Lords Sitting of 20 December 1973

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

LIGHT WATER REACTORS
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to assess the dangers of light water reactors.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, under the Nuclear Installations Acts 1965 and 1969 nuclear power stations in England and Wales must be licensed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and in Scotland by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are advised on the safety of such plants by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, who is aware of and is maintaining a continuous interest in the safety problems associated with light water reactors.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it is possible for British scientists to conduct independent examination of these reactors? May I also ask him whether it is true that the reactor proposed for Sizewell and others of this type proposed for this country will be the largest ever built, if they are built, and whether this does not reinforce the need for a stringent check on the safety of these reactors?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I see no reason at all why scientists should not individually examine the light water reactors, because there are many of them in existence—20 in the United States at present and 10 in other parts of the world. Of course, the larger the station undoubtedly the greater the care that has
458
to be taken. But I am advised that all the types of reactor on the list can be accommodated at Sizewell.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it true that as yet the Nuclear Inspectorate have received no detailed description at all of this light water reactor?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the first stage, obviously, is for the Secretary of State to receive advice from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, which is a non-statutory body set up by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, and for Scotland, and whose Chairman is Sir Owen Saunders. Then there is the Nuclear Power Advisory Board which my right honourable friend recently set up with the object of choosing betwen the various types of reactor under consideration, and making a recommendation. But as I have said, whatever reactor is chosen by them would be subject to the most stringent examination by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, and so would any components.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, have the Government yet made any firm decision regarding the installation of these light water reactors?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. As my right honourable friend announced, the decision will be made early in the New Year.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reply to the Question as it appears on the Order Paper, does one take the position now to be that the miners will make application, as it were, to the Chairman of the C.E.G.B. that instead of a nuclear power station being built in a certain area, as it was in Durham, and being fed by the coal produced by that particular area to a coal-fired power station, the powers of the Chairman have been taken away and it now rests with the Minister to decide whether he wants to carry out any negotiations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. The miners will be able to make representations on the planning permission, and should there be an objection on planning grounds, then, of course, there will be a local inquiry.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, did the noble Lord's answer to me mean that the Inspectorate have no detailed description at all of any light water reactor? Because I understand from a statement in the newspapers to-day that in evidence in another place the Inspectorate are saying that they have no details at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, whether or not that is so—and I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on that point—the fact remains that the Chief Inspector will be brought in. He has the advantage of scientific and other experts, some 70 of them, to help him. He will be brought in at the appropriate stage, and will have to advise the Secretary of State that the particular type of reactor is safe.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean by that that no particular reactor will be accepted until it has been carefully investigated by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, yes; I mean just that.

PROPERTY SPECULATION
11.6 a.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: 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 plans they have to control property speculation.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, the profits from speculation in land are taxed as income under the existing law. In addition, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Monday that the Government proposed to introduce legislation in the 1974 Finance Bill to alter the basis on which tax is charged on substantial windfall capital gains that arise on the disposal of land or buildings with development value or potential. It will also provide for tax on capital gains to be charged on the occasion on which a building (other than one used for residential purposes) is
460
first let following material development. The measures will ensure that up to 75 per cent. of the gains from land development will accrue to the community. The Government are also considering a surcharge on the rating or empty office blocks in the context of the Local Government Bill which is now being considered in another place and which will come before the House shortly.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comprehensive Answer. May I ask her whether any of the measures that she has explained cover unrealised capital gains? Will they affect those companies or individuals who use buildings which are kept empty for a long time as a way of securing bank loans to acquire more buildings, which again may be kept empty for a long time, and so on?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is, Yes. This is a complex matter, but if I may put it in terms which I understand, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean in effect that there will be a tax on the difference between the value of the office block when built and its value on first letting if it was to be sold. Therefore the tax will arise on the length of time in which the block has been left empty.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to answer my specific question, which was whether any of these measures tackle the problem before there was any letting or disposal?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, yes, because this will come into effect from the date of the speech. It will be put into effect in the Finance Bill, but will be effective from December 18.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the weakness of these proposals, like so many others in the past, is that they encourage owners of properties to hold on to them, to make no disposition either of selling or letting, and to pay no tax and just watch the values rise? Surely that is the kind of social injustice that the public feel concerned about.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. My right

461
honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment are very concerned about this point, and this particular measure is designed to deal precisely with those cases.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she noted that immediately after the Chancellor's announcement about additional tax on property developers the shares in property companies rose on the Stock Exchange? Did that indicate that they were very much worried about the announcement?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if the shares rose it might well be in connection with the entire series of proposals rather than the particular proposals affecting property companies.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in the light of the complicated details to which the noble Baroness has referred, and the time factor, would she not agree that the global amount mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place is £80 million? In the light of the enormous fortunes that have been made, would she not regard that as mere "chicken feed"?
BARONESS YOUNG: No, my Lords, for two reasons. The measures will involve for individuals an increase in tax liability from, at present, 30 per cent. up to as much as 75 per cent., which is two and a half times as much. It is obviously difficult to estimate the yield from proposals of this sort, but some noble Lords may have seen the suggestion in yesterday's Financial Times that two developments in the City of London alone could account for well over half the figure of £80 million I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the effect of these proposals.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, has any attempt been made to calculate how many hundreds of thousands of pounds would have been saved for the ratepayers of Camden had Centre Point been 100 per cent. rated instead of 50 per cent.? Would it not therefore be desirable to have full rating of all empty properties?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I have not the answer to that specific question as to the amount of loss in rates suggested by the noble Baroness, but I would suggest to her that the whole question of the rating of empty properties will be a matter which may be discussed by your Lordships' House under the Local Government Finance Bill.

THE BRITISH LIBRARY
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 when construction of the new British Library building, opposite the British Museum will start, and how long this will take to complete.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, although good progress has been made in planning the British Library on the Bloomsbury site, the design has not yet been finished. It is not, there-fore, possible to estimate when work will start or how long it will take.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Arising out of it, may I ask him whether the new British Library building is to be one of those libraries to suffer financial cuts as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not have any specific information on that point. My right honourable friend announced last May that the building would be put back one year from when it would otherwise have started, and as we have not finished the design I do not think it is likely to be affected by the current cuts.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it true that Her Majesty's Government are proposing to move it to Maplin?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have not heard that piece of information before.

E.E.C. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
11.14 a.m.
LORD HALE: 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 is the present estimated total sum pledged to the Regional Development Fund of the European Economic Communities, the estimated benefit to the United Kingdom and when and in what regions that benefit will accrue.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there is no agreement as yet on the size of the Fund and I cannot therefore provide the information which the noble Lords seeks.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, apart from the complete inadequacy of that Answer, that since the Foreign Secretary only a few hours ago gave the most definite assurance that he has made in the last 35 years, the whole situation has altered? The German Cabinet met and reframed their budget last night. M. Pompidou, who instead is having bilateral negotiations with the King—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD HALE: My Lords, I am asking the noble Earl what is the effect of these matters which are so vital for the immediate interests of Britain that we are now on the verge of bankruptcy, and if the "teeny-boppers" on the other side of the House want to howl me down, I can tell them that they will have a job. In the last few hours, M. Pompidou has announced a new energy policy, and is it not now the fact that the question is not so much whether we can re-negotiate as to whether we are going to be asked to walk the plank?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept entirely the seriousness of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, and I wish that I were able to furnish him with a fuller Answer. But the fact is, as I know that he knows, the Council of Ministers have not agreed on the size of the Fund. It is therefore impossible for me to say what our estimated benefit is, and until those matters are concluded—and this is a question for the Council
464
of Ministers to decide—it is impossible for me to furnish the noble Lord with the details which he quite rightly requests.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, has the noble Earl observed that there seems to be some disputation among the members of the Nine about the regional distribution of the available finance? Has he also observed that a very prominent member of the Commission—not one of the British members—stated that Britain has not gained any benefits since the Treaty of Accession was signed? If the noble Earl and his colleagues think that I am asking awkward questions, I take the opportunity of wishing them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have observed the disputations to which the noble Lord has referred. I think those are not uncommon or unusual or unexpected. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the compliments which he has passed with regard to the season, which are fully reciprocated.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I am only too happy to be associated with the good wishes expressed by my noble friend. The noble Earl will perhaps forgive a slight temporary emotion if he recalls the speech in which it was said that this would do some good for the "Oldhams" of Britain, and Oldham withers while Brussels sprouts. But I do sincerely thank him for his statesmanlike Answer, which I am sure will raise the general spirits of both sides in this matter.

RAIL ACCIDENT AT EALING
11.18 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice. The Question is as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on yesterday's rail accident on the Western Region?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Young will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of

465
Belhelvie on the recent meeting of the E.E.C. Council of Ministers.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the House is not sitting after 3.30 p.m. I suppose the Statement will go into Hansard—or are the Government telling us that we shall definitely be sitting until our usual late hour?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt just as good as, if not better than, myself at estimating the time that your Lordships will take on any particular subject. We have a number of important subjects on which people feel quite strongly and it seems to me to be not unreasonable to assume that the House will be sitting at 3.30. Perhaps I can console the noble Lord; if the House should have completed its business before that time, I will move that it adjourn during pleasure so that the Statements can be made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness Young to advance the Protection of the Environment Bill from Thursday the 17th to Tuesday the 15th of January next.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL CHECK-IN FACILITIES
11.19 a.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores the declared intention of the British Airways Board to withdraw the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal on January 1 next; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in the national interest to direct, if it is in their power to do so, or otherwise to request the Board to defer the proposed withdrawal until such time as—

(a) the effects of the present fuel crisis on the drastically revised flight schedules and the future pattern of access to Heathrow can be fully assessed; and

466

(b) a Select Committee of this House has inquired into and reported on the merits of the proposal, the Government have commented thereon, and Parliament has been given the opportunity of expressing an opinion on both.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day, I think it might be helpful to explain briefly the background. First, I should like to apologise to the Government for the somewhat frequent changes in the Motion which have appeared from day to day, but one has to keep up with day-to-day happenings—and I thought I had better say that before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says it for me. Everyone who uses the West London Air Terminal is familiar with the check-in procedure. You take a bus, taxi or train to Gloucester Road. Your ticket is checked, your luggage is weighed, removed and subsequently taken to the aircraft. You do not see it again until arrival at your destination. A bus destined for your particular flight takes you out to Heathrow where you join your plane. This is a service of great benefit to passengers, particularly to mothers with families, and those without private cars or money to pay for private transport to Heathrow. Any anxiety about catching a particular flight is removed.
B.E.A. propose to remove this check-in facility as from January 1. Travellers will take a bus from the terminal, as at present, but they will not be able to check in; nor will they be able to do anything about their luggage. This will go on the bus with them. They and their luggage will be deposited at Heathrow. Thence, in the words of officialdom, they will be responsible for taking their luggage to the check-in point. Even more serious than the resultant chaos and lengthy queues is the problem of elderly and infirm travellers, of mothers and families, all on outward journeys with their 44 lb. of luggage.
That is the background. I asked the first Question on this affair in this House 19 months ago on June 15, 1972. The last one was asked by Lord Balfour of Inchrye on December 5 last, an occasion on which all quarters of this House made their position quite clear. Lord Balfour has written to me expressing his regret

467
at not being able to be present to-day, and has asked me to let the House know that he supports this Motion. I propose to mention two further letters written to me by Members of this House, and I should like to thank all those who have sent good wishes for the Motion and their regrets at inability to be present.
Any such changes as envisaged by B.E.A. have to be carried out by the British Airports Authority. As I told the House in the debate on April 2 last, at column 98, the Chairman of the British Airports Authority wrote to me in July, 1972, referring:
"… to a situation which we had not expected and about which we were not consulted."
The unions were not consulted; they were told, as were the British Airports Authority. The public were neither consulted nor considered. Apart from any merits or demerits of the matter, the major part of my battle has been that B.E.A. (if I may continue to call them that for the moment for the purposes of clarification) acted as judge, as jury and as complete bureaucrat on their proposed withdrawal of this most valued and useful consumer facility. I voiced, and Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised more than once, the question of the public interest. We both felt that if such an interest was affected then Her Majesty's Government might well consider giving a directive, as Lord Balfour felt they had power to do under the Act. We got nowhere on that one. Evidently more than 1 million people were not of sufficient public interest to merit such intervention. It was ruled always by B.E.A., and accepted implicitly by Her Majesty's Government, that this was a commercial decision and no consumer interest entered into it at all.
As the House knows, on July 25 last, 14 months after we started, it was at last accepted that air travellers were one large group of consumers with no consultative body or users' council to speak for them or to listen to them. Contested all the way by B.E.A. and by Government spokesmen in this House over many weary months, as most noble Lords will recall, we got our Airline Users' Committee. Their terms of reference will be important in my later remarks, so it might be as well to state them here:
468
"To assist the Civil Aviation Authority in its duties in safeguarding the interests of airline users and to investigate individual complaints against airlines where the person or body aggrieved has not been able to obtain satisfaction from the airline concerned."
That this Committee was established at all was due to the efforts of your Lordships' House, from all sides. If it had not taken so long as 14 months, much time and trouble would have been saved.
The House will be familiar with the way that B.E.A. went about this business. What Parliament said counted for nothing. Indeed, on October 18 and 19, 1972, the Government had to make a retraction on behalf of B.E.A., who had flatly contradicted what had been said officially in this House. My Lords, I may say that "retraction" is a generous interpretation. What has disturbed me as much as anything has been the method of dishonest implication and untrue statement used by B.E.A. The fact, my Lords, is that a hasty and ill-judged decision was made. This was challenged in this House some 19 months ago, and ever since then B.E.A. has been trying to find reasons to substantiate its action. I used the phrase "dishonest implication and untrue statement", and I propose to illustrate these methods.
Hence we now move to the reasons given by B.E.A. for the withdrawal of this consumer service affecting more than 1 million people. These were:

"1. Delayed departures of planes due to late running of buses from the West London Air Terminal.

