground which appears to be so indefinite. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I wonder if, when the Minister replies, he can explain what I am quite sure I ought to know but frankly do not: why in most places in the Bill where"conducive"is included—in Clause 3(5), Clause 13(5), Clause 15(3) and (5)—we just get"conducive to the public good"and in none of those subsections nor in the interpretation clause is there any definition of what"conducive to the public good"means? Then, in Clause 14(3) and there alone we suddenly get
" conducive to the public good, as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature ".
I do not know whether we are supposed to read that into the other places in the Bill where there is not such a full explanation or limitation. When one is considering the other subsections and the meaning of"conducive to the public good"I do not know how far we can rely on what is said in Clause 14(3). Is that intended to be comprehensive? When it says"as being"I suppose it must be one of those three qualifications and nothing else. Does it mean that

713
" conducive to the public good"in the other subsections contemplates something as wide as this? I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, could answer that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I begin by replying to the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, while it is fresh in my mind? I think am right in saying that this Amendment is directed to Clause 13(5) and the noble and learned Lord has jumped a little ahead to Clause 14(3); but I think it may be helpful to the Committee to discuss this whole matter now because the words"conducive to the public good"are crucial in both these clauses. The phrase includes security, political considerations and what are called"other non-conducive grounds ". Wherever it is mentioned, as in Clause 13(5), without qualification, it includes all those three. In Clause 14(3), however, it is confined to"interests of national security"or of relations between the United Kingdom and other countries, or for other reasons of a political nature. So Clause 14(3) is limited to security and political cases only and excludes the other non-conducive grounds. Let me give an example of other non-conducive grounds. We have referred in the debate on deportation to the international drug traffickers who manage to avoid criminal convictions, to the gambling racketeers; and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary talked about people connected with the Mafia. These are the sort of people who have been regarded as undesirable in the past; deportation orders or refusals of entry have been made on the ground that their presence would not be conducive to the public good. Clause 14(3) does not apply to them. It is confined only to what it says. In all other places where the words are mentioned without qualification it is the wider use that is intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, reminded me of something which gives me food for thought from time to time—the number of hostages to fortune collected as the Bill goes on. I hope that I shall be able to redeem most, if not all, of them. The effect of this Part of the Bill will be that the appeals system will continue to operate as at present for the ordinary immigrant and his dependants, but it will be open to the
714
Home Secretary personally, as being consistent with his general responsibility for law and order and security, to exclude from this country people whose presence here he thinks would not be conducive to the public good. The number of such people is small and is likely to continue to be small. But the issue is none the less important. It is as well to appreciate the scale of what we are talking about. In terms of aliens, at the moment we are concerned with something of the order of about a dozen people a year, several of whom so far as deportation is concerned, have been convicted, but in whose cases the courts have decided to leave the matter of deportation or not to the Home Secretary. Sometimes the courts say so in giving judgment.
If this Amendment (and the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which touches on the same ground) were accepted, it would have the effect that only persons whose exclusion was desirable in the interests of national security—the noble Lord said that he would confine himself to national security—could be excluded without right of appeal. In the view of my right honourable friend, this would not be a desirable change, particularly in regard to two groups of people. First, there are the rare cases in which the Secretary of State thinks it necessary to exclude a person on political grounds. As to these, the Wilson Committee in paragraph 143 of their Report thought that there would be nothing untoward in removing political cases entirely from the ambit of the appeals system. The noble Lord asked, as have others, what is meant by the words"political cases ". I might quote the Wilson Committee Report here. What they said in paragraph 147 was:
" Cases arise from time to time in which the Home Secretary feels justified in excluding a person from this country, or requiring him to leave, on grounds that are essentially of a political nature—for example, that his presence here is or would be harmful to international relations, or offensive to public opinion. We doubt whether the system of appeal which we are proposing would provide apt machinery for dealing with such cases. We would not therefore think it wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the proposed appeal system, to remove such cases from the scope of that system and leave them entirely to the Home Secretary's discretion subject to his responsibility to Parliament."
Apart from the political cases of this kind, there are from time to time the

715
cases of people trying to obtain access to the United Kingdom, about whom the Secretary of State has received information, perhaps from overseas police forces or intelligence services, which has been given to him on a confidential basis and which could not be disclosed on appeal. In these cases also, the Government think it right that the Home Secretary, again by his personal decision, should have the power to exclude the individual from the United Kingdom. In ending what I have to say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I would remind him—though he knows it better than most—that when we use the words,"the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the exercise of this discretion ", this is no empty phrase. Home Secretaries have been personally responsible to Parliament for decisions of this kind over a number of years; and the closeness of personal interest, the way in which representations are prepared by Members of another place and of this House, also impose a degree of Parliamentary scrutiny. We saw it earlier this year in one famous case. This showed that Parliament is vigilant in these matters and that the Home Secretary is answerable for his decisions to both Houses of Parliament.
LORD FOOT: May I ask a question? I understand that the definition of"conducive to the public good"is wider under Clause 13(5) than under Clause 14(3). Why are different standards adopted depending upon whether it is an appeal against exclusion from the United Kingdom (which is dealt with in Clause 13) or whether it is an appeal against a variation of conditions? Why is a different standard of"conducive to the public good"adopted, a more limited standard, under Clause 14 than in the other case? What is the distinction in principle? It may be that the noble Lord covered the point; but if he did I am afraid that I missed it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My right honourable friend covered it at considerable length. I will abbreviate it. The noble Lord will find an interesting speech in the course of the Standing Committee"B"proceedings in another place on Thursday, May 20, at columns 1116 to 1120. The Home Secretary spoke on his approach to this subject at some considerable length. The case he put
716
up on this question of non-conducive appeals was subsequently supported by Mr. Callaghan. My right honourable friend drew a distinction between people who were already here and those who were seeking to come in. A person already here whose stay is curtailed or who is asked to leave is in a somewhat different position from someone seeking to come in. What my right honourable friend said was this:
" He has been allowed to stay in this country for two years or some such period. He has changed his plan, moved his family; and if he then does not get what he expected "
—speaking of an extension of stay—
" he is prejudiced. If he applies to come and is told that he cannot be admitted, that is too bad. He is not entitled to expect to be allowed in. But if he has been allowed in here he is entitled to expect to be able to stay here for the time for which he was originally admitted…"
and so on. Therefore, as a result of the discussion in Standing Committee, what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agreed was that there should be an appeal in the case of the person who is already here, through the normal appeal system in all cases except the security and political ones. In the existing appeals system they are anyway, provided for separately because these are the cases that go to the special panel of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The procedure was used only once. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, was a member of that tribunal; and I think that no one who studied what took place on that occasion was particularly happy that the procedure should continue.
What the Home Secretary now has in mind, and he explained it again in Standing Committee, and subsequently on Report, is that for the people who are already here, in everything except security and political cases, the right of appeal should lie through the appeals system; that in the security and political cases, the Home Secretary should remain responsible; but that he should take informal advice from"three wise men ", three security advisers, in the same way as happens when there are cases where the security of a member of the Civil Service is in doubt. I could give further details of this, if the Committee would be interested, but that is the reason. A person outside has less right than a person who is already here.
8.0 p.m.
LORD GARNER: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned my interest in this matter and perhaps I may make a few comments, although it is an extremely difficult ground of legal speciality for someone who is a layman to tread. I agree with the Minister that there are unfortunate features about the procedure under which the special panel of the tribunal operates. My first doubt is really a question of public relations. If any part of the case should be heard in camera, it is almost certain that the Press and publicity media in this country will take exception to that course and assume that something not quite right has happened whatever the facts may be. It is important that not only justice be done but that it be seen to be done, and so long as we have this special secret part of the tribunal I think it is bound to cause trouble.
Secondly, there is the position of an appellant. The Wilson Committee recommended that he should be informed of any circumstances brought specially to the notice of the tribunal when sitting in camera: but legislation provides otherwise, that the appellant is not even to be represented at the trial and the part in camera is to be heard in his absence. On the occasion on which I served, the tribunal were charged by the appellant's counsel to scrutinise with the greatest care the evidence offered by the parties, and I think I can say that we did our duty in this respect. But I would comment that it does not seem to me really appropriate that a tribunal should have that sort of function imposed upon it.
The third difficulty is that the Act provides for the report to be published but does not require the Home Secretary necessarily to act upon its recommendations. The duty imposed upon the tribunal is to find in favour of the appellant if they are satisfied that in the exercise of his discretion the Home Secretary should have acted differently. It may be entirely appropriate for a tribunal to reach such an opinion upon the actions of a junior officer acting for the Home Secretary, but I think it is entirely invidious for a tribunal to be called upon to pass judgment on a decision taken by the Home Secretary on a matter of policy, particularly when it is in the field of law
718
and order for which he is responsible. If the tribunal finds against him in a report that is published, one can see that it is difficult for him to be forced to vary the system. As was suggested at the time, it is easy to see why a Home Secretary faced with this position might prefer to resign rather than to yield on a matter to which he attaches importance.
I should like to make just one other comment to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about this difficult phrasing of"conducive to the public good"and"in the interests of national security ". I am sure that important legal considerations attach to whatever phrase we use. There is one point that appeals to me. The phrase on national security has a connotation, particularly in the public mind, of something which is a positive danger to the State, which is not made clear by the phrase"conducive to the public good." It strikes me that in a sense it is fairer to an individual, less offensive to him, to use the more general phrase and less likely to be misleading to public opinion as a whole. I accept that there are dangers in the more general phrase. It is much wider and could be abused, if there were to be an unscrupulous Home Secretary, but I would hope that the risk of that is sufficiently remote.
8.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: This is one of those occasions when the reply of the Minister has disturbed me more than it has reassured me. It has disturbed me because he has indicated that the phrase"conducive to the public good"is intended to cover a broader ground than the ground of"in the interests of national security." The noble Lord who has just spoken is perfectly right when he says that"in the interests of national security"can be regarded as more offensive than the phrase"conducive to the public good "; but the very fact that the latter phrase does not appear to be so conducive indicates that it not so definite, that it is vaguer, and it is because of that that I doubt very much whether it should be included in the Bill at all.
I think that we have the right to exclude people from this country where there is evidence that they intend to commit some crime here. I think that we have the right to exclude them when

719
we have evidence that they are to be engaged in violent conspiracy or something of that character. I do not think we have any right whatever to exclude them because they hold a particular political opinion. And my fear is that this vague phrase of"conducive to the public good ", with these private inquiries through the police in different countries and with all the political prejudices that there are at the present time, may be used to keep out of the country and deny to them even the right to appeal against refusal on grounds which are not substantial, people who hold particular political opinions.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Garner, that from my own knowledge of the present Home Secretary, I should not expect him to apply this power which the Bill gives him in a way which would be illiberal. At least I would expect him to do that less than many possible Home Secretaries of whom I could think. But when we are passing a Bill of this kind we have to consider the effect of these words not only upon the present occupant of the office of the Secretary of State, but their effect when there are changes in political climate and political personnel. We have to be very careful indeed not to include words which might in effect have a bad result upon the liberties and tolerances of our country. I am withdrawing this Amendment only for one reason, namely, that the same subject will be raised almost immediately on an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Foot, and I am perfectly sure he will put the case much more effectively than could.
LORD FOOT: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I should explain that I am not going to move my Amendment No. 77, so if he really wants to put the matter to the vote he must seize the opportunity now, because I am afraid he will not: get any assistance from me. Perhaps I should also say to the noble Lord that if he seeks to press this Amendment to a Division I am afraid I shall not be able to go into the Division Lobby with him, because since the next Amendment was put down by my noble friends and myself I have been satisfied that the Government are right about this
720
matter. I agree that this question, as to whether a person should be excluded from this country on the grounds that his entry is not conducive to the public good, is a political decision and an executive decision for which the Secretary of State ought to be answerable to Parliament. I agree that this is not an appropriate matter to be considered by somebody in the nature of an appeal tribunal. The decision has to be made by the Secretary of State, and has to be defended by him in Parliament. Therefore, while I am not trying to ingratiate myself with the Government on this matter, unhappily I am on the other side from the noble Lord.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope that my noble friend will not feel called upon to press this Amendment to a Division. I recognise that he has strong feelings about it, and no doubt, in the eyes of many, a strong case. Equally the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has given us a clear exposition, and I should certainly like to look with the greatest of care at what he has said. This is a matter that we can come back to when we consider my noble friend's Amendment No. 79, which is much of the same pattern, and perhaps on the Question, That the clause stand part. I hope that in the circumstances—the Committee is a thin one, and it is a big issue which we ought to have time to consider—my noble friend will make that gesture. Of course, it will be open to him to return to this subject on Report, if he feels so inclined.
LORD BROCKWAY: How can a Back-Bencher possibly resist an appeal of that kind, especially when it is added to by the fact that I begin to suspect that something is a little wrong in my attitude if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not able to go into the Division Lobby with me, because on these issues of liberty he is one of the most decisive champions. For those two reasons, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Appeals against conclusions]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I have

