Lords Sitting of 14 December 1972

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

AIR FARES ON NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 decisions were arrived at as a result of the North Atlantic tariffs conference held earlier this month concerning the new class of cheap fare to be available on scheduled air services across the North Atlantic from April 1 next; and what period of validity will be offered.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): None, my Lords. My latest information is that the conference has broken down. No doubt the United Kingdom airlines will be reporting the full position to the Civil Aviation Authority as soon as possible.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that because of this and the resultant open market in air fares across the North Atlantic we can shortly be expecting a new cheap rate to be offered by British Caledonian and B.O.A.C., and that this will involve advance bookings? Will the Government support such a recommendation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this was of course largely what the whole conference was about and B.O.A.C. and British Caledonian gave the fullest support to these proposals.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the Minister keeps turning my questions round and giving me poor answers. I asked him whether, should B.O.A.C. and British Caledonian put
746
forward such a proposal, the Government would support them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is for B.O.A.C. and British Caledonian to make proposals to the Civil Aviation Authority in the first place. It is for them to submit the structure of fares, both standard, if I may call them such, and promotional, and it would be quite wrong for me to anticipate what the Government would do in any given circumstances.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is it not true that IATA has forfeited its fare-making machinery in this recent failure and that this has now passed to Governments? If the Civil Aviation Authority support such a recommendation will the Government as a last step support it, too?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. I am trying to make it clear that the Government and our airlines have been very much in favour of doing this all along, and we will do our best to get it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, aware that he would have helped the House in the speed of conducting to-day's long business if he had said that at the beginning?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: May I ask one more supplementary question, my Lords? As the IATA members have said that they will hold a conference in the summer to discuss an entirely new fares structure, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether the Government will support a recommendation by our own airlines that the European fares structure shall be included therein?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we dealt with this particular matter on Tuesday when I tried to explain that these arrangements were kept separate from the North American and mid-Atlantic routes. I thought I made it clear that it is very unlikely that it will be possible to reach any kind of agreement at that time, but that should it be possible the Government will then continue to support the policy that we have been trying to get accepted, which is of course for these cheaper fares.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS BURTON or COVENTRY: It is the Minister and not I who is making this questioning necessary. Is the noble Lord aware that I am not talking about a conference to discuss North Atlantic routes? I am discussing a conference which the airlines have said they will call in the summer to discuss a revised fare structure for all routes. Will the Government support a recommendation that the European region should be included therein?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the trouble is that it is extremely difficult to answer the noble Baroness's question because she is not asking quite the right one. She surely must know that the conference is of IATA and that the Government do not come into IATA, either supporting or opposing. We believe that our airlines will press very strongly for this and we hope that agreement will be reached.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it not a fact that the breakdown of the IATA conference on North Atlantic fares will lead to a competitive situation on the North Atlantic routes and, further, will result in lower fares? Is not that what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, wants?
LORD DRUMALBYN: One would imagine that would be so, my Lords; but the extent to which fares can be reduced is of course limited by the fact that the airlines have to make profits.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said about my noble friend Lady Burton asking the wrong question, may I ask whether he considers it to be within his ingenuity to draft the sort of question that would enable my noble friend to get the answer she desires?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it might be a good idea if I drafted the question and the noble Baroness gave the answer.

NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS LICENCES
3.12 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any further statement can be made on the participation of British firms (excluding the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company) in general and the public sector in particular in the North Sea oil and gas licences; and on the method by which these estimates are arrived at whether they are based on the size of the territory under licence or on the expected production.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I confirm that, as I said in the debate on November 22, the present United Kingdom participation in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf petroleum production licences is 32 per cent.—including the British share of Shell—calculated on the area of territory under licence. I also confirm that, as I have told the noble Lord in correspondence, the public sector participation on the same basis is 12 per cent.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place last week the Minister gave extraordinarily interesting figures of 22 per cent. for gas and 25 per cent for oil as the public sector participation, making an overall ratio of 12 per cent. Would the Minister be kind enough to tell us how those figures were arrived at and how the figures which he has now quoted were arrived at; that is to say, territory or quantity, and if quantity how much?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is really quite simple. The 12 per cent. is based on a calculation of area. The 25 per cent. in the case of oil, and I think 20 per cent. in the case of gas, are based on the extent of participation in the estimated reserves of oil so far established.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, may we not have a similar figure for established reserves of oil?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I said 25 per cent. for oil and 20 per cent. for gas.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am sorry. Is the Minister aware that these figures of 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. were then associated with the 12 per cent., which makes complete nonsense of it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, because the 25 per cent. relates to licences covering those blocks where oil is known to exist and the quantity of reserves has been assessed, whereas the other calculation is based on all licences, whether or not oil has been found there.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to consider producing a statement on this matter, in which we can see how the mistakes—the very serious mistakes, which I am sure he admits, though I do not know whether he has apologised for them—were made on a previous occasion? Would he let us have a full statement of the position, so that my noble friend will be freed from the necessity of continually interrogating the noble Lord to get the facts.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, a paper will be published before very long which I think will give the noble Lord the kind of information he wants. I did apologise to the noble Lord for the error when I wrote to him.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, do the Government believe that there are any lessons to be learned from the way in which the Norwegian Government is handling this very difficult problem?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have not yet studied the Norwegian announcement, which was made only yesterday, but I do not believe that we are very far apart, except on the question of carried interest. But, of course, I cannot make any statement about how the licences will be issued in the future.
LORD HARVEY on PRESTBURY: My Lords, as one involved in these very large enterprises, may I ask my noble friend whether, when he publishes the White Paper or whatever it may be, he will go back to the very beginning, so
750
that one may see the whole history, covering the previous Administration and what they did?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will convey to my right honourable friend the Minister what my noble friend has said.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, may we have an assurance from the Minister that no further licences will be issued before this issue is cleared up and thoroughly discussed, both with Scotland and also with the larger interests concerned in this country?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure there will be ample opportunities to discuss this subject further before the next round of licensing takes place, hut I take note of what the noble Lord has said.

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
3.17 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any modification to make in the Statements or speeches of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister Without Portfolio on the 5 per cent. rate per annum advance in gross national product of this country in view of Sir M. Clapham's speech to a meeting of Members of Parliament.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): No, my Lords. I would, of course, always hesitate to modify reasoned and considered statements made by my noble friends, but in any event the remarks made by the President of the Confederation of British Industry to a Meeting of Conservative Members of Parliament on December 5 on the subject of economic growth were misreported in The Times, as Mr. Clapham himself made clear in a statement issued on December 6. Mr. Clapham's view was that the Government's target of 5 per cent. growth per annum was attainable over the next year or so because sufficient spare capacity was available. He went

751
on to say in his speech that 5 per cent. growth could be sustained in the long term only if there was a major shift of resources from consumption to investment. The Government accent that a higher level of investment is required, and they believe that the present range of investment incentives and the favourable economic climate will soon lead to the increase in industrial investment which recent business surveys are predicting.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that since I put down this Question the National Institute have confirmed that the Government are off course to the tune of 1½ per cent.? Is he further aware that there has been a statement by Lord Drumalbyn's Department that there has been a decline of 11 per cent. in investment? Putting these two facts together, does not the noble Earl think that my Question, as usual, really understates the issue?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am of course aware, being a regular subscriber to the National Institute, of their report, and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that it states (and I must say that I have some sympathy with the National Institute) that it is virtually impossible to get an accurate picture of where the economy stands at present. The Institute then go on to say that their predictions are, of course, liable to a very wide range of errors, as many of their predictions have been shown to be in the past.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl confirming that the Government themselves have absolutely no idea where the economy is standing and where we are going? The rest of us, of course, are well aware of the Government's position. Would it be possible, since Mr. Clapham's speech (I think the possibility of his becoming Sir has now been damaged somewhat) has been quoted inaccurately in the Press, (which I know from Party meetings, does sometimes happen), to have the speech laid so that we can see it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think that that would be necessary. Indeed, the speech was to a private meeting, although I noticed that it appeared on
752
the front page of The Times the next morning. If I may say so, in mild criticism of that august journal, it was a little surprising to me that no mention appeared in The Times of Mr. Clapham's explicit denial, which was made the very next day. The first part of the noble Lord's supplementary I will treat for the good fun it was doubtless intended to be.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is in fact confirming what I said in good fun?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether the original estimate of 5 per cent. was based on any evidence other than wishful thinking, and, if so, what?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as I have said before, and I know that this will delight the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, it was made on the basis of a very carefully calculated economic model.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, the noble Earl has mentioned margins of error in his animadversions on statements which have been made elsewhere. Could he inform the House what he would regard as appropriate margins to apply in regard to statements of the kind that we are now discussing?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I find this very difficult. I happen to have a great respect for the National Institute, otherwise I would not subscribe, at great cost, to its periodicals. All I can do is to quote that august authority:
"The implication is that one or more of the measures of G.D.P. must be incorrect, and possibly by a margin of several percentage points."
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, nobody is second to me in admiration for the accuracy of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack; I have encountered him on various occasions and have always been worsted. Nevertheless, may I ask how the noble Earl reconciles the statement that it is impossible to foresee the future with the statement in the same breath that he maintains that a very careful calculation has been made?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that it is perfectly possible. We all surely know that in these areas there are involved wide questions and wide matters of judgment, and there is great difficulty

753
in reconciling what are possibly rather contradictory indicators. One makes the best possible judgment that one can at the time. That judgment was made by the Government, and the Government adhere to that judgment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not rather odd that a stickler for accuracy like the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has admitted to a serious understatement in his own question?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE OUTBREAK
3.23 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease."
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
May I take this opportunity of reminding your Lordships that the Doorkeepers are having their Christmas Dinner this evening, and I therefore hope that the House may find it possible to complete its Business by about 6.30 p.m.