2. The declining number of people using these facilities at the West London Air Terminal.

3. The fact that no other city offers such facilities.

4. Expense."

Taking first the delayed departures of planes due to the late running of buses from the West London Air Terminal, when the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I visited B.E.A. in February last, as I told the House in the debate on April 2, we asked for figures concerning this delay of plane departures. None were available. The House may recall that in that same debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, found some figures—no fewer than 435 flights out of Heathrow in October, November and December, 1972. He omitted to mention that one of the two tunnels into Heathrow was closed for this period. This I think he should

469
have checked, although I appreciate that an honest person would not have thought it necessary. I was explaining that the noble Earl was an honest person and therefore would not have felt it necessary.
I shall be returning to this point later, but I think it is of interest that on April 10, following this debate, the representative of the B.E.A. bus drivers unit at the West London Air Terminal wrote to say:
"The suggestion that failure of coaches to arrive on time at the airport prompted the decision by B.E.A. to close check-in facilities is a complete misunderstanding of the position, as we know that a very small number of coaches indeed are so delayed as to cause inconvenience to passengers or hindrance to aircraft."
May I leave proof until the last section of my remarks? At this stage, I had only my own strong doubts, plus the written statement from the men who drive the B.E.A. buses.
Taking, secondly, the statement about the declining numbers of people using the check-in facilities at the West London Terminal, this is untrue. In spite of a deliberate lack of publicity by B.E.A., the number of travellers actually using the facilities has remained a constant 1⅓ million. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will find these figures confirmed by B.E.A. This October the numbers fell, not because travellers did not wish to use the facilities but because B.E.A., on October 1, closed them down for foreign airlines at the West London Air Terminal. We have much too strong a case to get bogged down in undue detail, but all these illustrations show a trend. B.E.A. say that 20 per cent. of passengers use the terminal facilities. According to the Sunday Times, Alitalia estimate their figure as 30 per cent.; Air France as 35 per cent., and none of the other airlines asked gave a figure of less than 25 per cent.
As for the third reason, that no other city offers such facilities, I think that this is incredible. Presumably, if your competitors offer less than you, you join them. That seems to me a strange concept of good marketing. Surely B.E.A. exists to provide the best possible service, and not one of a lower level because that is what is offered elsewhere.
My Lords, I come now to the fourth reason—expense. Figures given to me
470
personally by B.E.A. mentioned a saving of between £500,000 and £400,000 per annum by the withdrawal of these facilities. I am going to trouble the House with a few figures, but this is the only time in my remarks that I shall do so. In 1971, the number of passengers using the terminal was 3,507,368, and of these 1,389,943 used the check-in facilities. In other words, 3½ million used the terminal, and 1⅓ million of those used the check-in facilities.
If we take a very low average fare of £50, the passengers actually using the check-in facilities brought in revenue of some £70 million. At the discussions with B.E.A. in February of this year I was told that 781,000 B.E.A. passengers were currently using these facilities. In addition, 582,000 foreign airline passengers were using them. That is a total of 1,363,000 passengers, and that is the continuation of my 1⅓ million. The foreign airlines paid B.E.A. for that privilege. Could the noble Lore, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes to speak, either now or later in the debate, tell us what fee the foreign airlines paid B.E.A. for the privilege of using the facilities, and whether or not it was in the neighbourhood of £400,000 per annum? If we take the B.E.A. passengers alone at the same low average fare of £50, the revenue would amount to some £40 million. It has always seemed to me extraordinary that a consumer service involving so many passengers who produce a revenue in excess of £40 million should be removed to save, according to B.E.A., half a million pounds—£500,000 The revenue brought in by passengers was not even considered. In the commercial decision taken by B.E.A., which it was assumed it was in order for them to take, £40 million was not worth mentioning.
This brings me, my Lords, to the Airline Users' Committee, of which I am a member. I need not tell the House that I have no intention of disclosing private discussions within that Committee. What I do propose to talk about is what is public knowledge, and that is the report or Press release of the Committee dated November 21 last. If I may go back to the first reason for the withdrawal of the facilities—the delayed departure of planes due to the late running of buses from the West London Air Terminal to Heathrow—it will be remembered that B.E.A. had

471
no figures of such late departures available for me. They then provided the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with some 435 flights, giving, intentionally, a misleading impression; and that the representative of the B.E.A. bus drivers' unit said that this impression was not true. Upon request, B.E.A. provided papers for the Airline Users' Committee, including details of delayed departures. Quoting from the Press release of the Committee dated November 21, we have the following:
"British Airways have tried to justify the withdrawal of the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities on the grounds that they led to delays in flights and were also uneconomic. The Committee has examined British Airways evidence, but this shows that aircraft departures delays last year of more than 15 minutes and directly attributable to late coach arrivals were only 0·4 per cent. of total departures (i.e. less than one flight every two days). The Committee considers this figure is far too small to justify the drastic reduction in public facilities which is proposed."
My Lords, I have dealt with the declining numbers that did not decline, and the lowering of our standards to match those of our competitors. That leaves expense and loss to B.E.A. I gave my layman's estimate a few moments ago. Being a member of the Airline Users' Committee I cannot go into detail, but I can quote the first paragraph of their Press release. It said:
"The Airline Users' Committee deplores British Airways intention to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities. The Committee has discussed the subject with British Airways and is not satisfied that an adequate case for abandonment of check-in facilities has been established."
Later in this statement is the sentence:
"In order to meet British Airways financial problem the Committee has suggested that the cost could be covered by imposing a surcharge for the use of these facilities."
On this question of expense, a British Airways Press release dealing with the check-in facilities and dated December 4 says:
"The fact that their withdrawal saves £½ million a year is an important, but incidental, factor."
If the foreign airlines paid B.E.A. a substantial sum each year for using these facilities, then even this "incidental" factor could be non-existent should the facilities be continued. As I have said before, I hope that the Minister will be able to
472
help us on this question at the end of the debate. Apart from this "incidental" factor, the preceding sentence in the British Airways Press release states once more—and I stress "once more"—that continuation cannot be justified because of the resultant frequency of delayed flights. I would ask the House to note the frequency, on figures provided by B.E.A., of 0·4 per cent.—a delay to less than one plane every two days.
My Lords, I come now to the Questions asked on December 5 [OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 593–603.] when this House so strongly showed its disapproval of what was being done. Nobody could be in any doubt about that. Personally I was more disappointed and more despairing than I have been for a long time, and I have protested to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Why? First of all, my Lords, we had this Press release from British Airways (as I will now call them) concerning the West London Air Terminal. I thought this statement was an insult. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was more polite. He found it "peculiarly unconvincing". I might add that this statement concerning the Airline Users' Committee was sent neither to them nor to the Civil Aviation Authority. But the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, found it a good statement; and this, from a Minister whom we all respect and one with a long interest in consumer affairs, I found unbelievable. It was this that made me so despairing.
The Question from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye concerned the findings of the Airline Users' Committee, and the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who answered that day could not remember whether or not he had read the findings of the Airline Useres' Committee before replying; or, indeed, if he had ever read them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I deal with that point right away, because it was a difficult point? The noble Baroness will remember that she referred to the Press release and the report, and I naturally wondered at that time whether there was a report on which that Press release was based. I am sorry if there was confusion, but had she said "Press release" I would of course have been able to say at once, "Yes, I have read it".
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry, but there was no confusion at all in my mind. I was referring, of course, to the exchanges in this House on Thursday last, December 13, at column 1274 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have a lot to say and I do not wish to prolong it, but the noble Lord has still not got the point. I am still horrified that he had answered a Question—not my question but that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—without, obviously, having read the statement on which the Question was based. If he had read the statement, he gave an Answer that was totally at variance with it. I can only imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—and I am sorry to say this—does not realise that statements like this bring into disrepute any expressed concern for consumer bodies. Many of us give much time and thought to serving on such committees. If Government Ministers answer Questions on them without even reading what has been said, it really does not seem worth while devoting one's time to them. If the Minister will look at column 1274 he will see what I mean.
Here I wish to mention my second letter from the first Chairman of the Consumer Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has written to say that she cannot get down from Scotland to-day. She sends her regrets because, she says:
"I would have supported you in every way".
So this protest to-day really does come from both sides of the House.
My Lords, the Minister told us on December 5 that the British Airways Board was doing its best to make better use of the buses, to see that these were more full; and he went on to tell us about the installation of an extra lift. As long ago as April 2 I told the House about a lift and an escalator. Now we are to have two lifts. Each measures 2 metres by 1·7 metres, and converting this to feet we have an area of 6 feet 6 inches by 5 feet 6 inches. I imagine that each would hold two passengers, plus trolleys, plus baggage. As buses will be running full—and I beg the House to think of the holiday months—and every 10 minutes, many passengers will be deposited at the same time with their luggage. Does the Minister suggest that those who cannot get into the lift push
474
their trolleys, or carry their baggage, up the escalator?
I am sorry to say that we then moved on to the Minister conveying once more the dishonest and misleading impression put out by British Airways that 80 per cent. of passengers are held up for a long time because their planes are waiting for buses running late from the West London Air Terminal. My Lords, how long can one go on repeating what is untrue? I feel very strongly about this and it may be that had the Minister read the report from the Airline Users' Committee before answering, he would have answered differently. After all it was the noble Lord himself who on July 25, when we were informed of the setting up of this very Committee, and West London Air Terminal was mentioned, who said—and I quote from col. 1822 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the day:
"If one is setting up a body of this sort it is natural that that body should be given the opportunity to discuss this issue".
I want to ask the House: is it any less natural that the results of that discussion should be noted and taken into account? Does the noble Lord not care what the Committee says? May I repeat once more that, based on figures submitted to the Committee by British Airways:
"aircraft departure delays last year of more than 15 minutes and directly attributable to late coach arrivals were only 0·4 per cent. of total departures (i.e. less than one flight every two days)."
My Lords, 0·4 per cent.! I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, regrets what he said.
My Lords, my attention has been drawn to the exchanges in another place on Monday, December 10. I think the most polite comment on the answers provided is that they added nothing to the problem we are discussing. But what I protest about, and what I think the House would wish me to protest about, is that the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping, Mr. Heseltine, again repeated the untrue statement about passengers being held up because—and I quote from col. 24 of the Official Report of another place:
"a particular bus is held up for a long time."
The House will remember this figure: the percentage of delays due to this in 1972, on British Airways' own figures, was 0·4 per cent. My Lords, should not the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping turn

475
his attention to the 99·6 per cent. delays due to other reasons?
I hope that all in this House to-day, and all in another place, when they have read this debate, and the public who I trust will be informed by the Press and the other media, will condemn this blatant dishonesty. I want to ask the House: can nothing be done to stop this misrepresentation which is put about by British Airways to support a wrong decision, and, I am sorry to say, repeated again and again by Government spokesmen?
One could go on giving similar examples. Each has the same trend and I believe it is one that all fair-minded people will resent. However, I propose to mention only one more. I think this misrepresentation, too, must be laid to rest At column 598 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for December 5 of the debate in your Lordships' House, and at column 23 of the Report of another place for December 10, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and Mr. Heseltine respectively repeated that no complaints had arisen as a result of the facilities being withdrawn from foreign airlines on October 1. Concerning the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping and his Department, of course they do not wish to know; they make no inquiries on points like these. The result might be too inconvenient. Then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gets landed with their prejudice in this House. It is not his fault.
The third letter I wish to mention comes from the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch—and I have his permission to use it. On this matter of the withdrawal of facilities from foreign airlines from October 1 last he says:
"It may be true that no complaints were received by B.E.A. The public generally considers that it is useless to make complaints to these big corporations. But that there was no dissatisfaction is not true. My wife went to Cook's office in Army and Navy Stores today (December 12) to collect a ticket. The man who dealt with this informed her that there had been bitter complaints about the withdrawal of the check-in facilities for foreign airlines."
My Lords, I come now to my conclusion and to the reason for this Motion. Nobody could deny that I have done all in my power to have this matter inquired into. Equally—and I think this is more important still—nobody could deny that this House, from all sides, has given me
476
full support. And I think nobody could deny that, in spite of whatever proof we put before the House, this bureaucracy of B.E.A. has been allowed, even encouraged, to ride roughshod over the needs of 1⅓ million paying passengers. Much as the dishonesty and misrepresentation have concerned me, the lack of consideration for human problems has concerned me even more—and I think this is true of the House. This bureaucracy seems to have no understanding of the worries, even of the pleasurable anticipation, of people going on holiday, particularly in the summer peak period. Now, under the suggested proposals, they are going to have that pleasurable anticipation spoiled. Will they catch their plane? How long will they find the queue at Heathrow waiting to check in for that plane? The arrangements they have made at the other end—what will happen to these?
British Airways say—and I quote:
"British Airways will take good care to see that they are properly looked after at Heathrow until they can be put on an alternative service".
My Lords, this is quite wicked—and "wicked" is not too strong a word. These are not monied people who can make alternative arrangements at the other end. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, must know that planes to the European holiday resorts do not run every few minutes and that these are fully booked in the peak periods. And there are the elderly, and the less elderly travellers with their 44 lb. of luggage, struggling to get into the lifts or up the escalator. It is all so unkind, so thoughtless, so obviously devised by people sitting at a desk who do not have these problems.
Last week I had a letter from the wife of a much-respected Conservative Member of Parliament. I shall be very glad to show this letter to the noble Lord after the debate. She says:
"As a 'London Grannie' who is constantly being asked to ferry children backwards and forwards, and help young mothers with small children, may I make a special point to do with young mothers? It is already difficult enough to cope with a baby and perhaps two toddlers with their necessary hand-baggage. There are never enough porters luggage trolleys to help this kind of traveller, and it will virtually be impossible for these young women, often travelling alone, if they have to cope with the extra burden of having

477
to check in at Heathrow—where chaos often reigns as it is".
My Lords, what nonsense it all is, and what heartless, unkind nonsense! I do not know whether noble Lords or the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, can see the headline of the paper that I have here. This is the issue of B.E.A. News for June 21, and it has a large headline. The large headline is: "Putting people first". There are few travellers who believe that nowadays; and perhaps British Airways (B.E.A. Division) will take that from the public, if not from me.
The Annual Report of the British Airports Authority for 1972–73, speaking of "The Airport Scene", says:
"When weather, mechanical failure or air traffic congestion disrupt airline schedules at peak times the conditions in terminals can reach depths of discomfort and frustration which no passenger should be expected to endure".
The British Airports Authority is still of this opinion. The Authority believes that traffic growth at Heathrow over the next few years, prior to additional airport capacity, will add to this discomfort and frustration. To avoid this, my Lords, I have asked frequently that the decision to withdraw these check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal should not even be cancelled but should be deferred until the rail link with Heathrow is established in 1976, when we can see what the position then is. As the House knows, I have got nowhere. Therefore, my Lords, in order that this matter may at last be inquired into, and while thanking the House for its patience to-day and all quarters of the House for their support over 19 months, I beg to move.
11.56 a.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, everyone will agree with the noble Baroness when she claims, and rightly claims, that she has done all in her power to secure the postponement or cancellation of the withdrawal of the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. Everyone has admired the way in which she has done this, and I make absolutely no complaint about the way in which she has pursued her objective. I also recognise the strong support that she has achieved in this House. I do not think I can take exception to anything that she has said, although I think one can put different constructions on the facts
478
that she has enumerated to the House—and I think it is my duty to do that. I regret her charge of blatant dishonesty against B.E.A. They have presented the facts as they see them, although she may not appreciate the way in which they have presented the facts. The only other slight criticism I would make is that she slightly impugned my homework. I would deny that, and I would say to her—and I am sure she will agree with this—that I have throughout taken tier campaign (if I may put it that way) very seriously indeed. In fact, I do not think that, over the last year, there is any single subject which has taken up more of my time. I have read the papers that were available, including of course the Press release, which I read before my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked his Question. But as I was asked about a report I naturally had to search my mind, and subsequently my files, to see whether there had been a report. It was in fact, as the noble Baroness says, a Press release.
My Lords, may I address myself to the points that the noble Baroness has made, and go over them in my way? First of all, who uses the West London Air Terminal? I agree with the figures which the noble Baroness quoted: that there were 781,000 passengers at B.E.A. and their subsidiary and allied companies, and some 582 travellers of other lines, who used the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. The figures have in fact fallen, so far as B.E.A. passengers are concerned, by nearly 100,000 since 1969; and, of course, the proportion of travellers using the facilities has dropped, as has frequently been said, from one-half in 1953 to between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. at the present time. As the noble Baroness said, in general there was a separate bus for each flight, though in a few cases passengers for two or more flights scheduled to depart at about the same time were conveyed on one bus. As she said, the buses took B.E.A. passengers to Terminal 1, whether for international or internal flights, and passengers for foreign airlines to Terminal 2.
What, then, are the services that the Motion asks should not be withdrawn? They are the checking-in of passengers and their luggage at West London Air Terminal; buses related to particular flights; and the practice of keeping

479
flights from taxi-ing out for take-off until the passengers from the West London Air Terminal bus have boarded their plane.
What is not being withdrawn? It is important that I should tell your Lordships, because in conversation with many of you I feel there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter. The bus services to Terminals 1 and 2 are not being withdrawn. That service is continuing. The only difference is that instead of a bus being assigned to each separate flight, by and large a service of buses at intervals of 10 minutes at ordinary times and 4 minutes at peak periods will be maintained. That is in the B.A.B. timetable. Considering that the average number of passengers for each 56-seater bus is at present only 14—and yesterday I saw one arriving at Heathrow with only 7 passengers on it—the new service will obviously be a much more economic, a much more flexible and a much more efficient service than the old one. Passengers will be able to leave sooner than under the present system in order to make sure of catching the plane. The proposals are that the buses should leave 10 minutes sooner, but individual passengers will be able to take any bus they like. At present they might have to wait half an hour at West London Air Terminal, if they got there soon enough, for the appropriate bus, and even then the bus might be subject to delays. To obviate that risk, passengers will be able to take any bus; they can go to the Terminal at any time they like and go straight on to the bus.
The new service has advantages. First of all, reception and departure at West London Air Terminal will be on the street floor. Passengers will be, as the noble Baroness says, deposited—that was the word she used—with their baggage at street level. There will be porters there if they want them to take their luggage across to the bus. I have seen this happening because I have visited the terminal myself and seen it in operation. The passenger will see his luggage taken to the bus he is catching at the other side, will be able to watch his luggage being loaded into the bus and will then get his bus ticket in the hall. Incidentally, there are great advantages for old people in not having to struggle down the two
480
flights of stairs from the upper floor to the ground level, no doubt carrying their hand luggage, as they have to do at present.
At the airport terminal they will see their luggage unloaded, identify it, and, if passengers wish, it will be taken by porters to the check-in point. A supervisor will be available all the time to help passengers and to see that if a bus has been delayed check-in is expedited. The noble Baroness referred to an escalator and a lift. A new escalator is being installed; there is one there already. A second lift is also being installed at the present time. In the very rare case that the bus arrives too late for passengers to catch the plane—and I agree with the noble Baroness that they are very rare cases; there has never been any doubt about this.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he seriously telling us that he knows there are very rare cases when the bus arrives late? That is something completely new, after 19 months spent on this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will come to this point in just a moment, but may I just say to the noble Baroness that when one talks about 80 per cent. of passengers one translates that to 80 per cent. of passengers in any particular plane. There is no deception about this at all. It simply means that where a plane is kept waiting, on average there will be three to four passengers who went direct to the Airport waiting for every one passenger who has come from the West London Terminal. That is a mathematical fact. There has never been the slightest deception or dishonesty about that.
As I was saying, in those very cases the British Airports Board have said that they will accept the responsibility for getting passengers on the next flight on which there is spare capacity, no matter whether it is a British Airways Board plane or one operated by another airline. They will see that in the meantime passengers get meals at B.A.B.'s expense, and if there is no available flight that day B.A.B. will pay for a night in a hotel at Heathrow for them. The only condition attached is that passengers must have taken a bus leaving not later than the time recommended by B.A.B. for

