Lords Sitting of 14 November 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
The Earl of Swinton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

THE BAHAMAS AND GRENADA: INDEPENDENCE PROPOSAL
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards recognising the independence of the Bahamas and Grenada.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, a General Election was held in the Bahamas in September when early independence was the main issue. It resulted in a substantial victory for Mr. Pindling's Progressive Liberal Party. At the request of the Bahamas Government, it has been agreed to hold a constitutional conference in London in December. It is expected that the Bahamas will become independent in July, 1973. As regards Grenada, it has been agreed that a constitutional conference should be held in early May, 1973, to review the provisions of a possible independence Constitution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that full reply, and welcoming the rights of these people to self-determination, may I ask whether the Government have taken into consideration their difficulties and their economic validity? While Bahamas may be safer because of her American associations with tourism and as an anchorage for tankers, is not the case of Grenada very difficult because of the deterioration of plantation economy? Is it not desirable now that the Government should call a conference, perhaps through the Commonwealth Secretariat, to consider
590
co-ordination of all these small islands, possibly in a confederation?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it has of course been the policy, and is the policy, of Her Majesty's Government to consider sympathetically requests for independence from dependent territories provided that they have local support. I know that the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, refers is a complicated one and I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has fully in mind the difficulties which the noble Lord has mentioned.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government can warn the Pindling Government of the Bahamas of the irreparable harm being done to the economic future of that country by their anti-white actions which are ruining the off-shore business and driving the tourist trade away? Could Her Majesty's Government let the Bahamas Government know that those of us whose families have done quite a lot to help build up their country are more than sad to see them cut off their nose to spite their face?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while I understand the view which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has put forward I really think that that goes somewhat further than the original Question on the Order Paper, which referred to the possibility of independence for these countries.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government have made any proposals to the Bahamas Government in respect of the defence of that country after they have become independent?
EARL FERRERS: Of course, my Lords, when they are independent they will be responsible for their own defence in the same way as all other independent countries are, subject to the normal safeguards which Commonwealth countries have.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his response, and perhaps trespassing on the actual nature of the Question, may I ask whether the Government would pay very great consideration to the desirability in the

591
Caribbean of bringing about some coordination between these nations—in the case of the Bahamas large, but in the case of Grenada small—which are becoming independent? The situation is now becoming complicated by Nevis and Anguilla in the St. Kitts group. Is it not desirable that there should be an early conference to try to bring about co-ordination and economic validity?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the point which the noble Lord has mentioned and I will certainly ensure that his observations are drawn to the attention of my right hoonurable friend.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while wishing to support my noble friend in the importance that he lays on getting these small islands joined together, may I ask whether the noble Earl will not confirm that the real difficulty in this is that all these islands produce much the same sort of commodities and therefore in joining together they do not in fact complement each other but only add to each other's problems? If they are to be joined together—and it is important that they should be so—would he not agree that we should try to get some areas whose products are different, such as Canada which has a cold climate, to join them and strengthen them? In that way they are far more likely to be able to stand independent than they are if left purely on their own.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there have in the past been many views expressed of a similar nature to the view that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has just expressed. There have been efforts to try to get some co-ordination in this area. Of course, the only possibility of real success is if the people involved wish to co-operate and, for want of a better word, to amalgamate in such an organisation. If this desire is not forthcoming, then it is difficult for Her Majesty's Government to do something specific on the lines the noble Viscount has suggested.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY FUNDS: ESTABLISHMENT DATES
2.41 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 the communiqué of the meeting of the Heads of State or of Government of countries of the enlarged Community means that the date of the implementation of resolutions of the Ministers of the Community of March 26, 1972, concerning the European Regional Fund has been postponed from October 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972, and that of European Monetary Co-operation Fund from June 30, 1972 to April 1, 1973, and what is the reason for this postponement.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, no postponement is involved in either case. As regards the European Monetary Co-operation Fund, until the decision was taken at the Summit Conference to institute it before April 1, 1973, no commitment existed to establish such a Fund by any given date. As regards the European Regional Development Fund, the Community of Six had previously resolved to take by October 1, 1972, certain decisions of principle relating to the establishment of a regional Development Fund or some alternative system for regional development using the appropriate Community resources. That proposal has now, in our view, been overtaken by the quite separate Summit decision to establish a Regional Development Fund for the Enlarged Community before December 31, 1973.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I point out that it is obvious that there has been a postponement, because the Ministers had previously agreed on exactly the same thing that the Summit Conference agreed on—the postponed date.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think there is a misunderstanding here. As I have said, there was never a firm

593
date for the implementation of the resolutions. As the noble Lord is well aware, the resolution of March 21, 1972, laid down provisions for consideration by the Council of Ministers. Implementation would not necessarily have followed immediately even if those had been agreed upon.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that he is mistaken? Obviously, the resolution of March, 1972, did exactly the same thing as the Summit Conference, but with earlier dates than those in the Summit Conference resolution?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we really cannot argue in detail about this matter. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord the relevant extracts from the resolution of March 21, 1972.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say that there was no firm date for the implementation of the regional development arrangement? If that is so, why the euphoria on the part of the Prime Minister about the advantage of the decision that was taken?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, regional development funds already existed in the Community of the Six, and some existing funds of the Community make payments of a regional nature on which we shall be drawing from January 1, 1973.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will the Government do their utmost to see that the two deadlines in regard to the Regional Fund and the Monetary Fund in 1973 are in fact met?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, obviously this will be one of our cardinal aims.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is it not true that the veto applies to any of these proposals by the British Government, in that both the Germans and the French are opposed to the extension of the regional funds to the degree that the British want?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, all these are matters which will have to be discussed, once the analysis that the Commission has been asked to do of the
594
problems of regions in the enlarged Community comes before Ministers.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that his uncertainty about these problems casts a very dark shadow indeed on the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is always uncertainty about the future. We have to reach agreement on what is best for the Community as a whole. But the commitments in the Summit Conference are perfectly clear: that the Regional Development Fund will have regard not only to agricultural problems but to industrial problems as well.

THE BUDGET AND BORROWING REQUIREMENTS
2.46 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 what is the expected deficit in:—

(a) the conventional Budget 1972–73;

(b) the new form economic overall Budget including the requirements of the public sector corporations.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the latest published figures can be found in a convenient form in Tables 5 and 11 of this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report. It was expected that, after the changes announced in the Budget, the total public sector borrowing requirement will be £3,358 million, and that the total borrowing by the National Loans Fund will amount to £2,667 million.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that this means a turn round of almost £4,000 million in the public finances and that even if one does not accept the monetarist interpretation of economics, as Mr. Powell does, this is a very serious matter indeed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear by his recent actions the importance which he attaches to ensuring that the

595
borrowing requirement which emerges in the second half of the financial year does not lead to undue expansion in the reserve base of the banks, and that is why he judged it appropriate to call for special deposits last week.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask a question which seems to have a bearing on the conventional Budget for next year? Has he seen the report in the Press this morning that the expected deficit on the balance of payments by the end of next year will be over £400 million?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree that what the noble Lord has said would have a bearing on next year's Budget, but I think it is going rather wide of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. I must confess that I have not seen that particular report.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does not the noble Earl realise that his right honourable friend's efforts have resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in the monetary circulation as measured by M3—and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will probably be the only noble Lord who will understand that—and that an increase of 20 per cent. in M3 is not what the noble Earl could possibly describe as a satisfactory rate of increase.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am going rather cautiously where M3 is concerned, but it is my understanding, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, will bear out, that the rate of increase in M3 is now quite sharply de-accelerating.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Earl to make some attempt slightly to quantify his use of the term "undue expansion"?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would, of course, wish to respond as always to any question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, but I think that on this occasion I will do my best to resist the temptation.

HOVERCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish the finding of the Inquiry into the recent SRN 6 hovercraft accident.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the report of the Inquiry into the casualty on March 4, 1972, involving an SRN 6 hovercraft is now in the final stages of preparation. The report, which has involved a great deal of research, is confidential, but a statement on its findings will be made before the Christmas Recess.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. He would agree, I am sure, that in the interests of the industry it is vital to restore any lack of confidence that may exist in any users of hovercraft. Could my noble friend say what steps, if any, have been taken to modify the craft? Secondly, what limits of service have been imposed in certain weather conditions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot anwer those questions without notice and, if I may say so, it is probably better to await the statement which is to be made.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not the real trouble that a hovercraft is neither flesh, fowl, nor good red herring and thus falls rather between two stools—thoroughly to mix metaphors. If the craft was a sea-going vessel there would be no need to publish any such report, but if it was an aircraft it would be statutory and necessary to do so. In view of the fact that the hovercraft industry is very much younger than that of navigation on the sea, would it not be better if we treated it, so far as publication of reports go, in the same way in which we deal with aircraft so that we can get a great deal more experience and confidence in this new method of travel.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says, but even so far as aircraft are concerned an accident investigation report is only

597
required to be published "unless there are other reasons to the contrary", so in both cases there is not an absolute obligation to publish.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can my noble friend estimate how soon the statement will be made?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have said that I hope it will be made before Christmas, but I am afraid that I cannot be more accurate than that.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, in view of the widespread interest in this incident, and accepting that the Government have no obligation to publish the accident report, why, none the less, is it not going to be published? And who has prepared it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the report is made by an officer appointed for that purpose. In general, the reason for not publishing reports is to give the officer the greatest possible freedom in expressing views which he might be inhibited from expressing if he knew that the report was going to be published. As I said, in this case there have been special factors, including the need to obtain certain important scientific and technical information.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this is yet another example of the more open government we were promised by the Conservatives?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in many cases we follow the normal procedure and we make improvements where possible.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have been asked by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to inform your Lordships that he is sitting judicially this week and cannot, therefore, be in his place on the Woolsack until after 4 o'clock. He is sorry that he could not inform the House in advance of the reason for his absence this week as his judicial obligations did not arise until last Friday.

THE QUEEN AND PRINCE PHILIP: ANNIVERSARY DINNER BY PRIVY COUNSELLORS
2.55p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there are two matters that I would mention to your Lordships. A number of Members of your Lordships' House will know that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip have accepted an invitation to dine with members of the Privy Council on Tuesday, November 21, to celebrate the occasion of their 25th Wedding Anniversary. The dinner will take place in the Royal Gallery and the arrangements for this may I fear cause some inconvenience to your Lordships. I can assure your Lordships that everything possible will be done to keep that inconvenience to an absolute minimum. It has also been agreed, through the usual channels, that the House should rise on that day at about 5 o'clock.

THE LORD MAYOR OF LONDON
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I also draw your Lordships' attention to a rather remarkable, and indeed unique, event which has just taken place? I believe that it was in 1191 that the first Mayor of London took office and it was about a century later that the first Lord Mayor of London took office. I believe that this is the first time in the succeeding 700 years or so that the Lord Mayor of London has, at the same time, happened to be a Member of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships may wish to take notice of this rather remarkable historical event and, with your agreement, perhaps I may be allowed to write to the Lord Mayor to express our good wishes to him in the tenure of his office.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on the fact that on this occasion this joint office, as it were, is being held by a member of his Party. I hope that when, in another 700 years or so, the next Lord Mayor who is a Peer is appointed he will happen to be a Member of this side of your Lordships' House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the House is in full agreement with the noble Earl. We certainly

599
appreciate that this is a unique event. I am not expert enough historically to know whether the relations between your Lordships' House and the City of London have always been of the best; I suspect that there were times when they were not. But in these more liberal days, when a member of the Labour Party can be a Lord Mayor of London, things are rather easier. I greatly appreciate the noble Earl's congratulations. In this election we have once again a demonstration of the great versatility of Members of your Lordships' House, particularly on this side. I certainly hope that the House will encourage the noble Earl to write such a letter, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mais, is very proud of his membership of your Lordships' House. He had a very distinguished record in building mulberry harbours and so on during the war, and I can only hope that in another 700 years' time the noble Earl's side of the House will have the same good fortune as we on this side have this year.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on behalf of all my noble friends on these Benches I should like to associate myself with the proposal put forward by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am sure that nobody could be more liberal in his outlook than the present Lord Mayor of London.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
2.58 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire into the procedures and practice by which the control of each House over delegated legislation is exercised and to report how they might be improved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships may have seen from paragraph 4 of the very valuable Report of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation which sat last Session under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that the Committee felt that there were four main fields of study to which they should address themselves in this highly
600
complex area. It is my understanding now (and I congratulate them on this, because it is rather a remarkable achievement) that they have completed three of these fields of study but in the course of the last Session they were not able to report on the fourth field, which would cover such matters as the classification and analysis of the character of Statutory Instruments. There is a great deal of very dense Parliamentary undergrowth in this particular field, and it is my belief that it would be extremely important, not only for this House but for Parliament as a whole, that they should report on this fourth area which they wish to study. The Joint Committee are anxious to resume their work as soon as possible and the Motion I am moving to-day is the first step towards reappointing that Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire into the procedures and practice by which the control of each House over delegated legislation is exercised and to report how they might be improved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will be tired of hearing words of admiration for his work and that of his Committee; and why they should want to continue with such an onerous task it would be difficult to understand were it not for the great sense of public duty that the members of this Committee obviously have. They are about to embark on what I think is a most extraordinarily difficult field, but it is one of such importance that, sooner or later, we hope it will be possible to arrive at a classification of different Orders, if only because it has some bearing on proceedings in your Lordships' House of the kind we had last week.
I hope that the Committee will be encouraged to take their time on this matter. I am impressed by the amount of work they have got through, aided no doubt by the evidence given by the noble Earl and myself. However, I do not think we did much more than state some of the problems, and I hope, therefore, that this time they will be allowed to do a really thorough study. If they cannot conclude their consideration on the first

601
occasion they should not hesitate to produce interim reports, which could be discussed, and then continue their consideration; because they at least must now understand the full nature of the problems, which I am bound to say the great majority of us scarcely understand at all.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed; and that the Lords following with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Commitees, be named of the Committee:

The Lord Privy Seal (E. Jellicoe),

D. Atholl,

M. Cholmondeley,

Alexander of Tunis,

E. Dundonald,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Selkirk,

V. Hood,

V. Massereene and Ferrard,

V. Simon,

L. Aberdare,

L. Amulree,

L. Auckland,

L. Beswick,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

B. Brooke of Ystradfellte,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Clifford of Chudleigh,

L. Diamond,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fiske,

L. Gardiner,

B. Gaitskell,

L. Granville of Eye,

L. Henderson,

L. Hilton of Upton,

L. Hunt,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Ironside,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Maybray-King,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

602

L. O'Hagan,

L. Orr-Ewing,

B. Phillips,

L. Platt,

L. Popplewell,

Ly. Ruthven of Freeland,

B. Seear,

Ly. Sempill,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strang,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Wells-Pestell,

L. Wilberforce;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, forgive my curiosity, but can the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, explain to your Lordships' House why more than 50 Members of your Lordships' House are nominated for this Committee? Why so many? It looks like a mass meeting.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, my Lords; I welcome the noble Lord's question. The main purpose of this Committee is to represent a cross-section of the House, of all Parties, the Front Benches and the Back Benches, and of course the Independents, and for that reason it has to be a large Committee. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that most of the work of this Committee is done by a few very hard working sub-committees, the Administration sub-committee, the Library sub-committee, the Refreshment Department sub-committee, and the Works of Art sub-committee. So I think he can be satisfied that in spite of the size of the Committee it does not for that reason lose the necessary efficiency.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the noble Earl a question. My recollection is that when we considered the nature of these special committees the Aberdare Working Party, I think it was, set up by the Leader, recommended a number of changes, including that of making a number of committees smaller, but deliberately came to the view that there were special reasons why this Committee should be large. This matter was discussed and agreed upon in your Lordships' House. That is my recollection; I am not sure whether it is correct.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, is entirely correct; there was no recommendation that this Committee should be reduced in size.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

The Lord Privy Seal (E. Jellicoe),

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Perth,

E. Selkirk,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Hood,

L. Aberdare,

L. Beswick,

L. Blyton,

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

L. Byers,

L. Conesford,

L. Denham,

L. Diamond,

B. Gaitskell,

L. Gardiner,

L. Greenwood of Rossendale,

L. Henley,

L. Maybray-King,

L. Molson,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Strang,

L. Tanlaw;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to move, That the Eighth Report from the Select Committee, made on the 18th of October in the last Session of Parliament, be agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
1. The Committee have considered the present machinery for selecting and proposing to the House the membership of Select Committees. This consists at present mainly of consultation through the usual channels. The Committee consider that there would be advantage in reconstituting the Committee of Selection (whose functions are at present limited to the selection of the members of Select Committees in the field of Private Legislation) and in widening its terms of reference so as to bring within its purview the membership of all Select Committees, except those otherwise provided for and except the Committee of Selection itself. Such a step would formalise and extend the present consultations without in any way excluding the usual channels and would offer a wider basis for consultation than exists at present.
2. The Procedure Committee accordingly recommend:—
(1) That a new Standing Order be proposed to the House in place of S.O. 61 ("Notice to be given of Lords proposed to serve on Select Committees"), entrusting the Committee of Selection with the responsibility of proposing to the House the size and membership (including, if they think fit, the Chairmanship) of all Select Committees of the House except those otherwise provided for and the Committee of Selection itself.
(2) That the Committee of Selection be reconstituted with the following membership:—
The Lord Chairman;
The Leaders and Whips of the political Parties (who might in practice serve as alternates to one another);
The "Coordinator" of the Cross Benches;
Four other Back Benchers, one from each Party and one from the Cross Benches.
(3) That the members of the reconstituted Committee be proposed at the beginning of each Session (except for next Session—see paragraph 3 below) to the House by the Leader of the House after consultation through the "usual channels" and with the "Coordinator" of the Cross Benches.
(4) That the members be subject to the general rule governing retirement by rotation (Companion, page 179) under which certain categories of member are exempt and all others retire by rotation.
(5) That within the new responsibility defined at (1) above, discretion be given to the Lord Chairman to act on behalf of the Committee (without calling the Committee together) in appropriate cases—e.g. in the case of casual vacancies occuring in the membership of Select Committees.
(6) That a Motion to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Selection should constitute the Report from the Committee to the House. Notice should

605
be given of any such Motion in the Order Paper.
(7) That the present functions and practice of the Committee of Selection in relation to Private Legislation be left unchanged.
3. In presenting this Report, the Committee recommend that the House should not be invited to consider the necessary new Standing Order to give effect to their recommendations until the new Session. They do not think it appropriate to ask the House to consider it in the few days remaining of the present Session. Those Select Committees which need to be set up at the beginning of the new Session—for example, Sessional Committees and those ad hoc Committees which may need to be reappointed—will be proposed to the House without delay under the existing arrangements, i.e. after consultation through the usual channels. If the Committee's recommendations are approved by the House, they will come into force only when the House has approved the Standing Order to give effect to them.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is brief and, I believe, will command a wide measure of support. It is a further step in the development of an effective international legal framework to deal with the violence which afflicts the peaceful operation of civil aviation at the present time, and of which we have a further example in America this last weekend. Your Lordships will appreciate that this Bill is not itself concerned with hijacking but with the equally serious problem of sabotage. As for last weekend's outrage in America and the equally horrifying hijacking of the Lufthansa jet from Beirut, these incidents have aroused the greatest concern and revulsion in us all. I am sure I speak for all your Lordships in saying that our sympathies go out to the crews and passengers who have been subjected to the intolerable pressures and dangers which these incidents occasion. Hijacking, however, is dealt with in the Hague Convention, and I shall refer later to this and more particularly to the Government's policy on aviation security.
606
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation which was concluded at a diplomatic conference in Montreal on September 23, 1972. The first objective of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (to which I shall refer as ICAO) as set out in the Chicago Convention of 1944 is to ensure the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation throughout the world. There had, of course, been isolated acts of violence from the quite early days of commercial aviation; indeed the first record of an aircraft hijacking is in Peru in 1930. But when ICAO was established in 1944, it can never have been envisaged that air transport would have to face, and innocent passengers and crews to endure, the evil and shocking forms of violence for criminal and so-called political ends which we have seen in recent years.
Before explaining the objectives and form of the Bill which is now before the House, I think that in view of recent events in the Middle East, in Germany and elsewhere your Lordships would expect me to say something about the Government's approach to aviation security. It has three main objectives. First, to provide that the necessary organisation is available and that procedures are developed to combat possible acts of violence against our civil aviation and to respond to any incident involving the United Kingdom. Second, to ensure that appropriate and effective security measures are taken at our airports and by our airlines. And thirdly, to support and contribute to international action in the United Nations, ICAO and elsewhere.
The struggle against violence directed at aviation involves many interests and organisations—Government Departments, the Civil Aviation Authority, the police, airlines, airport authorities and especially the pilots, cabin crews and ground staffs who are the most immediately and directly involved of all. It is vital that there should be the closest liaison between all these bodies. It was for this reason that the Government set up the National Aviation Security Committee, on which they are all represented, to advise it and the air transport industry on aviation security. This national committee is in turn complemented by airport security