POST OFFICE (BORROWING) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [General provisions as to educational trusts]:
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, after ("deed") insert ("or other instrument").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I apologise for bringing this Amendment forward at Third Reading. It is a drafting Amendment. In its present form the paragraph permits the modification of the trust deed of a school if this is necessary to give effect to a decision taken by the Secretary of State under Section 13 or Section 16 of the Education Act 1944. Many schools are regulated by other instruments, in particular schemes made under the Charitable Trusts Act (before 1961) and the Charities Act 1960 (since 1960). There is no problem about the modification of such instruments in the case of voluntary schools, because Section 114 (1) of the 1944 Act defines the trust deed of such a school in terms which include those instruments. But it may also be necessary to exercise this power in relation to independent schools and direct grant schools and the definition in Section 114(1) does not apply to them. This Amendment enables such instruments to be modified in the same way as trust deeds.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I am still not clear what an "instrument" is as opposed to a "trust deed", but I have no doubt that in this connection this will be an improvement to the Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think the instruments would stem from schemes made under the Charitable Trusts Act or Charities Act 1960.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This Amendment has the same effect for the next sub-paragraph.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("deed") insert ("or other instrument").—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1972
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORDHAILSIIAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORDHAILSIIAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE) rose to move, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972 be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House for me to deal at the same time with the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations; a Motion for the approval of which immediately follows this Motion. Save that the present Motion applies South and the next applies North of the Border, the two sets of Regulations are in identical terms.
The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, as amended by the Legal Aid Act 1960, provides that a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than £500 or such larger figure as may be prescribed and it appears that he can afford to proceed without legal aid. The Acts also provide that a contribution is required from capital of the amount by which disposable capital exceeds £125 or such larger figure as may be prescribed. Section 1(3) of the Act of 1960 provides that Regulations for either of these purposes shall not come into force unless and until approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. Similar provisions are made in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967. No Regulations have hitherto been made increasing these limits and, indeed, the upper limit of £500 has remained unchanged since the coming into force in 1950 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949.
The Acts refer to "disposable" capital. Disposable income and disposable capital are defined in Section 4 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 as referring to the rate of income or amount of capital after making deductions in respect of maintenance of dependants, interest on loans, income tax, rates, rent and other matters for which the person in question must or may reasonably provide. Deductions are made from gross capital to exclude the value of household furniture and effects of a dwelling house, articles of personal clothing and personal tools and equipment of trade. Account is taken of one-half of the value of a dwelling house after deducting the value of any contribution
756
and after further deducting the sum of £5,000. Under the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1972 which have now been laid before Parliament, the £5,000 allowance for a dwelling is increased to the sum of £6,000 but is limited only to the main dwelling, where there is more than one. For any second dwelling account is taken of any sum which can be borrowed on its security. There are also allowances for dependants. These are at present £75 for the first, £50 for the second and £25 for the third and any subsequent dependant, but these allowances are increased by the other Regulations I mentioned just now to £125 for the first dependant, £80 for the second and £40 for any subsequent dependant. There are also other allowances for which I need not take up the time of the House.
The Legal Aid Advisory Committee, constituted under Section 13 of the Act of 1949 to make comments and recommendations on the Law Society's Annual Report, whose Chairman at that time was my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley (she has now been succeeded by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell) made recommendations relating to capital in their last Report dated June, 1972. They pointed out that to restore the limit of £500 to the value it had held when the Act of 1949 was passed, required it to be increased by 136 per cent. That would bring it to £1,200 and this is what the Regulations do. The Committee, however, thought that the limit should be raised further still to £1,500 to allow for further inflation. In the present circumstances, the Government have stuck to an increase which would restore the £500 to its original value in money terms. Your Lordships will know that this limit is not an absolute bar to receiving aid, because the Act provides that a person may still get aid if it appears that he cannot afford to proceed without it. Thus, legal aid is still granted if the Committee consider that the costs of the action will be more than the maximum contribution which an applicant can be called upon to pay under the Regulations. This limit is not therefore of overwhelming importance.
In paragraph 23 of their Report, the Advisory Committee pointed out that the amount of capital which a person may retain without being called upon to pay

757
anything from it by way of contribution had remained at £125 since the year 1960. They pointed out that to increase the limit by the amount that money values had declined during that period would mean raising the £125 to the sum of £210. The Committee thought, however, that it would be better to fix the new limit at £325, which is the limit at which capital is ignored for the purpose of assessing supplementary benefit. There is, however, I should explain, an important difference between the Supplementary Benefits Scheme and the Legal Aid Scheme. In the former, no allowances are made for dependants. Under the Legal Aid Scheme, allowances are made, as I have already described. The effect of the Committee's recommendations was therefore to be much more generous than the Supplementary Benefits Scheme where the applicant was married or had children.
The Government have therefore fixed the new limit at £250. This is an increase in real terms of £40 above the previous limit. For a single person, it is £75 lower than the supplementary benefit level. For a married person, it is £50 above that level, and this rises to £130 for a married person with one child and £170 where there are two children. This therefore makes a fair compromise between the conflicting positions under the two Schemes. The Advisory Committee have intimated that their recommendations were interim ones only, pending a thorough reappraisal of the capital limits and the contributions required from capital. The new limits may therefore be only temporary. In the meantime, they make important improvements to the Legal Aid Scheme. For that reason, my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972 be approved. (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will welcome these Regulations and those which are immediately to follow. Legal aid has always been in a difficulty with regard to figures, in that we have always had to contend with an inflationary situation, and it is no doubt right that increases should be made. The one question which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is whether he
758
is satisfied that these increases are high enough. If I have understood it rightly, the second figure, for example, of £1,200, is against a recommendation by the Committee that the sum should be increased to £1,500. That recommendation was itself made six months ago and the inflationary situation has continued. I have always felt it is one of the difficulties that, quite naturally and perhaps inevitably, time elapses between the Report of the Advisory Committee and the moment of implementation. If one is justified in looking at the probable figure, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is satisfied that the figure of £1,200 ought not to be at least the £1,500 which the Committee recommended six months ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, one is never wholly satisfied with anything in this world, but I would say this. First of all, the principle upon which the Committee recommended £1,500 was not one which, on reflection, the Government could accept, because it was at that stage, at any rate, making allowance prospectively for inflation, which is contrary to policy. The second point I would make is that the Committee are examining the limits in a much more thorough-going way, which may or may not give rise to a further set of provisions being moved later in this Session, or perhaps next Session. The result is that I would ask the House and the noble and learned Lord, whom I would thank for his remarks, to pass these Regulations, but of course without prejudice to my coming again should the situation demand it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1972
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1972 be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PRO CEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1972)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1972 be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this case there are no equivalent Regulations for Scotland because the proceedings in Scotland, which are similar to those covered by these Regulations, already have the benefit of legal aid. Section 1 of the Act of 1949 enables the proceedings in connection with which legal aid may be given in England and Wales to be varied by Regulations which shall not come into force unless and until approved by Resolution of each House. The object of these Regulations is to extend legal aid to proceedings before the Commons Commissioners. The Commons Commissioners are appointed under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Under that Act, common land or town or village greens or rights of common without ownership of such land have to be registered. This process has now been completed. The next step, which has just started, is for objections to be made over the registration of common land or rights of common, and these objections are referred to a Commons Commissioner who may confirm, modify or reject the original registration.
Objections to registration can, of course, raise questions of ownership or rights of common. These questions may be of vital importance to people like upland farmers or smallholders who rely upon common grazing to provide some upkeep for their livestock. Although proceedings before the Commons Commissioners will be rather more like proceedings in the county court than proceedings in the High Court, the questions for determination may raise questions of law of common land which can be extremely recondite. Much of it has remained untouched for at least a hundred years. The Commissioners will have to consider ancient grants, they will have to consider manorial records, and they will have to consider even such questions as relate to the mediaeval doctrine of levancy and couchancy, which is the doctrine which fixes the number of animals an owner can place upon a common by reference to the number which
760
he can support upon his own land in winter. Questions can also arise on the law of prescription, and allegations may be made that the right of common has been lost, whether by abandonment, surrender or merger. The Commissioners will also be going into the proof that land was manorial waste, and that will depend upon a study of early records, possibly local traditions and possibly considerations of later transactions or user. I feel that your Lordships will therefore agree that it would not be possible to ask a farmer or smallholder to argue such cases in person. It is for this reason that the Government feel that there is a clear case for extending legal aid to these proceedings without further delay. However, the number of persons likely to qualify for legal aid is likely to be quite small; and the total cost has been estimated to be about £20,000 spread over six years. I cannot, without further notice, break that figure down and show exactly how it has been calculated.
It will be recollected that the Government's general policy with regard to extending legal aid to further tribunals is to await the outcome of research by the Nuffield Foundation and others. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee considered that the need for further extensions had not been made out up to the date of their Report in 1968, but next summer they may be in a position to reconsider the question in the light of the Nuffield Foundation's researches. The Government will then review the general policy with regard to extending legal aid to further tribunals. However, for the reasons that I have just given we feel that there is a clear case for extending legal aid to the Commons Commissioners in advance of a decision on the general question. The whole process of investigation will take only about six years, and there is in fact a limited right of appeal from their decisions to the High Court. If legal aid is not extended to these proceedings now, it will therefore be too late. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1972 be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LOR GARDINER: My Lords, the whole House will I think agree that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made out a very cogent case

761
for the passing of these Regulations. Of course, they have to be considered against the general background of those proceedings for which legal aid is available; and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, apart from the courts the only other form of tribunal for which legal aid is available is the Lands Tribunal. It is true that the noble and learned Lord's Advisory Committee, on considering legal aid for tribunals, recommended that legal aid should be available for the Lands Tribunal but not for other tribunals until research work had been carried out. On the other hand that was in 1968, and there is to-day, as I think the noble and learned Lord will agree, an increasing view that it is not right that while there is or is going to be some legal advice available before some tribunals, there should be no legal aid before, particularly, a number of those tribunals in the social welfare field which make decisions of such great consequence to large numbers of ordinary people. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has seen the strong leading article in this week's Solicitors Journal, urging once again that there should be legal aid before such tribunals. If he has, perhaps he would be good enough to tell us his view about that. Secondly, can he tell us how much longer we have to wait until the result of this research work can be made known?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said about the Regulations which I proposed. I am of course aware, because we have discussed it previously in this House, of the view which is held by some that legal aid should be more generally available in tribunal proceedings. I have on previous occasions issued a note of caution here. Many of these tribunals were originally designed to get rid of the need for lawyers on either side. They were designed to have an informal procedure in order to achieve that result. One does not want to get into this curious kind of progression where you first of all take something out of the ambit of the ordinary courts and their administrative procedures and say that you are going to have a nice, informal tribunal which will get rid of those horrid people, the lawyers, and then follow it up with legal aid provisions which ensure that legal aid is available
762
in every case. Having been an advocate for forty years, although on a smaller scale than that of the noble and learned Lord, I have no doubt myself that there are advantages in professional assistance before all types of tribunal. There comes a point, however, when an overworked profession can only provide a service of a limited kind; and there are all kinds of factors which have to be taken into account, including the extent to which the facts can be found out by the tribunal without the assistance of lawyers.
However, in reply to the noble and learned Lord's last question I would say that we have some hopes that the Advissory Committee will be looking at the results of the research next summer, and then we shall all be in a position to form a clearer judgment about these matters. I very much doubt whether legal aid will become available before all tribunals. It may well be that the results of the research will indicate that there are some where it is more and some where it is less advantageous. Probably the House will be disposed to agree that, although they listen with both respect and sympathy to everything that the noble and learned Lord says, the Government have been right to take the urgent case first and to await the result of the research before taking a general line on policy. But I have taken note of what the noble and learned Lord has said, and indeed of what other noble Lords have said in the same sense on earlier occasions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JUDGES ORDER 1972
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now rise to move the third of the Motions in my name, which is the fourth on the Order Paper: that the Draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1972, laid before the House on November 28, be approved. My Lords, this Order deals solely with Northern Ireland and Scotland—it does not apply to England or Wales—and it is made under Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1968. I have been asked by the Leader of the House and by my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate to deal this time and for the nonce with the Scottish aspect of