481
his flight, and that seems a very reasonable condition.
My Lords, as I said, buses are seldom late. In the period March to October this year, 85 flights were delayed for more than 15 minutes for that reason. That is less than one flight in two days; it is scarcely one flight in three days. To reduce this hazard still further, British Airways are recommending passengers to take buses leaving 15 minutes earlier than at present. As check-in at present has to be completed five minutes before the bus is due to leave, that means that passengers will need to be at the terminal only 10 minutes earlier than at present if they are to comply with the recommended condition. Is it reasonable to expect those passengers who check in at Heathrow to be kept waiting by those who come from West London Air Terminal, if it can be avoided? Those who go direct to the Airport outnumber those who go to West London Air Terminal by between three and four to one. B.A.B. have never sought to justify the withdrawal on these grounds alone, which form by no means the only, or even the most important reason, for changing to the new system.
However, I think its importance is often underestimated. One has to remember that although B.E.A. might like to do so, they do not at the present time run shuttle services. They use a plane on several routes in the same day. A plane may start by doing a trip to Paris, come back and then do a trip to Scotland. If, say, on the first journey that plane is held up, it can disrupt the whole flight plan for the whole day. This could be cumulative. Those who have used services running to Scotland and connecting services within Scotland are very well aware of this kind of thing. That is a fact which has been given insufficient weight in considering the consequences of the plane being held up avoidably.
My Lords, the nationalised airlines are expected to use their resources as efficiently and economically as possible. Their resources include their manpower, their buses and their accommodation. It may be very convenient for passengers never to have to wait at a check-in desk, but if that means under-use of check-in facilities, plainly the system has to be looked at again. It would be unsatisfactory if there were constant queues at one place and practically no waiting at all at another.
482
It is really quite unacceptable that the buses should be used as uneconomically as they are being used under the present system, as I have said, with an average of less than 14 passengers for each 56-seater bus. The new system is intended to improve on this. It has already been doing so in the case of the foreign airlines.
Lastly, these new arrangements will enable much better use to be made of the premises at West London Air Terminal. The check-in floor will be used for offices. If the check-in facilities were maintained, the British Airways Board say that it would be necessary to acquire, or build, additional office accommodation, which would mean considerable extra expenditure. But the fact is that the proportion of passengers using West London Air Terminal is not sufficient nowadays to justify the retention of check-in facilities with all the administrative complications that they involve. My Lords, half of the passengers of British European Airways—it is still British European Airways—used the facilities in 1953 and now only between one quarter and one-fifth of the passengers use them. The noble Baroness drew attention to the difficulties confronting old persons. When I visited Terminal 1 yesterday, I paid particular attention to this point. I found that there is a service devoted entirely to the direction of porters and to seeing that the appropriate facilities are provided for old persons. In a little box in the terminal centre there is an indicator to indicate the "state of play", and it is possible to switch porters to points where they are required to deal with any rush of passengers. In addition, B.A.B. have said that there will be eight additional porters available all the time, to deal with passengers arriving? at Terminal 1. This means of course considerably more porters to work on rota.
My Lords, I turn to the question of consultation. I agree that it was unfortunate that the appropriate consultative arrangements did not exist over a year ago when B.E.A. first decided to discontinue the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, full credit for the part she played in having the Airline Users' Committee set up. But even had the Committee existed at that time, and even if it had not liked the new system, it would have been very difficult

483
for B.E.A. not to proceed. It is quite untrue to say that B.E.A. did not consider the public. There was no means of consulting the public at that time, but to say that they did not consider public requirements is quite untrue. It obviously must be, in a competitive situation such as exists there, that they are bound to consider the interests of their users.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by saying that there were no means of consulting the public? There are unlimited ways of doing so, many of which are practised at Heathrow and could have been practised at the Air Terminal. There are methods of establishing what people think and want.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I meant to say was that there was no Users' Committee set up at that time.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is a different thing.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is the proper way of doing so. I have pointed out on previous occasions that consultative committees of a kind do exist. B.E.A. have subsequently set up one of their own. I think it also important to bear in mind that users' consultative bodies are not tribunals to which nationalised industries submit applications for permission to carry out their plans. Such bodies are consulted in order that the plans may be modified to meet the needs and the convenience of consumers so far as is practicable, and this is what happened. When the Airline Users' Committee was set up by the Civil Aviation Authority I told the noble Baroness and the House that B.E.A. would pay attention to its views. This is exactly what has been done. As I have indicated, steps have been taken to meet the views of the Airline Users' Committee. Furthermore, the British Airways Board have offered to co-operate with the Committee in monitoring the new system. I understand that the Committee has accepted the offer. I am not saying that the Committee is satisfied that it is right to make the change, but it has accepted the offer. If the Committee finds that the kind of hardship it fears is occurring, I am sure that the
484
British Airways Board will be glad to take all practicable steps to put matters right.
The noble Baroness's Motion implies that a Select Committee should be set up. That is a matter for the House, my Lords, but the House may think that a Select Committee is not really necessary now that the Airline Users' Committee has the issue before it. The House may feel that this would be a duplication; and, of course, a Select Committee might reach a different conclusion from that which the Airline Users' Committee has reached. It is by no means certain that they would take the same view. What I cannot advise your Lordships to do is to accept the Motion itself. It calls on Her Majesty's Government to do something that no Government have been prepared to do ever since the nationalised industries were first set up; namely, to interfere with the day-to-day working. There can be no doubt at all that passenger handling is essentially a matter of day-to-day management, and a matter for commercial judgment in a competitive situation. My Lords, apart from—
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, surely the Railways Board was asked to continue rail services in the last three or four years when they wished to close them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is a statutory procedure in that case. Parliament has imposed strict limitations on the powers of the Government to interfere with nationalised industries. Broadly speaking, the limitations are similar for all the nationalised industries. So far as the British Airways Board are concerned, the limitations are laid down in Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. Any direction issued must be of a general character and must affect the national interest. The power to issue directions includes the power to secure that
"…any relevant body specified in the directions—
(i) discontinues, or restricts to an extent specified in the directions, any of the activities of the body which are so specified…".
There is no similar power to prevent the discontinuance or restriction of the activity. I am advised that there is no power to give a direction under Section

485
40 not to close the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal after December 31. Even if there were, would it be sensible or even practicable for the Government to bully or cajole the British Airways Board into maintaining the facilities at West London?
The Motion delicately uses the word "requests", but I doubt whether the noble Baroness intends that the Government should take, "No" for an answer to that request. The check-in facilities have already been discontinued, as the noble Baroness said, for 40 per cent. of those who were using them. No complaints have come to the British Airways Board by any of the various methods by which one would expect them to come, through agents and the like. That I can merely report.
The noble Baroness says that there have been complaints made to agencies, but all I can say is that the British Airways Board have not heard of them. I have been to the West London Air Terminal and to Terminals 1 and 2 during the past week and I believe that the arrangements there are in many respects better for foreign airlines than they are for B.E.A. users, now that the change-over has been made. After January 1, it is intended that the arrangements shall be the same for foreign airlines and for B.E.A. users, and it is certainly desirable that they should be the same; it is simply not practicable to change the arrangements for foreign airlines back to what they were before October 1. It is, of course, true that a fee was paid by the foreign airlines for the check-in facilities. But a new agreement has been negotiated. I do not know whether they are available now, but if they are not I will try later to give the noble Baroness the figures that she asked for. The plain fact is that to continue the check-in facilities after January 1 while a Select Committee considered the whole matter would disrupt the plans of the British Airways Board and cause dislocation at West London Air Terminal. The British Airways Board have taken advantage of a slack winter season to redeploy their staff and to make structural alterations. Neither the staff nor the facilities now exist to provide check-in facilities for the spring and the summer. It is not now a question of continuance, but of reinstatement should those facilities be required for the
486
spring and the summer, and it is necessary to go on with the changes which are being made just now if those facilities are to be available.
My Lords, I ask the House to recognise that the decision to discontinue the check-in facilities in two stages was one that was entirely within the powers of the British Airways Board, and it is not a power that they exercised without consideration of the public or the consumer interest. Their reason for making the change was to provide more economical service for users of the West London Air Terminal and more efficient for their air passengers taken as a whole. To halt the process now in mid-stream would involve retaining a service which was costing over £500,000 last year, and would cost more next year. It would mean running two systems at West London Air Terminal. It would mean acquiring more buses; it would involve additional expenditure for reinstating the service; and would mean forgoing economies at a time when it is in the national interest that everyone should make economies.
My Lords, I must ask: is it sensible, just 12 days before the changes are to be completed, to ask the Government to intervene and call a halt, even if the Government had power to do so? It would certainly be at variance with the practice of successive Governments vis-a-vis nationalised industries in this matter of day-to-day management. I really cannot believe that the Party opposite would wish to urge the Government to do something which they certainly would not have done themselves if they had been in power, because it is completely out of line with the whole concept of nationalised industries, of which they were the architects. They may lie sorry to see the services go. They may think that the minority of air passengers who use them may be worse off in consequence. But it is simply not on to intervene at this very late stage. I suggest very strongly to your Lordships that the sensible thing now is to let the B.A.B. proceed with their plans, and to watch very carefully the outcome, an outcome which will be monitored by the Airline Users' Committee, in co-operation with the British Airways Board.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask

487
him this question? At an earlier stage he said that a Select Committee might come to a different point of view from that of the Users' Council. Would he object to that? Would it not strengthen the case that he has been trying to put?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would not object to that at all; but I think it might tend to confuse counsels.
12.23 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am certain that everyone in the House was deeply impressed by the powerful and able case presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, works hard for his Government as Minister without Portfolio, and we all admire the diligent way in which he handles portfolio after portfolio. But of all the burdens that he has had to carry, the load he carries on behalf of British Airways this morning is the least justifiable of all. He has made the best of a bad job; but it still remains a bad job. I am sorry that in his last remarks he referred to "the Party opposite", because throughout the history of this campaign it has been entirely a non-Party affair, with Members on all sides and from the Cross Benches intervening. I thought his rosy picture of what happens at West London and at Heathrow, and what is going to happen under the new reforms, did not conform with reality. I have been for over twenty years a customer of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I believe them to be the finest in the world, not only in efficiency but in courtesy, in care and in human relations with the passengers. So it is disappointing for me to have to say that in this matter which we are now discussing, the merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. has been followed by their riding roughshod over one of the splendid services they have provided—that of checking-in at West London Air Terminal.
Since I came to your Lordships' House I have watched with admiration the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on behalf of consumers in general, and of air passengers in particular. It is now just over a year and a half since the noble Baroness, having heard of the proposal to take away the check-in facilities at West London, asked her first Question on the matter on June 15
488
1972. On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had to reply, and he stonewalled, as the Government have done ever since and as the Minister has done this morning. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that it was a matter for British Airways; that the facilities were originally provided for 100 per cent. of the passengers; that the percentage of users had dropped to about 25 per cent., and that for the rest of the people going to Heathrow it was uneconomic: and he said that the check-in facilities would end in the summer of 1973. If your Lordships turn up that Question, you will find that in the cross-questioning that took place on that occasion the noble Baroness was supported from all sides of the House. There were the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Shepherd, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Thurso, Lady Wootton and Lady Llewelyn-Davies, all on this first encounter.
Finally, my Lords, the Government undertook to have a word with the B.A.B. and B.E.A. Since that day, every time this matter has been raised in the House, either by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, or by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, they have beeen supported by many more noble Lords, some of them here to join in the debate to-day. It is rare indeed that in your Lordships' House there has been such near unanimity on any issue, with only the Government Front Bench aloof, cold and immovable. I believe that as this debate proceeds to-day we shall find the same unanimity among your Lordships.
I should like briefly to repeat the issue which has been so clearly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. Many people—over one million—use the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. There they book in and hand in their luggage, and from that moment they have no more worry about their luggage. It is a wonderful feeling, as all those who have experienced the use of that terminal will know. They then go by guaranteed bus to Heathrow. They have no worry; the bus will take them; they will get their flight, and they can forget their luggage until they get to the other end of their journey. This may not mean much to richer people, who can take a taxi to Heathrow, or take their car and

489
park it in the long-term parking places at Heathrow, where an attendant will take them from their parked car to the Heathrow Airport and their luggage will be manhandled by a porter: they have very little trouble. It is the poorer people, who cannot afford that way of getting to Heathrow, and especially the elderly people and those with families, who are going to find it very difficult to cope with their baggage under the new system. They will still have to go to West London Air Terminal. There they will take a bus, as the Minister has said, with their luggage. They will have to make their own certain arrangements to be sure that they catch their plane. The bus will not be for their flight, but for any flight. At the other end they will have to get their luggage from the bus to the check-in point.
A few weeks ago I flew from Heathrow, having been taken by friends direct to Heathrow. The check-in-points were crowded and there were long queues. We waited for a long time. This new system will add a million more passengers to the long queues that one already finds at Heathrow. For this proposed change, we are offered really just two basic excuses. The first is the saving of half a million pounds. This sum could easily be met in other ways. I believe that customers would be willing to pay a small surcharge for the convenience of check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal. In any case, if British Airways are going to cope adequately with the increased numbers of passengers at Heathrow they will have to provide more staff and more facilities there, which will cut away some of the money it is suggested will be saved.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I omitted to say that at the present time there are 32 check-in points at Terminal 1, and the British Airways Board are providing check-in points at each of the passenger loading bays: that is at each of the 17 flight gates. That adds practically 50 per cent. to the check-in facilities.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am glad to know that the check-in facilities will increase, but the cost of providing them will have to be offset against the half million which the noble Lord said was being saved by this
490
arrangement. The second excuse is that by the use of the check-in facilities and the guaranteed flight bus services from the West London Air Terminal, aeroplanes are delayed because they have to wait for passengers. I consider this to be a most flimsy excuse. If the facts are as stated, even the 0·4 per cent. of cases to which the noble Baroness referred could be obviated by making the checking-in and bus-leaving times earlier. We now have an excellent motorway from West London to Heathrow. It is far easier, swifter and more regular than it was in earlier days when we had to stop at every traffic crossroads. I do not think anyone would object to being asked to check in a little earlier at the West London Air Terminal if he was going to retain the comfort and the certainty he has had up to this moment.
An article in the Sunday Telegraph earlier this month suggested that this withdrawal of check-in facilities is only one symptom of a malaise which has affected B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. since the merger. It suggests that there is among the staff—and I quote—
"… genuine embarrassement over the downgrading of B.A. passenger services, citing as well as the check-in, ever-reducing sect pitch, deleted or reduced meals and badly stocked bars."
It is because the reputation of the two airlines has been so high that this apparent flouting of the customers is most regret-table and hard to explain. The Airline Users' Committee set out in November what it felt. The noble Baroness has quoted their deploring of the proposed closing down of the check-in facilities. The statement continued:
"The Committee is convinced that the withdrawal of the W.L.A.T. check-in facilities and of guaranteed flight connections will cause considerable hardship to the travelling public, of whom over a million (including many elderly people) have been regularly using these facilities each year."
They have said that if the check-in facilities are to be withdrawn the withdrawal should at least have been postponed until the Underground railway was ready to serve Heathrow. I am glad to see that the Minister, judging from his intervention just now, accepts that additional facilities must be generously provided at Heathrow to cope with the million extra passengers who will check in here. I support the Motion moved by the noble