721
to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 78 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 79.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 78:
Page 15, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move this Amendment, but may I be permitted to say in one sentence why I am not moving it? It is because it goes to the same question of conducive to the public good, which has already been discussed exhaustively to-day.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This might be a convenient moment for the House to resume. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved. That the House do now resume.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
8.16 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment)—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution of the Authority]:
VISCOUNT H AN WORTH VISCOUNT H AN WORTH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
(" and
(c) shall appoint at least one member who shall have special responsibility for the interests of consumers.")
The noble Viscount said: This is one of a series of Amendments whose object is to ensure that the consumers' point of view gets the attention it deserves in the council of the new Civil Aviation Authority. This and the other Amendment standing in my name, No. 6, are complementary Amendments and not alternative
722
Amendments. In the Second Reading debate, the importance of making these Amendments was stressed both by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Although the Minister was sympathetic—and on an issue of this nature I do not think any Minister would wish to be thought otherwise—he contended that the functions of the new Authority were in one way or another consumer functions. I agree with this. But it applies equally to the whole range of public services, from the Post Office to bus services; and with a slight extension of the principle you can also say that producers of consumer goods have the same sort of motivation, because they are in business to satisfy consumer needs, otherwise, of course, in the long run they would hardly make a profit.
Yet we all know that for various reasons the consumer voice is relatively ineffective. This, I think, is particularly so in the public services sector. Other important considerations are allowed to affect the issue. The Minister has said that the duty of the new Authority, to have regard to consumer interests, will be amplified in guidance given under Clause 3(2) of the new Bill. This is not enough, and I should have thought there was even merit from the population's point of view in including something much more specific in the Bill. It is noteworthy that the provisions of the old Civil Aviation Act, Clause 4, which have been copied out in my Amendment No. 6 have not been included in this Bill. This is hardly reassuring. Experience has shown that even with these provisions the situation has not been entirely satisfactory from the consumer's point of view.
The present Amendment is a very modest one and it would only require the Secretary of State, in appointing members to the Civil Aviation Authority, to appoint at least one member who would have special responsibility for the interests of consumers. I really cannot see that such a moderate Amendment is likely to cause inconvenience to anyone, and if it is argued that this sets a precedent which Governments might not wish to follow, I should certainly like the Minister to admit that such is the case. There are a number of other Amendments following mine which have rather the same object in view, and I shall wish to

723
support some of them. So, although I beg to move this Amendment, I shall not press it, because in discussions with the Opposition I realised that they are not wholly happy about this particular solution. Nevertheless, I myself like it and it is one which we have tried, from the consumer angle, to incorporate in other Bills and with other authorities. I should certainly like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
LORD BESMCK: The noble Viscount has moved his Amendment in the most persuasive manner and I, for one, am wholly in agreement with the purpose behind it. As he has said, this matter of the consumer's interest has been raised at earlier stages of the Bill, and I am certain I am right in saying that it was the view on both sides that some reference to consumer interests should be included in this piece of aviation legislation. However, as I have said at earlier stages of the Bill, it would probably be a mistake to have one member of the Authority who would be labelled as the"consumer representative ". It would seem to imply that because this one member is interested in consumer affairs he is in that respect distinct from the other members of the Authority.
I think that would be wrong, both from the point of view of the individual member who is going to do the job and from the point of view of the Authority. It is the Authority as a whole, in my view, upon whom we should pin the responsibility of looking after the consumer interests. Nevertheless, as I have said, I agree with the purpose behind the Amendment and I am encouraged to hear the noble Viscount saying that even though he may not press it we might together secure his purpose by the support given to a later Amendment.
8.25 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I think that although we are taking the first Amendments separately it might be helpful to the Committee if I prefaced my remarks with some general observations about tile way in which the Government see the safeguarding of the interests of customers, so that we can consider the Amendment which the noble Viscount has just moved with Amendments 3, 4,
724
5 and 6 in a common perspective. I can fairly say that there is no real disagreement among us as to what we want to achieve. I believe we all take the view that the civil aviation industry exists to meet the needs of those who wish to use its services and that the Authority should exercise its many powers in such a way as to secure that those needs are met as well, as fairly, and as completely as can be achieved. The question which still divides us, if indeed it does, is how to ensure that this is done.
As my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade has said in another place, the Government have had it in mind throughout that in the guidance to be given to the Authority under Clause 3(2) it should be made clear that the Authority should actively seek the views of the users of aircraft services and set up whatever formal machinery it thinks necessary and appropriate for this purpose. This, it seems to us, is the right approach to the question since it means the Authority should go out and seek those views and not merely wait for them to come in. It also means that we leave it to the Authority to make the arrangements which it thinks best for this purpose. This seems to be the right approach if the Authority is to be allowed the discretion that we want it to have in managing its affairs. In addition, it means that we avoid placing particular emphasis on complaints. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said on Second Reading, consumer interest goes much wider than complaints. I agree that it would be wrong to adopt provisions which focus attention specifically on the consideration of complaints.
Following the same line of thought, the Government have also taken the view that it would be wrong to provide that one member of the Authority should be appointed specifically as a consumer representative. Here I think we are all in agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just confirmed. The reason for this is, of course, that it is a sad fact of human nature that the views of a person specially appointed in such a capacity tend in practice to be disregarded and discounted because it is known that these are the views which he is there to express. Also, following the same general approach and bearing

725
in mind the views that have already been strongly expressed both in your Lordships' House and in another place, it would seem to be wrong for the Secretary of State, in appointing members to the Authority, to say which particular responsibilities particular individuals should have. It is better to leave it to them. It really is important that the Authority should be given the fullest discretion to organise itself to deal with its own affairs.
With those rather lengthy but, I hope, helpful introductory remarks, the comments which I shall have to make in due course on the five Amendments I have mentioned will fall into place as part of a consistent view which I hope your Lordships will be able to accept. Turning specifically to Amendment No.: as I have said, I think it would be wrong to tell the Authority that one particular person among its members should have particular responsibility for the interests of consumers. This would limit the authority's discretion, as I have explained, and it would tend to carry with it the implication that other members of the authority need not bother about the customers. Also, I should see a real risk that that particular person's views would tend to be discounted.
I think that the purpose of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, whose knowledge in this field is very wide and deeply respected, would be better achieved in other ways. First of all, the Authority should be under a clear duty, as it is, to pursue the consumer interest; and that is achieved in part by the objectives which now appear in the Bill and which will be further strengthened if Amendment No. 4 to Clause 3 is accepted. This in turn will be supported and amplified by the policy guidance to be given under Clause 3(2), which itself will be subject to Parliamentary debate. I can assure noble Lords that the policy guidance will deal more fully with consumer interests and will include a requirement for the Authority to consult as widely as possible all those concerned with consumer interests.
Secondly, it is essential that in appointing members to the Authority, the Secretary of State should bear in mind that in approaching all its work the Authority should be mindful of the interests of its customers. Instead of appointing just
726
one person with these special responsibilities, the Secretary of State—in appointing members to the Authority in general—should and will have regard not only to their experience and qualifications for special functions but also to the extent to which they will be responsive to consumer interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, we too want the Authority as a whole to be mindful of the customers' interests and I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will have regard to this.
Having said that, I would agree that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has a point when he suggests that someone in the Authority should have responsibility for investigating consumer complaints. That is a point which everyone would accept, and such a person might be responsible furthermore for co-ordinating consultations with the consumer interests, and for ensuring that full account is taken of their interests and relevant representation. But this does not mean that that person should necessarily be a member of the Board. Indeed, there is much to be said for a fairly senior member of staff bringing such matters to the attention of the Board as a whole. Therefore I am saying that this is a matter for organisation and management by the Authority within the Authority, and not a matter for legislation. As I have said, I believe it would be quite wrong for your Lordships' House or the Secretary of State to tell the Authority to organise its affairs in any more detail than is set out in the Bill as we intend to amend it. I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Viscount that customers' interests are very much in mind.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord has said enough to reassure me that nothing has changed. Year after year we ask for consumer representation and year after year, by Governments of different complexions, we are told that everything is absolutely fine—that of course anybody who is selling things to consumers thinks only of the consumer and never pays a moment's attention to any other aspect of the deal. We are also told it would be absurd to have in a Cabinet, for example, somebody paying particular attention to any one subject. No one, would listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in the Cabinet he spoke

727
about money because everyone would know what he was going to say. This is the argument which has been seriously put up against somebody who has a special job to look after consumers' interests. It is awfully boring for people like myself who in the past have been actually concerned with consumer movements and interested in them to hear the same silly old arguments trundled out week after week.
A number of consumers in the aeroplane business are deeply and rightly dissatisfied. The thing is in a fearful mess; it is extremely badly run. I.A.T.A. is the most serious restrictive practice in our whole economic organisation, and just to suppose that everything will be all right if we do nothing about it is not good enough. I hope my noble friend will bring something to a Division, if not this Amendment, at least another one, because I think that from the consumers' point of view the whole thing is quite impossible.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My noble friend has suggested that we should widen our discussion at this stage to cover not only Amendment No. 1 but also Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6. I think we had a good and full discussion in the previous Committees here and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, was not present then as he certainly has enlivened the discussion to-night. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has already said he does not wish to press his Amendment No. 1. I think this was discussed particularly on the Second Reading of this Bill and it was generally agreed, as my noble friend said, that it was not necessarily a good principle to appoint a special representative. The issue therefore seems to be whether the Committee should accept my noble friend's Amendments No. 3 and 4 or possibly that of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, or that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I am grateful to my noble friend for undertaking at the last Committee stage to look again into the problem and for coming back with an Amendment to try to meet the wishes of the Committee. It would seem that the only difference between my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is in the words—
" subject to the preceding paragraphs "
728
in the case of my noble friend and—
" in pursuance of the duties set out in the preceding paragraphs "
in the noble Lord, Lord Beswick's Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may feel that the wording of my noble friend's Amendment could be translated as being subservient to the clause. I would suggest to the Committee that if one simply had—
" to further at all times the reasonable interests of users of air transport services "
this could well meet the case.
As to the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth's Amendment taking out Section 4 of the 1960 Act, I would suggest that if under Schedule 11 of this Bill that clause were not repealed it would meet his point.
LORD BESWICK: If I may try to be helpful to the Committee, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has rather confused the issue by referring to Amendments which have not yet been moved. I have spoken already but I have not moved my Amendment and I was reserving the arguments concerning that Amendment until we reached it. I think we could save time if we could settle first whether this particular procedure is the way in which we want to secure the purpose we all have in mind.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I am going to withdraw this Amendment but I am wholly unsatisfied with what the Minister has said. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has made the point that I was going to make: that having one man whose particular interest is to look at consumer requirements is perfectly satisfactory. It is the sort of board that one has in any company where as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, there is a wide range of interests. I am wholly unconvinced by that argument, but I will leave it there.
What worries me a great deal more is the argument that one need not put much about this in the Bill because after all the Authority is bound to do the job all right. Why do we need a Bill laying down a lot of requirements on the Authority? The conclusion one arrives at straight away is that these things are vitally important and that the consumer viewpoint is a relatively minor matter. I am afraid the Minister cannot get away with that argument. What we want to see in black

729
and white in the Bill is that the Authority must concern itself with consumer affairs in conjunction with its other work, and unless we get that we are not satisfied.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I apologise to the noble Lords because I was not here for the opening speeches. I do not think the Tannoy was working at full blast. I am somewhat dubious about this Amendment, and I work on the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is going to withdraw it; but when we get to Amendment No. 6 I think lie has made out a very strong case, one which we should all support when we get there.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Authority]:
8.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
(" ( ) the consideration and formulation, in consultation with those concerned, of a national airports plan; ").
The noble Lord said: On the Committee stage I raised the question of the responsibility for the planning ahead of our national airports, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, promised to write to me. That he was good enough to do, but I did not receive the letter until yesterday. Therefore I was not able to put down my Amendment until yesterday, and I apologise for the fact that it only appeared on the Marshalled List this morning. The Amendment was drafted in something of a hurry, and the wording may not be adequate. Nevertheless, I thought it was necessary to have something on the list of Amendments, and it is important to get an assurance that there will be something in this Bill which places upon the Authority a responsibility for the consideration and planning ahead of a national airports pattern. It was said on the Committee stage that there should be someone, somewhere, who brooded over the problem and who was capable of setting down a coherent plan for our future airports system for the nation as a whole. It seems that the Civil Aviation Authority is the appropriate organisation.
They will have responsibility for the administration of some airports, the responsibility for air traffic control and for regulating and licensing air transport services. They will see how these air transport services are developing, and I hope that if our next Amendment is successful they will have a statutory responsibility for looking after the interests of the consumer who flies on the services. Therefore it seems logical that the Civil Aviation Authority should be the body which looks after the planning ahead of an adequate airports system.
I have in reserve a more carefully considered form of words, and if I can get an undertaking from the noble Lord I will withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that he will consider the words that I propose to put down on Third Reading. I do not believe that there can be any argument against the proposition that someone should have the duty which I have tried to set out in my Amendment. I doubt whether it can be controverted that there is a better organisation than the proposed new Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to accept either this Amendment, or the principle of it, and we can put down another form of words on the Third Reading. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will allow me to interpose a few words here. When he says:"in consultation with those concerned," he raises a subject in particular that could be germane to the issue. I do not suppose that the formulation of a national airports plan is something that the Civil Aviation Authority, or anybody else, could deal with entirely by themselves They have the duty to provide assistance and information which would no doubt be useful to those with experience—local authorities, perhaps—on matters such as land use planning and the environment. In the most formulative stage of any plan, or even the vestiges of a plan, I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will be in a position and, if necessary, will be guided under Clause 3 to provide the technical information necessary for those who know about the things that county councils know about to make their contribution.
One cannot expect the technical matters to be in the immediate knowledge of all