607
committees at all our major airports. These committees have had an important influence on policy—for example, in relation to the decision by the Government last June to meet the costs of searching passengers and baggage and as sponsor for a comprehensive programme of detailed security surveys of our airports. So the organisation is there both to coordinate all the interests involved in the prevention of violence and also to respond to any incident with which we might be faced in the United Kingdom. I hope I shall not be asked to give details about the form the response would take. For obvious reasons, all I can say is that the plans have been made; they are under continued development in the light of experience, and they are kept closely under review.
From the outset the Government have provided our airlines and airport authorities with advice on the threat to their operations and with guidance on the measures which might be taken by airlines and at airports to combat possible hijacking and sabotage attempts and other acts of violence. To do so virtually on a day-to-day basis is part of the close liaison which has been evolved. Our basic approach to actual security measures is influenced by two main considerations. First, the hijacker must be prevented from joining an aircraft, or the saboteur from placing his bomb, or whatever it might be, on board. And secondly, security measures should be related to the threat and should be concentrated on those operations most at risk. Some of these measures, notably the searching of passengers and their baggage, will be familiar to those of your Lordships who are regular travellers. Noble Lords will understand why I do not intend to list all precautions that are taken. I would just say that they vary in intensity as between different airlines and between individual flights—the measures taken on flights to certain destinations are not necessarily taken, for example, on domestic or other short-range services.
However, Government activity is not confined to advice and guidance. The Government have made a tangible and important contribution to the effort to contain violence by meeting the costs of both British and foreign airlines in search-
608
ing their passengers and baggage at our airports. This has been widely acknowledged both by the air transport industry in the United Kingdom and overseas. It was originally estimated to amount to about £1 million a year. We are also undertaking comprehensive security surveys of British airports. These are intended to review existing security measures, to consider whether improvements are required, and to recommend the action which might be taken to effect such improvements. All the principal airports have been surveyed, but this is a continuing process requiring constant vigilance.
So much for national action. I now turn to international action and specifically to the legal framework, on which I should like to say something about the main instruments involved so as to put this Bill in perspective. There are three international Conventions and work is proceeding on a fourth. First, there is the Tokyo Convention of 1963 which deals generally with crimes committed on board aircraft, setting out the jurisdiction and duties of States and describing the powers of the aircraft commander in relation to such crimes. In 1963 hijacking did not present the international problem that it does to-day, and was mainly confined to persons fleeing from one country to another generally in order to seek political asylum. The Tokyo Convention therefore was concerned more with the return of the aircraft and its passengers than with the hijacker. The enactment in 1967 of the Tokyo Convention Act enabled the United Kingdom to be among the first to ratify that Convention, which is now in force for 57 countries.
Secondly, there is the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, which is concerned with the hijacking of aircraft. Towards the end of the 1960s a sinister new development was the hijacking of aircraft to bring political pressure to bear on States, particularly in the context of the Middle East conflict. It was clear that the brief references to hijacking in the Tokyo Convention were inadequate to deal with this new menace, and there was strong support within ICAO for a convention specifically concerned with hijacking which would provide for the apprehension and punishment of the

609
hijacker. This led to the conclusion in December, 1970, of the Hague Convention. It was given effect in the Hijacking Act 1971, under which anyone who commits the offence of hijacking is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. Again the United Kingdom was among the first to ratify the Hague Convention, which has now been ratified by 42 States.
Thirdly, there is the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, concluded in September, 1971, and specially aimed at sabotage and similar acts other than hijacking. It complements the Hague Convention on hijacking and is similar to it in general form. The Hague Convention was concerned only with hijacking, but in 1969 and 1970, following the sabotage of aircraft in flight and attacks against aeroplanes on the ground, work began on the Montreal Convention.
My Lords, before going on to describe the Montreal Convention, I should refer briefly to the fourth instrument, which is the proposed Convention on Joint Action against Acts of Violence to Civil Aviation; or, in simple terms, sanctions. This is related to situations in which States might not have acted in accordance with the Hague and Montreal Conventions. Last September in Washington a subcommittee of the Legal Committee of ICAO prepared a report based on proposals by the United Kingdom delegation for a fact-finding commission to determine whether the conduct of a State constituted a threat to the general safety of aviation and to recommend to the State concerned the steps which might be taken to remedy the situation. This met with substantial support. We then cosponsored, with the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, a proposal for determining the steps to be taken if the State failed to comply with the recommendations. The ICAO Council considered this report on November 1 and decided to convene a special session of the Legal Committee in January 1973 to consider the report of the sub-committee. The Council also decided to convene a diplomatic conference on aviation security in August and September 1973.
The steps that could be taken under the new proposals would include such sanctions as the withdrawal of air ser-
610
vices to and from States found to be in default. The need for widespread agreement on such a course is obvious. The impositions of sanctions by only a few countries would be unlikely to hurt the defaulting State or influence its attitudes, while the countries imposing them could themselves suffer disproportionate losses through action taken against them—or indeed through loss of services. Your Lordships will have noted that Her Majesty's Government have been very active in the development of these various legal instruments and have taken early steps to ratify them. In particular the Montreal Convention was put in hand, largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom at the Extraordinary Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which was convened in June 1970 especially to consider all these matters affecting the security of civil aviation. It was signed on its conclusion at Montreal by 31 countries including the United Kingdom, and since then there have been another 21 signatories, making a total of 52. It has been ratified by 11 countries, and we know from the initiatives we have taken to encourage States to adopt both the Montreal and Hague Conventions that many other countries are preparing to ratify.
The Montreal Convention will come into effect between ratifying countries 30 days after the tenth ratification has been deposited by a State which was present when it was concluded. The considerable and growing number of States that have signed it suggests that the right balance has been struck between two sometimes conflicting objectives which those who prepared the Convention had before them. These were, to produce a Convention which had enough teeth to be effective to deal with sabotage and the like and, at the same time, one which would attract widespread adherence. What the Convention does, in brief, is to require contracting States to make it an offence for any person to perform an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight which is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; or to destroy or damage an aircraft in service, or air navigation facilities, or to place on board an aircraft a device or substance likely to endanger aircraft in flight; or to communicate false information thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. These offences are to

611
be punishable by severe penalties. The Convention provides for arrest, facilitates the extradition of offenders between contracting States, and obliges any contracting State where the offender is found to take jurisdiction to prosecute him if it does not extradite him. We believe the Convention to be an important additional weapon in combating violence. It has been welcomed by all sides of the air transport industry in this country, that is to say by airlines, airport authorities and employees, many of whom have urged us to ratify as soon as possible.
The main purpose then of the Protection of Aircraft Bill now before your Lordships' House is precisely to enable us to ratify the Montreal Convention. Not all the provisions of the Convention need to be reflected in the Bill, since effect can be given to them administratively and no legislation is required to implement them. The Bill is therefore quite short. Nevertheless it does cover two points which were excluded from the Convention, but for which we think provision should be made in our own law. These are, first, offences involving military, customs or police aircraft, and second, the provision of powers to a constable to prevent a person from travelling on an aircraft if the constable has cause to suspect that the person intends to commit an offence under the Bill or under the Hijacking Act 1971.
The Bill contains only ten clauses but I need mention only the first five, which are also the most important. Clause 1 implements the Montreal Convention by making it an offence to destroy or damage an aircraft in service, or to commit on board an aircraft in flight any act of violence likely to endanger its safety in flight, or to place on an aircraft or to conspire to be placed on it any device or substance which is likely to destroy an aircraft or render it unsafe in flight or incapable of flying. It makes no difference to the offence where it is committed or what is the nationality of the offender or the State in which the aircraft is registered. This otherwise all-embracing provision is qualified in the case of offences involving military, customs or police aircraft, which are outside the scope of the Convention and where the extent of our jurisdiction must therefore be less.
612
Clause 2 gives effect to the provision in the Convention which requires contracting States to make it an offence to destroy or damage or interfere with the operation of air navigation facilities so as to be likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight, or to communicate false information thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. Under Clause 3 anyone commits an offence if, in the United Kingdom, he induces or assists in the commission of an act outside the United Kingdom which would be an offence under the Bill if it were committed here. Clause 4 provides that for all offences under the Bill other than those involving the communication of information the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life. The communication of false information which endangers the safety of aircraft in flight, or assisting or inducing the communication of such information, is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Clause 5 makes those amendments to the law which are necessary in order to implement the provisions of the Montreal Convention relating to the extradition of offenders between contracting States. It does this by amending the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 so as to provide that the offences created by the Bill are extraditable offences under the 1870 Act and relevant offences under the 1967 Act. It also provides that where there is no bilateral extradition treaty with a State which is a party to the Convention, an Order in Council may be made under Section 2 of the 1870 Act as though the Convention constituted an extradition treaty with that State. I do not think I need mention the remaining clauses. I will say only that having played a leading part in the making of the Montreal Convention, which we believe will contribute to the safety of international air transport, we are anxious to ratify it as quickly as possible. The passage of the Bill will enable us to ratify, and I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for explaining the purpose of the Bill and the back-

613
ground to the problem with which it deals. I appreciate the promptitude with which Her Majesty's Government have laid this legislation—it is so infrequently that I have the opportunity of praising Her Majesty's Government that it is a pity that when I do so Her Majesty's Ministers should direct their attention elsewhere—prior to the ratification of the Montreal Convention. As the noble Lord told us, we have now had the Tokyo Convention and the Hague Convention and we are about to ratify the Montreal Convention, though it is still a fact that we have not yet come to grips with the problems we are discussing. As he said, until we have widespread agreement among countries, until we can get sanctions and until we can put some teeth into this Agreement we are unlikely to see effective steps being taken. It would now seem that the principal hope rests on the Legal Committee of the ICAO, and again I appreciate what Her Majesty's Government have done in facilitating those discussions.
I do not wish to be misunderstood, and certainly I do not intend to criticise unfairly Her Majesty's Government in anything I say. Indeed, having listened to the noble Lord and having had the privilege this morning of listening to his right honourable friend Mr. Heseltine in another forum, I wish to pay tribute to the initiatives which the Government, through their Ministers and officials, have taken. Nevertheless, although I recognise that much is being done, it is necessary to urge to-day that still more be done. August, 1973, for the meeting of the Legal Committee seems to be too leisurely an approach to a problem which really is one of great urgency.
In a sense I have an interest to declare as, like the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, whom I see in his place opposite, I am Vice-President of BALPA; but if I have a special interest, looking at it from the pilots' point of view, it is identical with the public interest, and I wish to emphasise the need for urgency from the pilots' stand point. So far the pilots of these hijacked aircraft have always contrived to bring the aircraft down safely. They have displayed an almost incredible standard of professional efficiency. But I say seriously, and without exaggeration, that if this lawlessness continues, a major tragedy is inevitable. I do not mean by
614
this a tragedy as the result of deliberate sabotage—for example, a bomb exploding or a grenade being thrown in flight—but because these pirates are demanding that pilots operate in a quite intolerable environment.
Two factors are essential for the safe operation of an aircraft. First, the pilot needs to prepare his flight carefully, thoroughly and completely; yet we see flights ordered by these pirates without any possibility of securing or assessing the elementary pre-flight information. The second cardinal principle which is breached is that of aircraft command. Safety demands that there shall be no equivocation and no doubt at all as to who is in authority; the command of the aircraft should be absolutely unchallenged. Yet in these piratical acts we see that decisions affecting the serviceability of aircraft, the fuel state, landing aids, weather conditions and suitability of the runway at the proposed destination are all imposed on the legal commander of the aircraft by the pirates concerned. One day there will be an argument as to whether the outboard engine is or is not unserviceable. The pilot will require to make one decision and the hijacker will endeavour to impose on him another, and in a condition of that kind there will be a tragedy.
May I add one more word about the pilots? As I said, so far their supreme professional skill has averted catastrophe, but let us not be misled by the pictures of some of these men when they emerge from an incident of this kind. Sometimes I have seen on television an apparently unperturbed captain relating his experiences and one would imagine that there had been no effect upon him. Yet it is quite impossible for a man, such as the Southern Airlines pilot flying for 21 hours at the direction of these people, to emerge from that kind of experience without some scar. It is certain that there are individuals who have gone through this experience who have suffered and who will suffer for the remainder of their lives as a result of the strain that has been put upon them. I myself can think of one case where, apparently, the premature retirement of the captain was caused by the experience which he had undergone. There is a human tragedy, but, apart from the individual—
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I say that it is almost impossible to hear him because of what is going on outside? I do not know whether it is bombs or something else, but perhaps something could be done.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought I had raised my voice to the limit. If there is a certain amount of sabotage behind the noble Baroness, then I am afraid that it is for other authorities to deal with.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have sent a message to Black Rod to see whether he can stop all this banging and thumping, but perhaps the Government Front Bench will join in the protest behind the scenes, because it is rather intolerable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that it is being attended to, but we shall try to hasten it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, here is another reason why I think an extra effort should be made by Her Majesty's Government to get international agreement on action for sanctions which will mean that this kind of crime does not pay. That is really what we are seeking. We are trying to show that those who engage upon these acts will not benefit from them, and this will be possible if we can secure sufficient agreement among the members of ICAO. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told us that 57 States have now ratified the Tokyo Convention and 42 have ratified the Hague Convention. I understand that some 11 have already ratified the Montreal Convention and the noble Lord has indicated that he expects more ratifications to follow. What I now ask him is: are we to wait until there is universal ratification of the Legal Committees proposals or can we assume that there will be a point of time when there will be sufficient States ratifying to ensure that sanctions can be applied? The situation we want is where sufficient major nations of the world will withdraw from any nation which does not implement these conventions the facilities which airlines must have in flying about the world. Navigational facilities of one kind or another ought to be denied to those States which do not implement these conventions. I accept that it is quite impossible for unilateral action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government, but I wonder
616
whether the noble Lord can indicate the kind of number of States that he would wish to see ratify before teeth can be put into these agreements.
I want to make just one other point. In our debate on July 21, 1971, I called attention to the fact that problems of this kind can affect transport on the high seas, and since then we have had the QE 2 incident. If there were a need for any evidence to support the point which I made, that evidence was supplied by the QE 2 incident a month or two later. In July, 1971, when I asked why the provisions of these conventions could not be applied to shipping, the noble Lord said:
"… we had to balance the desirability of getting this Bill through as quickly as possible with the desirability of including provisions dealing with hijacking of ships. That would have delayed the Bill. The matter is under consideration, however, and I hope that legislation on this matter will not be long delayed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21/7/71; col. 1064.]
That was in July, 1971. I wonder what sort of definition can be given to the phrase "not be long delayed". Has there been consideration and, if so, what was the result of that consideration? Is there any reason why shipping should not have been dealt with in this Bill?
Although I have praised the noble Lord and his Government for the promptitude with which they have ratified these other conventions, I might remind him that a little while ago we discussed the Geneva Convention on the mortgaging of aircraft, the ratification of which is still outstanding, but I think I am right in saying that we signed in 1947. Therefore there is a choice of time scale. We can have promptitude of this kind or we can delay matters for some decades. Therefore, I am asking whether the noble Lord is able to assure us that this problem of shipping is one which will be dealt with in the near future. In the meantime, I again thank the noble Lord and his Government for the promptitude with which they have acted in this case; and for our part, certainly, we shall facilitate putting the Bill upon the Statute Book.
3.37 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in supporting this Bill. Also, I should like to associate everybody on these Benches with what he has said, and particularly with what he has said

617
about the ordeals that face these crews when crimes are committed in their aircraft. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for so clearly explaining the details of this Bill, the purpose of which is to enable us to ratify the recent Convention in Montreal for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. If I may say so, the Bill comes none too soon. Only a few hours ago, we heard of another outrage. I think we can call these outrages the scourge of our modern aviation transport.
If I read the Bill correctly—and here I must speak with care, as I cannot claim any legal knowledge—it covers, both in our laws and in our extradition treaties, those who engage in this kind of sabotage, and it provides for certain penalties. It may be questioned whether these penalties are severe enough at least to provide a deterrent for those who may be tempted to engage in these acts of terrorism and sabotage. A considerable problem arises on the question of the deterrent, because although the penalties envisaged in the Bill may act as a deterrent for those who may be tempted to engage in these crimes purely for the purpose of robbery and financial gain, what about those who engage in these crimes for purely ideological reasons? It seems that the latter category are often largely indifferent to whether or not they lose their lives or their liberties in the process.
The Bill seems to cover all acts of sabotage in British-registered civil aircraft, wherever they are, and also aircraft within our territorial limits on land, sea or in the air. It also enables a police officer to prevent an individual from boarding an aircraft, if the officer has reason to believe that the person is doing so with the intention of committing sabotage. Therefore the Bill provides for the situation after the act of sabotage has been committed; but apart from the powers given to a constable, it does not seem to make any specific provision for preventive action. At the moment, it is left to the airlines and airport authorities to implement such searches and preventive action as they may devise and as they may decide upon, either individually or collectively.
But what about those who aid and abet? In this category, surely, come those States and organisations which pro-
618
vide asylum for these criminals, notably some Arab States. Cuba, I think, was an offender, but seems to be having some remorse. I suggest that if these asylums can be eliminated, then we shall have gone a very long way to cure the ill. We now know that the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organisation's Legal Committee is to meet in Montreal on January 9, and in August next year there are to be, probably in London, high diplomatic discussions to produce an international Convention. But next August is a long way off, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has drawn to our attention, and in the meantime it may well be that there will be other acts of sabotage, and indeed loss of life. Cannot Her Majesty's Government now take the initiative in stirring up international legal action, as opposed to just Conventions? These are matters which surely we must all agree are of the most urgent character. Meanwhile, we on these Benches welcome this Bill as being a step in the right direction.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to apologise at the start for being unavoidably absent at the beginning of the Second Reading of this Bill. I should also like, with other noble Lords, to welcome this Bill briefly, and to add my congratulations to the Government on their promptness in ratifying the Montreal Convention. The more one talks to experts in the field of hijacking, the more it seems pretty clear that, whatever other steps are taken to try to contain this disease, the main objective is to get international agreement. I must say that I felt a little dispirited to find that, of the participants in the three Conventions we have so far held—Tokyo, The Hague, and now Montreal—less than 30 per cent. of the countries have felt able to sign the Conventions and so accept the discipline of them.
One of the reasons for some countries hesitating on this matter of signing must be, one assumes, that to return a hijacker who has sought political asylum in a particular country would be unacceptable, particularly if he came from a country totally opposed to their political system. If this is correct, and accepting that extradition agreements may at present be unenforceable between certain countries, one wonders why the category of the