763
the question, and I hope to do so without too many fiery crosses being lit on the heather. As for many years the appointments to the High Court of Northern Ireland have rested with the Lord Chancellor, the rest of the Motion is actually within my own Departmental territory.
So far as Northern Ireland and Scotland are concerned, the Administration of Justice Act 1968 fixed the maximum number of Judges of the Court of Session at 19 and the maximum number of puisne Judges of the High Court in Northern Ireland at four, but it went on to provide that these maxima can be increased by Order in Council, subject to prior approval by Resolution of each House of Parliament; and the purpose of my Motion is to secure the approval of Parliament in each case to such increases.
If I may deal first with my own subject, Northern Ireland, the Act of 1968 raised the maximum number of puisne Judges of the High Court in Northern Ireland from two to four, and the appointment of an additional two Judges, raising the actual number from two to four, was made immediately afterwards. That is the four, maximum and actual, ever since. In that year the number of Queen's Bench actions pending at the beginning of the Michaelmas term was 526 and the number of criminal cases awaiting trial was 332. The immediate effect of the two additional Judges appointed in 1968 was to enable 802 Queen's Bench cases to be disposed of and to reduce the number of cases pending in 1969 to 459. Alas! since then, despite further increases in the number of cases disposed of—there were 928 in 1969, 951 in 1970 and 944 in 1971—the number of actions pending has steadily risen—that means a bigger backlog. It rose from 459 to 842 in 1970 to 881 in 1971 and, alas! to 1,099 at the beginning of the present term. The latest information is that pending cases have risen still further, to 1,164 on December 6 this year. I am sure that the House will agree that this is not tolerable even for civil litigants. For those defending criminal proceedings the position is still less acceptable.
The Judges have not been able to dispose of so many Queen's Bench actions this year as they did last year. Up to December 6, 744 cases were disposed of,
764
compared with 944 in the whole of last year. This is because of the pressure of dealing with criminal cases which keeps two Judges continuously occupied. In the last year there has been a virtual explosion in the number of prisoners awaiting trial in custody. Including those awaiting trial in the magistrates' courts and county courts the number has increased from 71 last year to 288 last September. Criminal cases for trial at assizes by the puisne Judges have increased in number from 332 in 1968 to 410 last year, and at December 6 this year had reached a total of 645.
In addition to their work in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and at assize, the puisne Judges of Northern Ireland also deal with Chancery cases and matrimonial causes. This work has not increased to the extent of their other work. Nevertheless, there were four Chancery actions and 83 matrimonial causes pending last September and judicial time has to be given to these.
In these circumstances, the House may agree that if there are not to be even more serious delays in the trial of both civil and criminal cases in the High Court in Northern Ireland, it is essential that an additional Judge should now be appointed. The Order prescribes the maximum number of Judges only. I can assure the House that should the position improve at any future time consideration will of course be given to the possibility of reducing their number.
My Lords, I add only this on the Northern Ireland side. We are under pressure and it is our policy to use the ordinary courts as much as possible to the exclusion of the extraordinary system of detention that we were discussing the other day. That means that of necessity we should be reasonable and generous in providing the number of Judges to handle the flow of work thereby involved.
I now turn to Scotland where the position, though quite different, has resulted in effect in a request in the same Resolution for an increase in the number of Judges. In Scotland, the maximum number of Judges has also stood unaltered at 19 since that number was fixed by the Administration of Justice Act of 1968. The actual number of Judges in post previous to the Act of 1968 was 18; and this had been the

765
position for two years, since 1966. An additional appointment was made in 1971 mainly in order to deal with the substantial increase in both the civil and criminal business coming before the court. Between 1966 and 1970 the actions and petitions coming before the court had increased by 35 per cent.; those pending had increased by 39 per cent.; and the number of High Court cases and appeals had increased by 26 per cent. All Judges of the Court of Session are Lords Commissioners of Justiciary and are therefore responsible for the whole original criminal work of the High Court in Edinburgh and on circuit and for the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The volume of work, both civil and criminal, entering the courts has continued to increase and the indications are that this trend will continue. Leaving aside petitions, interdicts, Inner House appeals and the work of the specialist branches of the court, some 700 additional civil cases were begun in 1971, and by the end of this year a further 1,000 cases will have been started; that is, a 10 per cent. increase in 1971 and a further 12 per cent. by the end of 1972. Because of the wide variations in the duration of hearings, the effect of High Court criminal trials and appellate criminal work can best be measured by the number of working days on which a Judge has had to be provided for High Court duty in criminal jurisdiction. In 1970 and 1971 the figure remained at 380 days, but the total for 1972 will be over 470—an increase of over 24 per cent.
In this situation it has been possible to avoid a reduction in the total number of defended actions put out each week for proof or jury trial only at the expense of a build-up of cases standing in the Procedure Roll for debate and of the work of the Inner House. Indeed, because of the need to employ Inner House Judges on Outer House work, it has often been impossible to have both Divisions of the Inner House sitting at once; and sometimes, where Inner House Judges are engaged in the disposal of criminal appeals, to form any Division in the Inner House at all.
766
At the present time the problems are exacerbated by the fact that the Valuation Appeal Court is disposing of appeals arising out of the recent Quinquennial Valuation of Heritage. In the current session, 60 Judge days will have been occupied in disposing of such appeals; this represents the time of three Judges for five weeks of the session. Since the last date for disposal of appeals by the Valuation Appeal Committees has been postponed until March 31, 1973, it is anticipated that a similar demand upon judicial time is likely to be made during next session and perhaps also during the summer session of 1973.
It must also be borne in mind that the complement of the court has to cover the various extraneous duties undertaken by the Judges. I refer here to chairmanship of public tribunals, commissions and committees of many kinds. Recent examples are the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland and the Commission of Inquiry into Civil Disturbance in Northern Ireland where a Scottish Judge chaired the Board of Inquiry. One of the Judges is the whole-time Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, another is a member of the Industrial Relations Court which occupies him for one week each month, and another has recently been appointed to the parole board. The complement also has to allow for absences through sickness; recently, no less than three Judges were ill over the same period.
I would therefore ask the House to accept that, if serious delays in the disposal of business are to be avoided, it is essential to increase the maximum number of Judges in the Court of Session from 19 to 20. And while it is proposed, subject to the concurrence of the Treasury, to make an additional appointment as soon as possible—the figure given is the maximum—the position will be carefully reviewed as vacancies occur and they will only be filled if the need is clearly established. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1972, laid before the House on 28th November, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE OUTBREAKS
3.58 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if it meets the convenience of the House, I should like to answer a Private Notice Question asked earlier by my noble friend Lord Crathorne.
There have so far been three outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Staffordshire. The first outbreak was reported on the morning of December 11 and movement restrictions within a radius of 5 miles were imposed immediately. The affected animals were slaughtered later that day and an Infected Area Order was made covering a substantial part of Staffordshire and part of Shropshire. A second outbreak occurred at Walsall on December 12 and the infected area was extended Eastwards to include parts of Derbyshire and Leicestershire and to cover movements through local markets. A third outbreak within the area was confirmed on the evening of December 13. Both these secondary outbreaks are directly linked with the initial outbreak. All the animals on the affected premises have been slaughtered. The Chief Veterinary Officer is now visiting the area and I am satisfied that all possible precautions are being taken.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture extends his sympathy to the farmers directly affected and would urge all those in the infected area to follow the advice that has been given to them. I hope that the urgent action being taken will reduce the risk of spread of infection to the absolute minimum.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask the Government whether there has yet been any indication of the particular virus which caused this outbreak which can be traced, and will in due course be traced, at our establishment at Pirbright? As noble Lords will be aware, there are some viruses which have only to be sniffed and the disease spreads like wildfire, while other viruses are not so quick spreading as these particularly vicious ones. I should be very interested to know whether the Government have any information on that point.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the investigation into the type of virus that
768
has led to the outbreak is still going on at the Foot-and Mouth Disease Research Institute at pirbright, and the virus has not yet been diagnoesed. I can assure my noble friend that the investigation is being carried out with all urgency, and I would point out to him that so far the outbreaks have all been in pigs.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any evidence of the reason for this very sudden outbreak at this particular place?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is not possible at this stage to say what was the cause of the outbreak, although very serious investigations are being made to determine the cause. Swill has been involved and this is one of the lines being investigated; but it is by no means conclusive or decisive that that is the cause.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, but I think that most of us would say that the statement he has made is most uninformative. The first question I should like to put is what is the number of animals involved; and what kind of animals. Unless we know this we do not really know what we are discussing. I should also like to know why the noble Earl referred to the second and third outbreaks being regarded as secondary. Does he mean that these outbreaks came after the first? They are all very important so far as the industry is concerned. The noble Earl also said that he hoped the urgent action being taken would reduce the risk, but he has not explained what urgent action is being taken. If we are to ask intelligent questions we should like to know what it is.
May I ask the noble Earl what disinfectant is being used in the areas of the farms? The present Minister has on previous occasions insisted on large doses of disinfectant being distributed around the farms. Is this being done in this case? May I also ask what veterinary staff are being employed? The Answer said that the Chief Veterinary Officer had gone there, but the Chief Veterinary Officer cannot cope with a problem of this kind on his own, so I should like to know what additional veterinary staff have been sent into the area to deal with the problem. There is also a very obvious question from the point of view of the Northern

769
areas, because Scotland has not been infected with this disease for a long time. We should like to know what precautions the Ministry is taking to prevent the virus from spreading North of the Border.
Finally, may I ask a question about the cause of the disease, because on so many occasions, as the noble Earl seemed to suggest in his reply to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Alport, due to a lack of treatment or cooking or whatever may be the process, pig swill has been involved. When the noble Earl says that the other two outbreaks are secondary to the first, does he trace the second and third outbreaks to the same source?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for putting those questions which I think were entirely justified. I hope he will acquit me of appearing not to answer them initially. I was endeavouring to be brief. The noble Lord asked me how many animals were involved. In fact, the number of animals slaughtered were 105 cattle, 182 sheep, 689 pigs and one goat. The noble Lord said I referred to secondary outbreaks. What I meant by that was that it was secondary by number as opposed to secondary in importance. There have been three outbreaks and there is a connection between the second and the third. Animals were moved from the farm where they were originally to a second place.
The noble Lord asked what urgent action is being taken. In accordance with the recommendations in the Northumberland Report all the major items of which have been implemented, there is an epidemiology team in the area. The team consists of a scientist, who is a viriologist, a meteorologist, because, as the noble Lord will remember, the way the wind blows is of great importance in connection with the way the virus may be carried; there are veterinary officers and a full supporting staff and a mobile centre. Many of the recommendations of the Northumberland Report have been put into action already with regard to the collection of milk and so forth. As there are artificial insemination centres in the area, and the virus may be carried over the gates, farmers will be given the semen and invited to "do it yourself", as it were, from the point of view of inseminating cattle.
770
The noble Lord asked about disinfectant. FAM is the type being used. He asked what was the protection provided to prevent the virus spreading Northwards. As I explained, there has been an infected area declared. Initially, this was of a radius of some five miles. It is now some 30 miles by 40 miles, and extends over an area of some 1,200 square miles. At the time the wind was coming from the South-West; therefore the infected area has been extended to the North-East in an immediate effort to prevent contamination in that direction.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask one further question of the noble Earl? This is a most virulent disease, and from this side of the House we should like to associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy to the farmers involved. I know what it means to them and what it costs. This disease can spread rapidly, as we know. We have had some appalling experiences even in recent times, and I ask for an assurance that should there be a further spread, or any likelihood of it spreading, your Lordships' House may be kept informed.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly see that the attention of my right honourable friend is drawn to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I was about to ask for the same assurance, and to extend sympathy from this side of the House. I hope that next week we may have a progress report, whatever may be the position. As the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has said, this disease can spread very quickly and it is most important that your Lordships should be informed of what is going on.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the concern expressed by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. The Government are deeply concerned because of 'the virulent and unpleasant nature of the disease, but I will see that my noble friend's recommendation is put forward.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, in view of the fact that there has been a proved connection between the three outbreaks and that this must have been known at a fairly early stage, is the noble Earl satisfied that the standstill radius