731
those who are concerned. In view of what the noble Lord has said about the functions of this Authority, those matters will be very much in the minds of the Authority. They will know about the latest trends, about vertical take-off and landing, and about everything there is to know in the forefront of the current movement towards progress in the air world. They will be in a particularly favourable position to give information, to co-operate and co-ordinate. I hope that even if a national airports plan is not going to be written into the Bill, there will be strong pressure upon the Authority to keep in close contact with people like local planning authorities, so that they may have a permanent system of co-operation and consultation on all these matters.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the questions of land use planning go wider than those of civil aviation alone. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that the Government must retain ultimate responsibility for such matters, and the matters are those on which local authorities will also have something to say. For these reasons the Civil Aviation Authority cannot be given an executive role in this area such as it has in others. That is not to say that the Authority will have no role, because that would be far from the case. The Authority will be able to continue and develop the work done by the Department of Trade and Industry in regard to estimating future traffic demands and airport capacity requirements. In this way the Authority should be able to provide an advisory service to the Government, to airport owners and to others which will help to ensure that aerodromes will be developed, not only to meet the needs of local areas but to provide a viable air transport network for the country as a whole, which is the noble Lord's main consideration.
As I have already said, this will be an Advisory and not an executive role, and in that respect it is quite distinct from all the functions spelt out in Clause 2, which are functions for which the Authority will be given executive responsibility. Nevertheless, I confirm that we intend in the policy guidance to be made under Clause 3(2) to spell out more fully the
732
Authority's precise role in relation to aerodrome planning. Fundamental decisions, such as the choice of Foulness as the Third London Airport, and the recently announced decisions relating to restrictions of development and closure of certain other airports in the London area are matters for, and will continue to be matters for, the Government to decide. It is not the Government's intention to remain heavily involved in the detailed licensing decisions of the Authority. Instead, the Authority will be given, where necessary, clear guidance as to the Government's policies and will have the important job, which my noble friend envisaged, of helping with the implementation of these policies through its air transport licensing machinery. Here again the need is to give the Authority clear guidance under Clause 3(2).
In reply to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, may I say that it has been the policy of successive Governments to adopt a flexible approach towards aerodrome development, allowing a good deal of freedom to local authorities in the areas concerned for the development of airports. Local authorities have been considered to be best qualified to decide the air transport needs for their respective areas. Nevertheless, it is intended that the Civil Aviation Authority shall undertake similar studies to those previously undertaken by Government Departments and independent consultants and will be thoroughly equipped to do so. Clear guidance will be given by the Government to the Authority as to the nature and objectives of these studies. And to complete the picture I would remind the Committee that Clause 33 of the Bill provides for the Authority to advise the Secretary of State and others on matters such as these and to recover the costs of providing such advice.
Therefore, it is better that no statutory obligation should be laid upon the Authority to produce an aerodromes plan. In this respect, in the way we propose it will be possible to preserve a greater degree of flexibility in aerodrome planning, which is desirable if the Government and local authorities are to take account of the rapidly changing nature of the problems which are likely to arise. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord cares to get in touch with me between now and the next stage I would be happy to give

733
consideration to any further Amendment he feels disposed to put down in the light of what I have said. But perhaps he may feel, with that explanation and with the reference to the effects of Clause 33, that the Amendment is not required at all.
8.52 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: That is really a curate's egg. All sorts of things have been held out to us as good, particularly in the last part of the noble Lord's speech where he said that he is prepared to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, before the next stage as to the purpose of this Amendment and how it could best be implemented, and the undertaking of the noble Minister to consider the whole question of a national airports policy. But I do not like the undertones. It started off with a most amazing remark, which I imagine came from the noble Lord's brief: that this was an Amendment about land use planning. If there is one thing it really is not about it is land use planning; it is about the whole national transport system; the whole international transport system, if you like, and this is somehing about which we really want an answer. We on these Benches in dealing
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that land use planning is totally irrelevant in that particular concern.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Indeed I do not. But, dedicated though I am to land use planning, I suggest it is a minor part of this particular Amendment and this particular point, because what we are talking about is the whole international transport problem. We on these Benches have time and time again, when fielding statements from Governments—both of the Conservative Party and of the Labour Party—dealing with airports over the last few years, always said,"Yes, but when are we going to have a serious overall plan for what is going to happen to airports and what is going to happen to air traffic?"This is what we want. We got no assurance about this from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
I welcome the fact, as I said before, that he is going to discuss with the noble
734
Lord, Lord Beswick, about this, but I hope he takes the point that we are not just quibbling about a minor power here or there, or who is going to have responsibility for deciding on the kind of minor issue where, he rightly says, the local decisions and local advice must have a very considerable say. What we are talking about—what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is talking about; I think he is, and we certainly are—is some kind of machinery for an overall airport/airways scheme for this country, which has certainly not emerged in the past; it certainly shows no sign of emerging at the moment, and it certainly ought to emerge in the immediate future.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support the general issue of a national airports policy, and I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he is prepared to look at this matter and discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, before the next stage of the Bill. It is perhaps not necessary to remind the Committee that the Edwards Committee felt particularly strongly on this point, and from the evidence they gathered it seemed that there was a lack of planning and a duplication of facilities. They particularly mentioned in one case, I think, the Birmingham and Coventry airports. Also, as my noble friend has said, it is very much a matter of development of regions. It could even lead to the decline of regions. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to agree that this should be written into the Bill, and I would certainly support it.
LORD BESWICK: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, to the noble Earl, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the support they have given to the proposition I put before them. I must learn from this technique and speak as briefly as possible and then expect others to put my case much better than I am capable of doing it myself. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, must stand amazed at his own moderation when he referred to the noble Lord's speech as being a curate's egg. Harsher words could have been used. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the undertaking which the noble Lord has given.
May I say that I agree with the noble Viscount, and others, that of course other interests come into it. The kind of

735
Amendment I propose to put down is the following:
" Plans under this section shall be in such form and for such periods as the Authority and the Secretary of State may from time to time agree and in preparing any such plan the Authority shall consult with the Secretary of State and with any local authority appearing to it to be concerned to a significant degree by the plan and with any other bodies who appear to the Authority to be able to contribute substantially to the formulation of the plan and shall have regard to certain matters."
I hope it will be agreed. Of course, I recognise that many interests are involved when one comes to consider the possibility of a viable airport plan for the nation.
There was one particular point which worried me—and if I may have the noble Lord's attention for a moment I can put this down on the Record. He says that the Authority will have clear guidance from the Government as to its policy. This, surely, is the wrong way round. We are supposed to be setting up a professional body outside the governmental machine which is going to give guidance to the Government. I thought this was the whole purpose of Fulton and what he was saying. To say that you are going to set up a body and then tell it how to work, is rather like the idea of some form of puppet show with the Government still pulling the strings.
LORD SANDFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What I said was that in the policy guidance we would spell out more fully the Authority's role—not the policy about airport planning but the Authority's role, which, as I explained, is advisory, in relation to aerodrome planning.
LORD BESWICK: I am glad that the noble Lord has made that clear. He used the phrase twice. The first time I understood what he said; the second time I thought he was saying something different. Probably the best way I can serve the Committee here is by asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, and then I will put before the noble Lord the Amendment which I have, and I hope that on Third Reading we can embody it in the Bill itself—in black and white, as someone said—as a statutory
736
obligation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [General objectives and guidance by the Secretary of State]:
8.58 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 12, leave out (" and ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is merely a paving Amendment, and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 4. I have already referred in general terms to the Government's intention in this field, and particularly to including specific reference to the interests of consumers in the guidance to be given under Clause 3(2). In moving this particular pair of Amendments I need not say much more. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sought in the earlier Committee to strengthen these intentions, if I may express it that way, by amending Clause 2 in such a way as to make it the function of the Authority to safeguard the interests of consumers. However, this would not have been a good way of meeting the point because Clause 2 is descriptive of functions which are provided for elsewhere and are being transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority. This is not a function which is at the moment specifically provided for elsewhere. Moreover, as I have said, it is not really a function in itself. I think we are all agreed about that. It is more about the way in which the Authority should perform all its many functions. Therefore Clause 3 is a better place for it. Her Majesty's Government have therefore put down Amendment No. 4, in effect to elevate the consumer interest, which we are all so rightly concerned about, from the supplementary guidance to be given under subsection (2) and to include it among the main objectives in subsection (1) of Clause 3. In this way it will be given specific mention in the Bill itself, as many noble Lords have asked for, and in effect it will enjoy an elevated status. I believe all the noble Lords who have spoken will welcome this.
The matter will still be amplified in the policy guidance under subsection (2) but it will now hang on an objective set out in the Bill itself. If I anticipate him correctly the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is seeking an alternative to Amendment No. 4 by putting down Amendment No. 5. If I understand his intention correctly it is the opening words of Amendment No. 4 which he does not like and which read"subject to the preceding paragraphs," so I will now deal with that. I have carefully considered this matter and have concluded that Amendment No. 4 is to be preferred for these reasons. The purpose of the opening words of my Amendment is to guide the Authority as to the relative weight it should give to the four objectives in order to help it to reach a decision. I believe that the noble Lord's reformulation of it would tend either to guide the Authority wrongly in some respects or, more likely, tend to lead to some confusion.
Let me say straight away that I believe that in general the duty which each of our Amendments sets out, to further the interests of the consumers, will seldom conflict with the preceding objectives, and I do not think it would be right to regard it in that way. The objectives in paragraphs (a) and (b) are certainly intended to benefit the users of the transport services, and things like the lowest charges consistent with a high standard of safety will benefit air travellers. The objective of paragraph (c) goes rather wider since this is intended to benefit the country as a whole, and likewise the reference in paragraph (a) to safety embraces not only the safety of people in the aeroplanes but also the safety of the people on the ground. So in these particular respects, at least, it could sometimes be the case that the interests of the users of air transport services are not the only interests that the Authority would need to weigh. Therefore it would be wrong to say that the Authority must at all times further the interests of the users of air transport services to the exclusion of other interests, which is what Amendment No. 5 would occasionally be saying.
Reverting to Amendment No. 4, I would point out that the words"subject to the preceding paragraphs"mean no more in practice than that the Authority must weigh the interests of the users intelligently against other and wider
738
interests, where these are relevant. These words also mean that the Authority should take a long view and not too narrow a view of what the interests of the users really are. These words mean no more than that, but, as I have tried to show, I believe they are necessary and are the correct words to use in this context. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I was going to suggest that it would be to the convenient, of the Committee if we discussed the Amendment under my name on the Marshalled List together with the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, page 3, line 18, at end to insert the words on the Marshalled List. May I first say that I am grateful to the noble Lord—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, I do not think that there can be two Amendments before the Committee at the same time. No doubt it would be acceptable if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, were to speak to his Amendment, but I do not think he can move it when another Amendment has already been moved.
LORD BESWICK: I quite agree that it would be wrong if my Amendment were put to the Committee, and I suppose it is equally wrong if I move it, but I hope the noble Viscount will agree that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss these two Amendments together. I was saying that I was grateful to the noble Lord and to his right honourable friend for his readiness to discuss this matter with members of the Select Committee, and I am grateful for the efforts that have been made to meet the very firm views which were expressed at the Committee stage, but we have only to read the words in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to realise that they are inadequate. Here we are dealing with a consumer interest, the man or woman who is a passenger in the airline, the person all the organisation is destined to serve. As I said at the Committee stage, there is no point in building aircraft or in laying down a runway, or indeed in having an airline, unless it be for the purpose of giving adequate service to the passenger. We wanted to have in the Bill something which would make it quite clear that the customers' interest was after all paramount. I had