619
political asylum hijacker could not be separated from the other categories of hijackers under the Convention statutes. If this were done, it would seem possible for all civilised countries, whatever their political colours, to treat air pirates as criminals whose fate would be determined by the country whose airline they had plotted against. If this was not acceptable, perhaps on the grounds that some countries have the death penalty and others do not, surely it would seem possible to agree that, from whatever country a criminal or ransom hijacker sought refuge, there would be a mandatory sentence awaiting him on his arrival. Perhaps this is one avenue which is at present being explored by ICAO; I do not know. But it is astonishing to note how different countries treat hijacking at present. One sees from evidence one has been able to obtain that this varies enormously: from America, where in one case a hijacker received a sentence of 50 years, to another in the Lebanon, where a hijacker received only nine months; from Russia, a death penalty sentence which was commuted to 15 years with hard labour, to Sweden where a sentence of only 22 months was given. From the information that I have been able to obtain, the majority of countries appear to sentence hijackers to between five and seven years—a sentence which does not seem either a strong enough deterrent or to reflect what a serious criminal offence it is.
Besides the international agreement which is so essential in tackling this problem, clearly another vital preventive is airport security. It is, one knows, a matter which, in the case of the British airports authority, has been tackled with great skill and with silent skill. It is, however, a matter which I believe many British airline pilots are concerned about on airports abroad. I understand that while some countries have first-class security facilities, others appear not to tackle the problem with sufficient seriousness. It will be interesting to learn whether, in these cases, the Government take up the question of airport security. At a time when hijacking is occurring so frequently—eight cases in the last five weeks—there is indeed a great deal of responsibility and a very high stress, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned,
620
on the pilots and on their crews, as well as, of course, on their passengers, and I believe they deserve very special sympathy and support. I hope that the Government feel able to take up, and are in fact taking up, cases where the British pilots report a lack of security at certain foreign airports. Perhaps my noble friend could deal with this point when he comes to reply.
My Lords, in any discussion on hijacking the subject clearly falls into two parts. The first is on preventive measures and the second is on how to deal with a hijacking case which in fact exists. In recent months we have seen, as I have said, a very disturbing increase in hijacking. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, says that hijacking should not pay, again from the figures which I have been able to obtain I think, sadly, that at the moment hijacking does pay; and I hope this trend can soon be reversed. In nearly all hijacking cases, the negotiations which have been conducted appear to have taken place, regrettably, in the air; and it always seems to me very strange that at the time of refuelling on the ground, perhaps before they go up again to carry out further negotiations, the pilot or the captain is not able to push some button to put the aircraft out of service. This is perhaps a slightly amateur suggestion, but I believe it is worthy of consideration.
One of the factors about which I have been unable to obtain any information—and again it is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned—is that of the appalling stress caused to the captain and his crew in such situations. In the case of the captain and his crew, one wonders what compensation, if any, is to be paid where, due to the stress, early retirement has occurred. Is it a matter to be left to the airlines alone, or is it a matter to be taken up by the Government, and indeed by other countries which have been involved in hijackings? I should like to end by again congratulating the Government, who have given, I believe, a welcome lead and shown an example in ratifying the Montreal Convention, and I wish them every success in persuading other countries to follow in an attempt to cure what clearly is the worst disease which at present plagues the civil air transport industry.
3.49 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am sure that all of us were glad to see that the Bill which we are now considering will enable us to ratify the Montreal Convention, and we are grateful for this further step in the direction of an attempt to deal with the scourge of hijacking. I should like to congratulate the Government on the step which they have taken; and I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the concise and precise way in which he has presented the Bill to us. It is, however, a pity that there has been some delay in ratifying the Convention, which was signed a year ago; but I am bound to say that the Government have been very much speedier in this matter than they, and other Governments, have been with regard to ratifying other Conventions. I remember that the Genocide Convention took some 15 years to be ratified, so perhaps I should congratulate the Government even on the time they have taken.
My Lords, we are dealing with what I have previously, and I believe aptly, described as a cancerous growth on civilisation. May I say at this stage to the noble Earl who has just spoken that even in war there are certain actions which the contending parties accept as being uncivilised, inhuman and not permissible. If the noble Earl consults the Geneva Convention he will see that that is so. Here, as I have said, we are dealing with a scourge which I have previously described as a cancerous growth on civilisation, a cancerous growth whose menace continues to spread. The Conventions that have been ratified and all the appropriate steps that have been taken up to now have apparently brought some measure of relief; but the intensity of the growth increases. Even the ratifying of the Montreal Convention cannot possibly result in its destruction. It must be cut out by a major surgical operation by the civilised nations of the world—and I emphasise the word "civilised".
I would draw the attention of noble Lords to the shameful submission to blackmail by the West German Government on October 29 last, when no attempt at all was made to frustrate the hijacking plans for the handing over of the Munich murderers whose action horrified the
622
world. No attempt at all was made to prevent that handing over. The escalation of this horrific crime was evident as recently as Saturday last from the hijacking of a civil aeroplane and the terrible strain experienced by the crew and passengers before they were eventually released from their anguish. I, too, should like to pay a tribute, as I am sure would everybody, to the courage of the pilots who, during these terrible experiences, have acted in a manner which is to be highly commended. The one important lesson that has emerged from this crime is that if these pirates of the air could find no landing place in a country which would give them asylum, they would have no alternative hut to land in a country where they would be compelled to surrender to the authorities to be dealt with under such international and national laws as that country had accepted for punishing them. Reference has already been made to Cuba; but in this instance, so far as we know, Cuba has acted in a manner in which we should like all the countries of the world to act. I do not know whether they have yet returned the ransom but it is to be hoped that they will do so.
I have appealed on many occasions to this Government and to previous Governments to realise that the only effective way of stopping these pirate murderers and assassins is to bring pressure on the countries which are still prepared to harbour them, to give them facilities for training or to finance them. This pressure should take the form of imposing appropriate sanctions on those uncivilised countries. Air services to those countries and landing places for their planes should be refused them by the civilised world. In this age of communication by air, nothing could be more effective than to deprive offending nations of these facilities. Endangering the passengers and crews of other nations (as well as, in some cases, of their own) through their total disregard of the elementary rules of humanity cannot be tolerated. The knowledge that no country would harbour them caused hijackers to surrender in Spain and in Turkey, for example. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that steps are being taken to deal with some of the features to which I have referred in coping with the situation.

623
My Lords, there is another method of dealing with this curse of hijacking which I think should not be overlooked. Pending the adoption of the measures to which I have referred, or running concurrently with them, this other method is to flush the criminals out of their training dens. In this respect I cannot understand why the Government take every opportunity of attacking Israel when she undertakes that operation. Surely, no one can expect Israel to wait for the criminals to be prepared and trained for killing men, women and children of all nations in general and her own in particular, when she knows that the assassins are being schooled in places close to her own border, and with the full knowledge and approval of the responsible national Governments there. The hijackers know very well that it is their bases which Israel attacks. If they surround those bases with civilians, it is they who commit the additional crime of using innocent people as a shield while preparing to kill other innocent people. The States harbouring the murderers are accessories to their crime and are not in a position justifiably to complain if their potential victims, knowing the location of the training centres, refuse to allow themselves to be slaughtered by vicious men and women who plan their destruction there. Everybody knows these facts and I cannot think that any noble Lord could believe them to be otherwise. It is with the knowledge of these States that these dens are being used. The encouragement this brings to the hijackers is something that we should not tolerate. Ultimately, one cannot fail to realise that it is not Israel alone who suffers; it is the world as a whole.
I understand too that at the present time in the United Nations the U.S.A. is putting forward to the General Assembly for consideration proposals similar to those to which I have referred. I sincerely hope that the Government will support them wholeheartedly in this respect. Again I should like to thank the Government for the step they have taken. Time is running heavily against the civilised world. We cannot allow this hijacking to go on. All the excuses made about "protecting" these people or about allowing people to hijack because of their alleged political ideology is sheer nonsense when it comes to dealing with a grave
624
situation of vice by which the civilised world is threatened.
4.0 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the Bill now before us and I should like briefly to consider a few points from it. First, I would take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. He pointed out the discrepancy between the penalties provided for in some countries and those laid down by others. I wonder whether the proposed penalty of ten years that is laid down as the maximum to be imposed in the United Kingdom courts is sufficient. I can easily conceive of a situation where nothing short of life imprisonment would be sufficient. I should also like to echo a thought which several noble Lords have voiced: that the disease being what it is, and growing at the rate it is, as many nations as possible ought to be encouraged to ratify this Convention at the earliest possible moment.
There is a further omission from the Bill which I should like to raise with the noble Lord who is to reply. I refer to the situation that may arise in which, for one reason or another, those who hijack a United Kingdom-registered or other registered aircraft outside the United Kingdom end up here. From my reading of the Bill it seems that they are not specifically covered and that we should have to rely on extradition arrangements with other nations, if they existed, to be able to prosecute such people—does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wish to intervene?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was wondering what it was the noble Lord was asking me to reply to. If an offender is in this country already, there can be no question of extradition.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): Or lands here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not quite understand the point.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am thinking of a situation in which a crime is committed outside the United Kingdom—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is covered.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am told the point is covered, in which case I will not labour it.
The next question is the matter of the generality of political or so-called political hijackers, or saboteurs, who claim exemption from the rigours of the law by virtue of the fact that they are seeking political asylum. I believe this to provide too large a loophole which will lead to a situation whereby the law is brought into disrepute because all and sundry will claim political exemption, usually quite unjustifiably.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to give it as much conviction as I can. It is only a matter of time before there is a catastrophe of incredible magnitude. One can imagine a Jumbo-jet crashing with 300, 400 or even 500 passengers and the whole lot being killed. Do we want to see that happen? I am sure that we do not. Therefore let us use every means in our power to secure world-wide ratification of this Convention and see that this law is put on the Statute Book as soon as possible.
4.3 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I have to declare an interest as I am, with him, a joint Vice-President of the British Airline Pilots' Association. It is an honorary post, and while the duties are not very onerous at times they are rather worrying. I am also a director of an air freight company. Here, too, although we do not have the same problem as with passengers, there are risks involved. I would remind your Lordships that up to the beginning of the war cargo and passenger ships plying up the China coast from Hong Kong to Shanghai were frequently pirated. The superstructure was protected by grills, and Indian guards were based at either end with rifles. I, too, would like to see shipping covered at an early date by a similar Bill. We had the experience of the Q.E.2 a few months ago, and I think that shipping ought to be covered.
626
Already, my Lords, these hijacks are far too frequent, and they will not cease suddenly because of legislation. While this debate is helpful and I have no doubt the Government have taken the lead and done all that they can do, I stress that it is a matter of urgency to persuade other countries to come into line, and is not something which can possibly wait until next August. Most hijacks originate in the United States and usually they involve aircraft of domestic airlines. That is a matter for the jurisdiction of the United States Government. About three months ago I was flying with another Britisher from New York to Puerto Rico. I said, "They do not seem to know much about searching baggage, flying down to the Caribbean." I made inquiries and I was told, "No, we do not search the baggage; it would delay all the domestic flights." Well, my Lords, we had been out of New York about 50 minutes when the aircraft began to behave in a rather extraordinary way. I saw that fuel was being dumped and I made inquiries, and I was told that there had been a message that there was a bomb on board. I told my colleague what had happened. He said, "What do we do?" I said, "Nothing except have a large brandy and soda and then have another one." Such experiences are very unpleasant because you feel so helpless.
In the last three years, some 20,000 passengers and air crews have been involved in hijacks. That is a great number of people. As has been said, in the one last Saturday the aircrew went through the terrible ordeal of flying an aircraft for something like 20 to 22 hours. What with postal bombs, we are living in a very troubled world. It is fashionable now to live in this torment. But we have to tackle this problem: there is no doubt about that. The difficulty is, what do we do? I think we need at a very early date to get agreement among the Powers. The British Government have given a lead. The Bill that we are discussing will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the international Convention of Montreal for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. These measures will not solve the problem. Many countries have not recognised that Convention. We know who they are, without mentioning names, and there is

627
a very good reason why they do not recognise it.
I would remind your Lordships that four or five years ago a British registered H.S.125 jet executive aircraft was chartered by Mr. Tshombe. As we well know, it was hijacked to Liberia. To the best of my recollection it was several weeks, if not months, before the crew returned, and the aeroplane was detained there for very much longer. We know what happened to Mr. Tshombe; he died in that country. But we were never told the circumstances. I raised this matter on several occasions in another place at the time, and I think that the Government of the day were flabby and weak in dealing with the problem. A man had died. No urgency was put into the matter and we did not set an example to the rest of the world over one of the first important hijackings in the history of Western Europe.
The British Airline Pilots' Association are conducting a referendum of their members to see what support they will get for the International Federation of Airline Pilots. We have already been told what ICAO is doing, but we do not know what will happen with the International Federation. They are to have a conference on December 12 and 13. There are 64 different known pilots' associations throughout the world. One recommendation is to have a world strike of 24 to 48 hours of pilots to show the importance of this matter, or to bring sanctions against the offending State. It is tempting to say to the pilots, "You take this matter into your own hands". Frankly, I do not think that will do. Pilots and individuals cannot take the place of a Government in bringing about sanctions. That is a matter for Government and not for aircrews, who have their own job to do. That is something the aircrews must leave to the politicians.
Many of these matters are complicated by some countries giving asylum to people from any country. No matter who they are, or what they do, they get asylum, although it is encouraging to see in Press reports of the last day or two that the three men who hijacked the Douglas D.C.9 in the United States will get imprisonment for life. We do not know, but we hope that they may be returned to the United States. If they are, not, we hope that President Castro
628
will deal with the matter in his own way. We are told that the money involved is in the hands of the Swiss Embassy. That shows some progress. If the pilots themselves were to take action there could be sanctions taken against aircrews by other countries. There could be closures of air space and harassment of foreigners leaving those countries. But the British Airline Pilots Association say that it is the duty of the Government to try to solve this problem.
The spasmodic searching of passengers is not useless; it has done a certain amount of good. B.O.A.C. has collected many weapons—knives and so on. But one search a day is not enough. On the other hand, if you carry out continual searches you disorganise the whole timetable of the air fleet, and with plastic weapons it is even more difficult going through the geiger machine at the entrance pit. This puts a tremendous responsibility on the captain and on the ground staff. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to one captain, whose name I will not mention, who was involved in an incident. But this man was very sick. He hopes to return to flying at a future date, but it is very questionable whether he will. This is a working man's career. We do not know where all this is going to end.
But the danger, my Lords, is not of a hijacker taking a pin out of a hand grenade and blowing a hole in the aeroplane. The danger is that hijackers will give directions to the captain to fly to a place where the runway may be too short, or where there may be insufficient aids at night. There may be a genuine technical fault in the aeroplane, and even if the hijackers are told by the captain they will not believe it. Then the captain will be confronted with the prospect of making an emergency landing. Those are the circumstances in which we are likely to get a disaster rather than from an explosion in the aeroplane.
Of course there are many suggestions going around, and it is very easy to make them. It was suggested to me yesterday evening by an eminent doctor that one way of coping with this situation was, when the aeroplane lands on the ground to pick up the ransom or to refuel, to have in the luggage rack apparatus whereby you can anaesthetise everybody, including the air crew. I do

629
not know whether that is a possibility. Then you have to consider whether it is advisable to carry armed guards. I believe that Lufthansa are now carrying them, El Al, the Israeli Airline, and I believe the American International air lines carry one armed guard if not two. That may be worth considering. Whether B.O.A.C. carry armed guards, I do not know: they probably do, but have not made an announcement. All these matters should be considered.
I conclude, my Lords, as I started, by saying that it is the responsibility of Governments to try—and the British Government have already given a lead—to get an early agreement between as many nations as possible; and having got that agreement from the maximum number within a given, fairly short period, then, if the offending State does not extradite or punish the hijackers and return the aircraft, sanctions must be imposed by withholding aircraft mail, freight and passengers. To-day, most countries confronted with that situation would, I think, soon come into line and conform with what we are trying to achieve.
4.13 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, in what is a debate of great gravity, on a situation which I think has worsened in the last few hours, I make what may seem to the House to be a purely verbal point. I should like to make it, because President Pompidou did try to defend the French language, and I learned with some regret of the incorporation of the language of the bootleg barons on the Statute Book of England. It would ill become me to criticise those of your Lordships who were diligently labouring in the legislative vineyard while I was chewing the cud in the political pound. The noble Lord on the Front Bench apologised at the time for coining the word "hijacking". I know that it came from a convention; I know that that was the explanation given. But the word "mugging" appeared on the Order Paper only last week. I am interested in the interception of telephone calls, which will presumably become known as "bugging" when the Government decide that bugging's turn is next. I view with some horror the possibility of having the Hijacking (No. 2) Bill, the Mugging Prevention Bill, the Bugging Extension Bill
630
and the Weenyboppers' Protection Bill; "La Reine le veuet", and,
"Milton, thou should'st be living at this hour."
This is a great debate, my Lords, and I certainly do not want to give it what appears to be anything approaching a touch of frivolity. I disagree profoundly with what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said in his criticism of Chancellor Brandt. I think Chancellor Brandt gave every evidence of doing his best; of taking over what was a dreadful position and assuming a dreadful responsibility. Whether he did the right thing or not is not for anyone to say. In this kind of situation one can only do one's best.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, does the noble Lord know how long elapsed before a decision was made, and whether the West German authorities had any knowledge of the possibility or probability of such an event?
LORD HALE: My Lords, I must assume the truth of what we are told by friendly Governments. I am told that they had not. If the noble Lord goes into that, we had to face a comparable situation in the case of Miss Leila Khaled. The British authorities had there to decide whether to release her in exchange for the lives of the pilot and crew and a number of the passengers on an aeroplane. Nobody will ever know whether we took the right decision. I know that I should not wish to criticise those who shoulder such a responsibility, or those who have to decide whether to allow a kidnapped man to be murdered or to pay a ransom. These are dreadful decisions to have to make. Of course one could take a quite simple argumentative line and say we must establish a custom, we must establish an international law. But all of us know that the conditions are not there.
While the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, is still here, and while I have the benefit of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I, who know nothing of these things, but do at least have a fighter pilot in the family, would like to make one small suggestion, which the noble Lord can rise and shoot down in a moment. We were considering this point when a suggestion appeared in The Times on November 10, and which itself seemed to be shot down on November

631
12, because it presented one obvious weakness. But is it not possible to make the pilot and crew of a large modern aeroplane, even if it means sacrificing the front row of seats, absolutely incommunicado? I am told that it would not affect the safety of the plane. I am told that if there were to be a bullet-proof partition which made the crew incommunicado, the pilot would still be, as he always is, in charge of the planed in charge of the safety of the plane, communicating with the instrument panel and so on, on flights which nowadays do not often last for more than a few hours, and he alone communicating with the other aerodrome. This of course is likely to meet a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. It is difficult to know why nothing can be done when the aeroplane gets on the ground. The reason is that the pilot has been compelled to radio instructions that the personnel normally on the ground shall be away, that no one shall approach the plane and so on.
The point I am making is a quite simple one—and if the noble Lord thinks I am talking nonsense, I should be happy if he would say so at once: that if the pilot is incommunicado he cannot be made to give the instructions which arrange for immunity of the pirates on the ground. I know that noble Lords will think of the possibility of some accident to the rear of the plane—of an engine burning itself out or landing apparatus not working; but I am told that to-day all that is in the hands of the pilot and his instrument panel; that it is dealt with in that way. If a little extra visibility to the plane itself is required, that does not present any problem. I make that suggestion quite humbly. It may be nonsense. It is made after much hesitation, but I think that it might deal with some of the problems of the immediate situation.
What I had intended to say, and will say now, is this. We are faced with a problem which involves three clearly defined types of people. There is first the professional criminal who thinks the gamble worth the taking. He can be dealt with at any rate by making the gamble not worth the taking; and if he knows that he cannot communicate with the pilots he will turn his activities to an easier or more profitable type of
632
crime. Then there is the case of the psychotic. This is a much more difficult problem. To some extent the crime of the psychotic is an imitative one. Every time one of these events gets publicity other people to start to think of the possibility of attracting, mainly, notoriety; what they regard mainly as fame and as a great adventure.
But here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner: we are dealing with something else; we are dealing with the indoctrinated political warrior who knows no fear, and will know none, and will not be deterred. It is known that, whatever the faults of Israel and whatever the faults of the Arabs, there are Arab countries now where young lads are taught that hatred of Jewry, that vengeance on Jewry, that punishment and assassination of Jewry, is the highest religious duty. All wars, of course, are religious—you never get an agnostic war—and the flames of fanaticism are fanned. The world has seen this before, and we paid 10 million lives as the penalty for ignoring it. I think it was Giles Playfair who wrote a very sensitive book, which is worth reading again. This showed how a little girl of fifteen, who was a Roman Catholic teacher in a Sunday school, developed after three years of indoctrination into the beast of Belsen. And this happened. It happened in Germany; it happened to one of the most civilised people in the world. It happened on a vast scale.
The Arab countries to-day are countries of increasing power and wealth. There is very little evidence that any of them have a desire to condemn this attitude; indeed, there is clear evidence that some of them are actively encouraging it. I say, with regret, that I do not believe that the United Nations can deal with this problem. It cannot be dealt with on the basis of a vast organisation which contains many countries that have no interest in this matter and no urge to stop the practice. Some of them have every desire to keep out, but some countries are known to participate. So, though I welcome this Bill, which is a perfectly good Bill, and links some of the legal problems, it remains the fact that it is almost irrelevant to the world situation. It remains the fact that you have to take Mrs. Beeton's advice and "First catch your hijacker". It is not easy, and all the talk about extradition and all the provisions for making a trial