491
Baroness, and I hope she will have the support of the House.
12.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this Motion because I feel that the case has been put so very well by the noble Baroness. I find this an extraordinary and unparalleled situation. We have been given a series of reasons for abolishing these check-in facilities. The statements have been incorrect. The importance attached to the various reasons has altered almost from day to day; and, finally, we have just been told that they want to put offices in the present terminal building. Is this a new idea? One can only presume that it was known earlier and, if that was so, I consider it a slight on the dignity of this House that we were not told the facts. For that reason, if for no other. I consider that we should all vote for this Motion. It is intolerable that an Authority should not take the trouble to prepare a proper brief and give the facts. I personally would have had a great deal more sympathy with the closure had I known about these offices. It is not a conclusive argument, but at least it is one that is quite solid.
The point has already been made that consumers are almost certainly prepared to pay half a million pounds—if that is really a fact—to have these facilities. Those of your Lordships who have been to Heathrow will know what the check-in facilities are like. If you are going to increase the number of passengers checking in there and provide reasonable services, there is only one answer—that is, to pull down the building completely and start again. It is far too crowded. There is no room anywhere; and to get people rushing about between perhaps 20 check-in points would be intolerable.
I feel that this is just another example of the sort of thing which efficiency experts provide to-day. It is so often done, with no thought of the consumer in mind. I think it might be worth quoting a parallel instance. An institution of which I am a member wrote to me not long ago and said that they had put their subscriptions on a computer and they asked whether I would for the future cancel my banker's order and pay on demand, because their
492
computer programme could not cope with a banker's order. That has happened again recently in connection with another institution of which I am also a member. I wrote in and said: "This is all very well. You may be saving money, but you are merely putting the work back on me and you are no longer providing a service." In the present case there is not even the justification of money, because it is so easy to put on a small extra charge to cover the half a million pounds which it is said this building costs.
There are many other speakers to follow, my Lords, and so I shall not keep your Lordships any longer. I have made the points I wish to make.
12.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should also like to support this Motion, along with other speakers. I have followed the crusade of the noble Baroness with wonderment and awe. Her tenacity and stamina on this issue must surely warm the cockles of the hearts of all Back-Benchers, however docile (as I am) they may be. I support the Motion for two clear reasons: the first is because, as other noble Lords have said, one is disturbed by the very forceful tones that the Airline Users' Committee reported on this matter. One has to remember that this Committee is a perfectly responsible Committee chaired by the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Their report was quite adamant. It was, having taken the most detailed evidence from B.E.A. and having examined all aspects, that they had come firmly to the conclusion that the basic argument put up by B.E.A. in favour of their decision to close the check-in facilities simply did not stand up. A number of Members of this House, when the Civil Aviation Bill was going through in 1971—notably the noble Lords, Lord Kings Norton, Lord Beswick, and of course, the noble Baroness, fought for the principle that the Civil Aviation Authority should be and should have the responsibility for consumers' interests. That responsibility to-day stands in that Act under Section 3(1)(d). The Civil Aviation Authority have fulfilled their duty by this report. It should not be lightly put aside, either by the Government or by this House. That is why I support the

493
noble Baroness on the second part of her Motion for setting up a Select Committee.
The second reason why I support the Motion is the clear relation that this issue now has on the fuel crisis. I was very surprised that my noble friend did not mention this once, despite the fact that it is in the first part of the Motion. Two years ago, when B.E.A. took the decision on the closure, there was no cloud in the sky of fuel shortages and the issue was never considered. Their argument then, as we have heard was that the service in the West London Air Termnial was really an expensive luxury of diminishing usefulness, and was no longer required because 80 per cent. of the passengers went by car. That was based on conditions that simply do not apply to-day. It was recently reported, as the noble Baroness said, in a report in the proceeding in another place that my noble friend's right honourable friend, when asked what difference the check-in withdrawal at the West London Air Terminal would make to fuel saving, replied—and I paraphrase—"negligible". I find that answer very difficult to follow. At this crisis time when the Government are exorting us all, I am sure rightly, to save all possible fuel and even to live in one heated room in one's home, it seems that every policy they can devise to encourage people to save fuel should be enthusiastically endorsed. If 80 per cent. of the passengers go to Heathrow by car it represents, by my calculations, over 15 million people a year, over 5 million car journeys a year, and over 5 million gallons of petrol a year. It is a very significant figure and perhaps my noble friend could put the matter straight when he comes to reply. By closing down the check-in facilities and stopping the guaranteed buses, it is hardly an inducement to the travelling public to use the West London Terminal bus service. That is my reason for supporting the first part of the Motion of the noble Baroness when she refers to the fuel crisis and the national interest.
The question to which one should address oneself—and indeed my noble friend did—is this: can the British Airways Board practically withdraw at this late stage? Before coming to the House to-day I checked with the British Airports Authority, and I understand that the
494
additional basic equipment at Terminal 1 which they put in—not British Airways, but the British Airports Authority—will cost approximately £90,000, which B.E.A. will have to find. I understand that if a change in the decision takes place, this equipment would not be wasted and could be utilised. I understand, further, that if the decision is not altered and a closure takes place on January 1, during the height of the Christmas rush—to which the noble Baroness referred—the extra equipment will not all be fully operational. In fact at the moment the lifts are not working, and have not even been completed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: One lift.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: One lift. My Lords, this seems to conflict with an undertaking that B.E.A. gave two years ago that no closure would take place until adequate alternative arrangements had been installed at Terminal 1. Where do the Government stand on this issue, and where do the Civil Aviation Authority stand? One recalls that my noble Leader reminded us the other day that this is a delicate issue, an issue of the relationship between Government and a nationalised industry. My noble friend referred to this. The noble Lord confirmed that the Government would not normally interfere with a nationalised industry's operations. They would interfere—and I submit this is a case—if it is in the national interest.
Where does the Civil Aviation Authority come in? In the Preamble to their Act, it states clearly that they have a duty
"to establish a corporation with functions which include the function of controlling the activities of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and the British European Airways Corporation ".
I will repeat that: controlling the activities of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Under Section 3(1)(d) they have the duty to further the reasonable interest of users of the Air Transport Services. I submit that the Civil Aviation Authority have fulfilled their obligation under Section 3(1)(d), but have as yet not acted within their powers under the Preamble. Why not? The reason, I believe, is that they feel the ball is firmly in the Government's court.
I have listened most carefully to my noble friend's arguments today. His

495
argument in essence seemed to be: What is all the fuss about?—the bus services remain. In my view the fuss is a fuss that should fuss the Government; it is really a hotch-potch, and at a time when travellers should be encouraged to use these bus services to save fuel this service is reduced in attractiveness and quality. My Lords, that is why I support the noble Baroness.
12.48 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I, too, should like briefly to give some support to the noble and battling Baroness, if I may so describe her. I thought that she made an absolutely devastating case in detail and, frankly, I was not entirely happy about my noble friend's reply, although I recognise the difficult position in which he finds himself. I also find myself in a rather difficult position because the last time I looked at the Order Paper there were two Motions in the name of the noble Baroness. One asked for the postponement of the closure of the facilities, and the other for the appointment of a Select Committee. Today, there is only one.
I understand some of the arguments why it is not possible at this very late hour to change this decision. It is not the fault of the noble Baroness if it is so late, if it is the eleventh hour. But I recognised that it might be, and I had intended coming to the House to argue strongly in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee to look into this matter. I now find, however, that the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, which I feel would have been acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, has been withdrawn. I think this is the most crucial part of it, and therefore if the Motion we are discussing goes to a Division I shall have no hesitation in supporting the noble Baroness, for one reason and one reason only: that I feel there is a strong case for appointing a Select Committee to deal with this matter. The noble Baroness said that British European Airways (as I think one may still be allowed to call them, for the purposes of this exercise) were guilty of blatant dishonesty, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn disagreed. Surely that conflict of opinion is itself a very very strong case for having a Select Committee to gather the
496
facts quite independently; and let it consist of those who have not taken part in this particular dispute.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn made one remark which I found very odd. He said that it would be very awkward if the Select Committee took a different view from that of the Airline Users' Committee. If the Select Committee took a different view, I should have thought my noble friend would be rather pleased; it would be some justification for his action and that of B.E.A. It seems to me that from his point it would be a very strong argument for a Select Committee. It is mainly on those points that I feel very strongly that this is one of the cases where a Select Committee should be appointed. In another place there is the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and this is the kind of matter which they might raise. There is the Public Accounts Committee, which might perhaps question some of the economies which have been made in a Government Department. However, your Lordships do not have either of those two machines at your disposal. Since this is a matter in which the running has been made almost entirely in this House it seems to me that it is this House which could take over this task and appoint a Select Committee.
I have two other points which I should like to make. My noble friend said, quite rightly—and I have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view—that it is not for the Government to interfere in the day-to-day activities of nationalised industries. My Lords, considering the battle that has gone on for 18 months, it can hardly be called a day-to-day matter. None the less, I accept his point that it is thoroughly undesirable that the Government should interfere in day-to-day activities. I think one can make one firm statement here that the Government have one other power, and that is the appointment of the members of nationalised boards. Even if they do not on this occasion make any representations on a day-to-day matter, it is their duty, in considering reappointment to those boards, apart from the executive officers, to be satisfied that there are on the board sufficient people who are sensitive to public opinion and sensitive, in this case, to the needs of the travellers.

497
One other point I would make. Here we have the British Airways Board holding one view and the Airline Users' Committee holding another. This is something on which the Government have to make up their mind. They cannot just sit back and be indifferent. They must come down firmly on one side or the other, on the side of the Users' Council or on the side of the British Airways Board. To-day my noble friend seemed, on balance, to come down on the side of the British Airways Board, finally and irrevocably. I regret that. Therefore I think it is necessary to have a Select Committee.
12.53 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I should like to say just a very few words from these Cross-Benches in support of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. For some time now this matter of the closedown of the West London Air Terminal check-in desks has been a real source of worry to the travelling public—and I refer to the ordinary passengers who rely on public transport, not those who can afford taxis or have private cars. They amount to a considerable number of people. I recognise that there is need to streamline procedures, and that the picture changes from time to time; but this is a valuable service to the passengers, and surely their comfort is of paramount importance. Of course, when the Underground rail link is completed, this need may well disappear. Now added to this, there is considerable anxiety among British Airways employees that since the merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., the actual running of the service is growing increasingly fragmented, thus reducing the standard of service considerably, whereas, in principle, the merger should make for a more co-ordinated, comprehensive service.
It is not only the West London Terminal that is involved. Ten provincial booking centres have been closed in recent months, which has led to an even greater burden being placed on the staff in London. As a result, as many as 70 per cent. of new recruits were being defeated by the pressure and were leaving within six months. Surely the time has now come to put an end to all the anxieties, the rumours and counter-rumours, by the appointment of a Select Committee to
498
examine all the many aspects of this whole problem. I very much hope your Lordships will give this Motion your support.
12.56 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I, too, rise to declare that I consider that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has put forward an extremely strong case; and I declare my support for it, because, in spite of all the arguments put forward by my noble friend, the Minister, I feel strongly that it is wrong to alter the existing arrangements at the West London Air Terminal. The noble Baroness has asked a number of Questions on the subject from time to time. I have been able to be in your Lordships' House to hear a good many of them, and have always been hoping for favourable results to come from them. Now, in theory, these alterations seem good, but I have grave doubts at present, based on my own experiences, about how trey will turn out in practice. I know it is the custom in your Lordships' House to declare an interest. Well, mine is that I shall be one of those who are going to be hit hard by this alteration. I live and work in London. I have no need of a car. My home is not far from Cromwell Road. When I take a journey by air, it involves using the Cromwell Road Terminal. I enjoy being able to go there, check-in, get rid of my suitcase and know that I do not have to worry about it until I get to my destination. I have been privileged to travel a good deal; in fact, I have travelled to and through 25 countries outside the United Kingdom, and most of them have been included in my air travels. In recent years I have come to regard air travel with certain apprehension—no matter how much I enjoy flying, how convenient it is and how much time it saves—because almost every air journey I take nowadays has some snag arising, and most of them are connected with luggage.
The theory is now that we go to Cromwell Road and take a bus to London Airport. We can take any bus and they will leave at regular intervals, but we have still got to keep an eye on our luggage. Then we arrive at London Airport, we leave the bus collect our luggage—and goodness knows how much elbow room we are going to have to get through the crowds that will

499
gather round the luggage compartment! Then we have to find where the check-in point is and we have to take the luggage there. I heard it declared most specifically when the noble Baroness was asking her earlier Questions that the distance from the bus to the check-in point was going to be a short one. I cannot remember what was said about lifts or elevators. But when you do finally find your check-in point, how big are those crowds going to be? How easy will it be to get the luggage from the bus to the check-in point? We have heard the guarantees about porters and trolleys being there, but I have "heard that one before", and I have known porters and trolleys to be very much noticeable by their absence.
I say it is all right for me, because, praise the Lord! I am strong and healthy. I can carry my own baggage, and, though it is inconvenient, personally I never travel light. But other people are not so fortunate. It is that short distance between the bus and the check-in point that is going to be an anxious one for a number of travellers, and it will be the thing that is going to make or break an air journey. Suppose you have taken the guaranteed bus and you have not been held up on the road anywhere, you may nevertheless find a long queue there, because sometimes I find that these check-in points deal with more than one flight at a time. You might be still in grave danger of missing your flight because of that long queue. We have been assured that various consolations will be available if one misses a flight, but how much is consolation going to be worth to a holidaymaker on a looked-forward-to tour, or, more important, to a business person who has an important contract to fulfil? I hope I am not being too repetitious. I am not trying to think up theoretical snags; I have experienced them myself. I must therefore ask, and join those other noble Lords who have also asked, for reconsideration about the closing of the facilities at Cromwell Road.
Even if the new scheme proves to work better than expected—and I, for one, shall be only too pleased to find any fears to be groundless—I do not think this is the time for it, with the present crisis demanding conservation of fuel. Air travellers from London Airport must be encouraged
500
to use Cromwell Road instead of motoring out to the Airport. On December 5, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked two Questions on this subject. I was not able to be in your Lordships' House because I was abroad at the time. As a result of the second Question, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said:
"My Lords, as obviously the Government's desire is to meet the wishes of the travelling public if they can, would the Government invite Members of this House to describe the sufferings that they have gone through at foreign airports, almost all of which use the system which British Airways are now about to adopt?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/12/73; col. 603.]
I, too, have experienced a good many foreign airports. There is one I found particularly exemplary and that was Zurich. I say "was" because it was seven years ago when I last used it and I do not know what the situation there is now. The terminal was in the main railway station or in the precincts of it. You came off the train, checked your baggage in there, and were told you could take any bus you liked out to the airport. You did so when you liked, and you were given the time when the last bus to catch your particular plane would leave, Therefore, if your train arrived early you had time to go and do some sightseeing. The buses left, I think, every 10 minutes or quarter-of-an-hour regularly. Here is a system which we could use at West London, using check-in facilities and a regular bus service. That I think would be a very favourable system.
We have spoken about businessmen and holidaymakers, but how about some of our foreign visitors? We can find many things to criticise British Airways about, but I believe that millions of holidaymakers and business men and women who come to this country from abroad enjoy a large proportion of the services which British Airways have been providing up to now. We want these people to come here. We need no reminder about how important they are to our economy. One of the most sure ways of encouraging anybody from one country to revisit another country is to make him feel confident that his homeward journey is going to be an easy one. I say that the existing facilities at West London Air Terminal can help to ensure this.
In considering public opinion, I also ask whether anyone ever thought of making a trial run with the public? Was