771
was made wide enough at the start? It would seem to us that it would be a fault on the right side to make the radius too wide to begin with rather than too narrow. It seems as if in this case the standstill radius was chasing the outbreaks rather than being on the outside of the outbreaks. It seems to me that during the day of December 11 it should have been possible to discover all the places to which infected animals might have gone from the original source, and therefore it should have been possible to draw the radius round the places to which infected animals had gone by, at least, December 12, and certainly before the third outbreak made it necessary to move the radius wider. Can the noble Earl give us an assurance that he is satisfied with the procedures for this? And, if he is not satisfied, can he say whether he is considering other procedures in any other cases where the radius will be drawn wider so as to effect a standstill in a bigger area while the position is being examined?
Finally, my Lords, may I also associate noble Lords on these Benches with the sympathy that has been expressed? This is the most terrifying of all diseases to a farmer who has spent his life building up a stock of livestock. We have deep sympathy with the farmers affected.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely take the noble Viscount's point as to whether the original area was wide enough. He will, I know, realise that any decision as to the size of area declared infected must be taken on the spot with the knowledge that is then available. I have said that the infected area has since been increased to 1,200 square miles. I assure the noble Viscount that all the outbreaks are within the original infected area, and it would seem at the moment that that area was not of an inadequate size. The area has however been increased to make doubly certain so that any eventuality should be reasonably covered.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, as one who lives at Staffordshire and remembers only too well the ordeal five years ago of all the farmers on the Shropshire/Cheshire border, may I ask the noble Earl to bear in mind fully that the Northumberland Report was very comprehensive? Will
772
the noble Earl give the House an assurance that should this outbreak, unhappily, spread, the Government will not be stampeded into unwise measures such as happened five years ago? What I have in mind particularly is the cancellation of sporting events, which led to racing being stopped at Wolverhampton, when half a mile away 60,000 people were watching Wolverhampton Wanderers; 20 miles in the other direction 50,000 were watching Stoke-on-Trent; in the other direction, goodness knows! how many people were watching Liverpool and Everton, not to mention the 15,000 watching Chester. I personally should be much happier if I could be reasonably sure that the Government have accepted the advice of their very competent veterinary and scientific staff, and are not being stampeded by people whose scientific knowledge is probably limited to the distinction between H2O and H2SO4
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for his intervention. I must say that I was wondering how this would come down to horseracing. I can assure the noble Lord that, whatever happens. the Government will not be stampeded. They will take the best decision they can in the light of all the advice given to them. At the moment, of course, things like hunting and point-to-point meetings are prohibited in the infected area, but horse-racing may be allowed, provided that it is not over agricultural land. This would seem at the moment to be the reasonable line to take; but I can give the noble Lord the assurance that if the disease develops further his view, along with all the others, will be taken into account.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) ORDER 1972
4.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1972 be approved. It is the first Order in Council to be introduced under the procedures established in Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act—

773
and I am sure noble Lords will remember those debates. This Order relates to five agreements which were concluded by the E.C.S.C. with Austria, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, and also to the additional agreement concerning the validity for Leichtenstein of the agreement with Switzerland. English texts of all these agreements were laid before the House on November 16.
They were all signed in Brussels on July 22, 1972. They enter into force on January 1, 1973, provided that all parties to them have notified completion of the necessary procedures by that date. Otherwise they will enter into force at a later date, not later than January 1, 1974. Their purpose is to provide for free trade in those coal, iron and steel products covered by the E.C.S.C. Treaty, between the countries of the enlarged Community and the EFTA non-candidates. Seen from our own point of view, they provide a means of safeguarding, and possibly even increasing, a valuable trade in coal and most iron and steel products, of which we exported some £21 million worth to the non-candidates in 1971.
These particular E.C.S.C. agreements are not formally subject to ratification, which is in any case a prerogative of the Crown rather than a matter for Parliament. The purpose of the present Order in Council is to secure, with Parliament's approval, the necessary changes in our law to take account of those treaties. In turn, the Crown will then be in a position to communicate the notification called for by the agreements.
Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act provides that treaties entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972, cannot be regarded as Community treaties as defined in the Act unless they are specified in an Order in Council. The draft of such Orders in Council must be approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. The E.C.S.C./EFTA non-candidate agreements of which Her Majesty's Government are a signatory are undoubtedly new treaties falling within the scope of the section I have described. The terms of Section 1(3) have been closely followed in tabling this draft Order in Council. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 22, be approved.—[Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
4.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her careful description of this Order and, as she says, there are echoes of debates not so long ago. As the noble Baroness has said, this is the first of the Orders to come from our accession to the Treaty of Rome. The Order itself has a deceptively innocuous title, but I think the noble Baroness will agree that it confirms that we accept quite significant obligations and commitments; and we accept them without, so far as I can see, any consultation or having played any part in the negotiations which led up to these agreements or treaties. Can the noble Baroness say what would be the position if we voted against the Order? If we are unable to vote against it, would the noble Baroness say what is the reason for having this procedure? I know that the noble Baroness referred to the Treaty and the undertakings that have been given that there must be approval from both Houses of Parliament. But is there any real meaning to these approvals if we do not have any option other than giving our assent?
I should like to ask the noble Baroness two further questions on the effect of these treaties. The first relates to the pricing policies of the steel industry. As I understand it, accession to the European Coal and Steel Community, and of course accession to these treaties, involves the harmonisation of pricing formule. How far is our present policy on freezing prices in the public sector consistent with these treaties or agreements? I should also like to ask: was our proposal to freeze the price of steel discussed with the co-signatories of these treaties and, if so, have they agreed to what we propose to do so far as our own steel industry is concerned? In addition, as I understand it, acceding to these treaties will mean that we do not engage in any governmental subvention to the coal or steel industries, which has the effect of distorting competition. We are shortly to get the Coal Industry Bill, and whether we say it is distorting, encouraging or subsidising the coal industry, we have to

775
agree that the Bill itself is a most imaginative measure which is going to have an enormous effect upon the British coal industry. It would seem that in one way or another it will put us in a very favourable position so far as competition is concerned. To that extent, on the face of it it would seem to be inconsistent with the obligations which we have accepted in the original treaties and in these consequential treaties. Again, I would ask the noble Baroness whether the effect and significance of this Coal Industry Bill have been discussed with our cosignatories, and whether what we are proposing to do is acceptable to them.
4.22 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, three questions have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the first of which was what would happen if the House voted against this particular Order to-day. The Order has, of course, been approved in another place and if this House chose to vote against it no doubt it would be reintroduced in another place, though, as I understand it, it would have to be reintroduced in a slightly different form. If we approve the Order to-day it will come into force on January 1, 1973. However, there is still a year in which we could in fact wait to go through the necessary procedures, because some of the other parties have not yet done so either. But if we do pass this Order it will enable Her Majesty's Government to complete the necessary notification procedures by January 1, 1973.
LoRD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting, but in fact there were not three questions: there were certainly four. The second question was whether we were under an obligation to accept the Order. If that is so, what is the purpose of putting before us an Order which is unamendable and has to be accepted?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, an Order which is put in draft form before either House of Parliament is always capable of being voted against. I am sure the noble Lord will recall the lengthy debates that we had on this subject; and if he will look back to what is now the European Communities Act, and particularly
776
to the second half of Section 1(3), he will know that any agreement entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972, other than the pre-accession treaty, shall not be regarded as a treaty unless a draft is approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is the reason why we have this particular procedure.
The second main question put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was whether this particular method of having a pricing policy on steel would in any way conflict with the standstill, or the "freeze", as it is popularly known, in the public sector. I think the best thing I can do is to repeat what was said in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when this point was put to him. If I may quote his answer, he said this:
"The standstill will continue to apply to steel prices but I would expect United Kingdom steel producers to adopt the E.C.S.C. basing points price system as soon as the standstill ends. We have made clear to the European Commission our intention to do everything possible to conform with the requirements of the E.C.S.C. Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12/12/72; col. 105.]
The noble Lord also asked me whether it was right that we should still continue to have what he described as a Government subvention which would come under the Coal Industry Bill now before Parliament. Once again, I would quote a reply given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place on December 11. He said (col. 37):
"These grants are allowed in the Community. All the Common Market countries give aid and grants to their coal industries, and they are in line with or more than we shall be paying under these proposals.
I think I have dealt with the three or four questions which the noble Lord put to me.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask, in relation to the answer which she quoted as having been given in another place, whether she would not agree that the same colleague of hers undertook later to make a further statement within a measurable time? Are we going to have such a statement about the pricing policies of the steel industry?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I cannot categorically answer that question at the