633
possible are taking place in a world in which there have been very few trials.
There is one thing that could be done. We are told that the men who landed in Cuba are in durance vile and will remain there. We are told that the men who used to go to Algeria are kept in durance vile. Well, I hope that that is true. We ought to have more publicity on that aspect, because that publicity would deter others—at any rate, the criminal class, and also, perhaps, some of the psychotics. This is a world in which we have seen violence in continual escalation. We have seen murder. We have seen it in Northern Ireland, where surely an ecumenical society could and ought to be making a contribution to peace. We have seen a fairly casual treatment of political assassination. We have seen outrages on children. We have seen the ordinary process of the post being used for the purpose of anonymous assassination. What is required is an effort by people of good will of every country, for these are words and these are phrases: they mean so little.
I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench will take as the message from this House the fact that we congratulate him on the steps he has taken but urge him to take every possible step to impress upon the countries with whom he is negotiating the extreme urgency of these deliberations and the fact that they should not be unnecessarily delayed. I would also stress the extreme urgency of using these powers collectively, and using them to the fullest possible extent on those countries which are found guilty of taking part in the fomentation of violence or in the assistance of outrage.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
4.37 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, it is one blessing to have one's name down at the end of a debate, because so much of what one might have said has already been mentioned. I certainly add my welcome to this Bill and particularly to the words of my noble friend Lord Harvey for having been able to give us some first-hand account of what it is like to be in a threatened aeroplane. Because of the world-wide news sensation of the latest hijacking attempt, the Bill we are debating to-day will bring considerable peace of mind to travellers and all air-
634
lines who will benefit from its protection when it becomes law. To increase security and to minimise the risk of one of these hateful incidents occurring will require patience and co-operation in passengers. I believe that most of them—and I have heard some accounts of what they have had to go through—are willing and grateful to give the necessary time for all the checks. The attitude of some of our British passengers may be like that of the middle-aged couple, in a leading humorous magazine, who calmly went up to the information officer saying, "Please, where do we go to get frisked?"
However, in the event of one or more criminals managing to evade the restrictions and carrying out a hijack attempt, we are faced with what has been mentioned already—a modern version of piracy. All this legal business, although extremely welcome, will take time. We must find some way of discouraging as quickly as possible the intending hijackers. If my memory serves me correctly, an honourable Member in another place a few months ago gave a radio interview in which he stated that he would like to see legislation to make an act of surrender to a hijacker illegal. This would make any hijacker pause and consider. The chief weapons of the aspirant hijacker is fear. Fight that fear with a show of willingness to stand up to his threats and call his bluff, and that weapon is reduced in effectiveness.
The usual object of a hijacker, as we know, is to get money or a free ride to some destination—often both. We want to remove or reduce the likelihood of their getting what they want. And then just how fanatical are they going to be? I would gladly support any legislation to make it illegal to surrender to the demands of a hijacker, but if there were such a law all passengers should be given full warning of its existence and every opportunity to take out all possible insurance. Some might be put off, but I do not think very many would. There is always the psychology that the unpleasant thing is going to happen to somebody else.
In the days of piracy at sea, trade still, went on and finally piracy was suppressed. Those who were not captured realised that there was no further percentage in the business. It is easy to discuss such legislation here in the safety

635
of your Lordships' House, but each hijack attempt has its own peculiar problems and situations. In the air the captain has the absolute responsibility for everything that happens, and he must take decisions that may even involve breaking laws to ensure the safety of his passengers. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, paid great tribute to the strain on a captain. We are very grateful that so far most of the hijacking attempts have not involved many British aircraft; but from each attempt we can learn something and make our own airliners and airports more secure. At present I can recall only one incident of a British aircraft being involved; it was a rather unpleasant unsavoury political situation in the Middle East.
In some situations, as in the recent one in America, there has been a demand for parachutes. Airlines do not usually provide parachutes. Where do the parachutes come from? Who makes them available? If parachutes are handed into an aircraft, usually accompanied by a ransom, it would be very nice to make the hijacker worry a bit about the serviceability of the parachute. A parachute can be inspected only by undoing a flap on the pack in order to see that the rip cord is installed and the locking pin correctly placed and not bent. There is also some coloured cord which prevents the pack opening at the slightest touch on the rip cord, yet anyone who has to use it can open it with a sharp, determined pull which does not require much strength. The harness can be inspected: you can untuck the corners of the pack and see a little bit of nylon, but only the good Lord, those responsible for the packing and, finally, the user, can tell if that pack really contains a parachute. I believe that any hijacker who demands a parachute should be handed a pack containing a bundle of old laundry.
Let us leave hypothetical cases. Clearly, the real security is on the ground, and the greater the prevention the less likelihood of having to seek any drastic cure. The greatest precautions are necessarily prepared before take-off. What happens when an aircraft lands is another matter. I should like to take this opportunity, in connection with the recent hijack attempt, of saying that the attack on the F.B.I. man who had the courage to take a shot at the aircraft is totally regrettable. He
636
must be suffering enough in the knowledge that the gamble that he was brave enough to take failed and that the copilot was shot. But it did not altogether entirely fail; it rattled the hijackers and they realised that someone was going to stand up to them. That F.B.I. man should suffer no condemnation for his action. I have every possible praise for the police and security personnel who have the courage to make an attempt to capture the perpetrators of revolting crimes. It is also true that one or more persons may have been hurt or even killed. There was an incident in the U.S.A. when the police stormed an airliner and a man was killed. That was a horrible occurrence; but the hijack attempt failed, and the criminals were either shot or captured. When such an attempt is made with success, and other passengers get away safely, those who suffer, or have to suffer the loss of someone important like a husband, should know that they do not suffer in vain. Any further legislation that can provide compensation for them should certainly be considered.
I may seem rather outspoken in this matter. Every hijack that I read or hear about fills me with such fury that I have, deliberately taken the opportunity to express my views in your Lordships' House in this debate. Wherever this Bill applies it will make it more likely that in any emergency good reason and common sense will prevail. Such a situation is usually brought to a satisfactory close, and we are hoping that in future it will be brought in in such a manner that will be a good example for the rest of the world to follow. Should all reason and peaceful efforts fail, and a situation arise in which, unfortunately, more forceful measures must be used, I for one shall have all possible sympathy for any member of aircrew, airport staff, police, security personnel, or, for that matter, passengers, who, in the vernacular, "has a go".
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say that I am sure that the Government have the thanks of this House for bringing forward this Bill. We are very grateful. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has spoken of the problem for pilots. It is a deep problem. Their

637
courage gives us great confidence in the very wide margins of safety in which all commercial airlines are run. Otherwise, indubitably, there would have been an extremely serious accident arising from what has happened recently. Secondly, the crews of our commercial aircraft have great courage and a very high standard of competence. But do we go far enough in this Bill? I have only two small points to raise on this matter. For instance, it is an offence to interfere in any way with the management of an aircraft. Surely it should also be an offence to threaten to interfere. We know that some hijackers have been successful using a pencil instead of a revolver. I should like to go into this point during the Committee stage. In Clause 8, I wonder whether the definition of "in flight" as being when the doors are closed is sufficiently wide. Violence can occur when passengers are aboard and the doors are not closed. That is a Committee point which I shall perhaps take up at a later stage.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about the National Aviation Security Committee. I know that the noble Lord will not want to talk about it, and I know nothing about this matter at all, but may I take this point: this should be, not as the noble Lord said simply a co-ordinating body, but something very near a military staff, with people accustomed to dealing with acts of violence, with a full source of information, drawn on what is happening and what could happen. It should have powers of execution—I mean "execution" in the fullest sense. They should be able to take charge of a situation with authority and with the knowledge that they have authority to carry out bargains with desperate men. I should like to think that some organisation of this sort is already in being, or in the minds of those who are in control, because if any action takes place here and there is hesitation in the control and execution, I think the security will take a very bad view of it.
4.39 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I apologise for arriving late and for saying something which I hinted at recently. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, has already taken most of the words out of my mouth. It appears to me that hijacking
638
needs to be made impossible, and having an impenetrable bulkhead between the cockpit and the passengers should go a long way towards that. There could be a bell, as there is in a bus or a train, which could be rung and would merely mean, "Please stop at the next convenient opportunity". The pilot could then contact by radio whatever aerodrome he liked and say, "I think there is some bother at the back; please take precautions". On arrival, obviously the bandits must be prevented from presenting an ultimatum while the passengers are still on board and the machine is vulnerable. That could be overcome by having nothing except a communication by loudhailer from the ground to the stationary aeroplane, and an emergency exit for the passengers. One could then get everybody out on the grass and any hijacker could be dealt with piecemeal. Obviously that would lead to considerable inconvenience for passengers, but surely anything is better than continuing as we are at present.
4.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the reception you have given to this Bill: I do not think there have been any dissentient voices. We have received a great many suggestions on which I am not competent to pronounce, but I can assure your Lordships that notice will be taken of them. We have also received a good deal of advice. I suppose it was inevitable that, in spite of the fact that this Bill deals mainly with sabotage, destruction of aircraft in service and so on, speeches should have been concerned mainly with hijacking. I do not complain about that and the advice that has been given has made the debate well worth while.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for what he said to start with and for the tribute he paid to initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government. I am sorry I was distracted at the opening of his speech, but the noble Lord knows that this tends to happen when one sits down. He raised one or two points with which I should like to deal. I should like to endorse strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury and my noble friend Lord Selkirk, and others, have said about the skill of the pilots and

639
their enormous courage in dealing with hijacking. We must bear in mind that the pilot sees his main responsibility as one to his passengers for their safety. I am not certain that I would go all the way with the noble Lord who suggested that, come what may, it should be an offence to give way to a hijacker in any circumstances at all. What is quite plain is that, if we are to secure the safety of passengers, we must make certain so far as we can that the would-be hijacker does not get on to the plane in the first place. This must inevitably be the first task.
I have said that surveys of security are being carried out progressively over the whole of the 25 airports in this country that have international traffic, and considerable progress has been made already. This is the right way to tackle that problem. And, of course, along with that goes, by the same token, constant vigilance to ensure that not only does no passenger take on board anything that could damage the aircraft, but nobody else does, either. It is not always an easy task, but this is something which, as I see it, must be undertaken by every contracting State that adheres to this Convention. I think it was my noble friend Lord Kinnoull who referred to this point. ICAO have prepared a security manual to which Her Majesty's Government have made an important contribution, and this has been circulated to all 120 members of ICAO. It provides advice and guidance on security measures which might be taken to combat hijacking and sabotage. The threat varies between States, but many countries are acting on the advice contained in the security manual, and we shall certainly be prepared to consider any case of difficulty which might be brought to our attention by the pilots (or airlines) on their voyages abroad. My noble friend also made suggestions about combatting hijacking. I would emphasise that a good deal of scientific effort is at the present time being devoted to developing ways of dealing with hijacking, although your Lordships will appreciate that I cannot go into any details of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked about the number of ratifications obtained, because that will give an almost direct measure of the efficacy of the Con-
640
vention. It is our wish that as many States as possible should be persuaded to join. We are reasonably confident that we shall be able to persuade more and more States to join, and we are not disappointed by the fact that only 57 have so far adhered to the Tokyo Convention. At the same time, we do not want to delay the coming into effect of the Bill and would look for a similar measure of international support as has been shown for the earlier Conventions when a satisfactory Convention has been agreed between States.
Several noble Lords, starting with Lord Beswick, said that to contemplate the Convention on sanctions next August is to take things at too leisurely a pace. The point here is that not only is widespread agreement essential but one must arrive in the end at a Convention which is meaningful and has teeth, and at the same time is acceptable to a wide spread of nations. There are very complex questions of international law to be considered by every State that intends to adhere to these proposals, and it is right that the provisions in ICAO's rules of procedure should be made to allow States due time to consider them. The point here is that, under ICAO rules, between the time when the Legal Committee reach their conclusions and the subsequent diplomatic conference which arrives at the Convention there must be an interval of at least six months. Much as we should have liked to hurry this matter on, we could not to any considerable degree reduce that period. We suggested, as I believe I indicated in my opening speech, that the Legal Committee's proceedings should take place a little earlier, not in January of next year but in November of this year, but unfortunately that was not acceptable.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether it is possible (I appreciate his point about the rules), in view of the dangerous state of affairs that exists, to try to get the rule altered so as to have a shorter period between the various stages?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the difficulty is that one cannot compel States to adhere to the Convention. In other words, we have to seek a Convention which will attract the maximum support; and this must, in the nature of the case,

641
be particularly so at a time when one is considering sanctions exercised over States.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord was saying, The point that I tried to make was, first, Whether it was at all possible to bring the August meeting forward. Secondly, let us not take it for certain that one must get a majority of the ICAO members to agree before we can put these sanctions into operation. I was suggesting that if we could get twenty or thirty of the major countries who are prepared to apply sanctions, that in itself would probably have a very powerful policing effect.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord is suggesting we should do that outside or within ICAO, but I quite take his point. If we are doing it within ICAO we are still in the same position as regards the timetable.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene again? The noble Lord was putting it forward almost as an excuse—and he was not really doing himself justice because I know that he and his colleagues are striving to get this brought forward; and I pay tribute to them for that—that it is necessary to wait until a majority of the nations agree on the application of sanctions. I am saying that we should settle for 20 or 30 major States who could themselves police a thing of this kind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I gave that impression I did not intend to do so. First, it is necessary to get the Convention, and then you have to get a number of ratifications in order to bring that into effect. Eleven ratifications are sufficient to enable the Montreal Convention to be brought into effect, Obviously, the more States induced to adhere to the Convention, the more effective it is, because the greater the number of countries that will apply it, But one has to say that there are court-tries who, though they have not actually ratified the whole of the Convention, may act along its lines.
The noble Lord asked about the extension of the Hijacking Bill to shipping, By a curious chance, the day after I spoke in this House on the Hijacking Bill a case arose in Scotland on this very issue, and the High Court of Justiciary in Edin-
642
burgh gave judgment in the Cameron case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, there said that he disagreed with the submission made by counsel for the applicants for leave to appeal against a conviction for piracy, that the Tokyo Convention Act 1967, and in particular paragraph 4 of the Schedule, superseded the existing law of Scotland (and this was the point at issue) and restrictively redefined it. He said that at the most these provisions were merely supplementary to the existing municipal law and did not supersede it.
Quite obviously, this reduced the urgency of having to deal with this, and the Scottish decision thus supports the view that the law remains undisturbed and that no legislation is necessary. All the same, the question is still under consideration of whether the opportunity should be taken to bring the law up to date and to enact the law relating to piracy in statutory form. The Law Commission are considering this issue as part of their review of the territorial and extraterritorial extent of the criminal law, with an eye to its codification. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Lord, at any rate for the time being.
LORD BESWICK: Except, my Lords, that I did ask for a definition without undue delay. What sort of time span has the noble Lord in mind?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I said at that time was that we had to balance the desirability of getting this Bill through as quickly as possible with the desirability of including provisions dealing with the hijacking of ships. I said that the matter was under consideration, and that I hoped that legislation would not be long delayed. I am now saying to the noble Lord that it is not absolutely certain that legislation on this particular matter is needed but that the matter is being looked at, and in due course the Law Commission will doubtless report.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull raised the question of the political safeguard of extradition, as he called it; and other noble Lords have also referred to the possibility that people may escape the net because theirs can be treated as a political crime. The point about political crimes is that those who have committed them are not normally subject to extradition. But that of course does not in

643
itself in any way prohibit them from being brought to justice in this country. This would be a matter of the evidence in any particular case: if the evidence is available then the Convention seems to involve an obligation on all contracting States not to allow the offender to escape but to see that he is brought to justice in that country, unless he is extradited.
The noble Earl also asked whether there should not be sonic means of ensuring that severe penalties are imposed. I would say to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the sentences in the Bill are severe: a life sentence is a severe sentence. It is only for the information offences that the maximum penalty is only 10 years, but it is always up to the court to decide what the penalty should be in a particular case. I was also asked about the number of adherents to the Conventions. All I can say is that the Government have joined with others of like mind in pressing for wide support of these Conventions and we are continuing to use our diplomatic influence to this end. There is no particular number of States, of course, that would warrant our ratifying: we ratify on the merits of the case, and the same goes for other States. Once that number of States have ratified, then automatically the Convention comes into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, made almost passionate speeches. I am not certain that I can find very much to disagree with in what they said, particularly in their tributes to the courage of the pilots, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said, and in what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said when he made a proposal for the segregation of pilots from passengers. This and many other suggestions for dealing with hijacking have been considered in the past, and scientists, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, are working on these matters. There are technical problems involved in separating the pilot from his passengers and there is, of course, the responsibility of the pilot, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has draw attention. There are also methods of hijacking and bringing pressure to bear in which the cutting off of the pilot would be irrelevant. The Government are acutely aware of the
644
difficulties of which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, spoke, but we must not let them deter us from pursuing our course, and pursuing it with urgency.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and my noble friend Lord Fortescue made further suggestions, with considerable emphasis, if I may say so; and these also will be carefully considered, although I am bound to emphasise once again the great responsibility, which is exercised very responsibly indeed, of the pilots themselves. I hope I have said enough for the Second Reading of this Bill; and with these replies, in which I hope I have answered most of the questions which have been asked to-day, I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be good enough to say whether he is following the line that the American representative is taking at present at the United Nations? It is a very strong line and apparently coincides with the view that the noble Lord himself holds and that the Government hold. Are the Government strongly supporting the plea made by the American representative?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I understand, now referring to the line which is being taken in the United Nations. I am not in a position to answer that Question and I would only say that so far as the proposed new Convention is concerned, the United States and ourselves are working absolutely hand in hand.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill deals with two distinct topics. Clauses 1 and 2 and both the Schedules are concerned with the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales relating to educational trusts. Clauses 3 and 4 refer to student awards.