739
indicated that certainly up to now in aviation legislation we had recognised that there was this need. Although this view was supported by both sides of the Committee, and although views were expressed very forefully, we now have the following Amendment.
" subject to the preceding paragraphs, to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services; "
I do not think it sounds sufficiently virile; it does not seem to mean what we want to say, and therefore I have ventured to put down some other words.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that if we do not have regard to the preceding paragraphs we should not have regard to safety. Safety is in one of the preceding paragraphs. It would surely be unreasonable to say that we are looking after the interests of the passenger if we do not have regard to safety. Would it not be unreasonable if we were to say that we ignore paragraph (c), which makes reference to the need to make a contribution towards a favourable balance of payments? If we were looking after the interests of the consumer and jeopardising the balance of payments of this country that surely would be unreasonable. At the same time, I think it is wrong to say that before we can look after the interests of the consumer we have to have regard to the need expressed in paragraph (b)
" to secure that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing…services…"
I am not, of course, raising the purpose of paragraph (b). I simply say that it gives an entirely wrong impression if we say that before we look after the passenger, the customer, we have to see that one major British airline is properly provided for. I feel, therefore, with all respect and in all gratitude for what has been put into this Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, that we ought to go a little further. I hope very much that he will accept that although there may conceivably be legal objections to the wording that I am proposing, nevertheless if one interprets the words in a common sense way including the requirement about the"reasonable interests of users of air transport services ", his fears in relation to the balance of payments and in relation to
740
safety are not really justified. On reflection, I hope very much he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment and accept the Amendment in my name.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in everything he has said. I am, however, slightly worried about the tactical position and what the best tactical way to approach this is. I know that this is very presumptuous in the face of the Labour Party Chief Whip. I hope that the Minister will indeed agree to withdraw his Amendment and to accept that of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. If he does not, I would suggest that possibly the best way of tackling this is to accept the Government Amendment and then put down an Amendment to strengthen it at Third Reading. Presumably the Government, since they have seen the three Amendments, have already formed an opinion as to the relevant merits. If the Government go ahead with this, I think it would be wrong to oppose the Government Amendment as it stands, in which case the Labour Amendment, unless it is slightly altered in manuscript, more or less falls, because it no longer makes much sense. I hope that the Government will accept Lord Beswick's argument and will accept Amendment No. 5 and withdraw Nos. 3 and 4. I hope that if Nos. 3 and 4 are pressed the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will propose a strengthening Amendment on Third Reading. I think that would be the best way of dealing with it if the Government are not, as they often are not, ready to see the light.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to add my support to those who consider that the consumer interest is of paramount importance. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, described the Government's Amendment as not being virile enough. I have suggested already that it could be if the Government were to agree to omit these offending words,"subject to the preceding paragraphs"and simply add,"to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services ". That would meet the wishes of the entire Committee.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As there are very few Members present, it may stop the proceedings if we press this to a vote.
9.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I think the Minister's point is really rather a narrow one. It may be that a compromise Amendment is the answer. After all, if you look at Clause 3(1)(a) (which is one of the things the authority have to do first, the consumer interest coming second according to the Minister), it says:
" to secure that British airlines provide air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand (so far as British airlines may reasonably be expected to provide such services) at the lowest charges…"
The point is that if you really wish to be difficult and split hairs you can say,"All right, yes, that is what they do, but they are not in the least concerned about whether the aircraft are half filled, and the public are paying far more than they ought to. They are nevertheless providing air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand, and really they should not take into account the consumer angle at all when thinking about this ". I merely make the point that you can read it several ways if you wish to. I do not feel that the Government Amendment is strong enough as it stands.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his acknowledgment and recognition that the Government have taken considerable pains to meet the points expressed in the earlier Committee and in putting forward our Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I confirm that we have gone as far as we feel it is right to go, and that after due consideration of all the points that were raised—and no fresh points have been raised to-night—we feel that we have now got the balance right. I would not agree that we have put the consumer interests second by any means. We feel that it is necessary to strike a balance, and we believe that we have the terms of that balance right in Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I cannot give any further assurance that we can make any further modifications. Therefore, I will ask the Committee to accept Amendment No. 3, which is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 4.
LORD BESWICK: Before we collect the voices, may I deal with the esoteric point which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, put about procedure? The answer is surely that if we
742
want to try to secure a strengthening of the clause, we should first have to divide on the Government Amendment. If that was defeated, then we go on to consider a vacuum. I quite agree that we are in something of a difficulty, but I am not sure that the words which I am moving would not fill that vacuum if we accepted the first of the two Amendments of the noble Lord opposite, and then if the second was defeated we could accept the third. That would seem to be the position. Before we come to that, I wonder whether the noble Lord would at least look at the proposal which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull put. If they left out these words:"subject to the preceding paragraphs ", I would be happy with that. If we have those words in as well, then I really feel that we are not meeting the wishes that were firmly expressed on both sides of the Committee in support of the consumer point of view. I ask, therefore, that the noble Lord should give an undertaking to look at that. If he will not, then I am afraid I shall recommend my noble friends to vote against the second of the two Amendments which the noble Lord is moving; namely, Amendment No. 4.
LORD SANDFORD: I would give an assurance that we would look at that if I was not satisfied that we had already looked at it very carefully. Clearly, to leave this out is the simple kind of solution which, at first sight, does have attractions. But on reflection we feel that it is necessary to strike the balance for the reasons I have set out, and therefore those words are needed. I do not think that I can add any more.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
(" and;
(d) subject to the preceding paragraphs, to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services; ").—(Lord Sandford.)
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balfour, E.

Gage, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Bolton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Savile, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brecon, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Latymer, L.

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L.

Kennet, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Kings Norton, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Burntwood, L.

Greenway, L.

Seear, Bs.

Collison, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Janner, L.

White, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be the duty of the Authority to consider any representation from any person relating to, or to facilities in connection with, air transport services by means of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or with respect to the tariff or other charges in respect of any other such service or facilities:
Provided that the Authority shall not be required by this subsection to consider any representation if in their opinion—

(a) the representation is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) the matters to which the representation relates have already been sufficiently considered by the Authority; or

(c) the matters to which the representation relates are for the time being regulated by an international agreement to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party.")

The noble Viscount said: The justification for this Amendment is, in broad terms, that which I put forward when moving Amendment No. 1. However, this Amendment is rather different; it is designed to provide a complaints procedure.
744
This procedure, exactly as it is in my Amendment, appeared in the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960, but for some reason or other it has been omitted from this Bill. I should like to remind your Lordships that both the Air Transport Licensing Board, in paragraph 11 of their last Report, and the Edwards Committee Report, on which this Bill was based—and paragraph 1,018 refers—stressed the need for adequate consumer representation and mechanisms for dealing with complaints. I have a feeling that the Government will argue that all this will be put into effect later on by the Authority, and need not in fact appear in the Bill. I am afraid that all my experience in these sort of circumstances indicates that nothing nearly as effective will occur. The plain facts are that it will probably be only when the case is taken up by somebody in Parliament that it will ever reach the top level.
If we make this Amendment to the Bill, with all the provisos that it has, it will not be time-wasting because the Authority need not look at a representation if it is frivolous or vexatious; they need not look at it if

745
" the matters to which the representation relates have already been sufficiently considered by the Authority ";
and they need not look at it if
" the matters to which the representation relates are for the time being regulated by an international agreement to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party."
Can we have anything more reasonable than that? If this is not put in the Bill, I do not believe that this sort of mechanism, certainly not such an effective mechanism, will ever come into being by itself. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: May I say a word in support of the noble Viscount? He sets down, in words which are probably more appropriate, part of the original Amendment which I had down on the Committee stage. Again I would emphasise, despite how the voting went on the last Amendment, that in fact the unanimous view of noble Lords on both sides of that Committee was that we should have words of this kind in this Bill. I hope that from time to time the noble Lord will accept the proposition that what is the general feeling in this Committee should have some relation to the nature of the Bill which goes out of this House. I hope, therefore, that he is able to say that he will accept the Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked"Could you have anything more reasonable? ". No, you could not. He leaned over backwards to meet the Government. We were asked earlier whether we could not have some more virile words. These are not at all virile. They are merely the kind of rather despairing words which anyone who had anything to do with consumers must put forward to a Government which destroyed the Consumer Council. This Amendment says that
"…the Authority shall not be required by this subsection to consider any representation if…representation is frivolous or vexatious; or matters to which the representation relates have already been sufficiently considered…"
and these words are prefaced by"their opinion "; that is, with no appeal from their opinion whatsoever. This immediately rules out a great number of the things which should be considered by the Authority. We all know that it is
746
a fact of human nature that in any institutions (this is not to cast any aspersions on the people who run authorities of this kind, people who run Government Departments or Government institutions or businesses of this sort) there are those who do not really want to consider a number of the more annoying and boring matters which are brought forward, one or two of which may be valid complaints by the consumer. All these are ruled out in this Amendment. It is entirely up to the Authority to decide whether it is going to look at these complaints or not. It is a very, very mild Amendment. I sincerely hope that the Government are going to accept it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to add a word of support in principle of the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth. I would remind noble Lords that it was a Conservative Government which brought these words into the 1960 Act—and I understand from the A.T.L.B. that they have worked very well. I would make one suggestion on the lines of reducing the size of this Bill. Could we not agree that this matter could come under Schedule 11 and that this important section should not be repealed?
LORD SOMERS: While I am wholly in sympathy with the purpose behind the Amendment, I have some doubts regarding the proviso at the end of it. It is only too easy for any transport authority to disclaim responsibility for attending to a complaint by saying that the complaint has already been dealt with, or to pass on the responsibility to somebody else. One sees it every day in the rules of London Transport. One sees this every day—on the railways, on London Transport and everywhere. I feel that the proviso as worded is perhaps opening too wide a door, but apart from that I am absolutely in sympathy with the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has said, his Amendment follows the words of Section 4 of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, but omits the concluding words about what is to be done with a representation when the Authority has considered it. I have two points to make on this Amendment. The first is that the

747
1960 Act is much narrower in its scope than the Bill now before us. For example, in Clause 26 the present Bill provides for something new. It provides for the licensing of the organisers of air travel. This in itself is a very important new measure which will operate very much in the interests of consumers. Air travel organisers may, and often do, make use of the services of foreign airlines, but the effect of this Amendment would be to limit the duty of the Authority to the consideration of representations about flights on British-registered aircraft. The result would be that the dissatisfied holidaymaker who arranges his holiday through a British air travel organiser but flies on a foreign-registered aircraft would have no opportunity to have his grievances considered.
The Authority will of course also have responsibilities for a wide range of matters going well beyond air transport licensing matters and there is no reason why the interests of consumers should be limited in the way proposed by this Amendment. The second point I make is an even more important objection. We want to get away from the concept of consumer complaints. Once again I remind your Lordships of what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said on the Second Reading of this Bill:
" There are many consumer matters affecting travellers that are not complaints…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/7/71; col. 1268.]
I and, I think, many noble Lords agree with that. For that reason we want the Authority to consider and take account of all representations from air travellers but I do not think this can be achieved by a specific Amendment on the lines which the noble Viscount has proposed. It is not just a question of drafting because air transport is one of the fastest growing and fastest changing industries and it is important that the matters to be pursued by the Authority in the interests of air travellers should be subject to review in the light of changing circumstances. That is why we attach so much importance to the policy guidance to be made under Clause 3(2)—as I have said several times, it can be amended from time to time—and why we regard that provision as the most suitable mechanism for dealing in such detail as is necessary with consumer interests. For that reason, I hope that
748
the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment because it would have these limiting effects; if he does press it, I would advise the Committee to reject it.
9.38 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to look again at this Amendment and to consider it in conjunction with what has been already agreed by the Committee when it accepted Amendment No. 4? There is no question of limiting anything; this is a question of adding something. We already have provision for the reasonable interests of air transport users to be considered. In addition to that, this is a requirement that proper complaints should be considered by the Civil Aviation Authority. I said before that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that we should not consider consumer interests simply as a matter of looking at complaints; but I do not believe she intended that any organisation which looks after consumer interests should not consider complaints. The point is that we do not want to limit it to this. The noble Lord is really wrong in trying to use that argument against this Amendment. There has been this provision in other aviation legislation and although this Bill covers a somewhat wider field, it is still necessary, possibly even more necessary, that representations from the consumers on individual matters should be considered.
I make this further point. When this Authority is set up, it will engage in a good deal of market research, endeavour to keep itself in touch with what is going on and find out how operators who are licensed are carrying out the provisions of their licences. The possibility of receiving complaints from members of the travelling public is a valuable way of keeping in touch with the market and I should think that this is a valuable addition to the kind of customer research which the Authority is required to do or have done for it. No possible damage can be done by accepting this Amendment and I believe that a certain amount of advantage would result. It is a positive Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley's conscience will not be troubled by it. On this occasion, therefore, I hope that we will be able to support the noble Viscount, if he sees fit to press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I do not think that the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was in any way satisfactory. I have every sympathy with him. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a very delicate and barbed compliment-cum-insult to me on Second Reading, said that I made a very good speech, considering that I knew less about civil aviation than anyone speaking except himself. I am not quite certain that I can put it so delicately to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, except to say honestly that his speech has landed him in a lot of trouble. To talk about the whole problem of national airport planning as a problem in landings planning is bad enough but to say that we want to get away from the concept of consumer complaints is a dreadful remark to have to read out. Of course, we want to get on to other and better things as well as consumer complaints but we do not want to get away from consumer complaints.
LORD SANDFORD: I was repeating the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: But the noble Lord was presumably repeating them verbatim? Yes, that is all right. I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness but I do not have to defend her every word in the House. Obviously, the line the noble Lord was taking was that we had to get away from consumer complaints. I am a consumer, we are all consumers, and I hope that none of us wishes to get away from the concept of consumer complaints. The broader, the wider and the deeper the whole concept is made, so that we have
people to look after us and represent the community and do all the things we want to see done, the more room there will still be for the little complaint of the single consumer on the matter which affects him or her. We do not want to get away from consumer complaints. This Amendment does not stop any wider, broader or deeper concept being involved as well. There is no reason why we should not have this Amendment and I hope your Lordships will vote for it.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I am afraid that, like other speakers, I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. He makes one point, which is true, of course, and that is that this Amendment is limited to aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the Authority from doing what it can with aircraft that are not registered in the United Kingdom. Had I tried to include them, no doubt I should have been told that they have no jurisdiction in many of the matters with which this Amendment hopes to deal. I am afraid I dismiss that argument completely, and I am totally dissatisfied with the other arguments which the Minister has put forward. I must therefore press this Amendment to a Division, even at this late hour. I feel that consumer representation is a most important principle, and it is only too clear from the Bill, and from the Minister's reply, that we are retrogressing rather than progressing in this direction.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Monson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V. [Teller.]