501
anybody asked to try out the new system? I know that I, for one, if I had heard about it, would have been delighted to offer my own services as a human guinea-pig, and if anyone still wants to have a trial run I shall be delighted to take part; my family told me that they would be delighted to take part as well. One final repetition: I still think that this is not the time to make the changes. If they must come, please let them be deferred at least until the present crisis is over.
1.4 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to come here, at considerable personal inconvenience, to support the noble Baroness in this matter. As I have begun in somewhat Saturday morning form, given the state of the Session, may I say also that I find it extremely grieving to listen to Ministers whom we all like and respect, who try to be helpful to us in every way, struggling with a case that is as bad as this. First, the description given of the London Airports has no relation to reality. I suspect that the Minister did not try this out at a rush hour, carrying two suitcases and a baby. I have travelled a great deal. I am perhaps semi-elderly, but from that standpoint I can assure the Minister that Heathrow now is a frightening place. When you enter there you do not know where to go; and there may be as many advisers and as many notices as one likes but you really do arrive bewildered. And if I think of people who do not travel much, or who travel with difficult companions such as children, I wonder what it can be like dealing with one's luggage as well as with one's hand luggage and dependants.
Then, I hope I can sweep off the board one argument that has been used. That is the argument: "Others don't do it, so we can now stop doing it." That is an absolutely horrifying argument. What it amounts to is: "We, here, have discovered an efficient and humane way of doing this. Other people don't do it. We are some way ahead of them. This is very wrong and we must stop it at once." That argument is absolutely untenable and I hope the Minister will not use it in his summing up.
There is then the question (and I am being almost breathlessly brief because the arguments have in the main been used already) of the Underground link, which I do not think has been fully dealt with.
502
It is a point I have tried to press. In terms of the broader management of our affairs, of transport and of this city, there is really no sense in suspending the present facility when we have the Underground in prospect. I am aware that under the new proposals for capital expenditure it may be that the Underground extension and improvement is vulnerable. It ought not to be vulnerable because it ought to have been done ten years ago. But here again there is an inconsequence and a disregard about this decision, for good sense as well as public convenience, which I find to be completely deplorable.
There is one other point which is very important and which has been dealt with very faithfully, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. It is that in our care about consumers we must not totally disregard commercial considerations. The point has already been made that passengers using the check-in facilities in the West London Terminal would certainly not grudge a small surcharge to meet the loss which B.E.A. protest will be made. One final point is that I really cannot leave undisputed a word that the Minister used in his speech. He said that it would not be "practicable" now to change back again. My Lords, that is an incredible word to use. If you take away machinery and alter rooms, you can put the rooms back and put the machinery back, especially as we have been told that some of it—or surplus machinery—should be available. If a public Corporation disregards the widespread opposition to a move of this kind on the part of one of the Houses of Parliament, and goes ahead and takes the risk, then, if that disapproval is maintained, it must be expected to go tack to the point it started from. It cannot say it is "impracticable". It is very inconvenient, and possibly expensive, but that is the risk the Corporation took. So for this, and many other reasons, much more adequately stated than the views I have stated. I remain strongly in support of the noble Baroness's Motion.
1.10 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I have stood side by side with the noble Baroness since the beginning. I am glad to see that she is smiling now; she was looking sad before, although but I do not think she had any reason to look sad. When I saw my name

503
on the list at the end of the Back Benchers, I thought I was going to be the sting in the tail, instead of which I find that I am the ninth nail in the coffin.
I really cannot understand the argument that when you have something you need, something you can boast about, something that everybody enjoys, something that is a splendid advertisement, you then throw it away. It is rather like we have done with coal; we have coal, but we have disregarded it. Now we have a first-class service and we are giving it up. Why? Nobody has given me a proper reason. It is said that it will be replaced by eight porters—I repeat, eight porters.
One other thing that bothers me a little is the question of its being a nationalised service. I have always been brought up by such friends as I have on the Opposition Benches to believe that a nationalised service is a public service—a service for the public—and yet we have the extraordinary position that when, in one of the Houses of Parliament, from all sides of the House, there is the strongest possible expression of opinion, it is disregarded. There is then a Committee set up to pay particular attention to this point and it is completely disregarded.
I am wondering where we are going to in this country. Are we going to be governed by sections of the community or by anonymous boards, and are the Houses of Parliament going to have no authority whatsoever any more? Is a Minister not going to be able to express the views of the House strongly to a nationalised body? If that is so, what is the good of a Minister? I am sorry to have to say this to my noble friend, but quite frankly this is what we have Ministers for. I feel so outraged by the whole thing—I am not going to repeat what other people have said—that I felt that I must express my opinion in the strongest possible terms.
1.12 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I intend to speak only briefly. I am sorry that I was not in my place earlier to-day. I have risen frequently in the past to support the noble Baroness and I do so with the greatest of pleasure to-day. I made a suggestion, not in this House but privately in a letter, that if it was thought advisable for B.O.A.C.
504
to combine Victoria Station with B.E.A.'s Cromwell Road Station, in view of the fact that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are now becoming one unit, this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and that so far as I was concerned I should be perfectly happy to go to Victoria instead of to Cromwell Road, or, alternatively, to some new centre where B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. could operate together with joint check-in facilities, because of course it all centres round the withdrawal of those facilities.
It is very hard for people with cars; even harder for people with cars and chauffeurs—and even harder for Ministers—to understand what it means to the ordinary British citizen. Let us take the housewife going on holiday to Europe, wanting to get to Terminal 1, with three or four children. What a relief it is to be able to get rid, not only of your luggage but of yourself, in a sense, because you are checked in; you hand in your ticket and then you can relax and wait for the bus which is going specially for your 'plane. It is not a general bus. It is going, in my case, for the Belfast 'plane, or it can be for the Edinburgh 'plane or the Majorca 'plane. Instead of that, the place is now going to be turned into a bus station. I have no personal axe to grind because I have nothing except hand luggage when I travel. I am raising this point not for myself, but for the ordinary travelling public.
Finally, at the risk of repeating what everybody else has said, is it not rather incredible, when the Government are urging people to save petrol, to insist on continuing with this system whereby people will be forced to go to London Airport in their own cars if they do not want to wait for a general bus? I hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to what I understand to be the feeling of this House on this fairly important matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has just said, one would think that the Government would be proud that we were the only capital in Europe with these facilities, rather than saying, "Because we are the only place with these facilities we must take them away". I hope the Government will give further consideration to this matter because I. for one, feel bound to support the noble Baroness in her courageous action in pursuing this matter

505
month after month in the face of total Governmental opposition.
1.16 p.m.
TILE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise for not having been here earlier to listen to the arguments that were put forward. I have heard the arguments before, and I agree with them. I am sure that the Government have behaved rather poorly over this matter; I am sure that the British Airways Board have behaved fairly poorly over it and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is completely right. However, I think I shall be the one person who will stick out like a sore thumb. If replacing check-in facilities, or preventing their removal, is going to cost extra money, however desirable, and every other single argument being on the side of the noble Baroness, I cannot really see myself voting for her Motion when we are quite justifiably cutting back on money for schools, roads, social security and things of that nature. If I can be persuaded that no extra money will be spent on desisting from moving these check-in facilities I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who has made a very courageous and totally correct stand. But in a day of financial stringency this seems to me to be an unfortunate sacrifice that we ought to make.
1.19 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I should like to speak, if I may, between the lines, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Twenty five years ago B.O.A.C. selected a slogan to promote business: " B.O.A.C. takes good care of you". That worked, and it helped us to get the Corporation out of the red and into the black, and I think it is some-thing that should be perpetuated. This proposal to abolish the check-in facilities at the West London Terminal is not in line with that philosophy, and I believe that to do away with those facilities is a thoroughly bad thing. I remember sitting in with the late Lord Douglas of Kirtle-side and others when we were considering the building of the Cromwell Road Terminal, and I well remember that one of the big points made in its favour was that the check-in facilities there would be a big attraction to the public and of great benefit to the finances of the Corporation. I believe it worked out that way. I think
506
it would be wrong to do away with it and I support the Motion.
1.20 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, had been present in our discussion, he might well have come to a different conclusion from that which he expressed a few minutes ago. But I think the noble Earl should know that he is a lone voice, apart from that of the Minister. This morning we have seen the finest example of British phlegm since the wreck of the Hesperus, when the boy stood on the burning deck. Noble Lords will remember that in the vulgar parody of the "Wreck of the Hesperus", the crew were playing cricket. There stood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this morning, standing at the wicket, keeping a straight bat although the pitch was fathoms deep in water. It was, I think, rather a sad experience to see the noble Lord batting away there, apparently oblivious of the fact that he was putting up as good a case as is possible in defence of what really amounts to faceless bureaucracy. One of the things that I find distressing about this whole problem is that we should be accusing of faceless bureaucracy two organisations which have a magnificent record of public service. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who has just spoken deserves a great deal of credit for the high standard set by B.O.A.C. over the years, which B.E.A. I think also equalled.
My Lords, when one comes across cases of indifference to public feeling and to public wellbeing which are apparent at the moment, one is in a difficulty to know how to react. I suppose one might really take either or both of two attitudes. First of all, one could switch to other airlines which seem to be more sensitive to the requirements of their customers. At the same time, most of us, I think, have a prejudice in favour of flying on British airlines, and some of us have a prejudice in favour of flying on State-owned air-lines, although I am bound to say I recently flew with Caledonian and I have never had better service. I think it is not without interest that Caledonian are, of course, keeping their check-in facilities at Victoria Station. I think British Airways would be well advised to follow the example of their more entrepreneurial competitor.

507
The second way we can react is one which I think would be a very grave step to take; that is, to adopt measures to end the immunity which nationalised industries at present have from interference in their day-to-day working. I think that would be a retrograde step to take. If nationalised industries are to justify this immunity, they must show themselves to be peculiarly sensitive to what the public they are serving require. I agree very much with the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, when he spoke about the way that B.E.A. have treated this House and the Government during the last few months. They have been guilty of indifference; they have been guilty of deviousness and of discourtesy both to this noble House and to Her Majesty's Government. I am bound to say that even if the Government do not mind being made a monkey of, I believe this noble House does. I do not want to go into the details which have been so brilliantly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I do not want to emphasise the lack of solicitude for the old and the infirm, or the difficulties of mothers with children. I do not want to emphasise the rather fatuous train service arrangement which seemed to be offered as an alternative to the present practice. All those arguments have been fully rehearsed.
To-day, for the first time, I have had a letter from British Airways, a very courteous letter from Mr. Rutledge, which is an attempt to help but which, frankly, I find quite unconvincing. When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, talks about percentages, I find them absolutely irrelevant in this matter. What is important is that one and a half million people a year want to use these services, and it is no good saying the figure has dropped from 32 per cent. to 23 per cent., or whatever it was. There are one and a half million people whose views deserve consideration both by British Airways and by Her Majesty's Government. Nor am I influenced by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the lateness of buses. He says, "All right; they have made buses start 15 earlier." I should not mind making them start half an hour earlier if I were going to get the same sort of service I now get at the West London Air Terminal.
508
The noble Lord, the British Government and British Airways must think again about this matter.
My Lords, I have two final points that I should like to make. The first is that the attitude the Minister adopted this morning and the attitude of British Airways suggest that going by air is something which is infinitely discreditable, from which we should be saved if we are to have all the benefits we hope to have in the world to come, and something which, if we persist in our foolishness, must be made as difficult and inconvenient as possible. There can be no other explanation of this disingenuous argument of the noble Lord that no other European capital enjoys the same facilities are we do. If they do not, they ought to. If we have these facilities, we ought to be proud of them; we ought to be advertising them, we ought to be boasting about them. We ought to be showing that we in Britain, in London and in this great public Corporation set a standard of service of which we are proud and which we hope to continue indefinitely.
My Lords, my last point is that I have great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has fought as bravely as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on this issue. We know about the road position between here and Heathrow; we know how inadequate the road communication is; we know how difficult it is at times of special pressure. We know how overloaded Heathrow can be. And if the Government and British Airways go ahead with this proposal, there may be further jams on the road. There may well be overcrowding and further inconvenience at Heathrow. Most of us know what can happen at Heathrow at times of a fuel crisis like the one we have at the moment, when the departure of planes is uncertain. We know what can happen at the height of the holiday season and when there are bad weather conditions. If we can siphon off from Heathrow to Cromwell Road Terminal or some other terminal in London some of the would-be passengers, we shall be making a great contribution to stopping the further deterioration of the services which are available. No; the Government must really look again at this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he could not bully or cajole British

509
Airways. Of course he cannot. Nobody is asking him to do that. But everyone who has been a Minister knows that quite often, without any powers whatsoever, it is possible to persuade organisations, both public bodies and private organisations, to follow the course of reasonableness and to devote themselves to the service of the public. It is no good the noble Lord trying to get away from this. The Government have a responsibility. He has great powers of persuasion usually in this House, but not. I think, to-day. Perhaps those powers of persuasion can be more fruitfully exercised on British Airways. I hope the noble Lord will tell them that their attitude just will not do and that they must think again.
1.29 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I speak again? I am flattered by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, to my powers of persuasion. I must try again. If I did not succeeed last time, I will try again now in answering the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, asked us to follow the course of reasonableness, but may I put one or two points of reason and reasoning to him? The facts are these. In the first place, the number of people preferring to use these check-in facilities has declined over the years, both proportionately and absolutely. As I mentioned in my speech to-day, there has been a drop of nearly 100,000 B.E.A. passengers since 1969. So the talk of siphoning off traffic to the check-in facilities at Heathrow seems to be going against the tide. The second point—and I do not think this has quite got over to noble Lords, if I may say so—is that the figures for passengers at the moment using the check-in facilities are not 1½ million; they are just about half that. The noble Baroness gave the figures; I think it is 780,000 using the check-in facilities at the present time.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I added to that, of course, the number of foreign airlines passengers, which brought my total to 1⅓ million.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, may I quote to the noble Lord, who has been kind enough to refer to me, from a document which I
510
have received to-day from the British Airways Board? The document tells me that the actual number of passengers checking in at West London for B.E.A. flights has fallen over five years by about one-eighth, to just over three quarters of a million. The number of people checking in there for other airlines has been fairly constant at about half a million. That, I realise, adds up to about 1¼ million, not the 1½ million that I said. Nevertheless, even 1¼ million people cannot be treated with contempt.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, noble Lords, unfortunately, did not allow me to finish my sentence. The point is that the foreign airlines have now ceased to use the check-in facilities; they are not now using them. We now have experince of how this works. I went out to see how it worked, and it seemed to me to be working extremely well, even though Terminal 2 is very much more crowded than Terminal 1. What merges here is that the situation is more crowded where the services have already been changed than where it is proposed to make the change as from January 1, 1974.
I wonder whether I may put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, on what he said. He said that the poorer people cannot afford other ways of getting to Heathrow. But, of course, there are other ways of getting to Heathrow at the present time for the poorer people. They can—and many do—take an Underground train to Hounslow and go by special bus from Hounslow to the airport. The same applies to the services that run from Waterloo to Feltham, and I am told that in normal times a great many people use those services Again, there is a direct bus from Feltham. So it is wrong to say that everyone who does not use the check-in facilities goes by car to Heathrow. Many other people also come by bus from other parts of the country direct to Heathrow. This means that, in a way, a special preference is being given to Londoners over those who come from other parts of the country.
The second point the noble Lord made was about the check-in facilities, and the point was also made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, about the assurance that had been given in this respect. I should like to amplify what I said earlier about what the British Airways Board are doing