645
The provisions dealing with educational trusts are new; the two clauses dealing with awards reproduce almost word for word clauses in a Bill which was passed by this House in 1970, and these provisions are concerned with powers which were first conferred upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the Education Act 1962.
However, the Department's powers for dealing with educational trusts are of much greater antiquity. The Department inherited these powers from the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry in its turn inherited them from the Board of Education, upon which they were conferred when the Board was brought into existence right back in 1900. But the powers themselves are even older than that, for they were first created by the Statutes which were enacted in the middle of the 19th century which revolutionised the administration of charitable trusts and in particular of trusts for education. Before the statutory system of education was brought into being by the Elementary Education Act 1870 the provision of education in this country was, it is fair to say, almost entirely in the hands of people who were in law trustees administering charitable trusts. In the context of this Bill perhaps it is sufficient to mention only the endowed school—the majority of which were founded by gifts of money to provide teaching in grammar—Latin and so on—and those schools, most of which we know as voluntary primary schools, provided by the religious denominations in the second half of the last century.
The Statutes passed in the 19th century to which I have referred did two things. They provided for the establishment of Charity Commissioners, on whom were conferred the powers of the old Chancery Court over all charitable trusts, whether educational or not; and in the Endowed Schools Acts they created a system for the reorganisation of the endowed schools, establishing for that purpose Commissioners with powers even wider than those of the Charity Commissioners who were subject to the Committee of Council on Education, which is the historical predecessor of the Department of Education and Science. To complete this background, mention should be made of the provision in the Elementary Education Act 1870 which enabled the managers of schools which we now know as volun-
646
tary to comply with the statutory requirements governing the provision of education, notwithstanding anything in trust deeds or schemes which might regulate their endowments.
When the Board of Education was created in 1900 all the powers to which I have referred were transferred to it. It acquired from the Charity Commissioners their powers under the Charitable Trusts Acts in so far as they applied to trusts for education; it acquired from the Commissioners the powers conferred by the Endowed Schols Acts to frame schemes for the endowed schools and from the Committee of Council on Education power to approve these schemes; and it acquired a power to modify the trust deeds of denominational schools within the statutory system so far as this was necessary to enable the managers of those schools to comply with the law's statutory requirements. Basically, the powers of the old Board remain the same to-day. The Board and then the Minister and now the Secretary of State exercises the charity powers in accordance with the principles of the law of charity; the powers to modify the trusts of the endowed schools and the voluntary schools also fall to my right honourable friend for final decision.
When the present Government took office in 1970 there was a comprehensive review of Departmental responsibilities and this included the powers exercised under the Charities Act by the two Secretaries of State, and as a result of it the Government concluded that those powers, being essentially judicial in both origin and character, really are not appropriate to the role of a central Government Minister. The reasoning behind this conclusion was that, as for the principle of the matter, decisions to be taken under the Charities Act are judicial, not policy, decisions, and indeed at the moment two-thirds of charitable trusts are subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. There is also the practical aspect of the matter. When the law of charitable trusts was last reviewed by the Nathan Committee, which was appointed in 1950, I admit that it reported:
"…the educational endowments which would be effected…are so essentially a part of a single system of national education that their removal from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education would create chaos."
The Nathan Committee reported in 1952 and its recommendations formed the

647
basis of the Charities Act 1960. However, we now have the benefit of some twelve years' experience of the operation of that Act and I submit that we can now see that in practice the administration of the Department's charity jurisdiction is virtually self-contained, and we believe that it can be transferred intact from the Department of Education and Science to the Charity Commissioners without undue inconvenience. The officials concerned will take their experience and expertise with them. There will of course need to be consultation and exchanges of information, and this will continue, but we see no reason why that process should not continue as smoothly in the future as it has done in the past.
The termination of the Department's jurisdiction under the Charities Act is the first and main purpose of the whole of the first part of this small Bill. In addition, during the review of the Department's responsibilities we concluded that the powers conferred by the Endowed Schools Acts were no longer required and that in consequence those Acts could safely be repealed. The powers under them are very rarely invoked and trusts of endowed schools can be modified either through Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 or through the Charities Act 1960. The termination of the powers under the Charities Act make it desirable to extend very slightly the powers exercised by the two Secretaries of State under the Education Act 1944, but my right honourable friend and the Secretary of State for Wales maintain their powers under the Education Acts even though the powers under the Charities Act are being transferred. We thought it necessary to extend very slightly the powers exercised by the two Secretaries of State under the 1944 Act to modify the trust deeds of voluntary schools and other educational institutions so as to enable their managers and governors to comply with the requirements of the law of the land. These three changes are made by subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) terminates the charity jurisdiction; Clause 1(1)(b) brings to an end the powers exercised under the Endowed Schools Acts; and Clause 1(2) deals with the powers conferred by the Education Act to modify the trust deeds of schools within the statutory system of education.
648
Clause 2 deals with a slightly different aspect of the same subject. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with schools provided by the denominations in the 19th century which are now in the process of being replaced by new schools or being transferred to new premises so that their endowments, and in particular their premises, become available for other purposes. Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 has made provision for the last 25 years to enable the diocesan authority concerned to apply those endowments for the purposes of other voluntary schools within the area of the same diocese. Section 86 did this by applying the Endowed Schools Acts to these endowments. Those Acts have two distinct features; the powers they confer are very wide—much wider indeed than is necessary for this limited purpose—and the procedure they prescribe is both elaborate and very time consuming.
Clause 2 replaces the wide general powers of the Endowed Schools Acts with narrow specific powers in the terms within which in practice those wider powers have been exercised. Clause 2 streamlines the procedure so as to make it more efficient and more expeditious, but I assure your Lordships that it does not derogate from the rights of those affected to know what is proposed and to make legal representations about any proposal which they might wish to challenge in the courts.
My Lords, may I finally draw the attention of the House to Clauses 3 and 4? Clause 3 is an enabling one which gives the Secretary of State power to supplement grants to certain students holding awards from local education authorities by paying them dependants' allowances in respect of any hardship which would be suffered by someone supporting a wife, or a husband, or a child. At present, these students may receive these allowances from their local education authorities, or they may receive allowances from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. This clause does not extend the present provision—it centralises it; and it will ensure the application of more uniform standards and conditions.
Nearly all students attending first degree and equivalent courses, or courses of training as a teacher, receive a mandatory award from their local education

649
authority. These awards comprise fees, maintenance grants and supplementary allowances; for example, for extra attendance at college or on a vacation course. Included among these supplementary allowances are allowances for the dependants of a student. However, the qualification for mandatory dependants' allowances is given only if a man is married before his course begins and he is either over 25 or has supported himself for three years. If he is not over 25—or if she is not over 21 in the case of a married woman—or if he has not supported himself, in the case of a man, for three years, or has married after September 1 of the year in which his course begins, he is not entitled as of right to an allowance for his family.
The object of these rules is to ensure that the awards system provides no financial incentive to students to marry while they are undertaking courses with assistance from public funds, but cases are bound to occur where a student and his dependants will suffer hardship if he did not qualify for a dependants' allowance. I think it needs little imagination to see that such cases need by no means stem from irresponsibility. If I may give just one example, a man under 25, starting his course, may well have married and started a family during a period of employment, which did not happen to extend to the full three-year period, before he started his course. In 1965, therefore, it was agreed, and the agreement was with all-Party support, to amend the Awards Regulations in order to give discretion to local education authorities to pay allowances for the spouse and children of an award holder, where the normal qualifications for a mandatory dependants' allowance had not been fulfilled, provided that the authority considered that hardship would otherwise result. Once again, some limitations were imposed, and they were quite strict limitations, but there was a final safety net because some time previously the then National Assistance Board agreed, as a temporary measure, to consider requests for assistance for all categories of students who were not otherwise eligible for allowances for their dependants.
We feel that these arrangements ought to be replaced by a scheme which will ensure consistent treatment for everyone.
650
The Supplementary Benefits Commission wish to withdraw from what was originally intended to be only a temporary expedient because benefit is normally given by the Supplementary Benefits Commission only to people—I think I am right in saying—who are registered for employment. Local education authorities are anxious to relinquish their powers because the interpretation of hardship inevitably varies from one authority to another and the authorities themselves readily acknowledge that this leads to different treatment between one area and another.
Thus, Clause 3 of the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to establish a scheme designed to ensure that hardship is relieved on the basis of common standards. The scheme will be administered on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Department of Health and Social Security. In due course regulations will be laid before Parliament giving details of the scheme. The regulations will specify the conditions under which allowances will be paid and will enable social security officials to assess applications and the Department of Health and Social Security to make payments; the allowance will as now be discretionary; it will be in order to relieve hardship, and will be designed so that it does not exceed those paid to a fully entitled student.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask whether he proposes to include allowances for the children of unmarried students'?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, looks at the bottom of page 5 of the Bill, in Clause 3(5) he will see the words:
"In this section references to a person's child include that person's stepchild or illegitimate child and a child adopted by that person…"
The answer to the noble Lord's question, therefore, is: Yes, it does include that for children. It does not include the e partner in a situation where two people are living together and they are not married.
Finally, Clause 4 removes, for certain categories of courses, the power that local education authorities at present have under Section 2(1) of the 1962 Education Act to make awards to students attending postgraduate courses. Regulations will

651
be made by the Secretary of State designating courses for which local education authorities will no longer be able to make awards. May I in a few sentences give the explanation? Prior to 1969, responsibility for postgraduate awards was divided between education authorities on the one hand and central Government on the other, and this certainly led to confusion. So in 1969, in agreement with the local authority associations, arrangements were made for central Government agencies to take over sole responsibility for awards in defined areas for postgraduate study previously made by local education authorities under their discretionary powers, as well as by central Government agencies. While local education authorities since 1969 have not been expected to make awards in those fields of study which fall within the general area of responsibility of one or other of central Government agencies, their power to make postgraduate awards has never in fact been removed. The local authorities feel that this puts them in an artificial position and they would very much prefer the removal of this power; and that is what Clause 4 is intended to do.
My Lords, although the two halves of this small Bill deal with two entirely unrelated subjects, educational charities and student awards, none the less I believe that they have this in common: both areas of the Bill seek to improve administration in the interests both of the administrators and of those whose interests are affected, and as this is the main objective of the whole Bill I hope that the House will agree to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
5.19 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill in his usual charming and explicit way. I found the history extraordinarily interesting, and I see that the Department is learning. I remember a certain Bill which was known as the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and I was looking at the notes for my speech (which I retained) and I notice that I was told then, just as the noble Lord has told us now, that it was merely to centralise certain things and that it made no major changes. I learned the
652
hard way that a Bill which has an innocent sound can resound not only in your Lordships' House but all around the country. So I am very happy that the noble Lord has not had the difficult task that I had when I introduced the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I will also not use the name which the Opposition used of my little Bill: they called it a "ragbag" of a Bill. I will say that I am delighted to note that the Bill covers two subjects.
In this House we always use the opportunity of any Bill, or indeed anything, to bring in matters which, while appearing to be directly connected, are not wholly so. I should like to use the opportunity to pay some tribute to the voluntary schools. In a period when sometimes denominational schools are under criticism I should like to say that they still play a very remarkable and very important part in our educational structure. As a Catholic, I will not choose one of the schools of which I am chairman of governors. I select an Anglican school where I had the privilege of presenting prizes a little while ago. I liked the description in the notes for parents on the school. It said that it was a voluntary aided school, of which there were three to be found in this particular London borough. The note added:
"This school is a Church of England foundation and its attitudes and teaching are based on the traditional values of the Christian faith and what we still like to think are traditional British principles. It makes no apology for this, and in an age when so much seems to be declining into disorder the school is determined to make a stand for those qualities which it still believes must endure."
I do not think anybody could quarrel with those aims and objects of the school. I found at the school itself that there was a very remarkable feeling and attitude displayed, by both staff and pupils alike.
My Lords, if we look at the Bill, we see that the first two clauses are, as the noble Lord explained, completely non-controversial. Indeed, the transfer of the educational charities from the Department of Education to the Charity Commissioners is in many respects an improvement, because it is always better to deal with one master rather than with several, whether it be in charitable matters or anything else. So far as Clause 1(2) is concerned, the Secretary of

653
State, as we know, already has powers of modification under several other measures, and I presume that the current proposals have been devised in consultation with the various educational bodies concerned. The noble Lord did not say so, but I am assuming that consultation has taken place. Coming to Clause 2, I notice that in subsection (3) mention is made of "any teacher's dwelling-house"—and again I am asking for clarification. As the clause appears to operate only after the school connected therewith has been discontinued, I should like to know whether the sitting teacher tenants will be able to acquire their houses more easily or whether any difficulty will be put in their way.
Then we come to Clause 3, which removes responsibility for hardship allowances from the L.E.A. and places it where it should have been in the first place, with the central Government. I applaud this—indeed, I applauded the previous Bill which was presented to your Lordships' House. I think there may be a fine line drawn between illegitimate children and people who are living together, but I am not sufficiently competent to work it out. I wonder whether this provision is perhaps a sop to those of your Lordships who do not like the word "cohabit". At any rate, we shall no doubt discover during the course of the Bill's progress what is the general feeling on this matter. I have no criticism to offer.
Clause 4 clarifies an ad hoc situation in which, with few exceptions, postgraduate courses are financed by the central Government. I should like to know how this will affect teachers taking B.Ed. courses. Is their situation likely to be worsened? As we have heard, this is a straightforward Bill, and I wish it a fair passage through your Lordships' House.
5.25 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his able exposition of this short, largely routine but nevertheless, in its language, slightly obscure Bill. I suppose I had better declare an interest and say that at the moment I have an application up to the Department of Education and Science for the foundation of an educational trust
654
which I hope will not be unduly delayed by the change of powers.
The moving of educational charities across to the Charity Commissioners is obviously one of benefit for administrative convenience; such simplification is always welcome. I think it is the more welcome because there are still many of us, including a number in your Lordships' House, who feel that the whole of the charities law is due for some revision, that the definition of charities is due for some revision, particularly with regard to such bodies as the Humanist Trust, and it may be easier to deal with this if the whole matter is dealt with by one body than, as it was, split up by two. I see that this whole change is happening rather more quickly than was forecast in the Charity Commissioners' Annual Report for 1971, and I wonder if the Minister can say whether this Bill in fact covers all the charitable trusts in the Department. For instance, the Charity Commissioners, in their report, say that they are not expecting the administration of libraries and museums charitable trusts to be transferred in the immediate future. Are these included in this Bill?
There is one minor point which arises from the repeal of the Endowed Schools Act. Obviously, it is basically a good step to remove from the Statute Book what is now largely obsolete legislation. But there is a provision in one of the Acts allowing school chapels to be exempted from parochial control; and I should like to know whether this Bill repeals that particular provision or whether provision for this is made in any other piece of legislation. I have not given notice to the noble Lord of this particular question, but I understand that it has been raised by some authorities at Church House, and therefore he can probably tell me the answer. If this has been overlooked, I think there is a considerable case for our doing something about it at Committee stage.
I now skip to Clause 4, though I shall return to Clause 3 in a moment. Here again it seems to me an administrative advantage to regularise the present position regarding postgraduate awards. I only hope that it is not going to be used as a weapon for regulating the postgraduate numbers in a way that has been foreshadowed by the leaks in The Times Higher Educational Supplement of the

655
Secretary of State's intentions in the near future. Also I think that considerable care needs to be taken that, when there is only one body dealing with grant giving, and not a multiplicity of centres, bureaucracy and bias are avoided. Therefore, there should be considerable circulation of the people who serve on the appropriate grant-giving committees, so that there is a real wide range of views and certain establishments do not get into ill-favour for inadequate reasons. I also hope that the Department will take advantage of this opportunity to remind local education authorities that they still have responsibility for a large number of important courses, particularly those outlined in List B of Appendix 1 of Circular UF 45/01. These are not necessarily unimportant, and local education authorities need occasionally to be reminded of the fact that they still have these powers.
Going back to Clause 3, we again very much welcome the regularising of the position with regard to supplementary grants, which was very largely put forward, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of 1970, which fell by the wayside. I personally still regret the inability to allow for an occasional case, which may be a really hard case, and include a cohabiting partner.
I wonder whether, before the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could possibly satisfy me and other noble Lords on the kind of hard case that was so ably described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he was Lord Chancellor, in a speech on the previous Bill on April 28, 1970, reported at col. 969 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not asking the noble Lord to reply now. I am well aware that I have not given him sufficient notice I also think that this is a matter at which we probably need to look at leisure, and on which it might be right to put down a probing Amendment at Committee stage. In any case, I do not feel that we should cause genuine hardship to someone, or deny them a university place, merely because they do not happen to follow the particular mores which we ourselves, and I certainly as a Christian, follow. I think that this is the only thing of regret that I find about the Bill as such. We are of course still waiting
656
for the Department of Education and Science to produce something really worthwhile for us, other than cutting down school meals, school milk, and other things. The whole mountain of the Department seems to have given birth at this time to a tiny little mouse, but at least it is a friendly and useful little mouse and we give it a warm welcome.
5.32 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I rise quite briefly to make only two points. The first is a request for enlightenment or clarification. I find it difficult to understand what is meant in the Explanatory Memorandum by:
"… enable the denomination concerned to participate more effectively in the statutory system of public education."
I am sorry, but I fail to understand in what way they would do that. I became a little suspicious when I read the rubric to Clause 2 at the top of page 3, where it says:
"Special powers as to certain trusts for religious education."
I became perhaps a little more suspicious when I actually read Clause 2(4), which seems to me positively to encourage the continuance of strictly denominational education at a time when a very large section of the population—and I say this with great respect for the noble Baroness who has spoken in this debate—if not perhaps the majority, including many devoted Christians, would seek to discontinue this kind of teaching on the grounds that it tends to inculcate fixed attitudes in young children. We surely have only to see the lessons of Northern Ireland to take this quite seriously at the present time.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord. Would he not agree that we describe ourselves as a Christian democracy? What kind of principles would he like instilled in children?
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I should like the Christian principles to be instilled into children, but not denominational teaching, which I think is something different.
My only other point has really been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley; that is, to express the hope—perhaps "pious hope" would be the

657
wrong wording—that the Humanist Trust would come in for reconsideration as an educational trust if these trusts are to be transferred to the Charity Commissioners. Here I speak without any interest to declare since I am not a member of the British Humanists Association or any other body, religious or irreligious.
5.34 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to a small point concerning the powers of local education authorities. In a speech on November 2 I explained to your Lordships the importance of a measure of international education designed to draw people together now that we are joining Europe. I described how the College of the Atlantic in South Wales has students chosen entirely by merit from a good many countries, and 70 per cent. of them on scholarships. The scholarships are given by Ministries of Education and other scholarship-giving authorities in many countries right across the world. In the United Kingdom they are given by the local education authorities. Unfortunately, it now appears that there is an anomaly, or at least, shall I say, an obscurity in British law, and that our local education authorities may not have the right to give a scholarship to a British student wishing to study abroad. Now that we are joining Europe I believe that this anomaly in our law prevents our local education authorities from playing their part as other authorities abroad do, however much they may wish to do so in occasional cases. I think that this is most undesirable.
I welcome this Bill, but I greatly hope that it will be possible to introduce a short Amendment at the Committee stage to clarify the position which I have mentioned, and to give our local education authorities the same rights to award scholarships as other educational authorities abroad seem to enjoy.
5.36 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I wish to raise one small point arising out of the introduction by my noble friend of this Bill. Before I do so, may I say how much I welcome the noble Baroness's eulogy of the Church of England school where she gave away the prizes. I can only say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that there is a considerable queue to get into any Church of England school
658
in the diocese of Chichester, because the parents, rightly or wrongly, think that they get a better education and a better degree of moral principles than they do in the non-denominational schools.
My point is that I am engaged at the moment in trying to alter the objects of an educational trust. I see that the transfer of powers from the Department of Education and Science to the Charity Commissioners is going to be from a day to be appointed. My noble friend said that there were various staff going over from one to the other. I hope that the people who are in the pipeline will not, as it were, be left balancing on two legs, with the staff in one place and the power of decision in the other. I should like some assurance from my noble friend on that point.
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House that I did not place my name on the list of speakers. I regarded this as a routine Bill and did not expect the series of speeches which have been delivered. I wish to make just a brief comment on the part of the Bill which deals with the transfer of education charities from the Department of Education and Science to the Charity Commissioners. I regret that this opportunity was not taken of making the charity law much clearer than it is at present. It requires revision; it requires definition; and I should have hoped that this Bill might have been used, when this transference was taking place, for terms of reference for the Charity Commissioners when they are deciding what educational privileges should be given.
I want to illustrate that by what happened to the Humanist Trust, a matter which I raised earlier in a debate in this House. Unlike my noble friend Lord Platt, perhaps I should declare an interest. I am a Humanist and a member of the Humanist Association. That Trust, which was engaged solely in educational activities and was accepted for four years as an educational charity—was also accepted as such by the Inland Revenue—was suddenly and arbitrarily removed from the Register of Charities by the Department of Education and Science. When I raised this matter in the House, the Minister acknowledged that a mistake had been made by the Department.