Seear, Bs.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kennet, L.

Somers, L.

Collison, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Strange, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Foot, L.

Merrivale, L.

White, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Balerno, L.

Belstead, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bolton, L.

Amory, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carrington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redmayne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Helens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Savile, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Vivian, L.

Gage, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oakshott, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.53 p.m.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Special provisions as respects certain functions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, leave out from (" 1958 ") and insert (" 1971 ").
The noble Lord said: These are just drafting Amendments. The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 has been replaced by the new Act of 1971, and these Amendments merely reflect consequential new references. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 31, leave out (" 5 ") and insert (" 8 ").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 5, as amended agreed to. Clause 6 [Financial Provisions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 38, after (" revenue ") insert (" (including any grant towards revenue made to it in pursuance of section 10(1) of this Act) ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Carrington. In the earlier Committee on this Bill there was some uncertainty among your Lordships, as there was also in another place, in inter
752
-preting the duty laid down in Clause 6(1) of the Bill. Amendment No. 9 has been put forward with the intention of making it clear that the revenue of the Authority will include grants which may be made available by the Secretary of State, as well as revenue which the Authority may obtain in the form of fees and charges. The Authority will thus be able to aggregate all forms of revenue so as to balance its books and meet the duty in this clause from the outset. This duty is something quite distinct from the question of the Authority's becoming self-supporting, without further need of subvention. The question of the full recovery of the cost of the Authority's functions and the time by which the Authority should become self-supporting is a separate matter on which the Authority will be given guidance under Clause 3(2) and on which there may be something more to be said on the next Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: As the noble Lord said, this subject was raised on the Committee stage. He said there was some uncertainty about Clause 6. It was not uncertainty, it was dissatisfaction. We thought the clause was a mistake. It was a mistake that this Authority, which is not a commercial authority but a body which has the responsibility of regulating a whole field of air transport affairs, should be expected to pay for itself, one year with another. We thought it could not be self-supporting. The noble Lord has gone some way to emphasise the fact that there will be grants and that paying one year with another can include a grant from Her Majesty's Government. I should have thought that the next Amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would have gone

753
further in some respects, but in other respects I can accept that it is difficult to see how the Government could place upon themselves such an obligation. I am grateful that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to meet our point to this extent.
I want to ask only one question, and whether one undertaking can be given. It was not simply a matter of the Authority's having to pay its way, one year with another. A doubt which we expressed was the possibility that the Authority, in arranging its own affairs, would have to cost-subsidise one aspect of its responsibilities with revenues received from another aspect of its responsibilities. We thought it was quite wrong to have to collect from, say, aircraft engineers or from the aircraft manufacturers fees for simplification which would be required to pay for administrative work and regulatory work in other activities of the Authority. I want an undertaking as clearly as it is possible to express it that there shall be no requirement on this Authority to cross-subsidise one function with revenues received from another. If the noble Lord can give us that assurance in clear terms then we shall be most grateful to him.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: So far as I concerned it was a matter more of confusion than dissatisfaction. I felt that, in a phrase which became well known to those of us who served on the Select Committee, there was very little between the two sides on this particular subject. I therefore welcome the Amendment which clarifies a situation that was rather obscure beforehand. Since we are taking the two Amendments separately, I will reserve what I have to say on the further implications of this matter to Amendment No. 10.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to give a brief welcome to this Amendment and thank my noble friend who gave an undertaking at the last stage of the Committee to look at this matter again. I am grateful to him for moving the Amendment and for clarifying this issue.
LORD SANDFORD: The Amendment is not designed to deal with the rather wider issue that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, went on to mention in response
754
to my moving Amendment No. 9. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick asked me about cross-subsidisation, and I am glad to be able to give him the reassurance that he wanted. I do not think this arises on the Amendment, but I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no intention that any one broad category of function should subsidise another. The revenue obtained from fees and charges in respect of the regulation of the industry will not, for example, be used to subsidise losses in providing the air navigation services. The Secretary of State has adequate powers to deal with that under Clause 9.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Grants and loans by Secretary of State]:
10.3 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 14, at end insert (" and shall make such grants as he considers sufficient to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ").
The noble Lord said: As I have already said, there is not very much between the Government and those of us on these Benches and, probably, those noble Lords who spoke on this matter in the Committee. We are all agreed that revenue should cover expenses for the Authority, and in the last Amendment it was spelt out that revenue should include the grants from the Government. We are all agreed, and have had notable assurances, that the Government intend to make adequate grants over a period of time at the beginning of the Authority's life to enable it to do its job well. I think I understand—and I should be grateful for an answer from the Minister on this matter—that in the foreseeable future the Government consider that their grants will cover the administrative costs on these matters of the general administration of the Authority's function that my Amendment covers.
The general feeling in the Committee was, and certainly the feeling of people I have talked to since is, that it would be highly unfortunate if such costs of running the Authority, which have little

755
to do with running an airline in the terms which our competitors know, had to be passed on to the airlines themselves and were not carried by the Government. It is the established practice for Civil Service functions like these to be funded by the Treasury even in this country. There is an almost infinite variety of Government functions in the same broad category whose costs are not passed on to the operating body themselves: for example, by the Department of the Environment, the railways, the road transport operators, and by the Department of Employment for industrial relations service.
Abroad, too, there are similar situations. In the United States, costs of the Civil Aeronautics Board and a substantial proportion of those of the Federal Aviation Agency are borne out of public funds. Australia recovers only about one-fifth of her expenditure of more than 100 million Australian dollars a year on the direction of civil aviation; and this type of cost is carried in Canada, in Japan, in France, West Germany and the Netherlands. If costs of this kind are passed on to British Overseas Airways or British European Airways, or the other bodies concerned, it might put them at a serious competitive disadvantage because they themselves would then have to charge more. It is my understanding that the Government do not want to see this happen and are going to ensure that it does not happen. But so far as the Bill stands, and as far as the assurances we have received stand, we have at the moment merely assurances that the Government are going to give particular subventions which they hope will cover the immediate future. But of course the Government cannot ensure what is going to happen after that. Nor are the Government in any way bound to covering these particular expenses. As I say, I think there is a general feeling that these expenses should be covered by the Government.
Therefore, I have put forward this Amendment which suggests that the Secretary of State
" shall make such grants as he considers sufficient to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ".
This is to ensure that those fields of expenditure which cannot and should not be
756
reclaimed from the operating airlines or from the customers in any shape or form should be covered by the Government. It goes considerably beyond Clauses 33 and 34, I think—subsection (4) of each was quoted by the Government at the last stage. We are talking about much wider expenses than these. What we are saying is that the Government should see that the basic charges which are not part of the commercial set-up should be looked after by the Government.
I put forward an Amendment submitted to me by the advisers in the airways, which said:
" and shall make such grants as are necessary to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ".
But I took considerable note of what was said on all sides again in the Select Cornmittee—that there must be very strong financial control over these matters from the very beginning, and that there should be a financial discipline accepted by the Authority. Therefore, I have amended the Amendment which was suggested to me, by saying:
" and shall make such grants as he considers sufficient to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ".
That covers the point made by noble Lords in the Committee, that it is up to the Secretary of State to say:"No; you are spending too much on these functions and I am not going to give you as much as you want or as much as you spent last year. I am going to give you as much as I consider sufficient." I cannot see what there is in this Amendment that the Government should object to; but I can see that if the Government accepted it it would allay a great many fears in the whole of the industry at the moment. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before my noble friend replies may I make a few comments? This Amendment is remarkably similar to the one moved in Committee. Indeed, when I first saw it I thought that the noble Lord had received his brief a couple of days later than I had received mine. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already mentioned that it could be argued that the whole of the financial clauses, Clauses 6 to 10, are indeed wrongly set This new Authority is not a commercial operation. The new Authority will not be supported in a similar way to the F.A.A. and the

757
C.A.B., and all that we can do to assist it in persuading the Government to give an undertaking that grants will be available for certain services, should be done.
I think there is some difficulty in regard to the Amendment that is now before us, and perhaps my noble friend will draw attention to this, because as I read it the Amendment is mandatory whereas the clause is permissive. Also the question of administrative costs as phrased in the Amendment possibly goes a good deal wider than might be generally acceptable. I should like my noble friend to give a clear undertaking that grants will be available for certain services for years to come, not just the five-year or the seven-year period that we have heard about so far, and particularly for services such as the statistical section which we hope will be set up, and possibly the enforcement bureau and policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned at the last stage. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us this undertaking in clear and unequivocal terms.
10.12 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am afraid I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment, but I hope to show that there are good reasons for that and to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the airlines—and particularly the British airlines—will not be put at any serious disadvantage by the arrangements that are proposed. I confirm that it is the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to adhere to the principle that air travellers should not be subsidised by the taxpayers and that these broad aviation services about which we are speaking should be, generally speaking, financed by the air travellers, particularly as air transport is not a service which is enjoyed by all members of the community, some of whom indeed suffer only the discomfort of aircraft noise.
I recognise that other civil aviation administrations throughout the world—and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned some of them—; may not be pursuing an overall comprehensive policy of full cost recovery as vigorously as we are doing, but I would remind the noble Lord and the Committee that by far the greater part of the Authority's expenditure—80 per cent. of it—arises from the provision of air navigation services. In that respect
758
the process of cost recovery is being undertaken in orderly stages by international agreement, at least in respect of the Euro-control countries, which are the ones that are chiefly affected and with whom we are in competition.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Did he say that 80 per cent. of the costs are recovered from the air navigation services?
LORD SANDFORD: No, I said that 80 per cent. of the Authority's expenditure arises from the provision of air navigation services—much the greater part—and in respect of those the process of cost recovery is by international agreement and is planned in a series of stages.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred to Clauses 33 and 34 and I have already indicated that there is scope under those clauses for negotiation of the precise functions for which the Secretary of State may accept financial responsibility. The negotiations and the discussions of details will be a matter for the Secretary of State and the Authority, although clearly the Secretary of State will need to obtain normal Parliamentary agreement to make public funds available. The question of cross subsidisation is also relevant here, and I have already confirmed that the Secretary of State has powers to ensure that the revenue under one group of services will not be used to subsidise another.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before the noble Lord finishes, I would point out that he seems to have forgotten the unequivocal undertaking that he was going to give me.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Is the noble Lord going to rise to give the unequivocal undertaking?
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether the noble Earl could remind me of the particular point.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I asked the noble Lord whether he would give an assurance that grants will be for a longer period than the five years we have so far heard about.
LORD SANDFORD: I think I dealt with that point by explaining—or maybe I was relying on our earlier discussion—

759
that the greater part of the Authority's expenditure, 80 per cent., arises from the provision of air navigation services, and the present intention is to recover the cost of those by international agreement over a five-year period. Another point on which I can give an assurance is that there is scope for negotiation under Clauses 33 and 34 over certain functions for which the Secretary of State assumes financial responsibility. There is no time limit to that. But beyond those two assurances I cannot go.
LORD BESWICK: Am I not right in saying that as in this Bill we are proposing to saddle the Authority with a debt of between £30 and £50 million, and as it was recognised that it would never be possible within the next decade for the Civil Aviation Authority to meet its costs and service a debt of this magnitude, my right honourable friend was given an undertaking that the transition would be extended? Is not this what the noble Earl is asking for—that it should be repeated by the noble Lord?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: If the noble Lord would like to have another question, to gather the whole thing together, would he care to comment on the other 20 per cent. of the costs? Eighty per cent. is a lot, but 20 per cent. in real terms is a great sum. What is going to happen in regard to that?
LORD SANDFORD: I think we are going rather wide of the Amendment, which related to costs of general administration. But as I have been asked the question about the initial debt and charges on it, I would confirm that this amounts to something of the order of £1·5 million, and depreciation charges £1·8 million—something of that order. But the point I was making was that much the larger section is the air navigation charges, and there are safeguards in the process of cost recovery in respect of those which will go a long way to give assurance to our own airlines in respect of the disadvantage they might be placed in vis-à-vis their international competitors if this part of the costs were being recovered other than by international agreement.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I should like first of all to say that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was not entirely
760
right; I did not get my brief two days later than he did. I actually listened to the debates in the Select Committee and the admirable Amendments which he put forward, and thought that as a result this particular Amendment needed to be put forward at the next stage. I have heard nothing in this debate to make me think otherwise.
I should like to comment briefly on his point that this is a permissive clause into which I should put a mandatory Amendment. I do not think there is any substance in that point. To say that the Secretary of State may at the beginning, and then"and shall ", is perfectly possible; I do not see that there is anything very wrong with the Amendment there. I must confess that again I find all this extremely baffling. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said some words about"cost retrieval ", and not necessarily a passing on of the costs of air travel to the whole community and to the poor old taxpayer, with which I felt considerable sympathy. But the fact remains that the Bill, and the assurances that we have had from various Ministers about how it is to be implemented, do seem to me to leave the various authorities in the maximum uncertainty as to what is to happen.
On the one hand they are not being given the sort of full old Tory, and indeed full old Whig, treatment of"Cover the costs. Get all your costs back, and get on with it." They are given assurances that a great many of these things will be covered for a number years, and that the situation will not be such that they become uncompetitive with other airlines. On the other hand, they are not being given the real security they need. They are neither being given the full competition treatment nor the real security.
This is a situation in which you get the maximum amount of muddle. It is exactly the same kind of situation as that which has led to the position we have to-day with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, where people really do not know what is going on. The law gives a very broad framework within which you have assurances from Ministers which may last a number of years, or may not last very long; one does not really know, and the situation is such that a Government can change its mind.