777
moment, but I will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, first, whether the contents of these treaties will be discussed by the Select Committee which is being appointed to consider the relationship between the European Community and our Legislature here? I should like to mention a second point. As I understand it, when these treaties are proposed, they will be open to an Affirmative Resolution in the two Houses. If they are open to an Affirmative Resolution in the two Houses, what is the real liberty of Parliament here to reach decisions, if membership of the European Communities means that the treaties become effective despite a decision taken by a separate Parliament?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, so far as this particular Order which is now before the House is concerned, it has not of course been possible for it to come before a Select Committee. An invitation was given to Members of both Houses to join a Select Committee as far back as last February, but this has not yet been agreed to. These particular draft instruments could not be considered by a Select Committee, since one does not yet exist. However, I understand there is a possibility that there will in fact be Select Committees—but not a Joint Select Committee—of each House. They would then have the opportunity to consider all instruments in draft.
To turn to the second point, the noble Lord asked what the power of Parliament was in this particular case. He will know quite well that Orders in Council cannot be amended: they have to be either approved or rejected. This point was discussed when the European Communities Bill was before the House and it was accepted by both Houses.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
4.29 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received.—(Lord Drumalbyn)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 38, after ("interfere") insert attempt to interfere or threaten to interfere").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have two objects in moving Amendments here: one is to see that the Bill is as reasonably clear as it can be, and the second is to see whether we can sharpen its teeth so far as we can. I hope for cooperation from the Government Front Bench in doing this. I cannot say that this is the best drafted Bill I have ever met in this House. What I am suggesting is that in Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with the destruction or damage of, or interference with, wireless installations, whether on land (which is in subsection (2)), or in the air (which is subsection (4)(d) it should be an offence, not only when damage or interference is taking place but also when it has been threatened or has been attempted.
I may say in general terms that no one has found an answer to hijacking or interference with wireless apparatus. We do two things: first of all, we set the penalty very high as a deterrent. Secondly, we must take preliminary action—no doubt some of it is administrative. I am suggesting that an offence is committed as soon as a threat, or an attempt to interfere or destroy, takes place. I find it almost impossible to believe that the noble Lord ought not to include the word "attempt". It comes out quite clearly in the Montreal Convention. A separate subsection deals with attempts to commit any offence. This is again repeated and referred to in Article 4(5), and referred to again in Article 5. It is therefore referred to three times in the Montreal Convention, but there is no reference whatever in this clause. The noble Lord says that the committing of a crime is the same as attempting the crime. I would refer him

779
to the Hijacking Act, where one will find that it refers quite specifically in Section 2 to "the offence of hijacking committed or attempted". Thus in that sense this is a proper protection to take. None of us wholly knows the answer to this question, but it is a reasonable precaution, it is reasonable sense, that as soon as any attempt or threat is committed it should be an offence. I believe that would strengthen the Bill, and I think that if the noble Lord is wise he will accept it. I beg to move.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which has been suggested, and I do so for this reason: we are dealing with a crime which is one of the most serious crimes that can possibly be conceived at the present time. The replacement of piracy, which was condemned throughout the world, by the attempts which are made, in some cases successfully, to interfere with aircraft, is something which must cause all civilised beings desperate concern. I use the word "desperate" because the situation is a desperate one once there is interference with aircraft. It seems to me that if people attempt to commit this crime and are stopped from committing it by some means or other, they themselves, should not be considered as having been the persons who have interfered with their own attempt to take this particular action. We must regard this type of action as something which must be stopped by whatever means we can conceive. In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment that has been proposed.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk. As I understood my noble friend the Minister when we were discussing this matter in Committee, this issue arises from a Convention, and the nations who were present at the Convention agreed to make the same rules, or words to that effect. There might be a Convention where all the countries present agreed that a certain penalty would be imposed for anybody who_ beat his wife to death. That is good but does it prevent any one nation from saying, "So far as our laws carry weight, we wish to go further and impose a penalty on someone who attempts to beat his wife to
780
death, or even, by telephone or otherwise, threatens to beat her to death". So long as one conforms to the minimum which the Convention demands, I cannot see why, for our own purposes, we should not go that little bit further. I heartily support my noble friend.
4.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this matter forward. We should be clear, first of all, on what we are talking about in this clause. The clause says:
"It shall, subject to subsections (4) and (5) of this section, be an offence for any person unlawfully and intentionally to destroy or damage any property to which this subsection applies, or to interfere with the operation of any such property, where the destruction, damage or interference is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight "
The next subsection defines what is the nature of the property to which the previous subsection applies. It says:
"The preceding subsection applies to any property used for the provision of air navigation facilities…"
We are talking about property used for the provision of air navigation facilities
If I may, I will deal first with that part of my noble friend's Amendment which seeks to make it an offence to attempt to interfere with the operation of property used for the provision of air navigation facilities. I am assured that the Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already provides for it to be an offence to interfere with air navigation facilities, and wherever a Statute makes it an offence to do a certain act, an attempt to do that act also, by operation of the common law, becomes an offence. By virtue of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 the attempt is subject to the same penalty as the principal offence. As my noble friend knows better than I, the position in Scotland is similar. My noble friend Lord Monck says that the word"attempt" appears in the Convention. But as I attempted to explain at the Committee stage, we only need to legislate where we have not got the powers we require to have in order to implement the Convention. Therefore, because we already have powers we need not put the word "attempt" into the Bill. It does not make any alteration to the Bill whatsoever.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I raised the question of the Hijacking Act. In that Act it specifically says:
"committed or attempted by him."
That does not look as if the common law applies everywhere.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not dealing with the Hijacking Act at the present time. That is an analogy; I am not sure whether it applies in this case exactly or not. Perhaps before I sit down I may have the answer to give my noble friend on that aspect. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in his place because he knows a great deal more about these things than anyone else in the House.
I should like to turn to that part of my noble friend's Amendment which seeks to make it an offence to threaten to interfere with property used for the provision of air navigation facilities, where that interference is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight. As I said at the Committee stage, a threat to interfere with air navigation facilities is not one of the offences covered by the Montreal Convention. The States which met at Montreal discussed in great detail what offences merited the very wide extension which is provided for in that Convention of the normal rules relating to the proper limits and jurisdiction of a State in dealing with foreign nationals in connection with offences committed abroad. They did not consider it appropriate to include among those offences threats to interfere with air navigation facilities. So, if we wished to provide in the Bill for a threat to interfere with the operation of air navigation facilities to be made an offence, we can only provide for jurisdiction over that offence to be assumed by our courts in accordance with the normal rules of international law. If the noble Earl's Amendment were adopted as it stands, our courts would have jurisdiction over it in all the circumstances set out in Clause 2(4) of the Bill. Clause 2(4) gives our courts jurisdiction, for example, to try an offence committed by a foreigner abroad if what he has done was likely to endanger the safety of a United Kingdom registered aircraft, or if he has committed his offence on hoard a foreign registered aircraft which has landed here with the offender still on hoard. We could not, in accordance with the rules of international law,
782
assert jurisdiction over a foreigner in such circumstances unless the Convention so provided. The Montreal Convention enlarges the jurisdiction which a contracting State may exercise; it in no way diminishes it; it in no way inhibits a State's right to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed in its own territory.
It would certainly have been in accordance with international law to provide in the Bill that it is an offence to threaten in the United Kingdom to interfere with the operation of property used for the provision of air navigation facilities where the interference is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight. But I think we should consider what such a provision would add to the existing law. First, it would apply to a threat to destroy or damage any air navigation facilities. But such a threat, if uttered in the United Kingdom, is already an offence under Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971; or, if money is demanded, it amounts to blackmail under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. Offences under Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act are punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, and offences under Section 21 of the Theft Act by 14 years' imprisonment. I do not want to underrate the seriousness of any such threat, but I would suggest that these are adequate penalties for a mere threat, bearing in mind that if the threat is implemented and there is actual interference the offence would fall under Clause 2(1) as drafted and would be punishable with imprisonment for life.
Secondly, unless qualified by the word "unlawfully", which is defined in Clause 8(1) of the Bill as meaning "unlawful" under some other provision of United Kingdom law apart from the Bill, a provision making a threat to interfere with air navigation facilities an offence would cover a threat to use a radio or electronic device to jam communications between a control tower, beacon, or other navigation facilities, and an aircraft. I hope that the House will agree that the important thing is that the Bill makes the implementation of a threat an offence.
Thirdly, to make it an offence to threaten to interfere with air navigation facilities would, again, qualified as it is by the word "unlawfully", apply to a threat by air traffic controllers and others

783
concerned with the provision of air navigation facilities to interfere with the operation of those facilities by threatening to withhold their labour in the course of an industrial dispute. I am sure that in a Bill intended to protect those who have operated with commendable skill and fortitude in the face of threats by hijackers and saboteurs, we would not wish to enter into the vexed field of industrial relations.
My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that we could not consistently with international law assume jurisdiction over the offence of threatening to interfere with air navigation facilities in all the circumstances covered by Clause 2(4) of the Bill, and therefore we could not accept my noble friend's Amendment as it stands. We are not inhibited in any way by the Montreal Convention from providing in the Bill that threats uttered in the United Kingdom shall be an offence, but if such an offence is created by the Bill and qualified by the word "unlawfully", as it is, we are doing no more than increasing the penalty for the offences already existing under Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act and Section 14 of the Theft Act; and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the penalties provided in those Acts, as I said, are sufficient for a threat which is not implemented. If we go further and cover threats to interfere, whether or not they are unlawful as defined in the Bill, we enter into a field where I think the danger to aircraft is more apparent than real and which I think is largely outside the class of cases which my noble friend sought to cover by this Amendment.
I now revert to my noble friend's argument regarding the reference in the Hijacking Act to "attempt". The Hijacking Act does not provide expressly that an attempt to hijack is an offence. As in the Bill, that is left to the operation of the common law. There is a reference to an attempt in Section 2 of the Hijacking Act, but that is in quite a different context. I hope, therefore, that in the light of these arguments the noble Earl will not wish to pursue the Amendment further.
4.46 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before the noble Earl responds to the invitation,
784
I am bound to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the very full and careful explanation of the reasoning behind this drafting. I must say that in one or two particulars I found it less than satisfactory. But I should have thought that we, and certainly another place, will need to look into what he has said when we read it in Hansard. However, may I ask the noble Lord just one or two questions? Is he seriously saying that one objection to the noble Earl's Amendment is that it might apply to an industrial dispute? Surely it would be possible, if provision has not already been made in this wording, to ensure that an unlawful and intentional threat was required. To say that a threat of withdrawing labour was intended to destroy property or life is really going very far, and I hope the noble Lord really did not mean that. If the wording is such that the Amendment would leave this open, then I agree a further Amendment would be necessary, but it would be quite easy.
The other point I would make to the noble Lord is this. We are dealing with a situation in which a threat has been the real problem. In few of these cases has actual damage occurred—I will say, a minority of cases. There are one or two cases one can call to mind, but in the main the trouble has been created, the threat to life has been, from a threat, not from an actual physical interference. It seems very difficult to understand—does it not?—that in an Act which is supposed to meet problems that we have seen in the last few years there is no real provision for this part of the problem; namely, that of the threat. I would go further, and would say that if the Convention itself does not include a threat then the Convention is inadequate. I will say, as one of the noble Lord's friends opposite has said, that if the Convention is inadequate, that is absolutely no reason why our own legislation should be inadequate. What we need to be able to do if we are going to ratify the Convention is to go as far as the Convention. If we go further, then that is no bar to the actual ratification of the Convention; although we have got to look much more carefully into the reply the noble Lord has given. I cannot say that he has so far satisfied all my doubts.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, though I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said. It is quite ridiculous to draw in the possibility of a labour dispute. Is it suggested that responsible labour people would take action which would endanger the safety of an aircraft? I am not saying that nobody would do that but I think that very few would and I suggest that it is a slightly irrelevant point to draw in at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I did not suggest any such thing. I said that it might be one of the kinds of threat at which the Amendment might be aimed.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if anyone were deliberately to try to endanger the safety of an aircraft, even by the withdrawal of labour, he would deserve very severe punishment; but that would be very unlikely to happen. The Minister used the word "jam". This is one aspect I have very much ill mind. I think of radio control—what during the war we used to call "bending the beams," something with which I was loosely connected. This is probably a very sophisticated business nowadays, and it is just the sort of thing that might be attempted.
I am dissatisfied with the whole of the Minister's answer. He said he felt certain that this part of the Bill, which applies all over the world,would be understood by people all over the world. But it does not mention the word "attempt", something that is so frequently referred to, and deliberately countersigned by this Government, in the Montreal Convention. I am surprised that the Minister should be satisfied with this. I appreciate that he follows the advice he is given, but frankly it seems a little complacent to assume that the international statute which we have signed should be ignored.
I will not press the Amendment to a Division at this hour. I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation, but having said that I am not entirely satisfied I hope that he will between now and the Bill's reaching another place go into the matter again. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 41, after ("applies") insert ("equally").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to establish that we are dealing in Clause 2 not only with navigation facilities on the ground but also with navigation facilities in the air. I wish to include the word "equally" in order to make quite sure that it is not purely ground establishments that this clause is intended to cover. If one were to read subsections (1) and (2) one might at first glance think that they applied only to ground establishments and I wish to make it clear that they apply equally, at any rate in certain cases, to wireless installations in the air. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I confess that when I saw this Amendment down I was puzzled by it, and I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining its intention. I understood him to say that it would mean that the preceding provision would apply equally to any property for the provision of air navigation facilities, whether that property was in the air, on the land or on the sea. Frankly, I do not see that the adding of the word "equally" would make any difference whatever. The clause as it stands is perfectly clear in saying that it applies to any property for the provision of air navigation facilities. It is very wide indeed. I find the word "equally" rather puzzling, and I think that others will be puzzled by it as well. However, I am quite willing to look at the matter again and perhaps my noble friend could have a word with me about it. As at present advised, I do not see that the addition of the word would add anything to the clause and might even give rise to some doubts.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one reason which probably prompted the noble Earl to table this Amendment is that it is not absolutely clear, at any rate to me, whether subsection (1) refers only to property on the land. If the term "property" does not include aircraft, I am at a loss to find—I am ready to believe that someone could find it for me—any reference to interference with an aircraft. There is nothing in Clause 1 which says that it is an offence to interfere with the operation of an aircraft. It