659
I am not speaking in a spirit antagonistic to the Churches. I have a profound admiration for what the Churches are now doing, particularly on the racialist issue in Southern Africa and in this country. The stand which the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Free Churches have made under extraordinarily difficult conditions in Southern Rhodesia commands the admiration of even those of us who do not accept Church theology. Also, one recognises how the Churches are now expressing the Christian ethic in facing the problems of social inequality and injustice in this country. I am sorry that there are no right reverend Prelates here this afternoon. But I feel sure that, in the new spirit of toleration which there now is within the Churches, they would not claim for themselves a monopoly of educational charity or privileges which are denied to educational organisations not associated with the Churches. I very much hope that, as this duty is transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Charity Commissioners, the Charity Commissioners will act in a fairer and more tolerant way to those who are not associated with the religious organizations.
There is just one other point that I should like to make in regard to the sale of redundant Church schools. Again, here, I want to acknowledge, as a Humanist, that many of these Church schools (I think this applies even more to Catholic Schools than to Anglican Schools) have an atmosphere of calm serenity which encourages quite a depth of culture, and I appreciate the contribution which that makes to the bringing up and education of children. But I would say to those who support denominational schools that we have now reached a stage where the segregation of children for sectarian reasons is contrary to the wellbeing of our society. My noble friend Lord Platt has referred to what is happening in Northern Ireland, where there is the appalling situation of children who have been brought up in Anglican or Catholic schools, both claiming to worship the same God, finding themselves in a sectarian conflict.
I have no doubt, despite the atmosphere which Churches can give to education, that we have now reached a stage at which it is bad for society that children
660
should be divided in their education according to sectarian associations. I would just express the hope that, while of course the Catholic and the Anglican Churches have the right of compensation for schools which are closed down—though they should remember the contribution which the State has made—they will not use the funds which are thus created to continue in our society the segregation of children according to their sectarian beliefs. They have the right, as all of us with different views have the right, to seek to create their own atmosphere and their own teachings, but surely history is now showing that that should not be done within the State educational system.
5.46 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this short Bill has given the House an opportunity to consult on not a few matters in the last hour-and-a-quarter. The first question which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked me was: what consultation took place before the Bill was drafted? The proposals embodied in Clauses 1 and 2 were in the consultation letter circulated in December, 1971, to all relevant bodies—local authority associations, the denominations. et cetera—and there was no criticism from any. The noble Baroness also asked me whether a sitting tenant would be in a better or a worse position under Clauses 1 and 2. Orders under Clause 2 do not affect the rights of sitting tenants. If one looks at the Bill, one finds that the relevant paragraph in the School Sites Act 1841 is reproduced, as it has been in earlier legislation. The noble Baroness asked me a third question about teachers taking B.Ed. courses, and asked whether they would be worse off or better off. This Bill does not affect the teacher training students who are already covered, so far as dependants' allowance is concerned, by Section 3 of the 1962 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about all charities, and wondered whether libraries and museums are included. I think the answer is, Yes, but before I sit down I should like to cover this point in relation to one other matter. The noble Lord also asked me specifically whether school chapels would still be exempt from parochial controls. Chapels of endowed

661
schools will, in fact, fall under the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, which enables a Bishop to maintain their existing privileges. That is the effect of the last entry on page 10 of the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his support, albeit limited, for Clause 3. He said—I expected the noble Lord to say this, and it was perfectly fair—that it seemed a pity that there was no ability to meet particularly hard cases, and he thought he might like to probe this aspect during the Committee stage. I should like to say that a Working Party of my right honourable friend's Department and the Department of Health and Social Security is sitting at the moment, and among other matters are looking into how the Supplementary Benefits Commission might be able to deal with the sort of cases which the noble Lord had in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, drew the attention of the House to the Explanatory Memorandum and confessed himself unable fully to grasp the meaning of the words,
"…to enable the denomination concerned to participate more effectively in the statutory system of public education."
This subject is covered in Clause 2 of the Bill. I think many noble Lords will be familiar with a situation where one has a voluntary-aided school which either closes completely or transfers. There, one has an endowment and it cannot be used for the specific purpose for which it was originally set up. It was for that reason that Clause 86 of the 1944 Education Act was drafted, which allows schemes to be made under Section 86, usually referring to several schools. My noble friend Lord Hawke will know a great deal more about this than I do, but very often a number of schools are put into what is known as a Section 86 scheme, so that the endowment can be used (these are precisely the words which are troubling the noble Lord) for the statutory system of education, but not in the school which has been closed. Section 2 of this Act streamlines, and I hope makes better, the old Clause 86 of the 1944 Act.
My Lords, I had the pleasure of hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, on November 2 in the debate on the reply to the gracious Speech. The noble Lord has approached my right honourable friend's Department about the
662
question of grants for overseas objectives in education. I have given the noble Lord an undertaking that I will get in touch with him between this stage of the Bill and the Committee stage, but the noble Lord is aware, I know, that one of the things we shall have to look at is whether his suggestion will change the scope of this particular Bill. Further than that I do not think that at this moment I can go.
My noble friend Lord Hawke expressed the hope that cases which are already in the pipeline will not be kept waiting. We will certainly do our best to try to see that the noble Lord is met on this point, but it is perhaps just relevant to what my noble friend said and to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said if I finish by saying this. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, kindly expressed her approval of the Bill because, she said, it would be easier to deal with one authority (I think she used the word "master") than with two. I should like to make it clear that they are the functions of my right honourable friend under the Charities Act 1960 which are being transferred. The Nathan Committee, I think I am right in saying, reported that the functions of the Department of Education and Science for charities were of four main kinds. The Nathan Committee said that they are advisory, administrative, supervisory and what they called quasi-judicial. It is these functions, my Lords, which the Department has under the Charities Act 1960 and which are going to be transferred to the Charity Commissioners because, for the reasons I have submitted to the House, we believe it is right to do this. But we keep, as does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, our functions in relation to things which can be done only under the Education Acts, and not under the Charities Acts. I hope that in doing this we have the balance right, and I would ask your Lordships to agree now that the Bill be read a second time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he not able to make any comment on the suggestion I made that the law on charities should be more clearly defined, as the terms of reference to the Charity Commissioners?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I know that the noble Lord feels deeply on this particular matter, but I think it is fair to say that it is outside the ambit of this particular Bill. If the noble Lord would put down an Amendment on Committee stage I will do my best to give him a satisfactory and full reply.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
GIPSY ENCAMPMENTS (DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF STOKE-ON-TRENT) ORDER 1972
GIPSY ENCAMPMENTS (DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF ST. HELENS) ORDER 1972
GIPSY ENCAMPMENTS (DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF PLYMOUTH) ORDER 1972
5.54 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Gipsy Encampments (Designation of the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent) Order 1972 [S.I. 1972 No. 1449], laid before the House under Standing Order No. 66 on the 4th of October, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss these three Orders at the same time, so that we can look at some of the wider implications of the situation, not only in the three boroughs we are immediately concerned with but also in the surrounding areas and in England as a whole. Under the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, with which I happen to have some minor acquaintance, the Minister, at this moment the Secretary of State, has power to make an Order designating a local authority as one to which Section 10 of that Act applies, adequate provision having been made within the area of that authority for the gipsies residing in or resorting to the area. What Section 10 does is to create a new offence, which applies only to gipsies, of stationing a caravan within the boundaries of a highway, on any unoccupied land or on any occupied land without the permission of the occupier. That is a new
664
offence, as I say, applying only to gipsies, and it is provided that fines may be imposed on them of up to £25, plus an additional £5 a day for every day thereafter that the gipsies remain on the site to which the prosecution relates.
First, I want to remind the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who I understand is to reply, how originally it was intended that these designation orders should be made. At the time the Bill was going through Parliament, it was clearly understood by all concerned that individual authorities would not be given the powers in Clause 10, but that designation orders would be applied simultaneously over wider areas, or even to whole regions containing many counties and county boroughs. If I may quote Circular 49/68, which was issued a month after the Royal Assent, certainly that did not make this point explicitly because there was no need to at that time, since, as the Government explained, the implementation of Part II had to be deferred, or so they considered, in order to prevent the slight additional burden which would otherwise have been placed on local authorities while public expenditure in general was being curbed and hard bargaining was going on between the Government and local authorities about the level of rate support grants. Nevertheless, the circular expressed the hope that in the meanwhile local authorities would get on with the job of providing the sites voluntarily, and it said:
"The Ministers have repeatedly emphasised that gipsies should not be needlessly moved on from place to place, until sites have been provided for them. It is particularly important that local authorities should not drive gipsies out of their areas, to become the responsibility of neighbouring authorities, in the period before a countrywide network of sites is established."
My Lords, I emphasise the word "countrywide" because I shall be producing some figures to show that we are a long way short of that situation at the moment.
When, a year and half later, an order was made bringing Part II of the Act into force, the emphasis had already changed. In a new circular, Ministers said that they intended
"to exercise their powers to designate areas under Section 12 in such a way as to avoid creating a patchwork of relatively small areas where it would be an offence for a gipsy to camp. Such a pattern would create a difficult position for the councils of adjoining areas and a confused one for the gipsies themselves"

665
So far, that is fine. I shall deal with the situation in neighbouring authorities shortly, and when the Minister comes to reply I shall be most interested to hear what representations he has received from those in the neighbourhood of the councils which are receiving these designations now. But the circular went on to say this—and again I quote:
"Nevertheless, it may prove justifiable in the case of county boroughs which have been under pressure and have provided 15 pitches"—
15 pitches, noble Lords will please note, because in one of the cases we are looking at this evening only 12 pitches have been provided—
"to make designation orders in advance of the adjoining counties being designated".
This was, I think, a very important change of tune—the noble Lord can readily see that—in comparison with the original policy, but it was one which might not have mattered much if the counties had been only a few weeks or a few months behind in meeting their own obligations. For a short time there would have been, it is true, this patchwork of relatively small areas, additional burdens on the neighbouring authorities and confusion among the gipsy community itself. But I think it is intolerable to create such a situation deliberately, knowing that it is bound to last for many years to come. Because, unfortunately, the county councils have been dragging their feet, and after more than 2½ years the progress which has been made towards meeting the objective of providing accommodation for the whole of the gipsy population of England is, I must say, absolutely pathetic. Yet some of the counties, no doubt encouraged by the Secretary of State's accommodating response to the application for designation by these three boroughs, are themselves applying for designation. I quote the county of Hertfordshire as an example. I think it is yet another harmful side-effect of the Orders we are discussing that they make it harder for the Minister to resist pleas for similar treatment by other local authorities.
The general position in England is that we have to-day, according to my calculations, at least 4,000 gipsy families. Originally, at the time of the 1965 survey, the estimate was just over 3,000; and it was accepted by the authors of that study that there had been a substantial degree of
666
under-enumeration. Let us say that in 1965 there were 3,400 families in England. The estimate of the Department, I gather, is that the gipsy population has been increasing by 100 families a year since then, which brings us to a total of 4,100 families at the present time. That compares with a total of 2,469 pitches which the local authorities intend to provide. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was good enough to let me have a copy of the analysis which has been made of the replies to the circular issued to all those local authorities earlier this year. Your Lordships can see the enormous discrepancy between these obligations which the local authorities say they are going to undertake—only 2,400 pitches for the gipsies—and the 4,100 gipsy families needing to occupy that accommodation. But let us look at what has actually been done.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain one point? When he is talking about pitches, does he mean a space within some sort of common in which one particular family is allowed to pitch? Can there be 10 or 20 pitches on one common, or is he talking about a location which may include many places?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I can explain that. A pitch is an area within a site that will accommodate a single caravan. We are talking about the space for one gipsy family occupying one caravan. The sites may consist of something between 10 and 20 pitches, 10 and 20 families. There are larger sites, but the recommendation of the Department is that the limit should be 10 to 20 families on a single site. I hope that that is clear.
I was about to give some figures of the accommodation that has actually been made available by the local authorities, as opposed to what they said they were going to do in response to the circular issued by the noble Lord's Department earlier this year. The total for all counties, county boroughs and London boroughs is a mere 824 pitches—which means that only 1 in 5 of the gipsy population has a pitch on which he can legally station his caravan. So we are forcing four-fifths, 80 per cent., of the gipsy population to break the law all the time because we have not compelled the local authorities to shoulder their obligations and get on with the job. That is the enormous difference which

667
exists between what has been done by the local authorities and the well-authenticated need two and a half years after the Act was brought into operation. In these circumstances, I think that the Department should be saying to the local authorities quite plainly that no help will be given to any one of them in the form of designation until the rest of them "pull their fingers out". It would have a salutory effect if the Minister were to say that this evening.
It may be said that this is unfair to those local authorities which have already met their obligations; but I would point out that the county boroughs got off fairly lightly under the Act, since they had to provide space only for a maximum number of 15 caravans, irrespective of the number of gipsy families resident in their area either at the time of the Act or previously, and also irrespective of the amount of land available within their borders. Having dealt with the general position, I should like to come on to the particular argument in connection with these three boroughs. I would remark, in passing, that it is interesting to speculate how they came to be picked out for such favourable treatment. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this when he comes to reply. It is possible to anticipate one of the reasons which will be given: that the Gypsy Council had agreed earlier to these particular Orders so as to give the procedure of designation a trial. If that is going to be one of the main points in the Minister's reply, as I suspect will be the case, I am saying in advance that it is a wholly spurious argument. The decision to give the Orders a trial, as I think was the phrase, was taken by a small committee and not by the Gypsy Council as a whole; and evidence is accumulating to show that it did not represent the true feelings of the gipsy community.
It is very difficult—and one must make allowances for this in considering the original attitude of the Gypsy Council—to ascertain the collective opinion of a community which is as mobile and as widespread in its dispersal throughout the country as are the gipsies. But, for example, Mr. and Mrs. Marriott, who are members of the Gypsy Council, have formally stated to the National Council for Civil Liberties that had it been pos-
668
sible to ask all the gipsies in the area concerned, they would have been solidly against these proposals. Not only are the Marriotts and colleagues of theirs on the Gypsy Council of this opinion, but so also are the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Romany Guild, which has only gipsies as its members. With great respect to the Gypsy Council, I have found in several years of dealing with them that it is unwise to depend on what they say as the only source of advice. It is no doubt convenient for the Department to have only one organisation to consult, and I should be only too pleased if the Gypsy Council were to become more fully representative—and I believe it is making efforts to do this at the moment. But in the meantime there should at least be some independent check on the advice which they originally gave.
As an illustration—and I come to the first of the boroughs I want to discuss—I want to look at the position of St. Helens. Mr. Fred Cain, a gipsy member of the executive of the National Gypsy Education Council, claims that a survey in June revealed that as many as 48 families were in the borough of St. Helens, which means that, after designation, there would be 33 needing sites somewhere else in Lancashire. This figure of 48 may perhaps relate to the total number of families who use St. Helens over a period and not at one particular time; because it sounds a large figure in relation to the number there at the moment. But Mr. Cain is not happy about designation. Neither is Mr. Tom Lee, of the Romany Guild, or Mr. Peter McGrenery, the North-Western representative of the Gypsy Council. I checked with the local authority last Thursday and there were at that time 10 families occupying 12 pitches on the site. The local authority did not think there could ever have been as many as 48 families in the area. But there are divergent estimates of the use made of this site and of the number of gipsies who may be within the boundaries of the local authority but not actually accommodated on the site itself.
Why did the Department of the Environment agree, in the particular case of St. Helens, that they should be allowed to provide only 12 pitches when the circular that I quoted earlier said that no application would be entertained unless the full number of 15 had been provided?

669
I have referred to the opinion of Mr. McGrenery, the North-Western representative of the Gypsy Council. He has carried out a survey, not only of St. Helens but of the whole area within which these boroughs are located, and the results show an enormous gap between what has been provided so far and the accommodation actually needed. I have made available to the noble Lord some figures which analyse the returns that he received in response to the circular and compare that with the results of Mr. McGrenery's survey. I will not go through all those figures but I hope that they are clear to the noble Lord.
If I may just summarise their results, at the moment there are 73 pitches for gipsies in the area. An additional 131 pitches are proposed, making a total of 204. But these figures have to be qualified. Out of the existing 73 pitches, 46 are on temporary sites, leaving in the whole of the North-West area, comprising Lancashire and Greater Manchester, only 27 permanent pitches. And when they have completed everything which they have told the noble Lord they intend to undertake, there will be 204 pitches. But from this figure there have to be subtracted 45 from the 75 which are given by Lancashire, because although this is the figure they gave in response to the Department circular they have no plans for providing anything beyond the two sites at present under consideration which have been approved by the Department. So that figure of 75 is not a realistic one. We finish up, therefore, with 159 pitches in Lancashire and Greater Manchester, whereas the survey undertaken by Mr. McGrenery identifies 415 families in the area surveyed, plus an estimated 110 in the remaining area which has not yet been completed, making 525 in total; and the provision would represent only 30 per cent. of these requirements.
The survey was undertaken with the assistance of three universities and one college of education: Lancaster, Liverpool and Manchester Universities, and Charley College of Education. Of particular assistance in conducting this was Father Bill Maxwell, the Catholic Chaplain of the University of Liverpool, and Mr. Owen Fagan, who is a postgraduate student of the university. They found that there were mainly four stress areas, and I should like to mention those briefly. There is Liverpool itself, with
670
84 caravans on an area planned at Shore Street, Everton, and at Latham Street, with no water or sanitation, and over 100 children, with no provision whatsoever for education for the gipsy children and with no prospect of a permanent site for more than 25 caravans.
Manchester has a total caravan population of 49 families. There are over 100 children in these families, 17 of them on the permanent site provided—which is intended to accommodate only 15—and the remainder, 32 families, living in disgusting, cleared areas with no water or sanitation in Moss-side and Gorton. And the Manchester Corporation is adament in its intention to develop these areas and is trying to prosecute the gipsies who are living there as if it already possessed designation powers that are now being given to other authorities. The third area is Widnes where over 30 families are camping on derelict land, again with no water or sanitation and no hope of site provision from Widnes Council because they are not a county borough; and they say, as is perfectly legally correct, that the responsibility is that of the Lancashire County Council. The fourth area is Bickershaw, with over 20 families living on the edge of a slag-heap, again with no water and no sanitation and with mud 12 inches deep.
My Lords, that is the situation you have in Lancashire when the Minister is agreeing to make a designation order on St. Helens. I understand that the borough council does not intend to use the powers under Section 10, partially, until the adjacent authorities have provided facilities; but I think that your Lordships may see from the information that I have given that this provision in neighbouring authorities is going to take a very long time. If, in the meanwhile, St. Helens is not going to use those powers, what is the purpose of making the Orders now? Why not defer them until some further progress has been made in the areas that I have described? If, on the other hand, St. Helens experiences very little problem from unauthorised encampments and then only for short periods of emergency (as I am told is the case) which in any case would be exempt under Section 10(2), equally the borough does not need these additional powers which are being granted under these Orders.