761
I am obviously not going to press this Amendment. The noble Lord who is actually in charge of this Bill has arrived, and in his presence I would not dare to do anything so much like lèse-majesté as to press an Amendment. But I think that we really can ask for a much more serious explanation of the Government's intentions on Clauses 6 to 10 than we have had so far, and I hope that at the next stage we shall have it. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Compensation in respect of planning decisions relating to safety of aerodromes, etc.]:
10.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to ask my noble friends two points on Clause 17, and I have given them notice. I am sorry to bring them up at a comparatively late stage of the Bill. As I understand it, the point of Clause 17 is that where there is, as is usually the case, a public safety zone at the end of the runways of an aerodrome, in the case of planning permission being refused for the erection of a building there, or any other development, or possibly the erection of a building above a certain height, the owner of the land may serve what is known as a"purchase notice"on the local planning authority saying that his land is perfectly useless without the planning permission, and requiring the planning authority to buy it. Under this clause, the liability is then passed to the Civil Aviation Authority. It is their public safety zone; it is their fault that development cannot take place, so they have to buy it. This seems to be eminently reasonable. Indeed, nothing that I say should be interpreted in any way as affecting the improvement in the situation which I think this provision will bring about in relation to the C.A.A.'s aerodromes. Presumably, they are those set out in Schedule 2, and I do not want Aberdeenshire, Argyll, Inverness-shire Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness
762
and Shetland to think that I am wishing in any way to derogate from what they are getting under the Bill.
That was all very well when the Bill was introduced, because it dealt only with the Civil Aviation Authority's airports. But now, under Clause 29, which was introduced at a late stage in another place, the Secretary of State has taken powers to deal with all aerodromes. I wonder whether my noble friends can tell me why it is that it is only in the case of these, at the moment, rather minor Civil Aviation Authority aerodromes that the duty of paying compensation on a purchase order has been placed upon the aerodrome operator. It seems to me that public safety zones around some of the larger airports are probably more onerous on the planning authorities concerned, and it is of course by no means always the local planning authority in whose area the airport actually exists that gets the majority of the benefit from it. Very often the aerodrome is outside the large town which is the focal point upon which the aerodrome centres. That is what I should like first of all to know why it is only the C.A.A.'s aerodromes that are affected, and not aerodromes designated by the Secretary of State under Clause 29.
The second point is possibly even broader, but it is one cognate to this subject. It is not only public safety zones that cause planning restrictions as a result of the operation of aerodromes. Some county councils—and I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is momentarily not in his place, because Surrey is one of them—have accepted as a matter of policy certain levels of noise on what is known as the N.N.I., the Noise Number Index, within which certain sorts of buildings shall not be allowed to be erected. This is particularly relevant in the areas immediately at the end of the runways of aerodromes. If the public safety zone is a matter which in the case of a purchase notice for refused planning permission is going to attract compensation from the C.A.A., and I suggest also from the operators of other designated aerodromes, have the Government any views about extending this provision more widely, where an enlightened local planning authority has decided to adopt rather wider restrictions based not so much on the physical requirements of a

763
public safety zone, but on the environmental requirements in regard to the noise caused by the aerodrome?
This must be of great interest to people who live around Heathrow, Gatwick, and, at any rate for the moment, Stansted and Luton; and, no doubt in years to come, Essex and possibly Kent when Foulness comes in to existence. There are also many other large aerodromes, such as Ringway and Elmdon. All those local planning authorities have, at the moment, the possibility of this liability falling upon them for the public safety zone, and also for the noise standards, and I should be grateful if one of my noble friends could say what it is that the Government are thinking of doing, if anything, about this.
LORD SANDFORD: On the second point that my noble friend has raised, the Committee and he will be aware that the Government are reviewing the whole question of compensation, including the effects of aircraft noise, public safety zones and so on. The view of my right honourable friend is that it will be more appropriate to consider points such as my noble friend has just raised in the light of the findings of that review, rather than to try to relate them to compensation in the field of safety arrangements. On the first point which he raised, I will, if I may, write to my noble friend.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Grant and refusal of air transport licences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry to intervene on these Questions, Whether the clause shall stand part, but this is a small point and I hope an assurance can be given by my noble friend. As I understand it, this particular group of clauses is a new provision taking over from the Air Transport Licensing Board the duties of issuing licences, revoking them and suspending them. At any rate hitherto there have been a set of regulations which have governed the procedure and the sort of notices which have to be given. I think they provide for a hearing at which certain people may appear before the Board and make representations
764
whether or not the licence should be granted or revoked, and matters of that sort. It is not altogether clear to me from reading this group of clauses—and I think Clause 22 is the relevant one on this point—whether there are to be hearings, but certainly something is to be prescribed by regulations because there is the word"prescribed"in Clause 22(1).
The point on which I should be glad if my noble friend could give some sort of guidance or assurance is this. Under the old regulations there was a large number of types of people who were entitled to be heard as of right at the hearings before the Board and, for all I know, on appeals, if there were any, afterwards—and there is provision for appeals in this Bill. The moment has arrived, or may arrive, when we have the possibility of different forms of air transport services being provided (I am particularly thinking of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing services, which could be on quite small sites; and, for all I know, there may be helicopter provisions as well) where the people vitally concerned are not only the sort of people who used to be involved in the old regulations. I am on a local authority point again, and really a local planning authority point. Could my noble friend tell me whether, at hearings of this sort—they may not happen very often, but there should be provision for them, I think, in the regulations—local planning authorities will be able to come and make representations, preferably as of right, when a new service such as I have mentioned is being proposed which could have a substantial impact upon the inhabitants of the surrounding area and as to which it would he the very proper duty of a local authority or a local planning authority at least to make its voice heard by the Civil Aviation Authority when they are considering the application for or the possible suspension or revocation of a licence? I hope my noble friend will be able to give some assistance on this matter.
EARL FERRERS: My noble friend has asked what the situation will be with regard to people having a right to be heard by the Civil Aviation Authority. I can assure him that the persons who will have the right to be heard by the Authority in connection with air transport licensing matters and such things as

765
he has referred to will be set out in the procedural regulations which the Secretary of State will be drawing up. Careful consideration will certainly be given to the points which my noble friend has raised, but whatever conclusion is reached I am sure that in practice these large planning authorities—such as, for instance, the Greater London Council, and so forth—will be consulted on all significant developments which are of concern to them.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Supplementary provisions relating to air transport licensing]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 25, line 41, leave out from beginning to (" to ") in line 42.
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 at the same time. During the earlier Committee stage of this Bill considerable doubts were expressed about the provision of an unrestricted right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I emphasised then that the Government had considerable sympathy with the points made, and I repeated assurances which my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade had given in which he said that the Secretary of State would uphold the Authority's decision unless there was a major reason for departing from it. However, this did not satisfy your Lordships, and an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull was passed and went into the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will not think it churlish of me to say that the object of this Amendment, No. 11, is to remove the words which he successfully persuaded your Lordships to put into the Bill. But the object of the next one, Amendment No. 12, is not only to put back the effect of his Amendment but actually to strengthen it.
My noble friend's Amendment would have obliged the Secretary of State to have regard to the objectives put on the Authority by Clause 3; but this Amendment will oblige the Secretary of State to take into account the policy guidance as well. I trust, therefore, that my noble friend will realise that the Government have been concerned to meet the
766
point of view he put forward and which your Lordships expressed the desire to put into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, chided me on the last occasion, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, reiterated the chiding this afternoon, for saying that there was not very much between us. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will realise that in fact there was not very much between us and that we have tried to meet the points which were made. When speaking on Amendment No. 6, the noble Lord said that he hoped that the Government would have some regard to the views expressed in Committee. I hope that this Amendment will clearly convince him that the Government have had regard to the views expressed and that we have tried not only to support those views but actually to strengthen them.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I assure my noble friend that I have never considered him churlish; in fact, I have always felt him to be none other than magnanimous. He has been particularly magnanimous over this Amendment, to the extent that the Government have changed their mind and have gone a certain distance to meet the wishes of the majority in the earlier Committee. It gives me great pleasure warmly to support this Amendment to a clause which I, and others, believe to be one of the most crucial in the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: It only emphasises the fact that it is a pity that this important Bill should be brought on at this time of night, that we are really unable to say in sufficient words how grateful we are for the way in which the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Minister listened to the representations which we made to him following the last Committee stage. I am extremely grateful to his right honourable friend for the way in which he has considered what we had to say. The noble Earl said that this Amendment strengthened what his noble friend put into the Bill. I wanted to go even further; but the fact that we have gone some little way is something for which I express gratitude.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for welcoming these Amendments. I will only say, after the strictures which Lord Beswick passed earlier, that his

767
pleasantries on this occasion will taste like nectar to my right honourable friend.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 12, at end insert (" and the Secretary of State shall, when considering whether to give a direction in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection and when considering the terms of any such direction, have regard in particular to the duties imposed on the Authority by section 3 of this Act.").—(Earl Ferrers.)
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulation of provision of accommodation in aircraft]:
10.42 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 27, line 34, at end insert—
(" (d) for appeals against refusals, variations, suspensions or revocations of licences to lie to a prescribed body or person (which may be a court, a Minister of the Crown, a body or person constituted or appointed by or under the regulations of such other body or person as the Secretary of State thinks fit) and for applying the provisions of any enactment, with or without modifications, in relation to such appeals;").
The noble Earl said. During the Committee's consideration of Clause 26, doubts were expressed whether the county court was the right place to consider appeals in respect of the Authority's decisions on travel organisers' licences. Your Lordships felt very strongly about the Amendment which was put forward, pressed it, and succeeded in having it accepted. Unfortunately, the effect of the Amendment was to remove entirely from the Bill any right of appeal against refusal by the Authority to grant a travel organiser's licence. I am sure that that was not the intention of your Lordships.
The question is not whether provision should be made for such an appeal, but what provision should be made. I think this is a difficult question. It was one which was touched on in the Air Transport Licensing Board's Annual Report and there have been further consultations with that body about it since the Report
768
was written. It is a question which I think should be discussed a little further, not only with the Board but also with representatives of the travel trade, with whom there will be consultations when the regulations are being drawn up. I think noble Lords will agree that more time should be allowed for this. The purpose, therefore, of this Amendment is to reinstate the provision for right of appeal in terms which will allow any arrangement to be made by regulations when there has been time for those consultations to take place and for all the problems to be looked at in greater depth. I hope that this will meet with the acceptance of your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: As the noble Lord has said, this is a holding operation. I think it is as good a solution as we can find at the present time.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Perhaps I may add my thanks to my noble friend and to his right honourable friend for meeting the Committee's wishes on what again I stress is a very important clause. I believe the Committee put up a good case and I am glad that it has been accepted.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Design, construction and maintenance of aircraft]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 28, line 28, at end insert (" and, if the advice was given in consequence of consultations required by virtue of this subsection, to publish particulars of the case forthwith in the prescribed manner ").
The noble Earl said: This again is an Amendment which gives effect to the concern which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Balfour in the Committee stage. He expressed the desire that it should be possible to publish differences of opinion should they occur between the Airworthiness Requirements Board and the Civil Aviation Authority. My noble friend was good enough to withdraw his Amendment and this Amendment has been put down to try to meet the point with which he dealt. He rightly made the point that the Bill as drafted could lead to serious delays before differences of view became known. We accept that