787
says that it is an offence to have a device or to seek to destroy or damage an aircraft and so on, but to interfere with its operation in terms is not included in Clause 1. I understood that Clause 2(1) covered not only property on the ground but property in the shape of an aircraft. If that is the case, then it seems that the addition of the word "equally" in subsection (2) is necessary.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. The Minister must realise that he reads this Bill with an enormous brief in front of him whereas we poor, ignorant chaps are unable to do that. We must try to understand what the mysterious Government Department which he represents is really trying to say. I spent quite a lot of time trying to find out whether or not these provisions apply to aircraft and I tabled an Amendment to include the word "equally" to make the position quite clear. If the Minister says that the position is already quite clear, I will accept that, but I should like him to look at the matter again to make absolutely sure that it applies to navigation installations anywhere, whether on the land or in an aircraft. If that is the position, something should be inserted in the Bill to make that clear. The clause says that it applies to certain things and goes on to say that the preceding clause applies to certain things. It is really saying that the preceding provisions apply inter alia. I thought that the use of the word "applies" in Clause 2 meant that the whole of that clause would apply to Clause 1. However, if my noble friend is quite satisfied with the existing drafting I will not press the matter further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("ship").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Amendment to enable my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn to answer a question which I raised in Committee but which at that stage he was not able to answer. Do these provisions apply to ships and the navigation equipment
788
installed on them, or are ships specifically excluded? This is very important because, as I have said, all sorts of things can be done to-day, with the use of electronic equipment, in the way of guiding or misguiding people. I shall therefore be interested to know whether this provision will apply to installations on ships. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am advised that subsection (2) does apply in this case. That is the intention, subsection (2) spelling out what is in subsection (1)—-the property to which the subsection applies. When it refers to
"any property used for the provision of air navigation facilities"
it means exactly what it says, and would include ships. Navigation facilities that could be used for aircraft are used on ships. I am not in a position to-day to say whether we should like to include the word "ship", because it raises a rather difficult problem, in that there are weather ships and we should have to find out the position there and the extent of the jurisdiction before we could include that word. We could make it apply to our own weather ships (I believe there are nine such vessels in existence in our area, three of which we provide while the others are provided by other nations). but I am not sure whether, if we included the word "ship" the provision would apply beyond our own ships. I should therefore need to clear up this point. Although I think my noble friend is on a good point, I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment at this time on the understanding that we will look into the matter further.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was going to suggest to the noble Earl that this is one Amendment he really should press and not be satisfied with an assurance. For the noble Lord to come along and say that his noble friend is on a good point and that he cannot give us the elementary information as to whether "property" includes a ship, or whether our own weather ships, British weather ships, are covered, seems rather strange.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it happens that this is a Starred Amendment and we have not had much time to consider it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know the difficulties under which the noble Lord works; burdens are put on him which no human being ought to be allowed to carry, and he is overworked. Nevertheless, we are here dealing with a Bill and we are entitled to expect a question of that kind to get an answer. I should have thought that the noble Earl would be justified in pressing this Amendment to a Division. If the word "property" is said to include ship, why do we take the trouble to say "including any land, buildings, apparatus or equipment ", but exclude the word "ship"? I could have understood it if "property" was so all-embracing that we did not say it included these things, but to say it includes these things and leave out "ship" weakens it. Like the noble Lord and others, I have seen a certain amount of legislation in my time, and I have always been told that once you start describing in detail what you are covering you have the effect of excluding things; those things which are not included in the list are held td be excluded. If we intend, as I understand the noble Lord to say we do, to cover ships, I do not see why the word "ships" should not be included in this list.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if the noble Lord had put a full stop after the word "facilities", then I would have agreed with him, but, as Lord Beswick says, the clause includes "land, buildings, apparatus or equipment", and under the normal rules this would not include a ship. The clause continues:
"other than any apparatus or equipment on board an aircraft".
Are those words even remotely necessary? If it is intended to include apparatus on an aircraft, why exclude them? I am putting this Amendment forward because I think something should be done about the drafting of this Bill. It is very bad.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think, if I may say so, that we are getting a little disorderly, because the noble Earl is now referring to his next Amendment. It is a little difficult for us to deal with two or three Amendments at the same time if we do not start by dealing with them together.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he
790
thinks I am being disorderly—it is the last thing I wish to be in this House—but I am trying to explain why I think the meaning of this clause is obscure. I do not intend to press this Amendment, as the noble Lord has said that he will look at it to see whether the point should be covered. I think it should be covered. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("used") to end of line 44.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment really goes with No. 2, to make it clear that the whole of Clause 2 in fact applies to installations which are on land or in the air. In these circumstances, I find it difficult to see that the words I am moving to omit are necessary at all. I do not feel strongly about the matter, one way or the other, but perhaps the noble Lord would look at it and see whether these words are redundant. The next subsection undoubtedly refers to equipment on aircraft. I find it difficult to see that these words add anything whatsoever to the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by explaining that the reason why I did not seek leave to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on the point he raised was because it is covered by the present Amendment. My noble friend is seeking by this Amendment to make it an offence under this clause to destroy, damage or interfere with the operation of apparatus and equipment which is on board an aircraft and is used for the provision of air navigation facilities, where the destruction or damage or interference is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight. That is the effect of his Amendment. But such acts are already offences under Clause 1 of the Bill. Where any apparatus or equipment on the aircraft is damaged so as to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight, it is an offence under Clause 1(1). Where any device is used on board an aircraft to interfere with its navigational equipment, it is an offence under Clause 1(2). So I hope that in this case, at any rate, the noble Earl will agree that his Amendment is not necessary.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord seems now to be confirming our worst fears, that in Clause 1 of this Bill there is no reference to interference or attempted interference with the operation of an aircraft. What the noble Lord is saying is that if you damage the navigational equipment in a supporting aircraft, or if you place a device in that supporting aircraft with the intention of damaging it, you are caught by Clause 1. But we are dealing here in Clause 2 with the additional menace of interference or a threat of interference. If someone in a ship or aircraft upon which another aircraft is dependent for navigational information says, "You shall not pass this information", then apparently he is not caught by the clause. It is not necessary to damage the equipment; one can prevent it from being used by the use of threats. In those circumstances, would it not be preferable simply to exclude these words? There is nothing to be gained by their inclusion.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I understand it, what the noble Lord is arguing is that since it is already covered elsewhere it will not do any harm to put it in again, or there may be just a small residual point which is not already covered.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I specifically said that according to the noble Lord's definition of Clause 1 this point is not covered. The noble Lord himself referred to damage or the placing of a device. There is nothing in Clause 1 about interference. I am saying that in Clause 2 there is this additional reference to interference, and therefore it cannot be covered by Clause 1.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid I can only say once again that I think I shall have to look at this point again. I think we should look at all three points together, and I shall be very glad to do this.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I was only trying to be helpful. I really do not understand what the noble Lord is trying to say. He is saying that if I were to take out these words it would in fact be bringing the offence into Clause 1(1)(a). If I may go on to subsection (4), this subsection applies to acts committed on board a civil aircraft.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I am saying is that these words are taken out in the Bill. It says "other than any apparatus or equipment", because they are covered by Clause 1.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection 5.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the omission of subsection (5) of Clause 2. I do so for the simple reason that I do not understand what it is trying to say. I should have no idea at all if I had not got a crib, and the crib is in the form of the Montreal Convention. This comes from a clause in the Montreal Convention, which in fact says:
"In cases contemplated in paragraph (b)"—
that is, damage to navigation facilities—
"…this Convention shall apply only if air navigation facilities are used in international navigation."
What I should like the noble Lord to do, if he would be so good, is to explain what he is trying to cover by this particular subsection.
So far as I know, what he is saying is that if navigation facilities are damaged outside the United Kingdom no offence will lie unless (a), they are used for international purposes, and then an offence will lie in this country against any citizen of any country; or, (b) they are used for any purposes (that includes domestic purposes) and are committed by a British citizen. That is what I think he is trying to say. If that is true, could the noble Lord not try to write it a little more simply, so that it is a little more comprehensible to those of lower intelligence? I should be grateful if he could look at it with this object in mind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that the noble Earl has got it right. If he thinks that this is particularly obscure, we shall be glad to look at it again. Perhaps I should just spell it out once more. What the subsection does is to ensure that it shall not be an offence to destroy, damage, or interfere with the