671
Let me make clear, my Lords, that I am not criticising the St. Helens Borough Council, which has done a good deal more than most authorities in the North-West, and was, I think, the first in that area to provide a site. What concerns me is the danger of the precedent we are now creating. It is bound to increase the pressure on the Department to designate boroughs with far less powerful claims, and it may indeed be some other authorities that I have mentioned which have not done their whack as St. Helens has.
I turn now to Plymouth, where the circumstances are quite different. The numbers of gipsies on the site at Plymouth appears to vary widely. This is because it is the only site that is very largely used for transit purposes within a distance of some 300 miles. It is very widely used by gipsies travelling through Plymouth on the way to and from the West Country. There have been up to twenty families on the authorised site at any one time, although it is designed for only fifteen caravans. The cost of the site was only about £5,000, so, as may be readily imagined, and contrary to policy, it by no means conforms to the modern standards laid down by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1966, and supposedly adhered to ever since.
In Circular 26/66 it was pointed out that:
"Local authorities are obliged by Section 24(2) of the Act"—
the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960—
"to have regard to the model standards specified under Section 5(6) when providing caravan sites. The sites established for gipsies should not be inferior in this respect to others. Good site conditions may indeed be instrumental in raising their standards of living and behaviour."
I want to ask the Minister whether he agrees with that statement. Does he think that good site conditions may be instrumental in raising the standards of living and behaviour of gipsies? If he does, why did he agree to the designation at Plymouth which does not conform with the requirements laid down by the circular? In the light of that argument I think there is no case for granting designation to Plymouth, even if there
672
were no perfectly general argument against any designation at all.
No doubt the borough would say that there is no point in having reasonable facilities when those that are provided have been wrecked by vandalism. This I believe is because they have also ignored and disregarded the advice given in Circular 49/68, that:
"On any site of more than a few pitches it is essential to employ a resident caretaker."
Without proper supervision it is quite useless to expect any care to be taken by the gipsies, particularly when most of them are passing through and are not occupying the site as their permanent residence. Again, virtually none of the children on this site actually attends school, and although this may be partly explained by the fact that families do not stay there long enough I think that the local authorities' attitude also comes into the matter. They appear to have taken no steps whatsoever to get the children to attend school, something which ought to have been possible at least with the three or four families using the site as a permanent base. Their policy in Plymouth is to leave the gipsies severely alone, whether it be in trying to get the children to school or to get social workers there to help them with their problems. That is the whole ethos of the Plymouth Council, not to do anything whatsoever which may impinge on the lives of the gipsies.
Again, my Lords, let me look at the position in Devon and Cornwall as a whole, from the figures so kindly provided for me by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. According to the replies to the circular, 29 pitches have been provided so far, and the ultimate provision is for a total of 76. I must compare these with the number of gipsies who were present in the area at the time of the 1965 survey, because, unfortunately, I have no independent check on that such as has been provided by Mr. Peter McGrenery in connection with the North-West. In the 1965 survey there were 179 gipsy families in the whole of the counties of Devon and Cornwall and the county boroughs that belong to them. If one looks at these figures one sees that the existing provision is only 16 per cent. of the need identified in the 1965 survey and even when they have done everything that they say they are going to do, it will still be well under 50 per

673
cent. As I have said, there is serious reason to believe that the 1965 figures were an underestimate. I think it is premature, in view of those figures, to think about designating any authority in the South West.
Finally, my Lords, let me turn to Stoke-on-Trent. A very good site has been provided, from the accounts that I have seen, costing £40,000. That is a figure eight times as large as the one that I quoted for Plymouth, so one can see that there must be some considerable difference between the nature of the facilities on the two sites. There is no question but that Stoke-on-Trent have met their obligations under the Act in full. But the problem here is that Stoke has a surplus in families. There were 33 in the borough at the time of the 1965 survey, and I am told that these days it fluctuates between 30 and 40. If this surplus over and above the 20 pitches is kicked out, there are no vacancies on other official sites in the West Midlands area to which they might go. Anyway, one can see that if there had been 33 families, as there were at the time of the 1965 surplus, that would leave a surplus of 13 families who would have to go into the neighbouring authorities' areas.
Reporters from The Times asked how these new powers would be used.
"There is no question, we were assured,"
says the article,
"of the law being enforced rigidly from, say, one minute past midnight on January 1. Only when persuasion has failed or offenders become persistent will it be applied severely. Officials say, 'There has to be a common-sense application'."
There is little doubt that persuasion will be effective when it is pointed out to a gipsy family that the risk it incurs by remaining on an authorised site is of suffering a fine of £20, plus £5 a day for as long as it remains thereafter. So we can safely assume that the surplus of 10 to 20 families will be exported to somewhere else in the West Midlands, and that those other authorities will have to try to cope somehow.
In the West Midlands (and I am going to give the totals from Lord Sandford's survey again) we have at the moment 50 pitches. The total provision intended is 216. This does not sound too bad compared with 183 families in the 1965 survey. One would say at a glance that
674
they are going to provide more than enough accommodation for all the families in the area. But I am afraid that once again the degree of under-enumeration was extremely serious. Mr. Chris. Rice has sent me some information about the boroughs of Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Warley, West Bromwich and Birmingham, which comprise one section of this area. He tells me that at the moment there are 150 families, and it can go up to 300 at certain periods of the year because of the nature of the activities of gipsy breadwinners. So we have somewhere between 150 and 300 families in those six boroughs, and the total provision which has been planned by those local authorities is 116. That is nothing like enough.
Again, Mrs. Elsie Fisher of the National Gypsy Education Council has estimated that in the area of the West Midlands and Staffordshire, taking the new local authority boundaries as a whole, there may be as many as 600 families. That is the figure that one ought to compare with the 216 pitches which they say they intend to provide. Unfortunately, no recent survey has been undertaken, but the Gypsy Council's view is that the situation in the West Midlands is, if anything, worse than in Lancashire. As your Lordships can see, I am not so well briefed in the West Midlands and Devon and Cornwall as I have been in the North-West, and I should like to suggest that we consider extending the kind of work that is being done by Mr. McGrenery, in conjunction with the three universities, in the Chorley College, to other areas, so that we can get an up-to-date picture of the situation, bearing in mind the inaccuracies to which I have drawn attention.
My Lords, I am coming to an end, and I am sorry to have gone on for so long. I must, however, underline one common feature of the three areas that I have discussed which I think is of serious concern; that is, the failure of the county councils to lift a finger. Lancashire has done nothing but has scaled down its intentions since the last circular from 100 to 75 pitches: and even this miserably inadequate target, as I have explained, seems likely to be reduced further. The county council has proposed only three sites to the Department, at Wardle,

675
Abram and Altham, and the Altham site has since been withdrawn, with the approval of the Minister, leaving a mere two sites containing 30 pitches. if I may say so, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, it is misleading to put down a figure of 75 pitches as the intention of the county of Lancashire when it is known perfectly well in the Department that they have no plans to go beyond 30, and that of those 30 only 15 are likely to be provided in the whole of 1973.
In the West Midlands, Staffordshire also has done nothing whatsoever; not one single pitch has been provided in the last 2½ years. In the far West, Devonshire has provided a mere 8 pitches to accommodate the 73 families shown to be in that county at the time of the 1965 survey, and says that it does not intend to do any more. Cornwall has provided a mere 6 pitches for 100 families. Looking at the comparison between what county councils said they were going to do in 1970 and what they now say they are going to do, one can sec that all over the country the picture is the same. For example, in Buckinghamshire the county council has scaled down its intention from 125 to 65; in Derbyshire it has gone down from 40 to 30; in Essex it is down from 75 to 68; and in Gloucestershire from 82 it is down to 28. So we are going backwards. All the county councils are reneging on their obligations and, I must say, leaving it to the boroughs to try to cope as best they can.
I have every sympathy with St. Helen's, Stoke-on-Trent and Plymouth. I do not think that they should be called on to carry this enormous burden. I think the answer is not to designate them, but to make the county councils do the work that they are obliged to do under the terms of the Act. It brings the law into contempt if the Department take no step to enforce it. I cannot help contrasting the situation as I have described it with what happened over the Housing Finance Act. If this measure had been the Housing Finance Act, there would have been a commissioner telling Lancashire that the committee was disbanded and had lost its powers, and that the Commission was going to do its job for it. But in the case of the Caravan Sites Act, although it has been on the Statute Book
676
for 2½ years, the Department are still sending out circulars, which over a period of decades has been found to be an ineffective device.
My Lords, I am under no illusion that the Minister would have withdrawn these Orders, whatever the arguments I might have produced. But this discussion will not have been a waste of time if he will agree to do three things: first, that he will use his powers of direction to the county councils to provide accommodation for at least the number of gipsies who were present in their areas at the time of the 1965 survey; secondly, that he will agree not to bring forward any more designation orders until there has been a reasonable opportunity of examining the effects of these three—and by that I mean at least two years, so that we can have time to study the effects in other parts of those areas; and finally, that before any further request for designations are entertained he will carry out surveys covering a whole area of the type which we now have before us in the North-West, so that we may see the extent of the need throughout the whole of that area. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Gipsy Encampments (Designation of the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent) Order 1972 [S.I. 1972 No. 1449], laid before the House under Standing Order No. 66 on 4th of October, be annulled.—(Lord Avebury.)
6.30 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I shall not take up more than a quarter of the time taken by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—because apparently he took no notice of the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party who said last Thursday that some Members of your Lordships' House were not paying attention to the clock. However, I do not complain about that, because I was present in another place when the noble Lord introduced the Bill which resulted in the Act of Parliament under discussion. He has a long personal record of service to the gipsy community. I want to say that I was grateful to him when, towards the end of his speech, he withdraw what might have been regarded as criticisms of St. Helens and Stoke-on-Trent, because these two authorities have done a fair

677
job of work, and indeed compare more than favourably with most others. I am not competent to talk about Plymouth, but I know the other two local authorities and they have a very good record in social legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said in opening that the Gypsy Council do not always reflect the views of the gipsy community, but these three Orders, as I understand it, have been approved by the Gypsy Council. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, can confirm or deny that. If we are to have any comment about these three Orders to-night, may we also have some comment on the other three Orders, which I think were applied for and were objected to by the Gypsy Council since they did not find them acceptable? It may well be that since the three we have to-night have been approved, as I understand it, by the Gypsy Council, it will be difficult for the Minister to turn them down. However, it would not be a bad thing to have the reasons.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said in opening, some difficulties have arisen from the operation of the Act. As I understand it, under Section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, the Minister may by order made on the application of any county council, county borough, or London borough, designate the area of that authority as an area to which Section 10 of the Act applies. A designation Order will only be made where the Minister is satisfied that the authority has provided suitable camps. In the case of county boroughs and London boroughs, the Minister may make an Order for the liability upon a county borough or London borough to provide accommodation for not more than 15 caravans. This indeed was the point raised by the noble Lord.
A point of contention as between the county councils and other boroughs is the strict limit which has apparently been laid down. I am informed that since the initial survey of gipsies in Surrey in 1965 there has been an increase of some 200 per cent. in the number of gipsy caravans, from approximately 50 in 1965 to approximately 150 at the present time. I am also advised that there are more than 15 gipsy caravans in the London boroughs of Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond, all of which boroughs adjoin
678
the county of Surrey. This may also be the case in regard to other London boroughs. In the circumstances, if designation orders are made by the Secretary of State in respect of these London boroughs the county council would expect, and indeed have been so asked by the Department of the Environment, to provide for an influx of caravans from those London boroughs. The problem in Surrey—and it will be repeated elsewhere—is greatly exacerbated by this provision, and the county council are of the opinion that the limitation to the provision of 15 caravans by the London boroughs adjacent to Surrey is inadequate and that they should be required to provide for the gipsies habitually or normally residing in or resorting to their areas, as in the case of other counties. This is the argument which they make.
Of course the county council accept the statement which has been made on behalf of the Government that they do not intend to make designation Orders piecemeal but wish to consider the needs of the areas in general and not just the authority requesting designations. I am bound to point out—and this reflects the opinion of many other county councils—that the Surrey County Council feel strongly that the first priority is the amendment of Section 6(2) of the 1968 Act. Only when that section has been amended, they feel, can the Government deal with the designation Orders on their merits and not against the background of an arbitrary fixed maximum of 15 caravans in any London borough or even in a county borough.
If those are the facts, I think the Minister might make this an occasion on which to make a reply because I think this is placing an imposition on certain county councils which they ought not to bear. Surely, if each borough accepts the responsibility for its own gipsy population this will not only relieve the county of its burden but the borough will be accepting something which is its own responsibility. If the figures are as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given to-night—and I have no reason at all to doubt them—quite obviously every local authority throughout the country has to go a very long way with plans to meet the needs of the gipsy community. This, I think, has become quite apparent as a result of the figures mentioned. I hope that when the

679
Minister comes to reply he will at least be able to make some answer to the question about this limitation of 15 caravans in any one borough and about the burden that it places on county councils. Also, I would ask him for an assurance that before any designations take place he will at least give consideration to an amendment of Section 6 of the Act.
6.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I think it has been a good thing to have a debate in Parliament on these first three of what will in due course be a series of such Orders, and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it is helpful to consider all three together. I think it is fitting that the Motion which has led to this debate should have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He was modest in expressing his own action over the Bill but I think it is true to say that it was his own legislation which he piloted through another place.
The Caravan Sites Act 1968 which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, introduced into Parliament and, as I say, piloted through, then received support from all sides; it adopts a broad policy that was pursued by the previous Government and which is still being pursued by this Government. The policy is that an appropriate number of proper gipsy encampments should be provided to take the place of the unauthorised sites which hitherto have caused so much complaint to the public and to local authorities on the one hand, and, on the other, have led to so much insecurity for, and such harassment of, the gipsies. So here we are on common ground. The solution to this problem remains exactly the solution intended by the noble Lord when he introduced the legislation; namely, the rapid provision of authorised and properly equipped sites to take the place of the unauthorised sites.
The Act places upon the local authorities a duty to provide caravan sites for gipsies. Instead of the gipsies being left to roam without any place where they can feel secure, it was recognised that provision should be made to meet the needs of this section of our population.
680
It is right that we should be concerned about it. But even if the number is, as was indicated in the original census, 3,000 or so, even if it has risen to 5,000 now, this is still a tiny problem in relation, for instance, to the rest of our housing problem, and it should be well within the capacity of the authorities to solve it, given the necessary will.
The duty under the Act was given to counties, county boroughs and London borough councils. In the case of the county boroughs and London boroughs the duty was limited to the provision of a site or sites with 15 pitches, and I come here to the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked. When the legislation was first introduced into Parliament it did not lay any statutory duty on county boroughs to provide sites, but this was changed in view of the fact that those were areas where many gipsy families now obtained their livelihood. The decision to limit it to a statutory duty to provide only 15 pitches was deliberately taken by Parliament as little as four years ago. It is premature to contemplate changing that. Because this limitation on the duty imposed on county boroughs was taken then, it is important to bear this in mind in considering the Orders which are now before your Lordships.
In addition to the provision which the Act made for local authorities to provide sites, provision was also made to strengthen powers of local authorities to deal with unauthorised gipsy encampments, the object of the Act being to do away with these since they cause so much nuisance and other local problems. Understandably, though, the Act did not prescribe that the new enforcement powers were to be given automatically to the local authorities that had provided the sites. That was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly dwelt upon. They can be given to an authority only by means of a designation order under Section 12, made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and it is the first one of three such orders which we are now debating. A designation order cannot be made, however, unless my right honourable friend is satisfied either that adequate provision has been made by the authority concerned for the accommodation of gipsies residing in or resorting to its area, or that in all the

681
circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make such provision.
These enforcement powers have to be considered, therefore, in the context of the provision of sites. It has been the firm policy of this Government—and on this we are at one with the view of the previous Government—that the problem is not solved, but rather aggravated, by moving gipsies on from one unauthorised site to another. In our view—and here again we are at one with noble Lord—the only effective solution is to provide sufficient authorised sites with all due dispatch, and this is what we are encouraging local authorities to do. I cannot say that I have any confidence that the issuing of directions to local authorities would be anything but counter-productive at this stage. The effect of our exhortations. circulars and discussions is that the great majority of local authorities are now endeavouring to provide sites, whereas perhaps a year or two ago some of them were under the impression that they could somehow avoid their statutory duty.
We have recently obtained from the local authorities details of the sites which they have provided or are proposing to provide. Twenty-eight new sites have been opened in the past two years, and the present position is that a total of 58 sites have now been provided. This means that the number of sites and pitches available to gipsies now on authorised sites is approaching double what it was two years ago. I acknowledge that this may not be enough.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, if you start on the basis of a small figure and double it, you still have a small figure. The point I made was that the sites that have been provided contain enough accommodation to satisfy only one in five of the number of gipsy families in the whole of England.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am beginning to come to this. We are not starting with a very small figure, we are starting practically from scratch. This is what makes the problem difficult for everybody, because the only impression the public have of gipsies and their encampments are these wretched, miserable, unauthorised encampments which everybody sees around. If everybody knew what a proper authorised site
682
looked like, there would not be so much difficulty. The fact of the matter is that we have doubled the provision of authorised sites in two years.
Knowing very well, as also does the noble Lord, how difficult it is to find a suitable site, knowing the problems of allaying local objections—which are all based on people's impressions of unauthorised sites—and knowing the teething troubles that are involved in getting a site going well under good management, I take this opportunity to congratulate the local authorities that have provided the sites on what they have achieved so far. But this is not all. A further 106 sites are proposed, and of these 106 sites, the local authorities hope to complete nearly half by the end of 1973. So if we can keep to that, or improve on it, we shall be doubling again within the next year. That is to say, we are providing them at twice the rate. I fully acknowledge that there are still far too many authorities who will need to provide sites that have yet to bring their first site into service. Very few county councils have yet made the full provision that will be required of them—hardly any at all.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, with the permission of the House, the full details of what has been provided, which I passed to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the purposes of this debate. While we accept that in implementing the Act much remains to be done by way of site provision, a number of local authorities have by now carried out their full statutory obligations under the Act in providing sites. Understandably, these authorities now expect the next stage envisaged under the Act to be brought into effect; namely, the making of a designation order to enable them to deal with unauthorised encampments in their own area. Nothing is gained by allowing unauthorised camping to continue if it can be avoided without undue harassment to the gipsies.
The fact that the first three orders have only now been made shows the care and deliberation with which my right honourable friend and myself have approached this question. We need to be satisfied, taking into account the problems caused by unauthorised encampments, that the strengthening of the powers of particular local authorities to deal with them in given areas is justified. And we

683
need to bear in mind that other authorities can be expected progressively to seek designation orders once they have fulfilled their duty under the Act. About a dozen applications for orders are at present before my right honourable friend. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the assurances for which he asks. Our approach, and our policy towards laying these designation orders, is to take account of all the factors relating to the area itself: the views of the Gypsy Council, of the local authority that is providing the site, and the intentions of the authorities around the site. All those views have to be taken into account before we make any other designations. But the main question we ask ourselves is: Will this designation order speed up, stimulate and encourage the provision of more sites, or otherwise? If I did not hold the view that this will stimulate and encourage the provision of more sites sooner I should not be commending these orders to your Lordships.
Parliament decided in 1968 that in principle there should be no needless attempt to change the mode of life of the gipsies. Unfortunately there can be problems associated with unauthorised encampments; and I heard at first hand only a week or two ago from a deputation from a Northern city of the kind of difficulties which confront a large urban authority and its residents. Properly equipped, supervised, authorised sites are the answer, and it is reasonable for local authorities who provide them to the required extent and to the required standards to look to be given the power to deal with the problems caused by any unauthorised encampments that remain in their area.
In considering applications for designation orders we have been in close touch with the Gypsy Council throughout. This has been, first, in the context of whether the sites which have been provided have adequate facilities, and, secondly, in judging how a designation order for a particular area would be likely to affect surrounding areas. Your Lordships will appreciate that problems both for the gipsies and for the authorities could arise if a patchwork pattern of relatively small areas covered by designation orders were created. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly draws attention to this difficulty;
684
we are fully conscious of it and are anxious to avoid it. Nevertheless, weighing up all the factors, we decided that designation orders should be laid for Stoke-on-Trent, Plymouth and St. Helens. The attitude of the Gypsy Council to this is as follows. In January, 1972, this year, the Gypsy Council wrote saying that they had no objections to St. Helens and Plymouth. In June, 1972, the Gypsy Council issued a Press notice indicating agreement to all three sites. The Gypsy Council had changes of mind, but again in September, at a meeting of the full Council, they reaffirmed that they had no objection to all three designations. As I say, their attitude, though important, is not decisive, but on this issue they have on those three occasions expressed their view clearly and unequivocally.
In each of the cases before us the authority has provided a site which the Gypsy Council have agreed was adequate both in size and in facilities. Stoke indeed have exceeded their statutory duty, having provided a site which will accommodate 24 caravans. The Plymouth site has 15 pitches. There is virtually no gipsy population indigenous to Plymouth, and the site, which has not been full since it was provided in April, 1972, tends to be used as a transit site. In these circumstances one can understand the difference in the standards of the facilities provided and the cost of the provision.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it has in fact been full. At one time there were 20 caravans on the Plymouth site although it was designed to accommodate only 15. I believe that that figure can be confirmed by the local authority.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that if this is being used as a transit site, that situation can occasionally occur; but it does not alter the statutory obligation of the city. The noble Lord rightly dwelt on the circumstances surrounding these sites. I should like just to comment briefly on these and give your Lordships the information we have on them, because it is relevant. As to Stoke-on-Trent, the only adjacent authority is not the West Midlands conurbation, which certainly has its problems; it is Staffordshire County Council. The County Council proposes to provide sites of 20 pitches