769
if the Authority decided not to proceed on advice from the Board on matters on which they are required by the Bill to consult—for example on such things as airworthiness standards—it is right that the particulars should be published forthwith. The Amendment, if accepted, will provide for this and I hope that it will meet with your Lordships' approval.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: This Amendment entirely meets the point I made on Second Reading and again in Committee, and I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for having put this Amendment down. It fulfils what I desired in a much better way than the Amendment which I drafted and withdrew on Committee stage.
10.45 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 21, leave out from (" shall ") to end of line 22 and insert (" designate as the chairman of the board a member of it nominated by the board ").
The noble Earl said: Again this Amendment arises out of a point made during the earlier stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and other noble Lords presented an Amendment, the purpose of which was to provide that the Authority should designate as Chairman of the Airworthiness Requirements Board a member nominated by the Board. Although the Government had some dubiety about this at the time, we, reasonable as we always are, considered the point in detail and came to recognise the force of the arguments put forward in Committee. We accept that the Board should nominate its own Chairman. However, I hope that in practice it will transpire that it will be possible for a member of the Authority with executive responsibility for airworthiness also to be Chairman of the Board. We are grateful to noble Lords for raising this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will not consider it churlish of me to cavil at the wording of the Amendment he put forward, but I am advised that, though there is nothing between us, as he will appreciate, what we want to do is more appropriately expressed in the words of our Amendment I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I suspect that the noble Earl has difficulty in coping with all the nectar falling around him, but I am grateful to him and to his right honourable friend for meeting the point I tried to make.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BESWICK: On this clause the noble Earl, who now has so much nectar around him, undertook to consider the drafting. I pointed out that it seemed to me clumsy in relation to the specification of persons appearing to the Authority to be representative and the noble Earl undertook to look again at the wording. No Amendment has appeared on the Marshalled List and I wonder if he can say whether the task of making it tidier was beyond him and his advisers.
EARL FERRERS: I should hate to say that it was beyond us. We looked at this point carefully. I am glad the noble Lord has mentioned it, because I was going to refer to it if he had not done so. We have looked at this again, but I am advised that any attempt at simplification would result in less and not greater clarity. If I may illustrate this by referring to the two proposals made in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested that paragraph (a) should be omitted on the ground that paragraph (b) did all that was necessary. If that were to happen, this would mean that the representative members could all be manufacturers or all operators or all insurers or all pilots. This is because the list of persons at the end of paragraph (b) is linked by the conjunction"or ". It reads:
"…appearing to the Authority to be representative of manufacturers or operators or insurers of pilots of aircraft);…"
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, then put forward the ingenious suggestion that this difficulty could be overcome if the words were linked by"and ". He insinuated that his expertise of half a century of doing The Times crossword puzzle enabled him to come adroitly to this conclusion. I thought, on reflection, that he must have been doing The Times crossword ten years before I was born, which did give a certain satisfaction to me, but probably not to the noble Lord. But

771
perhaps he does not always get the crossword puzzle right. I am bound to say that on that occasion, having the mental alacrity of a snail, I was unable to respond quite as quickly as I might have done to his non-manuscript Amendment. I think he would agree, on reflection, that this would mean that the body or persons nominating the members of the new A.R.B. would have to be representatives of all four groups of person. I do not think there is a body which could do this. I hope that this explanation will satisfy noble Lords that the simplification of Clause 27(4) is not quite as easy as it might appear at first sight. The clause may appear to be complicated, but there is no ambiguity in it, nor any doubt, I suggest, as to its meaning.
Perhaps I might make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, how it would operate. If there were to be, for instance, a Board of, say, 16 members, one must represent a manufacturer, one must represent an operator, one must represent the insurers and one must represent the pilots. That gives us four members, and therefore satisfies paragraph (a). In order to satisfy paragraph (b) five more members must represent manufacturers, operators, insurers or pilots. For example, there could be two more manufacturers representatives, two more operators' representatives and one more pilots' representative, which would bring the Board up to nine—more than half. The remaining seven members can be anyone at all, including four manufacturers' representatives and so on. I hope that that has explained the position to the noble Lord, and that he will accept that this is the best we can do.
LORD KINGS NORTON: I am most interested to have the explanation the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just given. In point of fact, I think my suggestion was a sound one. It is what in crossword puzzle circles we call a clue, and we leave it to the solvers to work out the solution. This, I assure the noble Earl, could have been done. Nevertheless, I am prepared to say that this, complicated as it is, worked out by appropriately clear-headed people, will produce a Board of the right composition.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulation of noise and vibration of aircraft]:
10.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 33, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) No action shall lie against the person who is the operator of an aircraft, his servants or agents if the requirements of this section are complied with in relation to that aircraft.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the welcome new clause introduced in another place at a fairly late stage, dealing with the regulation of noise from vibration of aircraft. It has been pointed out to me by my advisers that the clause provides penalties for non-compliance, but no safeguards for the consequences of compliance, or, for that matter, protection aganst litigation. I understand that both British and international carriers are genuinely worried about this aspect of the Bill, being quite often concerned with costly claims for injunctions which turn out to be claims that have occurred under normal operations. There is a general belief that there should be a protection, which this small Amendment I am moving would provide. In view of the nectar that has been falling on all sides of the Committee, I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this simple Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, but I do not think I am in any danger of spoiling our happy relations, because I am pretty sure that I can satisfy the noble Earl that the purpose of his Amendment is in fact fully achieved by the clause as it stands. I am advised that no action will lie at common law in respect of an act carried out in compliance with a statutory requirement. Here the aircraft operator will be under a statutory duty to comply with the requirement, and so long as he does so without negligence he cannot be sued for doing so. If he does not comply with the requirement he may be liable if he flies in a way that is actionable, though like other operators, he will still have the protection of Section 40(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. I hope, in view of that explanation, that the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for the assurance given, and I am happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.56 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 33, line 30, leave out from (" which ") to (" is ") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: Clause 29(1) says that the Secretary of State may publish notices telling the operators of aircraft what to do in order to avoid noise and vibration when they are operating from designated aerodromes. To see what that means we have to turn to subsection (11) of Clause 29, and we read there that"designated aerodrome"means any aerodrome which is designated by the Secretary of State. So that is all right. But there are other qualifications: it must not only be designated, but vested in or managed by the Authority, or licensed for public use in pursuance of an Air Navigation Order. That looks all right at first reading, but I understand that"licensed for public use"covers aerodromes which are licensed for public transport or instruction and it does not cover aerodromes used by flying clubs or private transport, for private instruction and that kind of thing. There are a lot of rather small aerodromes up and down the country from which people are flying small aircraft which, if they are flown in a certain way and, above all, at a certain frequency—if they are flown very often, buzzing round and round—may give rise to a noise nuisance. It seems to me that the Secretary of State should be as much empowered in giving directions in respect of those aerodromes as he is in respect of all others. I therefore seek to remove those two subsidiary qualifications and to allow the Secretary of State to designate any aerodrome for the purpose of giving directions to those operating from them. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: The problem of disturbance from noise is most serious around major airports—that is obvious enough—and those are the ones presently vested in or managed by the British Airports Authority, or those licensed for public use. However, the Government accept that other and smaller aerodromes may in certain circumstances cause significant disturbance in their immediate
774
vicinity if aircraft are flown in a particular way or at a particular frequency or at night. While there is some scope for local planning authorities to control the growth of aerodromes within their areas, it is true that unforeseen changes and increased activity can result in increased noise disturbance, sometimes at night, which could not be effectively controlled through planning procedures which were not designed for developments of that kind. We are therefore disposed to accept this Amendment, so that central Government will have at their disposal powers to control noise at any aerodrome. I ought to make it clear that these potential powers will not be invoked lightly. We shall look to the local population, perhaps through the local authority, to conduct a useful dialogue with the aerodrome management, who rarely fail to take careful account of local opinion. But when it is clear to the Secretary of State that a substantial body of responsible opinion is calling, and has been calling unsuccessfully, for relief from aircraft noise nuisance, he will then consider taking action under this clause of the Bill in the case of non-public aerodromes. He will also wish to satisfy himself that the problems of enforceability and manpower which the Department would have to face in exercising these controls over these aerodromes can be resolved.
On Question, Whether Clause 29, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have, I am sorry to say, four more planning points to put before the House. Two conveniently arise on this clause, and I hope that I may seek assurances briefly from my noble friend on both of them. The first, I think, is already implicit in what he has said: that in subsection (4)(a) there is a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to consult any body appearing to him to be representative of operators and aircraft using the aerodrome he proposes to designate. There is no statutory requirement in the Bill that he should consult the local planning authority. In view of what he said, I apprehend that he will have no difficulty in giving the assurance that the Secretary of State will do so before making a designation order. The second point is an ancillary one and does not actually

775
arise on this clause but out of the designation procedure. The Airports Authorities Act 1965 is being amended so that in the case of any designated aerodrome within the meaning of Clause 29 schemes for sound insulation can be instituted. Again I hope that my noble friend can tell me that before any such scheme is instituted in any area as a result of designation of an aerodrome or in connection with a designated aerodrome the local authority will be consulted.
LORD SANDFORD: I can give my noble friend the assurances he asked for, namely, that the local authorities would be consulted about the designation of aerodromes in or adjacent to their areas and also about possible noise abatement requirements.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry. My noble friend has not quite got the point. It is not the noise abatement requirements only; it is also grants for insulation schemes under the 1965 Act which is being extended as a result of and consequential upon the designation procedure in Clause 29. I feel sure that before any such scheme was brought in the local authority would be bound to be consulted, but I would like an assurance from my noble friend.
LORD SANDOFRD: I meant to include that in the general phrase"the noise abatement requirements ".
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Management etc.]:
11.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 34, line 18, at end insert—
(" ( ) (a) The Authority having the management of any aerodrome to which this section applies shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for any local authority in whose area the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated or whose area is in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Authority to report annually to the Secretary of State of any such consultations.")
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the management of airfields which
776
the Authority will be taking over. The point was raised in another place and I do not think it was fully answered at that time—perhaps they thought to come to it later on and they never did. Despite Section 8 of the 1968 Act giving those operators and users and residents around the airfield the right to form consultative committees, there had been a general lack of consultation in certain airfields. Under this Bill, with the Authority having the power to designate airfields, there will be no power to set up consultative committees. This Amendment is lifting Section 4 out of the 1968 Act to give the Authority power to set up these consultative committees and, at the same time, putting a duty on the Authority to submit an Annual Report to the Secretary of State. I hope the Government will see that this is a reasonable safeguard for those who are users and residents of the designated airfields, and that they will be able to agree to the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: Once again I seek to demonstrate to my noble friend that his Amendment is satisfactorily met in other ways, and is therefore not necessary. Everyone will sympathise with the purpose and thinking behind it. Subparagraph (a) seeks to require the establishment of consultative machinery on the lines set out in Section 8 of the 1968 Act. I am sure we all agree that there is need for the Authority to consult local interests, but I do not see any necessity for it to be spelt out in the Bill. We can safely rely on the Authority to do this on its own initiative. Secondly, if there were any real failure on the part of the Authority to consult local interests, the Secretary of State can always designate any of the Authority's aerodromes under existing legislation in Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1968.
With regard to the second part, the proposal that the Authority should report annually to the Secretary of State on any consultation that may have taken place, I am not convinced this would serve a sufficiently valuable purpose—although it would serve some purpose—to justify making statutory provision for it.
With those explanations, I hope it will be agreed that the first objective of my noble friend is already met under existing legislation, or can be met, and that the second is not really needed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance upon this matter, and I do not intend to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Additional Provisions Relating to Constitution, etc., of Civil Aviation Authority]:
11.8 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 65, line 21, at end insert (" or employed by the Authority in pursuance of paragraph 13A of this Schedule.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I could be allowed to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 together. I am sorry it was not possible to table these Amendments earlier, and I apologise for the short notice. I hope, however, that they will meet the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, at an earlier stage on this Bill when they expressed concern that the terms and conditions of employees of the A.R.B., and the Civil Service should remain the same when they are transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Amendment No. 21 provides for the staff of the Air Registration Board to be offered employment by the Authority, and for their terms and conditions of employment, taken as a whole, to be no less favourable than those they had when they were in the Air Registration Board. Provision is made for the offer to be irrevocable for three months so as to give the employees an opportunity of considering it and either accepting it or rejecting it. Similarly, Amendment No. 20 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the terms and conditions of employment offered to civil servants who transfer to the Authority are at least as good as those which they have at the date on which the contract is offered.
As I explained previously, the Minister for Trade has given an explicit assurance that former A.R.B. staff and civil servants transferring to the Authority will have terms and conditions of service at least as good as those they had previously.
We felt that this assurance was enough. Noble Lords opposite felt that they would like it written into the Bill. We have written it into the Bill, and I therefore hope that these Amendments will satisfy noble Lords.
LORD KINGS NORTON: Certainly in replacing the Amendment which I proposed in Committee, and withdrew, by these three Amendments here, the end which I sought has indeed been achieved. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords opposite for putting into this Schedule the assurance which we had had orally. I am sure that everyone in the present Air Registration Board will feel greatly comforted by this. It is an excellent thing that the Amendment seeks to give the same kind of assurance to civil servants. But I should like to mention, although it might be difficult to do anything about it at this stage, a letter which is in Flight of to-day, headed,"Staffing the C.A.A.", where aparently some civil servants feel that, in transferring even in conditions which are as good as they have, their future promotion possibilities are restricted because they are in a smaller organisation than the one they were used to. Whether anything can be done about this, I do not know. But, in expressing pleasure at this Amendment, I wonder whether the Government could look at this particular difficulty which has been raised in this letter, because it might be that some people transferred will still be rather dissatisfied.
11.13 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: I fear that I cannot be quite as eulogistic about these Amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. I accept that the Government have gone some way to meet the views which were expressed during the proceedings of the Select Committee. But at the same time certain questions remain unanswered. May I take the liberty of reminding the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I put to him on the Select Committee the point that, according to the civil servants' union itself, an undertaking had been given by the Minister of State in another place, though at a private meeting, to the effect that he would establish an independent arbitration machinery whereby contracts offered could be vetted and approved as satisfactory. In his reply during the Select Committee proceedings, Lord Ferrers