511
at the present time. The question is: will the new arrangements cause any significant number of passengers to decide to travel to Heathrow by car or taxi rather than use the buses? We do not need only to guess about this because experience gives the answer. The new arrangements, as I have said, have already been operating for passengers on foreign airlines since the beginning of October. During the two months. October and November, the number of foreign airline passengers using the terminal increased by nearly 4 per cent., after the check-in facilities had been withdrawn, in comparison with the same months last year, whereas the use by B.E.A. passengers diminished, although the check-in facilities were being used.
I know that British Airways are anxious to simplify arrangements, so far as possible, for their short-haul services. They want to reduce formalities to a minimum, and make it virtually as easy to go along to an airport and catch a flight as it is to go along to a railway station and catch a train. This is the point of the check-in facilities now being established at the flight gates; that is, the passenger loading gates at the plane itself. They are establishing these check-in facilities, I am told, as from January 1 for their international services as well as for the internal services, where this already applies. This means that people can go direct to the flight gate with their luggage and check in there. As I have said, a very great number of people do this on the short-haul services at the present time. Furthermore, if their bus is late there is already a late check-in desk where they can check in. The services that are being established now will enable people to arrive earlier at Heathrow, and many people want to do so, because they like to go to the duty-free shop, and so on. So I really do not think, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Gainford, that his fears that he is going to be hit hard are in any way justified. He may be right; I may be right. But we shall never know until we try.
I come now to what has been said about the appointment of a Select Committee. This was the point my noble friend Lord Reigate made particularly, and so did my noble friend Lady Loudoun. Originally, of course, there was a Motion down on the Order Paper for
512
the appointment of a Select Committee, and if this had remained down the Government would not have opposed it. I want to say to the House that, whatever happens to this Motion, the Government would accept a proposal to set up a Select Committee, if this were the will of the House, so that the whole matter can be fully looked into, and it will be possible also to see what happens after the changeover on January 1.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, could my noble friend answer this question, in view of what he has just said? Does this mean that if this were done the check-in facilities would not be withdrawn on January 1?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I specifically said that we will see what happens after January 1, after the changeover has taken place. I take note of my noble friend's point on this. I am not sure whether he was in the House when Lord Reigate made his speech, but he made the point that there was a difference of opinion as to what had happened in the past. It would be possible to vindicate or otherwise allegations of dishonesty, and all the rest, against the B.A.B. As I have said, the Government would not oppose the setting up of a Select Committee.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, this is extremely important for some of us. Am I to understand that if the Motion for a Select Committee had remained on the Order Paper the Government would have accepted it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD REIGATE: In that case, may I ask whether the Government have considered at any stage putting down on the Order Paper for to-day their own Motion to appoint a Select Committee? That would have pleased me, anyway.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, we did not consider that because there was already a Motion down on the Order Paper, along with the original Motion. I think the noble Baroness had one day's gap between the time she put down her first Motion and the second one. We did not consider that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said that Heathrow is really a frightening place and that the passenger does not

513
know where to go. I would suggest that this is eminently a matter for the Airline Users' Committee to take up with the British Airports Authority. If there are deficiencies, this is the sort of work they were appointed to do. He also said that he doubted very much that it was not practicable to change back. It is not just a question of putting back a few desks at the check-in point. A great many arrangements have been made; there have been negotiations for the redeployment of staff with the trade unions, and all the rest of it, and it would be very difficult at this stage to make these changes.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I certainly had in mind that it can be done, but I also had in mind the deeper point of principle that these things should all be done, in the view of the Minister irrevocably, at a time when so much adverse opinion in one House of Parliament was known to exist.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I appreciate that, but it is only in this House that this matter has arisen—or by far and away mainly in this House. My noble friend Lady Emmet talked about no notice being taken of the Airline Users' Committee. I must say again and again to her that this is simply not true. The British Airways Board have gone all the way to meet the Airline Users' Committee except in regard to the guaranteed bus arrival; that is, except to say that the plane will wait for passengers who check in at West London Air Terminal. This is the essential point about the checking in. In other respects they have gone a very long way.
As to the question of services which the British Airports Authority are providing, there is already an escalator and a lift. What they are doing is providing a second escalator and a second lift. It seemed to me, when I saw it yesterday, that the second escalator was in a very advanced state of construction, but the second lift was not in such an advanced state. We all know the reasons for this kind of delay, and I need not elaborate on them.
May I say in conclusion that I venture to advise your Lordships not to put the Government in the position of having to request the Airways Board to do some-thing that the Government do not think right. I am sure that my noble friend
514
Lady Emmet would not wish Ministers to be in this position. She said that if Ministers are not prepared to express a view, then what is the use of a Minister. Surely, the Minister must express his own view in this matter, and not the view of somebody else. I am absolutely certain that the British Airways Board will be taking a very close look at every-thing that has been said in this House to-day, and that it will certainly not go unnoticed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting into a very dangerous constitutional position here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I accept that that is so, but I am just about to deal with that very dangerous constitutional position. The Motion involves calling on the Government to do some-thing which no Government have been willing to do ever since nationalisation was established; namely, to interfere with the day-to-day management. Parliament has laid down by Statute the extent to which Ministers may intervene in the running of nationalised industries. If changes are to be made in the established practice, then it is right for both Houses of Parliament to make them. It would be quite wrong for one House to seek to require the Minister to intervene whether by way of direction or request in a particular matter.
The other point is: what does the national interest require at the present time? There has been reference to the use of fuel. Precisely one of the reasons why this change was undertaken was to economise in the use of buses, which means manpower and fuel, and this will happen. The more the buses are used the better, and goodness knows! there is enough scope for them to be used. I have shown that at present the buses are being used only to about one quarter of their capacity.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, if we are going to have a bus every 10 minutes, how is that going to economise on fuel? You can now get on any bus you like, provided you have got rid of your luggage, at West London Terminal.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand that this is not encouraged. You are intended to take the bus that

515
is assigned. Passengers are called forward at a particular time for the particular bus assigned to their flight.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, apparently the Minister does not travel by bus as much as I do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I used to. I do not just for the time being.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that since 'planes leave London Airport at extremely frequent intervals, a matter of minutes, a little ingenuity would make it possible for one bus to serve several 'planes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this happens up to a point, but surely it is not the general rule. The whole point of the arrangement is to have a regular flow of buses at 10-minute intervals at normal times, scaling down to 4 minutes at peak times. I am convinced that this will give a much more efficient service.
I am being distracted a little from what I was saying. I was saying that if changes are to be made in the established practice, it is for both Houses of Parliament to make them, and it would be quite wrong for one House to seek to require the Minister to intervene.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting as I did not hear the beginning of the noble Lord's speech, but I did hear the noble Lord say something that I do not understand. He said that no Government have ever interfered with the day-to-day running. If my noble friend looks at the Motion, if the Government do not have power to interfere, it asks that they should request the Board to defer the proposed withdrawal. Surely there is nothing to stop a Government asking a Board to postpone something.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should have thought that this very definitely is an interference with the day-to-day management. Of course, it will involve extra expenditure.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, as an ex-chairman of a nationalised industry, may I say that your Lordships would
516
be surprised if you knew how frequently certain pressures are generated, and, by Jove, they work, believe me.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite convinced that people as staunch as the noble Lord will be able to resist pressure when it is appropriate. The noble Lord, perhaps indirectly, is using the point of the national interest again, and we are bound to ask: what does the national interest require? Surely, it must be that we should promote in every possible way efficiency and economy—and this is the point made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. It cannot be right to require, or request, the use of 220 buses when 180 buses would do, with the extra fuel consumption and manpower that that would involve. It cannot be right to hold up the completion of a change which is designed—whether noble Lords yet appreciate it; and people very often resist a change up to the last moment and then appreciate it when it has been made—to improve the operational efficiency of the airlines in the interests both of the passengers and of the taxpayers.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but how much will it cost to stop this operation? As I said in my few words, I have been totally convinced that the Government are wrong, but can he tell us what the actual cost is going to be? I have to be told what it is before I can be persuaded to go into the Government Lobby in the possible event of a Division.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if my memory serves me aright—and the noble Baroness will perhaps remember the figures as well—I think the figure given for the immediate hold up was £170,000. But added to that would be the day-to-day loss arising from the changeover, and I understand that other costs would be involved as well.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I wanted the Minister to get to an end, not to delay him; but can he please tell me what fee has been paid by the foreign airlines. That is quite important.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I have not yet been able to get this.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I asked the Minister at quarter past eleven, I think, for that figure.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I appreciate that, but the figure has not yet reached me and, quite honestly, I do not quite understand the importance of it. A new contract was made, and the real point that is to be made here (I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King) is that the figure that was forgone by receiving lower payments from the foreign airlines is not an offset against the extra cost of running the present system. In calculating the extra cost of running the system, this forgoing of the particular payment from the foreign airlines was taken into account.
My Lords, I do not think it can be right to burden the airlines, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, says, with a service which the Board considers to be outdated and which is not provided by or for the airlines with which it is competing, and certainly is not now provided here for the foreign airlines because they have negotiated an arrangement which excludes it. It cannot be right to require them to forgo, even for a short time, the benefits flowing from the conversion of space at West London Air Terminal to badly needed office accommodation. Lastly it cannot be right to interfere with the second stage of the change—and bear in mind, my Lords, that this is the second stage of the change—when the first stage of the service to foreign airlines, as I indicated at the start of my winding up speech, has proved itself to be an outstanding success.
My Lords, I now have the figure asked for by the noble Baroness. Half a million pounds per annum was received as revenue from foreign airlines before check-in facilities were removed, but I am not quite certain whether there will be some continuing revenue received from them for the use of West London Air Terminal. The noble Baroness has asked the question and I have merely given her the answer.
I have said that the British Airlines Board have offered to co-operate with the Airline Users' Committee in monitoring the effects of the change in the next few months, and that offer has been accepted. I believe that the Committee is still not
518
convinced that the change will be for the better, but I say once again that in these circumstances the only thing to do is to put the matter to the proof, to let the B.A.B. proceed with the change and see how it works out in practice.
1.53 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Well, my Lords, I think the House will be glad that I am the last speaker—according to the Rules of the House I must be the last speaker. I do not think anybody has envied the Minister to-day; he has had a quite indefensible case, which I think has got worse and worse as it went on. Every speaker in this House to-day, apart from him, has spoken in favour of the Motion; only the Minister has spoken against, and I do not remember a similar case before. With reference to the noble Lord who came in later, I would only say that British Airways have thrown away money by removing the check-in facilities for foreign airlines: to wit, half a million pounds we have now been told, which is what they said they would lose by keeping them. So I think by any arithmetic, even mine, that cancels out and should be sufficient to bring him into my Lobby. They have thrown away additionally all the concessions they had for that airport—the various stationery offices and other things. That would offset any losses.
My Lords, the Airline Users' Committee does not think that the British Airways Board have gone any way to meet it. We did ask British Airways whether they would give figures for the late running of buses in 1973, as well as 1972, but they could not provide them for 1973. The noble Lord has now given them, however, and they are even better from my point of view and worse from the Board's. The figures show one plane delayed every three days, and my heart bleeds for the people waiting for the one plane every three days which is delayed by buses coming from West London. I am also rather shattered to know that one of the reasons hidden from us up to now was to put offices where the check-in facilities now are.
May I emphasise what my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale has said? I am not interested in percentages. I have the figure: it is 1,126,000. The figure which my noble friend gave showed that

519
1,125,000 are at present using the check-in facilities.
My Lords, I want to close by thanking everybody for coming here to-day at very great inconvenience, for this Motion, and I hope that noble Lords, who have spoken solidly for the Motion, with the exception
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
2.4 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before we go on to other business, may I ask the intentions of the Government? I take it that the offer that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made, that the Government would now welcome the setting up of a Select Committee, stands; and perhaps the Government themselves might like to put down a Motion to that effect. On the whole, I personally prefer Select Committees to be set up by Government
of the poor Minister, with whom I sympathise, will now carry it to success in the Division Lobby.
1.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Hacking, L.

Porritt, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Hayter, L.

Reigate, L.

Bourne, L.

Henley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Burton of Coventry, B. [Teller.]

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shackleton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jacques, L.

Shannon, E.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Kennet, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stocks, B.

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Diamond, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Strathspey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Summerskill, B.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Elles, B.

Monson, L.

Thomas, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Gainford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northchurch, B.

White, B.

Garnsworthy, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Onslow, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Craigavon, V.

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

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ferrers, E.

Limerick, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Furness, V.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Motion, but if not we could put a Motion down.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I must apologise first of all for not being here during the debate. I came straight here from a Cabinet Meeting, without the intervention of lunch. The House has recorded its views on this matter in a decisive way, and I think the right thing to do now is for my noble friend and myself to consult with our colleagues on the point of a Select Committee and on other points as well.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord's last remark implies that the Government will now take heed of the clearly expressed opinion of the House, and will carry it through, if not by direction at least by request.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House will not expect me to make any comment on that at this stage. What I can do is to repeat what I said, that it would be right for my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and myself to consult our colleagues.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to go on, but there is an urgency. There is only about a week, and with Christmas coming it is vital that the action should be taken now, before the facilities are withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I quite understand the urgency, my Lords.

AIR CORPORATIONS DISSOLUTION ORDER 1973
2.6 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Draft Air Corporations Dissolution Order 1973, laid before the House on November 29, be approved. This Order, providing for the dissolution of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., marks a turning point in the history of British civil aviation. It is the culmination of the policy on the reorganisation of the nationalised airlines pursued both by this Government and by our predecessors since the Edwards Committee on Civil Air Transport was set up in 1967—the policy which my honourable friend the Minister of Aerospace and Shipping described as "evolving but consistent".
I do not think the House would wish me to go into the detail of this matter to any great extent. I should just like to say that good progress has been made towards the merger of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and that the Board have been able to win the general acceptance of employees of the two Corporations on the formation of British Airways. The unanimous report produced by their Cargo Working Party, made up of equal numbers of management and staff representatives, is evidence that the employees do accept the merger. Your Lordships
522
will be glad to know that the British Airways Board, with union support, intends that similar working parties be set up to examine the scope for achieving greater productivity in other major parts of the group. It is only by seizing every opportunity to make more efficient use of the group's activities that British Airways will be able to hold and strengthen its leading place in the fiercely competitive world of civil aviation. It is perhaps worth emphasising that it is a fiercely competitive world in view of the debate we have just had.
May I very briefly refer to the Order's main feature. The most important provisions are contained in Articles 2 and 3, which have the effect of dissolving B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. on April 1, 1974, and simultaneously transferring to the British Airways Board all the outstanding property rights and liabilities of the two Corporations Your Lordships may well ask why this Order is being introduced now if the dissolution is not to take place until April 1. The answer is because of the mass of detailed legal formalities which have to be completed round the world before the two Corporations can be dissolved. For example, traffic rights now held by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C have been transferred to the British Airways Board, but the overseas property rights and liabilities of the two Corporations are not so simply or so quickly transferred to, and vested in, the British Airways Board as they are in the United Kingdom. In some countries the British Airways Board have found that the authorities there are reluctant to conclude matters before final Parliamentary approval for the dissolution of the Corporations has been obtained. It is for this reason that the British Airways Board have asked that the Order should be presented for Parliamentary approval at this stage so that they will have the early months of next year to bring all their negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.
I should perhaps explain the background to Article 5 of the Order which refers to certain overseas territories. Civil aviation licensing regulations in United Kingdom Colonies and other dependent territories do not apply to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in respect of journeys and routes specified by the Governor of the territory concerned. The Order will continue

523
exemptions in the listed territories by substituting references to "the British Airways Board" for references to the two separate Corporations in the appropriate regulations. This substitution of course involves no issue of policy. It simply ensures that the status quo will remain unaltered when the B.A.B. takes over responsibility for the air services from the two Corporations.
I began by saying that this Order marked a turning point in British civil aviation, and before I finish I should like to echo the sincere tribute which my noble friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping made in another place to all those who have, by their hard work over the years, helped to win for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. their leading positions among the airlines of the world As he said, few industries can rival the growth record of the airlines over the past quarter of a century. The contribution which the two Corporations have made to the development of British economy is quite incalculable. I know your Lordships will join me in wishing the British Airways Board even greater success in the next 25 years than it has achieved so far. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Air Corporations Dissolution Order 1973, laid before the House on November 29, be approved. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
2.12 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I understand that this business is really formal. Nevertheless, it would be improper to kiss B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. goodbye without saying "Thank you" to these two organisations and the people who make them up, as we, I will not say sign their death warrant, but sign their marriage documents. I have the sort of affection for "le BEA", as it is known in Europe, as I had for the Great Western Railway. It has transported me to many parts of the world most agreeably. I think your Lordships would wish this House to say "Thank you" to these two great companies as they marry and come together to create what may be an even more important and more effective organisation. The forecasts, as your Lordships probably know, are that because of this merger the profits will rise by £100 million in the first five years of the merger,
524
which is about £20 million a year, and £40 million a year thereafter. This will be achieved only if the right form of organisation is applied to the merger.
From what I have read it does seem that intelligence is being applied to create what is really a super-Corporation. The fact that the Joint Manpower Committee has agreed upon two very important moves towards rationalisation—and, as I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the techniques applied by the Joint Manpower Committee are going, to be applied in other aspects of the Corporation's work—makes me hope that a correct administrative structure will be provided for the new super-Corporation. All that I can do at this point is to give a blessing from this side of the House to the creation of the new Corporation; to say "Thank you" to B.O.A.C. and to B.E.A. and to wish the new British national airline every success in a competitive world—where, if I may underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, British airlines have been extremely successful. When many major companies lost money B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. seem to have achieved the important element of making a profit. May the new Corporation long continue to do that!
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, during the debate on the previous Motion before the House British Airways received a little rough treatment. I should like to pay my tribute to the overall picture of British Airways and pay also a tribute to B.O.A.C. and to B.E.A. as they disappear as separate Corporations. May I add my tribute to the staff of both those Corporations, and indeed to the staff of the new Corporation, for the splendid service they provide throughout the world and for the high reputation they enjoy for safety and for the provision of good service. At the present time British Airways face a very difficult period along with many other British airlines. There is a fuel shortage and a cutback in services and these create acute difficulties.
I should like to ask one question of my noble friend. It has been asked of me by a number of British airlines why the Government should not treat airlines as public transport, and why airlines should have been singled out as the only means of public transport to suffer a cut in fuel supplies. My noble friend will