793
operation of air navigation facilities which are not used in connection with international air navigation, unless the act is committed within the United Kingdom or by a British subject. The only effect of removing the subsection—and I do not think that this is what my noble friend wants, but he merely wants it looked at again—would be to make it an offence under our law for a foreigner abroad to damage, destroy, or interfere with air navigation facilities which were used solely in connection with domestic
air navigation in a foreign State. These acts were deliberately excluded from the Montreal Convention because a majority of the States represented at the Convention in Montreal last year considered that, where an act affected air navigation facilities which were used only for domestic air navigation, this was a matter to be regulated by domestic legislation and could not be properly dealt with in an international convention. It does not mean that we cannot deal with it so far as our domestic legislation is concerned in this Bill. If the noble Earl would like me to look at it again to clarify it—and he seems to have understood it himself—we will look at it again.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Lord said. As I understand it, he says that we want to make it absolutely certain that this Bill does not apply to damage done to property abroad by people who are not British nationals. In what conceivable circumstances can we legislate in this country for property abroad damaged by people who are not British nationals?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we could legislate for it if there was a common convention and agreement that we should legislate for it on a reciprocal basis. Only in those circumstances could we do it. This matter was debated at the Conference. It is not an impossible task, but the idea was not accepted. This was thought to be going too far. For that reason, we are restricted to dealing with our own nationals.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. This clause includes a double negative and the word "unless", and it really needs a very great deal of construing. If I had not had a copy of the Montreal Convention I am sure that
794
I should not have got the answer. I think that this point should be looked at, and if the noble Lord would look at it I should be very glad. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Penalties and proceedings]:
5.14 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection—
("(1) Any person who commits an offence under this Act shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life, or such lesser period as the Court may decide.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I, with deference, suggest to my noble friend that we might take these Amendments together, because they all relate to the same point?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure that that is going to be possible, because my Amendment No. 6 is not the same as Amendment No. 7. Of course Amendment No. 8 will follow if either Amendment No. 6 or Amendment No. 7 is carried. I will certainly speak to Amendment No. 6 now, and listen to the noble Lord, and speak to Amendment No. 7 in a moment.
Clause 4 of the Bill lays down the penalties for the various offences created by the Bill. Clause 4(1) provides, in general, that the penalty is imprisonment for life, while subsection (2) provides that in certain cases (principally the conveying of misleading or incorrect information), the penalty is a maximum of ten years' imprisonment. At the Committee stage I suggested to your Lordships—and I think that I found a good measure of agreement from both sides of the House—that this distinction was invidious. and that it would be better to provide for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for all offences under the Act. The Amendment that I now propose seeks to do just that. If I had pursued, or persevered with, my Amendments at Committee stage, I would simply have provided for one penalty only for offences under this Act, which was imprisonment for life, and it was clearly not appropriate that some of the lesser offences

795
should carry that penalty. I have accordingly done my best to draft a more reasonable Amendment, which provides that the maximum sentence shall be imprisonment for life but that the courts may sentence for a lesser period if they so decide. Accordingly, I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, that there was a wide measure of agreement from all sides of the House for the intentions of his original Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is going to tell us that his Amendments Nos. 7 and 9, will secure for us what we really wanted in Lord Trefgarne's original Amend-
ment, then certainly he will have our support.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I am going to do exactly that. We have accepted the principle of my noble friend's Amendment. I think that he is still under a slight misapprehension about what the Bill means. He seems to think that the words—
"any person who commits an offence under this Act shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life"—
mean that he must be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is convicted, otherwise I do not see what the words that he has added—
"or such lesser period as the Court may decide"—
are intended to mean. Of course, "liable to imprisonment for life" does not mean that he has to be sentenced to imprisonment for life. It leaves to the discretion of the court the appropriate sentence. Therefore, the words he seeks to add—
"or such lesser period as the Court may decide"—
are not really necessary.
The Amendments standing in my name meet exactly his major point, which was that the results of the lesser offence of communicating false information might in the end, be just as fatal as the actual causing of the damage. We accept that. It might well be that somebody who was guilty of what appears to be the lesser offence of communicating false information would cause just as much damage, and would therefore be just as deserving of imprisonment for life, as someone
796
who actually caused the damage. For that reason we have accepted the principle of my noble friend's Amendment, and the words contained in Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 meet exactly the point that he had in mind. I hope he will agree that they are to be preferred.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept that the legal advice available to the noble Lord is better than my own legal knowledge, which is confined to an abortive attempt to get through the Bar examinations some ten years ago. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I need only say that I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("Subject to the next following subsection").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is simply to deal with the Scottish situation. I am advised that the provision was necessary in Scottish law, though not in English law, to ensure that the courts did not impose—
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt? I think the noble Lord is speaking to Amendment No. 9.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry, my Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, leave out lines 31 to 34.
The noble Lord said:My Lords, I should perhaps explain why, as a consequence of making the offence of communicating false information punishable by imprisonment for life, it is necessary to delete paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of Clause 4. I am advised that that provision was necessary in Scottish law, though not in English law, to ensure that the courts did not impose a higher penalty for an

797
attempt to communicate false information, than could be awarded for the actual communication of false information. If the penalty for communicating false information is increased to life imprisonment, the question does not arise as no court in the United Kingdom can award a higher penalty than that. These lines can therefore be left out. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation]:
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from beginning of line to ("until") in line 31 and insert ("any of the passengers or crew enter the aircraft for the purpose of flight until all the passengers and crew have left the aircraft after landing or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we now come to the interpretation clause. Certain particularly serious offences depend upon whether an aircraft is in flight or in service. An aircraft is in service from the time the mechanics first start looking at it until 24 hours after it has landed, and I am examining here the definition of the term "in flight". The words in the Bill are taken straight from the Montreal Convention, and indeed from the Hijacking Conference before it, so it might he said that they are enshrined to such a degree that they should not be changed. But I do not think we should take that view, and we should look carefully at them. I have rather special reasons for saying that. First of all, opening the doors of an aeroplane is a purely artificial action and what happens immediately before may be very little different from what happens immediately afterwards. We have recently had an example in Germany of what can happen—and many things can happen in a hijacking. Having loaded up with passengers, the aeroplane was unloaded because someone was thought to be acting suspiciously. Everyone was taken off, except for one stewardess, whereupon another man who had nothing to do with the flight got on to the aeroplane and held the stewardess to ransom. Your Lordships may say that that was an unusual case and one that would not happen very often. You may say that the man was slightly "cracked" as he
798
undoubtedly was, since most people who behave in that way are probably suffering from something. But in many cases the sole purpose of hijacking is advertisement. We had a clear example of that in what recently happened over Ethiopia, when certain students from the University of Addis Ababa simply wanted to draw attention to themselves and were nearly all shot.
I consider that this definition in the Bill is a little too rigid. I would say that the moment anyone gets on to an aeroplane he is, as it were, in a cage. He is, as it were, locked in and cannot get out. He is sitting on extremely valuable material and no one will be very willing to take violent action to get hold of it. The Bill itself recognises how unsatisfactory the position is, because it refers to the case of a forced landing. I do not think anyone will define a "forced landing". I asked the noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, whether he would look at this definition, but I see that he has stuck to what was in the Bill. I do not blame him for that, because I believe that a forced landing permits of no definition. You can force land on an aerodrome and you can force land off an aerodrome. I do not think it is really possible to get an effective and clear-cut definition of a "forced landing". I therefore suggest that we should try a wider proposition, and the proposition which I put forward is that, from the time the crew or the passengers enter an aircraft, Clause 1(1)(b) should come into operation, because from then on the passengers are exposed to peril.
I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. If a hijacker goes to some well-known airport, such as Heathrow, and demands that an aircraft be refuelled when the doors are open, is that a forced landing or a regular landing? I am talking about a landing with all the navigational aids and with all the assistance of modern equipment. Which is it? If it is not a forced landing—and I do not see how it can be—then Clause 1(1)(b) will not come into operation, because the doors are open. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can answer that question satisfactorily. My Lords. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first point, I think that if the event in Germany, to

799
which he referred had taken place here it would have been covered by Section 1(1) of the Hijacking Act. In fact it was covered in any case, because, unless I am mistaken, Germany has subscribed to the Hague Convention. That Convention states:
"A person on board an aircraft in flight, who unlawfully by the use of force or by threats of any kind seizes an aircraft or exercises control of it, commits the offence of hijacking."
So it would appear that that offence, which apparently influenced my noble friend to put down this Amendment, is already covered. He asked me to find out what is meant by the term "forced landing". The phrase is of course also used in the Tokyo Convention Act and the Hijacking Act without being defined in either. But I am advised that the phrase covers a landing forced by a hijacker, or by weather, or by technical difficulties, or for any other reason and that nothing would be gained by defining the term. It is a very wide term, and means exactly what it says—a forced landing.
My Lords, the position here, as I explained in Committee, is that the words which appear in the Bill are the words which appear in the Hijacking Act, and the term "an aircraft in flight" is used in the definition of every offence referred to in the Montreal Convention and in every offence created by the Bill. Noble Lords will note that the phrase is used in both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of Clause 1(1), in Clause 1(2), in Clause 2(1) and in Clause 2(3). If the definition is extended as my noble friend has proposed, every offence created by the Bill would be correspondingly extended beyond the scope of the offences covered by the Montreal Convention. So far as it concerns dealing with offences outside our own jurisdiction at the present time, it would not be possible for us to extend our jurisdiction in the way that my noble friend proposes unless we had another Convention that would allow us to do so.
My Lords, the definition of "an aircraft in flight" in the Bill as drafted exactly reproduces the definition in Article 2(a) of the Montreal Convention, and my noble friend's Amendment seeks to extend that definition quite a long way. I would remind my noble friend that at
800
the Committee stage he said, in connection with Clause 1(3), that that provision,
"is quite a remarkable extension of the criminal law of this country, and indeed of Scotland, it states that any act
'committed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere whatever the nationality of the person'
becomes an offence under the Act. That means that in any part of the world, so far as I can see, where any aircraft is deliberately rendered incapable of flight, or where any act of violence takes place on the aircraft, that is part of the criminal law and can be pursued in this country ".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 7/12/72, col. 374.]
I agree with my noble friend that this is indeed a remarkable extension of the criminal law. It is one which can be made only because an international Convention makes provision for it. But that Convention makes such provision only in respect of certain offences. If we widen those offences by extending the definition of "an aircraft in flight" beyond the Convention definition, we cannot justify giving our courts jurisdiction over the offences, due to the words of Clause 1(3)
"whether…committed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. whatever the nationality of the person committing the act and whatever the State in which the aircraft is registered ".
My Lords, I do not want to weary the House by repeating yet again at length that the Convention does not, of course, inhibit us from making it an offence to destroy or damage an aircraft on the ground in this country, or to kill or injure passengers or crew while they are embarking or disembarking from an aircraft here. The existing law already caters for this. I have already referred several times to the Criminal Damage Act. I can assure the House that I have looked closely into this, and that this Act makes it an offence to destroy or damage an aircraft here. To kill a passenger or a member of a crew here amounts to murder, and to injure any such person constitutes an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in Scotland as well as in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that, in these circumstances, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment. Perhaps I need add only that he asked me what the Addis Abbaba offence would constitute in English law. That would have been hijacking. The German offence would have amounted to assault