779
said that, whereas I had pleaded for carrying out this alleged undertaking, he offered that the Minister would in due course appoint an independent Advisory Committee. I refer to col. 118 of the proceedings of the Select Committee. Indeed, he repeated that offer in col. 121.
I do not see those words—" an independent panel "—in these Amendments, and I am wondering why that is. I hope it is not going to be pleaded that it is not necessary to write it into the Bill. It has been said so often that courts, or equivalent bodies in the future, will not take the trouble to plough through discussions in either House; they go by what is in the Act. I therefore ask whether we can have some explanation, and possibly even an Amendment at this stage, although I am afraid it is too late, which would embody the words"an independent panel"in the Bill.
The other point I want to raise, which is of a more general nature, is something which has been brought to my attention not only by the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, referred just now but as the subject of correspondence I have received. It is the long-term position of some of the civil servants who will lose the jobs which they hold at present. A letter which I received to-day, I presume from one of the people concerned, says:
" The intention of the Government appears to be that people shall be directed into other employment, and the manner of accomplishing this is worthy of comparison with the war-time direction of labour, which of course was very necessary then because the country was in a particular situation."
The writer then continues:
" Is it right that the Government in its actions, as exemplified by this Bill, should once again use the precedent created in peace-time, which will lead, I fear, to repetition? "
I know it is felt in some Civil Service quarters that the present policy of the Government of hiving off certain sections of the existing structure of a nationalised industry like this will mean that they will hive them off into a limbo, where they will have to take their chance as to whether they can secure a job which not only is equitable in terms of remuneration, pension rights, and so forth, but takes advantage of their skills. It is now being thought that the Government will tread very cautiously on this matter, because if they are going to hive
780
off more in the future they will be gradually building up a pool of people who will feel that they have a right to some form of employment which can use the skills that they have acquired. I suggest to the Minister that in the last stage of this Bill in this House he should make a more detailed statement as to what the Government have in mind about this question, so that the anxieties which have been expressed can be allayed.
LORD BESWICK: May I just express my regret again that we are dealng with this Bill so late at night, because this matter is something into which we should go rather more closely. In moving this Amendment the noble Earl said, rather grandly, I thought, that those concerned would have three months in which either to accept or to reject the offer of employment. That sounds very grand, but it is rather like saying,"You can have what I am offering you or you can go without "—especially when we are dealing, as my noble friend Lord Burntwood said, with some individuals who have particular skills which can be employed in this particular direction, although they would have difficulty in finding other places where they could be employed. It is a fact that here, by Act of Parliament, we are deliberately transferring a whole body of men and women from one employer to another. There has been no real consultation with them. They have had nothing to do with this; they are just told that they can have three months in which to make up their minds whether they will change or not.
This is a matter which I think we ought to consider very carefully in the future. In the meantime, I should like to ask one question. I have not gone into this subject, but I take it for granted that there will be a transference of pension rights from the present position to the new position. Supposing that in six months' or a year's time one of the civil servants transferred to accept alternative employment finds that he can take up employment again within the Civil Service, would there still be transferability of pension rights? Are they protected for the future? Is this something which could go some way, at any rate, to give them the feeling that they are not being all that limited in this new field of employment?
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful for what has been said. I am bound to say that I had hoped that these Amendments might have been received with a little more enthusiasm, but I recognise the hesitation which noble Lords have over them, and that it is a genuine hesitation. I will try to deal as best I can with the points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, was concerned that those civil servants who are transferred should, if necessary, have the right of appeal, and that this was not written into the Bill. If I may say so with the greatest respect, I feel that his fears over this matter are a trifle groundless, because it is written specifically in this Amendment No. 20 that at the moment when these people are transferred from their existing employment to the Civil Aviation Authority the Authority must give contracts of employment and terms and conditions of service equally as good as those which they have received previously. That is absolutely written into the Bill, and therefore this is an obligation upon the Authority. Equally, written into the Bill—I think it is Schedule 9—is an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that these contracts are fully as good as the ones which they had received prior to that date. In the event of a dispute, as I explained at an earlier stage, my right honourable friend has said that he will set up a panel to consider such disputes; if these two provisos do not satisfy the people concerned, my right honourable friend would be prepared to set up a panel to investigate, and if necessary the findings of that panel would be made known to those who were complaining. I should have thought that was as good an assurance, both oral and written into the Bill, as one could get.
LORD BURNTWOOD: The noble Earl does mean an independent panel? That was the expression used on the Select Committee, twice.
EARL FERRERS: I think I am right in saying it would be an independent panel, yes. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that I had rather grandly suggested that this offer was open for three months. I think that is a harsh way to put it. The people involved in both the A.R.B. and the C.A.A. know that this transfer is hound to take place. They are going to be required by the
782
Civil Aviation Authority because of their expertise. They have the assurance that their new employment is going to be at least as good, taken as a whole, as the employment they have already got. Having received this assurance and having known these facts, they are then given three months in which to make up their minds. But that does not mean they have not been thinking about it. In other words, when the formal otter is made, it is open for them for three months, if they do not wish to make up their minds earlier. I should have thought that this on the whole should satisfy most people. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said about the article that appeared in Flight. I have not seen it but I understand the reasons which might have prompted it. I think it would be impossible to say that once people have become members of a new authority, and are therefore no longer civil servants, the whole way through their life their conditions should be absolutely parallel to those which would have existed had they remained Civil Servants. Their expertise is required, and the Authority will be a responsible body to liaise, discuss and negotiate with the people concerned on their terms and conditions; and they will have their contracts of employment. Obviously the numbers of personnel in the Civil Aviation Authority are going to be fewer than in the Civil Service, but I should not think that in the long term it would necessarily affect the livelihood of those concerned, although by its very nature it may curtail the promotional prospects. If there are fewer positions to be promoted to, the number of promotions will be fewer—but then there will be fewer people to be promoted.
I hope that what I have said will have gone some way to meet what I recognise are genuine worries. We think that we have met these points not only in the assurances, but also by what is written into the Bill. My understanding is that pensions will be transferable as well.
LORD BESWICK: Back?
EARL FERRERS: Back?
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry, I was simply trying to find out whether there would be a possibility of going back and taking back pension rights?
EARL FERRERS: If I understand it correctly, when they move from the Civil Service to the Civil Aviation Authority they will take their pension rights with them, and if there is occasion for them to move back again, those pension rights will go with them.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 26, at end insert (" ;and before the Secretary of State approves in pursuance of this sub-paragraph the terms of a contract to be offered to a person employed in employment to which paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 to this Act applies it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that those terms, taken as a whole, are not less favourable to that person than the terms on which he is employed as aforesaid on the date when the offer is made.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD KINGS NORTON: I would only say that this is another point which I made forcibly in Committee and, so far as I am concerned, it has been met admirably by means other than those I proposed.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 5, at end insert—
(" 13A.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the last two preceding paragraphs, it shall be the duty of the Authority to make, to each person who at the passing of this Act and on the date when an offer is made to him in pursuance of this paragraph is employed by a relevant body, an offer of employment by the Authority on terms which, taken as a whole, are not less favourable to that person than the terms on which he is employed by the relevant body on the date when the offer is made; and an offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall be so made before the expiration of such period as the Secretary of State may determine and shall not be revocable during the period of three months beginning with the date on which the offer is made.
(2) In the preceding sub-paragraph"relevant body"means a body which by virtue of section 27(1) of this Act is to cease or has ceased to have functions conferred on it in pursuance of section 7 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 ".)—(Earl Ferrers.)
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Application of enactments relating to statutory undertakers, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall stand Part of the Bill?
11.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Paragraph 7 of this Schedule is a very technical point. At the present moment the aerodromes which are to be transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority belong to the D.T.I. Therefore, if development is proposed to be carried out in aerodromes in the hands of anybody else, the Department does not have to apply for planning permission, but works under the Circular 100 procedure, whereby it consults with the local authorities concerned, and one hopes that they reach agreement. On transfer, the aerodromes are to become the operational land of the statutory undertakers under this Schedule to the Bill. There will have to be regulations made, first of all defining the classes of operational land and, secondly, I should think, inserting a new class in the Schedule to the general development order, whereby certain development on the operational land will be given planning consent. On both of those points, I would expect it to be normal for the Department concerned to consult with the Association of Local Authorities, and to do that before the Statutory Instruments are presented to Parliament. I hope my noble friend can tell me that, as in the past, this will be done.
There is, however, one subsidiary point. I believe that even when development which is permitted by the general development order is carried out, if it is of any importance, the Government have an undertaking from the British Airports Authority that in those circumstances they will still consult the local planning authorities. I hope that in a similar type of case the Department will obtain an assurance that the Civil Aviation Authority will also consult the local planning authorities. Incidentally, paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 should delight the heart of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, since it looks like part of the Marshalled List of the Industrial Relations Bill.
EARL FERRERS: I really do not think we want to start on that topic at this hour of the night. But the Government will consider seeking from the Civil Aviation Authority an assurance, similar to that

785
which was given by the British Airports Authority, to consult with local planning authorities, save in very minor works which are urgently required when that would be unreasonable.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedules 6 to 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitional provisions]:
11.32 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 86, line 49, at end insert—
(" 3A. For the purposes of paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 and section 13(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (which relate to changes of ownership of businesses), there shall be deemed to be transferred to the Authority on the appointed day the business of any body which by virtue of section 27(1) of this Act is to cease or has ceased to have functions conferred on it in pursuance of section 7 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 and a body whose business is deemed for those purposes to be transferred by virtue of this paragraph shall on the appointed day be deemed for the purposes of the said section 13(1) to terminate in connection with the transfer its contracts of employment with persons employed by it immediately before the appointed day.").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is also to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. We really have listened to what noble Lords have said and have tried to meet their points. At an earlier stage of this Bill, we undertook that if the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, would withdraw his Amendment, we would try to put down a suitable Amendment to deal with the position, under the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, of the employees of the Air Registration Board who are later in the employment of the Authority. For the purposes of the relevant parts of the Acts, the A.R.B.'s business is deemed to be transferred to the Authority with effect from a day to be appointed. For the purposes of Section 13(1) of the 1965 Act, which deals with the change of ownership of a business, contracts of employment with the Air Registration Board are deemed to be terminated immediately before
786
the appointed day. This will ensure that service with the Board will count as continuous with service with the Authority, and so will affect the amount of any entitlement under the Redundancy Payments Act should a person be declared redundant while he is in the Authority's employ. The Amendment will also prevent entitlement to payments under the Redundancy Payments Act arising on transference, in order to ensure consistency with the treatment to be accorded to civil servants who are transferred to the Authority, and because if redundancy payments were made that would frustrate the objective of providing for continuity of service. I trust that this meets the noble Lord's point. I beg to move.
LORD KINGS NORTON: All I wish to do is to express my satisfaction, and that of my colleagues, with this Amendment. It is certainly very different in form from what I proposed earlier in Committee, but it produces the same effect and I am very glad to have it.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was claiming a good deal of credit for having listened to what was said at an earlier stage. He might also have paid a little tribute to the quality of what was said, which may well have had something to do with the fact that he has been able to meet our position. Since he appears positively to enjoy wallowing in nectar, I am pleased to add my thanks to those that have already been expressed.
EARL FERRERS: I am quite sure the noble Lord would not think I did not consider the remarks which were made to be of the highest quality. Of course they were. That is the reason why we have been able to accept so many of the points which were made. I believe they really have improved this Bill, and we are very grateful for what noble Lords have said.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments; Report received.