525
appreciate that in Europe only Italy has cut the fuel consumption of its airline, and therefore our competitors are enabled to increase their share of a market which the British airlines have retained and kept to the fore. It would be a tragedy if a loss of passengers to British airlines occurred. Once passengers or routes have been lost to an airline it may take months or indeed years to recover them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something helpful on this issue.
2.18 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for the tributes which have been paid by noble Lords on both sides of the House to the achievements of the British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporations and also for the good wishes expressed for the success of the Airways Corporation of the future. As to the question asked of me by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, it is not for me to comment on the position adopted by other European Governments. The British Government did not consider that it was right or feasible to exempt the British airlines completely from the fuel economies which are being asked for from other sections of the community. It should be remembered that aviation fuel, kerosene, may be used for other purposes than flying aircraft. The Government believe that some rationalisation of services could be made without creating inconvenience to passengers, given that there have recently been a large number of empty seats on scheduled flights. This has proved possible. My noble friend will have seen the comments in the Press this morning on putting back some of these services.
May I also say to my noble friend that I do not think his fears about losing traffic to foreign airlines are justified, for the very good reason that other countries are as anxious as we are to economise in fuel and not to run light loaded, although this may not be so over the Christmas period, and we appreciate that problem. But it follows that it has been possible to negotiate with other airlines for the mutual reduction of services. So I do not think that my noble friend's fears on this account are justified, and I hope that he will accept that we have had regard to the needs of the travelling public at the present time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Aberaare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 30, line 34, at end insert—
("(3A) In consequence of the amendment in Part III of Schedule 5 to this Act relating to an offence under section 40(5) of the 1972 Act (contravention of construction and use regulations) in Part I of Schedule 4, in column 5 (disqualification) of the entry relating to section 40(5) of that Act—

(a) in paragraph (a), after the word,, "paragraph (a)" there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph (c)"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "Discretionary if committed by carrying on a motor vehicle or trailer a load which, by reason of its insecurity or position, is likely to cause danger, but subject to the exception above").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and, with the permission of your Lordships, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. This is a simple Amendment to which I have good reason for believing that during this festive season the Government may well give some consideration and support. It is to remove an anomaly in penalties for offences which involve infringement of different paragraphs of the Construction and Use Regulations relating to the safety of loads on vehicles. The maximum fine now is £200, and there is discretion to disqualify if the offence involves infringing the regulation that the weight and distribution, packing and adjustment of the load shall be at all times such that no danger is caused or likely to be caused.
Where there is an infringment of paragraph 2 of the Regulation which requires that the load at all times shall be so secure and in such a position that no danger is caused or likely to be caused by reason of the load, or part of it, falling

527
off, the maximum fine is only £50, and there is no discretion to disqualify. In paragraph 3, which prohibits the use of a vehicle for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause danger, or be likely to cause danger, the maximum fine in each case will now be doubled by Schedule 5 to the Bill as it stands. The Amendments under consideration would make the increased maximum fine of £400, and the discretion to disqualify applicable to all three types of offence. So far as I can see, there is no reason for the difference here.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment, coupled with Amendment No. 39 which the noble Baroness discussed as well, is to remove anomalies in the penalties for offences which involve infringment of the different paragraphs of the Construction and Use Regulations relating to the safety of loads on vehicles. This is indeed an anomaly, and we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Baroness for having seen this and for putting down these Amendments to get it right. We are more than happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of Part III of Road Traffic Act 1972]:
2.23 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 35.
Page 37, line 40, leave out ("more acute") and insert ("substantially more severe")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, Schedule 3 deals with certain Amendments to the Act of 1972. The Amendment which I propose is a purely verbal one. I do not think it raises any matters of principle; it is just a question as to what are the right words in which to describe the aims of this part of the Schedule. Your Lordships will remember that at present you have to sign a declaration every time you get a new driving licence, which is once in three years, to say that you are fit in various medical respects to drive a motor car. If there are to be opportunities for getting a licence almost for life, or, at any rate, until the age of 70 without further questions being asked, the question arises as to whether a person who knows he is suffering from a chronic disease
528
should be compelled to report, or be told that he must report, if at some stage this chronic disease becomes more serious. The examples which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, gave at an earlier stage of the Bill were sclerosis, by which I think he meant multiple sclerosis, arthritis and cataracts.
The point is that if this chronic disease becomes more serious, so that the person is seriously handicapped, then he must declare it, even though he has not reached the age when he has to apply for a new licence. The words used in this Bill are that if the licence holder becomes aware that a relevant or prospective disability from which he has at some time suffered has become more acute since the licence was granted, then he must report it. To my mind, the words "more acute" are not appropriate. As your Lordships will know, "chronic" relates simply to time, and a chronic disease is one that goes on for a long time and is very often incurable. Therefore, to the layman, "chronic" very often means incurable, but it does not necessarily have to be. A chronic disease may have acute exacerbation and thus become more acute. A good example of such a case is a person who suffers from bronchitis. For instance, during the winter he may develop a more acute phase of his bronchitis which puts him to bed with a high temperature for a few weeks, after which is is able to go back to what is for him a normal state of acute bronchitis. Therefore, in medical parlance, "acute" is the opposite of "chronic".
I hope that I am not speaking for too long on what is perhaps a minor point, but I should like to draw to the attention of your Lordships this kind of case. It is well illustrated by cataract, which gradually (over perhaps twenty years) becomes more and more serious so that sight becomes gradually more limited. Without any kind of change in timetable—any kind of acuteness—, it gradually reaches the stage when it is no longer proper for that person to be driving a motor car. For that reason, I would prefer the words "more acute" to be substituted for the words "substantially more severe". Since putting down this Amendment, I have wondered whether the words "substantially more disabling" would not have been more

529
appropriate, but I am quite happy to leave it to the Ministers in charge of the Bill to supply whatever they feel to be the most satisfactory wording.
Before I leave this point, I should like to ask your Lordships not to be put off by the fact that I have used the word "substantially", because whatever words one uses it is not possible to find a term which does not include sonic kind of subjective judgment on the part of somebody. Medical affairs are not black and white. You do not have a cataract which is not disabling on Wednesday but by Thursday morning has become seriously disabling. You have to describe it in comparative terms, even if you go a long way round and say that "it has reached the stage, in the opinion of the person concerned or that of his doctor when …". But you are nevertheless making judgments. I do not think there is any wording which will get us out of that difficulty altogether. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should have thought this was appropriate, for the adjective we normally use in relation to disability is "severe". We do not talk about people being "acutely disabled" but about being "severely disabled", and I should have thought that this was the right language to use.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for their observations. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, this is a matter of agreeing, and the important thing is to get it right. In all cases, what we are trying to do is to see that there is a duty to declare the onset of a new disability or the worsening of an existing one—and I am talking here of people with licences up to the age of 70. As your Lordships know, this is provided for in the new Section 87(1)(a) to the Road Traffic Act, 1972. In suitable cases, it might well be possible for the Secretary of State to grant an "until 70 licence" to somebody who is suffering from a disability provided that assurance can be given that the Secretary of State will be notified when the disability has worsened so that he may judge when the time has come to exchange the "until 70 licence" for a three year licence
530
or even revoke the licence completely. I am advised that the noble Lord's Amendment incorporating the word, "substantially" would leave a licence-holder free to judge when the time had come to disclose the disability affecting his driving more than it did when the licence was granted. This, I have to explain, would be unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that the word, "acute" has special significance in a medical context by contrast to the word "chronic", and that the word, "severe" would be more appropriate. I would completely agree and would not quarrel with those words, but there is, however, no evidence that the words, "more acute" in Section 87(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 have created any difficulty. We are dealing with words which are in an Act of Parliament already and have gone through thte test of the law courts. If this were amended, the Act would have to be amended as well. The word before "more acute" removes the possibility of the type of misunderstanding that may be worrying the noble Lord. While therefore "severe" might be acceptable if used in Sections 87(3)(a) and 87(1)(b), there is no case for departing from the well-tried words, "more acute". We feel the addition of the word "substantially" would not be acceptable. I accept that it is playing with words, but, bearing in mind that the test of law is established in this matter, and that it has not given rise to any trouble in the past, I ask the noble Lord to consider this matter and in fact leave it as it is.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we have already spoken to this Amendment earlier on. This is the main substance of what we were discussing on Amendment No. 18. I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) In the said section 101(7), as it applies in relation to an application for the issue of a new licence made on or after the day appointed under section 27 of this Act for the coming into operation of this sub-paragraph, for the words "three" and "ten" there shall be substituted the words "four" and "eleven".")—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Variation of penalties for certain offences]:
2.33 p.m.
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 52, line 20, column 4, at beginning insert ("3 months or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount and your Lordships will agree that in moving this Amendment, which I now formally move, it will be advisable to deal at the same time with the subsequent Amendments on the Marshalled List in the names of the noble Baronesses and myself, as the main points I desire to make apply to them all. I understand that the Government's object in bringing in this new provision is to reduce the number of motor cases at present being heard in the Crown Courts. The way this is being done is by withdrawing from the magistrates' court the right to impose imprisonment, and thus the defendant will not be able to opt for trial at the Crown Court. However, the prosecution will still be able to ask for the case to be heard in the Crown Court on the ground that it is of a very serious nature, or that the defendant has a bad record. It may well be that as many cases will reach the Crown Court as at the present time because, as your Lordships are aware, the number of cases of imprisonment are very small in so far as the magistrates' courts are concerned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but he is so far on a wholly false assumption. We are discussing a series of Amendments, and he says that the main object is to remove cases from the Crown Court. The first two sets of Amendments relate to cases which cannot go to the Crown Court anyway.
LORD JANNER: I am dealing with a number of cases—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want the noble Lord to be under a misapprehension here, and I am sorry to interrupt him. He said that the main object of the Government in all these Amendments is to remove cases from the Crown Court. That simply is not so. The first two Amendments deal with offences which are already summary,
532
and summary only. I think that should be clearly understood by the House.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I naturally accept the point of view of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and I will deal, therefore, with the first two Amendments. I thought I would save the time of your Lordships' House as much as I possibly could, but apparently that would not be quite in order. As your Lordships are aware, at the present time magistrates are entitled to deal with some cases where custodial sentences can be given by them. The Magistrates' Association, which your Lordships will no doubt know is a highly efficient body representing the vast majority of magistrates in the country, has considered this matter in depth, as has the representing body of the justices' clerks, on a number of occasions. They have given careful consideration to the case put forward by Her Majesty's Government in support of the provisions contained in this Bill, but they are still con-convinced that these contentions do not answer their reasons for opposing the terms of the Bill. The magistrates and justices' clerks have a vast experience in dealing with the type of case which is being considered. Justices' clerks are, in the main, professional lawyers, and of course specialists in cases which come before the magistrates' courts. The magistrates are men and women who have been chosen in consequence of their suitability for this work, who now have to be trained before they are allowed to sit in Court.
Today they sit in the Crown Courts together with the judge, with the result that their decisions on sentencing can out-vote the opinion of the sitting judge. That is an extremely important matter, because in fact what the Government are trying to do now is to say that they are not capable, or that they ought not to be entitled to form a decision in those cases in which imprisonment is involved. They will have that power in the Crown Court, in the event of their disagreeing with the judges. It must be clear that magistrates are anxious to see that the cases are treated in a just and effective manner. I hope that the Government will now accept, on reflection, their proposals, taking what I have said into consideration, as some of your Lordships on both

533
sides of the House who are magistrates have done. They are particularly concerned, as am I, that the removal of custodial sentences will not have the result desired by the Government and themselves. They certainly have no personal interest in the matter, as you, Lordships are fully aware. Their object, as is mine and that of my noble friends, is to have a satisfactory procedure for dealing effectively with cases which come before them.
The Bill provides for the prosecution, but not the defendant, to ask for such a trial as can bring custodial sentence. The magistrates will have the right to decide whether the case shall go to trial in the Crown Court or be heard in the magistrates' court. In view of what I have said, this is obviously not desirable. The variations of what kind of access is taken in respect of a case does not depend only on the prima facie evidence which the prosecution has been able to gather—I would point this out and I hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate the point I am making—but upon the actual evidence which comes out in the court in the course of the hearing of the case itself. It may very well be that the prosecution in presenting its case—I should like to draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention to this because I think it is a very strong point—would not be aware of the serious nature of the offence itself until the witnesses themselves have been cross-examined and the magistrates have put their questions to the witnesses and have seen them and formed conclusions, not only from the verbal evidence given but also from the manner in which the evidence was given. Thus, in a number of cases which the prosecution might have considered not to have justified a sentence of imprisonment, and which would result in the case not being sent to the Crown Court, it might very well have appeared to be clear to the magistrates, on hearing the evidence, that the prosecution had been wrong in deciding the case to be a serious one—wrong, not through any fault of their own, possibly, but because the actual facts and the examination of the facts were not available.
Surely, this is one of the main reasons for a trial resulting in a proper decision. The idea that the imposition of a larger
534
fine alone can provide a deterrent is not feasible, for reasons which I think your Lordships will readily appreciate. What does it mean? Any court, of course, has to decide what sentence is an appropriate deterrent or penalty. It has to take into consideration in the cases concerned what are the financial or other circumstances of the defendant. A fine of £400 could mean very little indeed to a person who is in affluent circumstances, and that person would be entirely protected against any custodial sentence in his case, where trial would be only by the magistrates' court. Likewise, with a man earning £20 or £30 a week, he cannot afford £400 any more than he can afford the present maximum. The maximum fine would have little effect in the majority of cases coming before the magistrates' court, but the important point is that the public will get the impression that bad motoring offences are not now considered to be serious, and this will have a psychological effect on the dangerous driver. It will become known, or it will be thought, that we are going soft or dangerous—reckless in respect of reckless and drunken driving.
In addition to what I have just said, there are certain side effects of the withdrawal of the right to imprisonment in a magistrates' court which are of great importance and which have not been dealt with by the Government; nor is an Amendment down of any nature to cover the points. That is the problem of people who do not pay their fines. How are the Government going to deal with the position? It means, obviously, that people can ignore the imposition or the result of the imposition of a fine, and they cannot in many cases—in most cases, if not in all—be brought to a court for the purpose of an imposition other than the fine. If this Bill is passed in its present form a person who does not pay his fine cannot, as I understand it, be brought back by warrant to the court. It may be that the Government have another explanation of it, but that is my view of the matter. He may come from an unknown address.
I think an Amendment should be passed to give the magistrates' courts the right to issue warrants. I say this in passing. At present they are not in a position to do that; they would not be in a position to do that if the Bill were carried as it stands at present. The taking away of the right to imprison would also take