685
each in Rugeley Urban District, Seisdon Rural District and Stafford Rural District. The National Council for Civil Liberties in their report seem to suggest—and I think the noble Lord rather took their line—that the situation in the West Midlands conurbation is relevant to Stoke. I am not sure that I share that view, because there are at least 20 miles between Stoke and the conurbation and bearing in mind that this provision is intended by Staffordshire.
The noble Lord rightly did not seek to do anything but commend St. Helens for the provision they have made, and I should like to join with him in that. I took the occasion to visit the site when I was in the North-West this last weekend and I confirm that it is of a high standard. It has not yet been fully occupied and it was not yesterday when I visited it. That is really the acid test. It may be that there are a number of families in the area, but if the site is meeting the requirements of the gipsies to the extent that it is not and has not yet been fully occupied, I think we can say that St. Helens have discharged their responsibility. But on the question of the North-West, the point I should like to make is this. Taking that region as a whole—and it is the one covered, to some extent at any rate, by the survey the noble Lord referred—to the census in 1965 indicated 112 gipsy families resorting to it. The provision proposed by the authorities in the North-West is 206, which is more than adequate for that number though less than adequate for the 400 that the latest survey has indicated. I find it hard to believe that both those surveys can be right, even if we allow for some increase on the figure of 112 which was arrived at in 1965. I think we must say that there is a split somewhere there and that the total provision of what is now existing and intended to be provided, 264, is not far short of what is likely to be required.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I would mention that I shall be sending the noble Lord a complete analysis of the figures that the universities I mentioned have collected. I cannot do this yet because, as I have said, 700 square miles of the area have not yet been covered, although I gave the estimated figure of 110 families. They work out that the total is 525. The Minister may well ask why
686
there should be this enormous difference between that total and the 74 shown to be in the area in the 1965 survey. I can only say that there must have been a very serious degree of under-enumeration in that area at the time.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it may well be. The figure must lie somewhere between the two. Because of that, I think that on some future date we may well need to have another national census. At the moment, however, I think we are at one in seeing that the need is to provide more sites with all due despatch. Certainly more sites are needed and almost every authority, certainly every county council, needs to provide more, whatever the precise provision in each particular part of the country needs to be at the end of the day.
The way in which the local authorities concerned use the powers which will become available to them as a result of these designation orders will be particularly important. The noble Lords, Lord Hoy and Lord Avebury, mentioned this point and I agree with it. Each of the authorities concerned with these orders recognise this and I am confident that there will be no precipitate or unreasonable action on their part. We are satisfied, therefore, that the right course was to make these orders. Far from signalling a period of unnecessary interference with the activity of gipsies, it is a further step in the implementation of Parliament's intentions in passing the legislation, and I myself am satisfied that it will be a stimulus and encouragement to all who still need to get on with the provision of more sites. It was because the Gypsy Council on those three earlier occasions thought so too that they indicated to us that they thought it was timely to make these designations. Indeed, not to make such orders where these are justified would surely discourage other authorities from providing enough sites quickly. As I have explained, the real solution to the problem can be found only by providing sufficient authorised sites, and we shall continue to do all we can to encourage local authorities to make proper provision with all due dispatch in their areas.
As I said at the beginning, it is a good thing to have had this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to affirm our continuing support for the noble Lord's

687
policy as embodied in the Act which he sponsored, and to support the policy which the Party opposite also followed when they were in power. The key to its success is the faster provision by all concerned of more authorised sites with proper facilities and with more security for the gipsies on them.
LORD HOY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I put to him two simple questions? Does he intend to deal with the figure of fifteen which has been arbitrarily fixed and, if so, what does he say about it? Secondly, would he reply to the request on behalf of a county council that the Government might look at Section 6(2) of the original Act, to see whether this can be amended? Because this particular county council, at least, feels that unless this is dealt with we cannot deal with the problem as a whole.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I dealt with this point at the beginning, and I particularly asked the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, to take note of what I was saying.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear what the noble Lord said.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am very glad to repeat it. I was explaining that the legislation, when first introduced into Parliament, did not place any statutory duty on county boroughs to provide any sites. The decision was deliberately taken by Parliament to lay a duty on the county boroughs and the London boroughs to provide fifteen. That figure was deliberately chosen by Parliament.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I leave it at this?—that apparently in the working of it this has not worked out. All I am asking the noble Lord to do is to look at it to see whether in fact an amendment is required, because the very working of it may prove that it is unjust.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope that what I have been saying is clear that we are looking at this matter with the greatest possible care. Since the Act was passed a joint committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Gypsy Council worked out model guide lines on what facilities should be pro-
688
vided on caravan sites, and what the ideal sizes were in the light of experience, and they have confirmed that 15 is a good figure for a single site. It may well be that some authorities will go beyond their statutory duty, as indeed Stoke-on-Trent have done in providing 24. But there is no indication so far that there is any reason to return to Parliament with any second thoughts as to what the statutory duty of the county boroughs and the London boroughs should be.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene for a moment? The question as to whether 15 on the one site is the right number is not the point at issue. The point at issue is this: will his right honourable friend have a look at the possible necessity of increasing the number of sites since it would appear that many more than 15 caravans are at present, and have habitually been, located in one of the boroughs?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. Of course we are constantly looking at this, but so far there is no reason to change the view that county boroughs, placed as they are, with the pressure on land should not be asked to provide more than 15 caravan pitches in their area.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what he has to say as to the position that then ensues? A limit of 15 is accepted by the Department as being proper for a borough. But there are considerably more caravans, and they are then pushed out so that the difficulties and problems of the peripheral authorities to the borough concerned are considerably increased. As I understood him, the noble Lord has been making the point that the presence of these caravans on unauthorised sites ought not to be tolerated. May I ask him where they are to go at the present time?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we have very carefully selected sites for designation after consultation with the Gypsy Council, the county boroughs that have provided the sites and the surrounding authorities, where we feel that this problem will not in these cases be particularly serious, and in going through my remarks I explained why we think this is so. Stoke-on-Trent have provided a site

689
for 24 caravans, which is more than their statutory duty requires.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, according to the document which the noble Lord sent to me, the figure is 20.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Plymouth provides adequately, for the reason that it is primarily used as a transit site; and St. Helens, as I have said, has provided a site which has proved adequate in that since it was opened it has never been full. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation.
I hope that these Orders will encourage the progress that I have been saying is

SITE PROVISION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AT OCTOBER, 1972 (October, 1970 figuresshown in brackets)

COUNTY COUNCILS

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Remarks

Bedfordshire

1

12

3

58

4

70

(—)

(—)

(4)

(40)

(4)

(40)

Berkshire

2

21

2

24

4

45

Further site under consideration.

(2)

(21)

(2)

(21)

(4)

(42)

Buckinghamshire

1

25

2

40

3

65

(1)

(25)

(4)

(100)

(5)

(125)

Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely

—

—

3

52

3

52

(—)

(—)

(2)

(32)

(2)

(32)

Cheshire

—

—

3

45

3

45

(—)

(—)

(3)

(36)

(3)

(36)

Cornwall

1

6

2

32

3

38

(—)

(—)

(3)

(58)

(3)

(58)

Cumberland

—

—

1

10

1

10

(—)

(—)

(1)

(10)

(1)

(10)

Derbyshire

1

10

2

20

3

30

(—)

(—)

(2)

(40)

(2)

(40)

Devonshire

1

8

—

—

1

8

(—)

(—)

(1)

(8)

(1)

(8)

Dorset

*2

47

5

54

7

101

*One site of 25 pitches temporary.

(—)

(—)

(7)

(97)

(7)

(97)

Durham

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Essex

2

28

3

40

5

68

(1)

(12)

(4)

(63)

(5)

(75)

Gloucestershire

3

28

—

—

3

28

Further sites under consideration.

(1)

(8)

(5)

(74)

(6)

(82)

Hampshire

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Herefordshire

—

—

—

—

—

—

Possible sites being investigated.

(—)

(—)

(3)

(50)

(3)

(50)

Hertfordshire

5

78

4

38

9

116

(3)

(48)

(5)

(57)

(8)

(105)

Huntingdonshire and Peterborough

(—)

(—)

1

30

1

30

Possible provision of transit site also.

(—)

(—)

(1)

(20)

(1)

(20)

Isle of Wight

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Kent

7

84

4

60

11

144

Proposal to increase pitches on 6 existing sites.

(6)

(72)

(3)

(36)

(9)

(108)

Lancashire

—.

—

5

75

5

75

(—)

(—)

(5)

(100)

(5)

(100)

Leicestershire

1

4

4

64

5

68

(—)

(—)

(4)

(60)

(4)

(60)

Lincolnshire (Holland)

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

necessary; that is to say, the provision of more properly equipped sites for the gipsies. I commend them to yourLordships as much as to the gipsies themselves and I hope the noble Lord will agree that they are now needed in thesecases and in these places if we are to press on with the implementation of his Act. For those reasons, following thisdebate, which I agree has been very useful, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his Motion.
Details of sites provided by local authorities at October, 1972, referred to by Lord Sandford are asfollows:

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Remarks

Lincolnshire (Kesteven)

1

16

—

—

1

16

(1)

(16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(16)

Lincolnshire (Lindsey)

*1

15

2

65

3

80

*Provided by Spilsby RDC for Summer use.

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

(2)

(30)

Norfolk

—

—

—

—

—

—

Joint site with Norwich CBC proposed. Further sites under consideration.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Northamptonshire

—

—

3

44

3

44

(—)

(—)

(1)

(30)

(1)

(30)

Northumberland

—

—

2

25

2

25

(—)

(—)

(1)

(24)

(1)

(24)

ottinghamshire

—

—

1

15

1

15

Further sites under consideration.

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Oxfordshire

1

10

—

—

1

10

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Rutland

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Salop

—

—

3

29

3

29

(—)

(—)

(3)

(29)

(3)

(29)

Somerset

1

8

3

29

4

37

(1)

(8)

(7)

(72)

(8)

(80)

Staffordshire

—

—

3

60

3

60

(—)

(—)

(4)

(80)

(4)

(80)

Suffolk East

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Suffolk West

—

—

1

16

1

16

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Surrey

1

51

2

58

3

109

Further sites under consideration

(2)

(61)

(2)

(60)

(4)

(121)

Sussex East

3

13

1

6

4

19

(3)

(13)

(4)

(19)

(7)

(32)

Sussex West

—

—

2

12

2

12

(—)

(—)

(2)

(12)

(2)

(12)

Warwickshire

—

—

1

16

1

16

Joint site with Coventry CBC.

(—)

(—)

(2)

(32)

(2)

(32)

Westmorland

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Wiltshire

—

—

2

42

2

42

(—)

(—)

(2)

(42)

(2)

(42)

Worcestershire

1

12

3

46

4

58

Further 2 sites under consideration.

(1)

(12)

(5)

(75)

(6)

(87)

Yorkshire (East Riding)

—

—

—

—

—

—

Possible joint site with Kingston-upon-Hull CBC.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Yorkshire (North Riding)

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(1)

(12)

(1)

(12)

Yorkshire (West Riding)

—

—

5

80

5

80

(—)

(—)

(5)

(75)

(5)

(75)

Total

36

476

79

1,200

115

1,676

(23)

(311)

(102)

(1,524)

(125)

(1,835)

COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCILS

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Remarks

Birmingham

—

—

1

16

1

16

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Blackburn

—

—

*1

15

*1

15

*Already in use as temporary site.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Bolton

—

—

1

16

1

16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Bradford

—

—

1

16

1

16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Bury

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(10)

(1)

(15)

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Remarks

Chester

*1

14

—

—

*1

14

*Temporary site. Joint site with Cheshire CC proposed. Claiming exemption under S. 6(2)(a)of Caravan Sites Act 1968.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Darlington

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Dewsbury

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Doncaster

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Dudley

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Exeter

—

—

1

2

1

2

Claiming exemption under S. 6(2)(b) of 1968 Act.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Gloucester

—

—

—.

—

—

—

Contributing to joint site with Gloucestershire CC.

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Huddersfield

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Kingston-upon-Hull

—.

—

—

—

—

—

Possible joint site with Yorks ER CC.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Leeds

1

15

—

—

1

15

(1)

(22)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(22)

Leicester

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Lincoln

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Liverpool

—

—

1

25

1

25

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Luton

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Manchester

1

16

—

—

1

16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(16)

(1)

(16)

Newcastle on Tyne

—

—

1

10

1

10

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Norwich

—

—

*1

16

*1

16

*Joint site with Norfolk CC.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Nottingham

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Oldham

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Oxford

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Plymouth

1

15

—

—

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(12)

(1)

(12)

Rochdale

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

St. Helens

1

12

—

—

1

12

(—)

(—)

(1)

(12)

(1)

(12)

Sheffield

1

15

—

—

1

15

(1)

(15)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

Stockport

1

16

—

—

1

16

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Stoke-on-Trent

1

20

—

—

1

20

(—)

(—)

(1)

(20)

(1)

(20)

Teesside

—

—

1

20

1

20

(—)

(—)

(1)

(20)

(1)

(20)

Walsall

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

West Bromwich

1

15

—

—

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Wolverhampton

1

15

—

—

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(24)

(1)

(24)

Yarmouth

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Remarks

York

*1

15

—

—

*1

15

*Temporary site. Exemption claimed under S. 6(2)(a) of 1968 Act.

(1)

(15)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

Total

11

168

21

316

32

484

(3)

(52)

(16)

(249)

(19)

(301)

Exemptions: The following county boroughs have been granted exemption on the groundsthat the number of gipsies resorting to the borough in the 5 years ending May 1, 1968 was not such as to warrantprovision being made (Section 6(2)(b) of Caravan Sites Act 1968).

Barrow-in Furness

Hastings

Bath

Rotherham

Brighton

Southport

Burton-upon-Trent

Sunderland

Eastbourne

Torbay

Grimsby

Tynemouth

Hartlepool

Applications for exemption: the following county boroughs have applied for exemption ongrounds that suitable land is not available (Section 6(2)(a) of Act of 1968).

Barnsley

*Luton

Wakefield

Bootle

*Newcastle on Tyne

Warley

Bristol

Preston

Wigan

Chester

Salford

York

*Gateshead

*Southampton

* Site may he provided but application for exemption not withdrawn.

The following county boroughs have applied for exemption on grounds that the number of gipsiesresorting to the Borough in the five years ending May 1, 1968, was not such as to warrant provision being made (Section6(2)(b) of Act of 1968).

Birkenhead

Halifax

Blackpool

Ipswich

Bournemouth

Northampton

Burnley

Portsmouth

Canterbury

Reading

Carlisle

Solihull

Coventry

Southend-on-Sea

Derby

South Shields

Exeter

Wallasey

Gateshead

Warrington

Worcester

LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Remarks

Barking

1

16

—

—

1

16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Barnet

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Bexley

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Bromley

1

12

—

—

1

12

Proposal to increase to 15 pitches.

(1)

(12)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(12)

Camden

—

—

—

—

—

—

Under consideration.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Croydon

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Enfield

—

—

1

(15)

(1)

(15)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Greenwich

—

—.

1

54

1

54

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Harrow

—

—

—

—

—

—

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Havering

1

16

—

—

1

16

(1)

(27)

(1)

(16)

(1)

(16)

Hillingdon

1

26

—

—

1

26

(1)

(15)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

Hounslow

*1

15

—

—

*1

15

*Temporary pending permanent provision.

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Kingston Upon Thames

—

—

1

15

1

15

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Merton

1

15

—

—

1

15

(—)

(—)

(2)

(15)

(2)

(15)

Newham

1

15

—

—

1

15

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Redbridge

1

16

—

—

1

16

(1)

(16)

(—)

(—)

(1)

(16)

Richmond-on-Thames

1

16

—

—

1

16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Sutton

*1

17

—

—

*1

17

*Temporary pending permanent provision.

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

(—)

Waltham Forest

1

16

—

—

1

16

(—)

(—)

(1)

(15)

(1)

(15)

Total

11

180

6

129

17

309

(4)

(70)

(11)

(151)

(14)

(194)

Applications for exemption: The following London Boroughs (13) have applied for exemptionon grounds that suitable land is not available (Section 6(2)(a) of the Act of 1968).

Brent

Islington

Tower Hamlets

Ealing

Kensington and Chelsea

Wandsworth

Hackney

Lambeth

Westminster

Hammersmith

Lewisham

Haringey

Southwark

Summary:

Existing

Proposed

Total Provision

Local Authority

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

Sites

Pitches

County Councils

36

476

79

1,200

115

1,676

(23)

(311)

(102)

(1,524)

(125)

(1,835)

County Boroughs

11

168

21

316

32

484

(3)

(52)

(16)

(249)

(19)

(301)

London Boroughs

11

180

6

129

17

309

(4)

(70)

(11)

(151)

(14)

(194)

Total

58

824

106

1,645

164

2,469

(30)

(433)

(129)

(1,924)

(158)

(2,330)

7.7 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, if I am permitted to make one or twopoints in conclusion, I should like to take issue with the noble Lord in resting so much of his case on the approval ofthe Gypsy Council when I had explained(and clearly he has not taken it in) that I did not consider that the Gypsy Councilwere representative of the gipsy community. I asked the noble Lord whether he would listen to some of the otherauthorities which could have been consulted by his Department, instead of always depending upon the convenience ofbeing able to consult with one body. The noble Lord has ignored the fact that the Gypsy Council have now expressed theopposite opinion.
698
They have decided that they were wrong, and I believe that is because they have now had the opportunity of ascertainingthe views of their local representatives in those three areas. They have found now that the opinions they expressedpreviously were not those of their members. It is perfectly clear what I was trying to explain in my speech, and it seemedto me that the noble Lord rather ignored that point.
Secondly, I do not think the noble Lord gave us any indication of how he is going to persuade the county councils to doany more than they have done in the last two and a half years. It is just a pious hope, and the logic of expecting

699
them to get on with their duties as a result of designation orders made in county boroughs that are in theirneighbourhood escapes me for the moment. This was the view of the local authority at St. Helens; and it was very muchthe feeling of the officials on the council to whom I spoke that it would have a psychological effect on the county ofLancashire and on the boroughs in the neighbourhood which have not done as much as St. Helens has done. As soon asthey saw that this designation order had been made they would say, "We, too, must be designated, but obviously wecannot be until we have provided our 15 pitches"—or, in the case of the county, dealt with the gipsies residing inor resorting to the area. But that will never happen.
As I explained to the noble Lord, what is intended in Lancashire is so far short of the need in that county as to beludicrous, and they will never get designation. Knowing that perfectly well, how is it expected that they should even geton and provide the 75 which they say they will ultimately build as a result of the incentive given to them by the exampleof one authority? I wish I could have this explained to me. I should like to know the logic of the noble Lord's thinking sothat I might consider it carefully to see whether it should have a bearing on my attitude towards any future designationorders.
I am extremely disappointed that the noble Lord did not accede to any of the requests I made. They were requests whichwould have involved no departure from the policy of making these Orders which, with reluctance, I have to accept. Therewould be very little purpose in my pressing the matter to a Division. The noble Lord could have given me furtherundertakings about a survey or surveys which would have brought the 1965 figures up to date, in view of the obviousinaccuracies in that study, and compared the figures given at that time with those which I have presented to the nobleLord to-day. I hope at least that when I send him the figures which have been provided by the North-Westernuniversities and Mr. Peter McGrenery he will look at them carefully and will tell me honestly whether they do not indicatethat we have been working on the wrong basic figures from the 1965 survey and
700
whether this fact should not change his view about designating particular areas without first obtaining thoroughknowledge of the situation in the whole region.
It is regrettable that the noble Lord has not felt able to assure me that there will be a moratorium in this matter until wehave had satisfactory experience of how things will operate to see whether they produce the incentive in theneighbourhood which the noble Lord has claimed they will produce. I should have felt happier if he had said that, andaccordingly would then have said that this had been a useful debate. I have to admit that we have accomplished verylittle to-night, and knowing that I should not get support in this House if I were to press the matter, I ask leave towithdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER (LORD MAYBRAY-KING): Does the noble Lorddesire to move the two following Motions which stand in his name?
LORD AVEBURY: No, my Lords.