801
or kidnapping. I am sorry that I made an error in confusing the two incidents.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl is going to do here, but again doubts remain after the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He says that the Amendment would extend the law considerably. In fact, it would extend it only by a matter of a few yards—the few yards difference that there would be between a passenger seated in an aircraft and a passenger who was outside on the tarmac having got out of the aircraft.
The noble Lord's other point was that if we accepted this Amendment we should be providing powers which would go very much further than those at present existing for a particular offence. But is the noble Lord really saying that if an aircraft is on the ground and certain things are done to it then it shall be caught by these provisions if the doors are closed but shall not be caught by these provisions if the doors happen to be open? What the Bill in fact says is,
"when any such door is opened for disembarkation "
It says nothing about actual disembarkation. If the door is open for disembarkation then the application of this Bill ceases. We have seen examples of trouble in cases where the aircraft has sat on the tarmac or on some landing strip and quite clearly the door has been open, but the passengers have not been free, and the crew has not been free, from
molestation. Surely, anything which applies when the passengers are seated there under duress should equally apply if the passengers are seated there and the doors happen to be open for the purpose of allowing some ventilation or for lowering the temperature. As the noble Lord speaks, it seems to me that where we really should have pressed this point is in the Hijacking Act itself. The definition is even more important as far as the Hijacking Act is concerned. That his slipped through, but it having been allowed to slip through I think that the noble Lord might have made an effort to meet the point which is now being made to him by the noble Earl.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the answer given by the
802
noble Lord, but I still cannot understand why he cannot accept this wording. Surely the wording which is now suggested makes it perfectly clear that when all the passengers and crew have been allowed to leave the aircraft, or have in fact left, is the time at which the offence cannot be regarded as having been committed. Surely it is reasonable to expect that all of the persons in the aircraft shall have had the opportunity to leave, and that any act which is performed before they have done so would come within the hijacking operation.
There is one thing of which I should like to have an explanation. I cannot quite understand why the noble Lord keeps repeating that we cannot go beyond the Montreal Convention. It seems to me that we can, and should, take additional precautions within our own legislation, which might lead at a later stage to the acceptance of a further Convention, in addition to the provisions of the Convention which exists at present. It does not in fact damage our case in so far as adhering to the Convention or ratifying the Convention is concerned. But it is time, I think, that we ourselves were in a position to indicate to the world that we are prepared to go even further than that, with a view to additional steps being taken for the protection of passengers. Hijacking is a terrible crime, and anything which can he done to make it more difficult, or even impossible, for a hijacking to take place at any particular time or at any particular stage ought to be considered by us, irrespective of what may be done under international conventions. It ought to be considered by us as essential and as indicating perhaps an example to the rest of the world in respect of what precautions should be taken. I do not see why these words cannot be accepted.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, perhaps I may try to enlighten the House a little on this matter. I have taken part in some of the discussions. We are concerned with a demarcation provision. The object of Clause 8(2) is to separate the period of the international jurisdiction (what one might call Convention jurisdiction) from the domestic jurisdiction. One has to test it in relation to Clause 1(1)(b), which gives the substantive offence to which it relates. It is

803
important to see what that is. It is not just hijacking in general; but
"to commit on board an aircraft in flight any act of violence which is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft."
What Clause 8(2) is trying to do is to say when, on the one hand, the State where the aircraft is should assume jurisdiction under its domestic law and when, on the other hand, this is to be treated as an international matter to be dealt with internationally under the Convention. One must think of it at each end and in relation to our own interest.
You have an aircraft on a British airstrip. It is about to take off. You have to decide at what point British law is to give up and international law is to take over. It would be unacceptable that we should allow other States professing to act under the Convention to apply their law to an aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Heathrow before what one may call the aircraft begins to be in flight. Equally it would be, one would think, surprising if British law were to attempt to assert its jurisdiction over an aircraft on Kennedy Airport unless the aircraft were to be treated as "in flight". Clause 8(2) is a very extensive definition of the expression "in flight" and is more extensive than it used to be. Under some of the old Conventions an aircraft was treated as in flight only when power had been applied for the purposes of take off and until the landing roll ended. That was the dividing line. Clause 8(2) is more extensive because it was thought desirable to impose the Convention jurisdiction up to a later point—at an earlier point on the one hand and up to a later point on the other hand: namely, from the time the doors are closed until the time when the doors open. The period outside that period, before the -doors close or when they have been opened, is considered, I should suggest appropriately, as one for the exercise of domestic jurisdiction.
In relation to British law, the noble Lord said that it seems inconceivable that British courts and British law would not want to deal with and would not be able to deal with an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft if the aircraft were on a British airfield with its doors open. To carry the international jurisdiction beyond that point
804
to the point, as the noble Earl's Amendment would suggest, when either one passenger has got off or one passenger has left, with respect, would seem to be excessive.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation, but the noble and learned Lord keeps referring to international jurisdiction. The international jurisdiction which would bite here would be the international jurisdiction which would follow from the Convention when we have ratified it. We are now talking about a piece of British legislation. What the noble Earl is suggesting certainly goes beyond the definition which appears in the Convention; nevertheless, it is one which we could accept for our nationals defined here or our property as defined here. The point about not allowing other countries, signatories to the Convention, to have jurisdiction over this more extended definition does not arise unless the Convention itself is extended.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, but one is considering on the one hand the scope of this Bill to aircraft on foreign airports, and, on the other hand, the jurisdiction which other States may seek to apply to their aircraft on our airports. Outside that period, so far as action within this country is concerned, there is no difficulty: we simply apply British law. You do not need a further extension of it in order that British law may apply.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us in what part of the Bill provision is made for jurisdiction over British aircraft in foreign airports?
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, it is the period while the aircraft is in flight. That is what we are talking about. We are seeking to define the period during which it is to be a crime within Clause 1(1)(b):
"to commit on board an aircraft…any act of violence…."
That is the crime for which a man can be prosecuted under this Bill so long as the aircraft is "in flight". We must find out when it ceases to be in flight. It is on a foreign airport. It is a very extensive clause. It gives us jurisdiction while an aircraft is at a foreign airport (or has force landed, if it is somewhere else)

805
right up to the time it may have stopped, perhaps landing at Kennedy Airport. According to this Bill, jurisdiction is given to prosecute under British law a person until the "door is opened". That is a very extensive jurisdiction. It is all right, because it is agreed to under the Convention which other States have agreed to accept. I suggest to the House that it would be excessive to go beyond it. It goes as far as one would reasonably expect to go and further than any Convention which extends the jurisdiction only up to the time when the landing roll ends; the aircraft was treated as being in flight when on a landing strip but until it began taxi-ing round. This carries "flight" further to the period after taxi-ing, when aircraft gets to the landing bay, when it comes to a halt, when the engines have been switched off and before the doors open. I would suggest that it is not necessary to take that any further.
LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I was going to ask "before the noble and learned Lord sits down"—because this being Report stage we may not interfere again—whether he could make clear that what we are saying in this piece of British legislation will not apply to foreign aircraft or to foreign airports unless they are included in the Convention. If -they are not in the Convention when we ratify that Convention, it will not apply to foreign aircraft or foreign airports.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I would sooner that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should answer that; but this clause has nothing to do with whether the other States ratify the Convention. This applies, in any case at which it applies, so long as the aircraft is "in flight". It is only not a breach of accepted international law in so far as other States accept the Convention. The Bill defines its own limits. The Bill says that so long as the aircraft is in flight, you may exercise in British courts jurisdiction under Clause 1 and treat the offence as a crime. I suggest that Clause 8 already goes very far and that it would be unwise, and in some cases unjustifiable, to carry the jurisdiction beyond that point. We in this country would be unwilling to see foreign States interfere beyond that point.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down,
806
may I ask again what objection he has? Is there really any reason why, in view of what he has already admitted (that we are going beyond what appears in the Convention at present) people should not be protected against this heinous offence until they have actually left the plane? What reason is there why he does not feel that a person should be so protected?
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, perhaps by leave of the House I may be treated as if I were still on my feet, though I think that this is the moment when the noble Lord should take over Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I might have done that this definition in Clause 8(2) which extends the period of "in flight" is the period fixed by the Montreal Convention. It was in earlier Conventions that the period was less. So this is strictly in accordance with the Convention.
If one asks, "Is it desirable that the period should be more extensive?", then I would say that that is a matter of policy, and I would sooner that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill should answer. So far as I can answer, I would say that it is desirable to keep in line with the Convention, otherwise we get outside International Law. Secondly, so far as we are concerned, we can under our own criminal law deal adequately with cases occurring on our airports, either under the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act or, if it is an act of violence, under the Offences Against the Person Act. We can deal quite adequately with such cases, and, I suggest, would want to deal with them under the ordinary provisions of the criminal law. I think that at this point the noble Lord had better take over.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I feel very happy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has been forced to his feet. I am very tempted to ask him a number of questions, but I think that it would be a little unfair to press him too far. I see the noble Lord's point. This is an international Convention and so far as the international aspect is concerned we have to stick to the terms of the Convention. On the other hand, we could of course legislate for British aircraft and British personnel on British territory. If we wanted to

807
make our own rules rather more strict there is nothing to stop us from doing so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berwick, is not interested in that; he is concerned with only one thing and so his mind is blank to other subjects, apart from the Convention. I am glad that he corrected himself in respect of Section 1 of the Hijacking Act because I should have pulled him up about that. But he has not answered the point about what is a "forced landing".
One has to remember that there is at the outset, besides the closing of doors, a "forced landing". No one knows what that means. The noble Lord did not answer the question that I put: if a hijacker landed at Heathrow and opened the doors, would that be a forced landing? I should not think that it would be; I should think it was a perfectly normal landing. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, may at some time have to answer that point in a judicial capacity. It is a difficult term to define. I have landed an aircraft on an aerodrome when the fact that I had to do so was my own fault because my petrol was exhausted, and the circumstances were certainly those of a forced landing; but that was on an aerodrome. I am a little concerned about this loose phraseology and that is why, primarily, I should have liked to extend the first definition. I think that the term "forced landing" is bad and may cause difficulty in some circumstances. How ever, I will not press the point now, and I am grateful for the trouble which has been taken to answer this Amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I regret to say that earlier to-day, before the passing of the Education Bill, I failed to move the privilege Amendment. In the hope that your Lordships may take a charitable view of this omission, I beg to move that the proceedings on the passing of the Education Bill earlier to-day be vacated.
Moved, That the proceedings on the passing of the Education Bill earlier this day be vacated.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move the privilege Amendment.
Moved, That the privilege Amendment be agreed to.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.