535
away the right of the court to detain a person for various motoring offences. This would prevent courts from making detention centre orders, attendance centre orders or community service orders. At one stage the noble Viscount said that he was considering this matter with regard to detention orders (although he later withdrew it with regard to detention orders); but what has happened? We are faced at the present time with a position which does not cover those points at all, and consequently the situation is not being met.
The Minister may recall that the London branch of the Magistrates' Association conducted a survey in depth on the two senior attendance courses, at Greenwich and at Manchester, and drew up a report which strongly recommended that more senior attendance centres should be opened, where there should be attendances on Saturday afternoons for two or three hours at a time until the full number of hours had been completed. The Home Office decided that as they were then about to bring into force community service orders they would not open more senior attendance centres until the experiment of community service orders had been tried. Senior attendance centres are used to a very considerable extent for persistent road traffic offenders, not necessarily for the more dangerous offences. It therefore follows that the Government expected such offences to receive community service orders. This will deprive the Bill of a very useful treatment for the young offenders in the adult court, both as regards the attendance centres and the community service centres. Detention centres where a defendant can be sent for three or six hours are also frequently used for motoring offences and they act as a useful deterrent for the young offender, to prevent him from getting deeper into crime. These, too, will not be available for use.
Perhaps even more important is the effect on the juvenile courts, where attendance centre orders and detention centre orders are useful forms of treatment for motoring offences. Juveniles who make a habit of riding without "L" plates, without a supervisor, with falsified licences and who indulge in various forms of road traffic offences are being dealt
536
with in this way. By taking away these powers from the juvenile courts, what are they left with? They are left with fines, or making a supervision or care order, which in effect to-day means very little indeed.
When the Children and Young Persons Act came into force the dates for bringing into effect the various provisions were left open. One of the provisions was abolishing detention centres. I would point out to the noble Viscount that this Government decided that not only should junior detention centres not be closed but that more should be opened. In other words, there has been a decision for the time being that detention centres are very useful treatment centres for juvenile offenders. As I have said already, motoring offences are offences for which the juvenile court can make a detention centre order and it is quite absurd that these powers should be taken away and the juvenile court left practically powerless. There would seem to me to be no reason why the Government cannot support this Amendment and restore to the adult magistrates' court and juvenile court the possibility of imposing some useful deterrents and treatment, even if they did not send the adult to prison. I greatly hope that the Government will think this imperative.
My noble friends and I have confined the Amendments to what we consider to be some of the most serious matters, matters which involve personal injury. I am sure my noble friends will be talking about other matters, but the Amendment I am moving at present deals with failure to stop when an accident has occurred. Why this should be considered in the manner in which the Government want to deal with it I cannot understand. This is not a matter of deep research. Everybody knows very well, and certainly anyone who has practised in a court knows very well, that it is a most serious thing for a person to fail to stop when an accident has occurred. It may very well mean that a person has been killed in consequence of that accident, and if the driver neither stops nor gives a report, then obviously he is committing a most serious offence, even though he may be innocent of anything which may be considered a crime in consequence of what took place. But the fact is that these cases are not infrequent. It is an extremely serious

537
matter, as are the other offences to which I have referred.
My Lords, we are coming towards the end of the consideration of this Bill in this House. We have left out a very large number of offences—I have a list here—and there are dozens of offences with which we are not proposing to deal at all. Perhaps they may be considered later on in another place. They may consider that some other offences ought to be dealt with in a similar manner to the offence in this Amendment. But surely the time has come when the Government must realise that they must take the opinion of experienced people, the man or woman who is daily on the job and who knows what is happening, who has had the handling of these matters and has never abused them but who is going to have his or her hands tied if the Bill remains in its present form. In these circumstances, the House will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that this and the subsequent Amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.
2.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE (HOME OFFICE) VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I wonder if I could intervene at this stage, because at the end of the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I think, would like to contribute to this discussion. I ought to tell the House the results of the thoughts that I promised the noble Baroness I would have about some of the points she has raised, but perhaps I may first say a word about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Janner.
I entirely agree with him that he has picked the hard core of this offence. I am not absolutely sure that tampering, which is the subject of an Amendment, is part of the hard core, but for the most part I agree that here we are really dealing with the crux of the matter, and the noble Lord has selected it, quite rightly. I also entirely understand that this is a matter upon which people feel very strongly. I hope that there is no thought among the body of magistrates that there is some exercise here by the Government whereby we are denigrating the good sense and the experience of the magistracy; that we are in some way undermining their status; that we are devaluing their position; that we are "knocking" the magistrates. There is absolutely
538
no question of this, and I said so on the previous occasion. I see the noble Lord nodding his head, but I must emphasise this part, because it is too awful that anybody should think the Government are doing this. We have no doubt whatever about the value of the magistrates' experience, and the work they do; it is immensely appreciated, and there is no question of our trying to undermine them in any way.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Viscount permit me? I am sorry to interrupt and I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so. I do not think anyone would suggest that there is any denigration intended by the Government. What we say is that unfortunately the noble Viscount and his colleagues have not appreciated the points that have been made by the magistrates, who are really in a better position, if I may say so with due respect, than those handling the matter for the Government.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have made that point. I will now come to those points, in a minute, if I may. I do not think we have failed to appreciate the points; I think we have appreciated them perfectly well, and I should like to set out the arguments on them.
It is just worth repeating (I do not want to go through the whole of my speech in Committee) that if it is a matter of showing how serious one considers these offences to be, there is the provision for a greatly increased fine and there is a retention of the power to go on indictment to the Crown Court. May I just say that if we are really arguing this point on the basis that the prosecution did not know, until it heard the evidence cross-examined or the witnesses questioned by the magistrates, that this was a very serious offence, then I am afraid I do not think the cure for this is to retain the power of imprisonment in the magistrates' court; the cure for that is to get rather more efficient prosecutors. Because, quite frankly, if they did not realise that this was a very serious offence, having looked at the evidence which they themselves collected and were going to present, having looked at the record of previous convictions, I am afraid it is not an efficient prosecution. It cannot quite honestly be argued upon that basis.

539
Let us look at some of the details of what the noble Lord has been arguing about. I am not going to give all the figures again about the number of people who were imprisoned, because I did that before, and I think I probably convinced the Committee on the previous stage that this is in fact a power, whether it is actual instant imprisonment or indeed suspended imprisonment, which is used very seldom by the magistrates and very much as a last resort. The noble Baroness, if I may say so, on the last stage of the Bill really gripped this subject when she said, if I may paraphrase her, I hope accurately, that the magistrates do not want the power to imprison simply for the sake of imprisoning people. That is what the Government say, too, and I cannot make this too clear. We wish to take an opportunity that we have in the Road Traffic Bill to do away with the power to send people for short terms of imprisonment when we think that there is no requirement to imprison them for the protection of the public. This is our stated general policy. We wish to implement it on occasions when we think we can, and here we have such an occasion.
Let us look at some of the consequences of trying to carry out that policy and to put into practice what we preach. Let us first of all see about the burden on the Crown Court. Again I am not going to go into the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has just suggested that the result of this Bill may very well be that there will be as many cases in the Crown Court as there were before. I should be surprised if this were so. It is really my noble and learned friend's sphere of activity, but why is it that 96 per cent. of the options to go for trial for the drink and drugs offences under the Road Traffic Act go at the election of the accused, the defendant? Only 4 per cent. go on indictment at the election of the prosecution. Why is it that 100 per cent. of the dangerous or reckless driving cases that go to the Crown Court go on the election of the defendant, and nil per cent. on the election of the prosecution? Does this indicate that if we make this change we are going to have the same, or anything like the same, number of cases tried by
540
the jury in the Crown Court? I would suggest ont.
Let us look at one or two of the other consequential but, I accept, extremely important matters that I promised the noble Baroness I would look at. I accept that if one removes the power to imprison one removes a number of other things as well. I have considered very carefully with my advisers whether there is any way round this difficulty. I should like to tell the noble Baroness and others who are interested the conclusions we reached. I am afraid they are very disappointing, but this is not for the lack of my trying. I hope that this may be accepted.
First of all, let us take the community service orders. I agree that community service orders are, so far as we can see, very promising, or reasonably promising, as an alternative to imprisonment. But those who took part in the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill last year will know that these orders were specifically tied to a situation where otherwise the person would have gone to prison, either directly or on a suspended sentence, and they were intended to be a replacement for prison. The whole experiment—it started in six areas—has been worked upon that basis. The magistrates are operating it on that basis, and the whole thing is being monitored and tested on that basis, to see whether it is a viable alternative to imprisonment. We shall never come to any sensible conclusion about this if we change our datum in the middle.
I have been convinced by those who say that we cannot now change the criteria upon which community service orders can be imposed. No longer are they to be the result of the tremendous discussions that took place on the Criminal Justice Bill on this subject only eighteen months ago. No longer is this to be maintained any more. We are totally to change the situation. If we are to test out these community service orders, to see whether they are effective—and I pray that they will be—we must stick to our guns and use them as a genuine alternative for imprisonment, at any rate until we have experimented with them. With a slightly heavy heart I have to come down in favour of the argument that we must keep these as an alternative to imprisonment. Therefore, if imprisonment goes, then the power

541
of the magistrates on these road traffic offences to use the community service order must go, too. It is logical, and I think it is logic that makes sense.
Then we have the whole area of the young offenders. Here again I should dearly like to be able to report some progress. I know that there are in the detention centres and borstals a fairly substantial number of young men who have committed road traffic offences. May I preface this part of my remarks by saying that if what they have done is to take conveyances without consent, which is what many of them have done, this offence is prosecuted under the Theft Act and not under the Road Traffic Acts, and it is not covered by this provision. So that we can leave that out of account altogether. That is quite an important consideration, because quite a number of those who are in the young offenders establishments are there for that offence. They may have been sentenced for dangerous driving as well, but the reason they are there is because it is a t.w.o.c. case.
What about the rest of them? Borstal was never available to the magistrates: they have to commit to the Crown Court. The detention centres at the moment are available, but they are imprisonment, There is no doubt, if you read the letters of those who are in a detention centre, that they regard it as imprisonment; and so do their parents. And, I must say, when I have been to see them so do I, Let us see on Lord Janner's case how much use the juvenile courts that the noble Lord was talking about have made of this power. In 1972 there were 19,000 cases of motoring offences and 300 junior detention centre orders were made. Again, my Lords, this is the very margin of the activities of the courts and it is only in very extreme cases that they make these orders.
Regarding attendance centres, the same 19,000 motoring offences for the junior attendance centres (that is from ages 14 to 17: the juvenile court cases) only 184 orders were made. That is to say in 19,000 cases in those two categories, only 484 attendance centre orders were made. This is very much in line with the general penalties being handed out by magistrates to offenders as a whole. I have to add that we are expecting the Report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System very soon. In this Bill I have to
542
resist legislation which changes the penalties available to the courts for young offenders, because we must wait and look at this matter as a whole. I should not be surprised if the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, were to agree with me on that. We want to debate the whole subject and get the thing straight.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I have already had the Report.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords; but the public have not. Therefore I have to add this footnote that on the young offender side we must wait and we ought not to make a change by this Bill. The noble Baroness mentioned hospital orders, and I have looked this up, too. In 1972, I think, about 1 million cases came before the magistrates' courts. That total includes motoring cases—it may be that there were 1 million motoring cases. Only four hospital orders were made, and I should have thought that such orders, which have to be based on a certain amount of medical knowledge in advance, meant that the cases were suitable for indictment. Therefore I think we are at the very fringe of the problem.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Would the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt him, before he extends his argument, which is very convincing? I think we all know that the moment you change powers of punishment because you have not needed to use them very much until then, the very next day you get a case about which you say, "If only we had been able to do this …". I think it is a slightly dangerous argument; one could almost say that we do not really need as many laws as we have because so very rarely do we have to deal with people under them.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hear my noble and learned friend saying that we do not need so many laws, and I should think he is absolutely right; and I certainly agree with him.
But may I come on to the last of the consequentials, which is the question of finance? I know that magistrates feel very strongly about this aspect. I have looked into this as well. The only thing that is lost is the power to compel attendance before the fine is imposed. That

543
can be done only if there is power to imprison. Take away the power to imprison, while you can fine somebody in his absence you cannot compel him to be there. On the other hand, if he does not come, he fails to attend at his peril, because the magistrate can impose whatever penalty he thinks fit and the defendant has no opportunity to complain that he cannot afford the fine or to ask for time to pay. That is the only thing that is lost.
Let us see what is not lost. Without his attendance the magistrates are not empowered to disqualify him from driving. Therefore if he is not there he cannot be disqualified: he has to be sent for, and he will not be disqualified unless he turns up. Equally, if he is fined, either in his presence or in his absence, he can be arrested and brought before the court if he does not pay. So the only thing that is lost is the power to compel attendance before the fine is imposed. And I would just add, finally, that of course if the defendant is arrested because he does not pay and is then brought back to show cause why he does not pay; and if the magistrate goes through the assessment of means and all that sort of thing, and gives him time and the defendant still does not pay, he can be sent to prison for default under the ordinary fine enforcement proceedings. It may be marginally more cumbersome, but there are still substantial reserve powers to deal with people who do not pay their fines to bring them before the magistrates to explain why and, if their explanation is not satisfactory, to send them to prison.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. Does the Bill enable a warrant to be issued for the arrest of a person who has failed to pay a fine?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, because the existing law does. There is no necessity to change the law; that matter is perfectly satisfactorily dealt with under the law as it stands. I have accurately explained the position so far as I know. Of course I shall apologise if I am wrong, but I believe my advisers have got it right and that I have accurately set out the situation.
544
There it is, my Lords; this is the argument. I went through the figures and the arguments at Committee stage. I know that feelings are very strong on this matter. I suggest to the House that the number of occasions on which magistrates wish to use custodial penalties are precisely those cases which can be identified by an efficient prosecution beforehand and dealt with on indictment; that we are reinforcing our view of the seriousness of these offences by putting up the fines; and that we have, albeit a little reluctantly, come to the conclusion that we have on non-custodial sentences. I should just add that day training sentences remain, because they are not dependent upon prison, but apart from that I have been through them. I cannot go into details, but the reasons are I think fairly valid reasons, or at any rate they are respectable, and can be argued. It is now for the House to decide: do we or do we not wish to take this opportunity to take away prison as a penalty where we think that there is no requirement that the courts should have it in their powers? That is the issue.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER. My Lords, I must apologise for not having been present at the beginning of this discussion, but I gather we are discussing a series of Amendments together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords; we are discussing Nos. 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I should like to say that it seems to me that they are on a rather different footing, and that the case is very much stronger in regard to No. 37, which I think is the one immediately before the House, than it is in regard to some of the others.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think we are adding confusion to confusion. Originally, we asked if we could move these Amendments together. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that of course there was a difference, and my noble friend then said that we would deal with the first two. So we are not discussing the last batch of Amendments.
3.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. I was under the impression (I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I gather I am from what the noble Baroness says; and it is important to me, because I have got to put the Question) that we were discussing the series but voting separately on the individual Amendments. But if it is now the case that we are discussing only Nos. 37 and 38, then I hope that we shall act on that basis and discuss the later ones later. It may be more convenient, because the reasoning behind the later ones is certainly quite different from the reasoning behind the first two.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Except this, my Lords, that I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not make another speech.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: In those circumstances, my Lords, am I in order in speaking solely to No. 37?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I thank the noble and learned Lord. No-one could be more enthusiastic about community service orders than I am, and for very good reasons, and nobody could be less enthusiastic about sending people to prison who are not a danger to the community. But I would suggest that a person who demonstrably is a danger to the community is a person who fails to stop after an accident. A great deal depends, I know, upon the nature of the accident. It can be quite trivial; and in these cases the magistrates impose a fine and nothing further happens. The person found guilty is probably very shocked by the proceedings, and is no danger to the community. But we all know of cases where people cause accidents and very serious injuries and fail to stop. I should have thought that this sort of case—a very much stronger case than the other situations covered by these Amendments—was one in which a reserve power for the magistrates to imprison should be kept. It is quite true to say that the prosecutor would realise the seriousness of the case and ask for it to be sent to the Crown Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It cannot be.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: In that case, my Lords, I misunderstood the noble Viscount. There seems to be a slight difference of opinion between the legal authorities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend has failed to read his brief. I am only looking at the brief. We are talking about Amendment No. 37. The brief says that both these offences are purely summary offences.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: We really must get this straight, my Lords. This is absolutely right, but the others on which I was also speaking are hybrids. I was talking about indictments because I thought that we were discussing all the Amendments. It is perfectly true that the first two are not hybrids, but those in the other Amendments are.
BARONESS WOOTTON or ABINGER: My Lords, now that our learned legal authorities are of one mind, this strengthens my case, because the let-out of the case going to the Crown Court is no longer available.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not anxious to weaken the noble Baroness's case. I was asking that she should not proceed on a false hypothesis, even if it was strengtheing her case to do so.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am sure that the learned and noble Lord always acts with judicial impartiality. May I come back to my case; that is, that the offence of failing to stop after an accident varies from the trivial to the extremely serious. It is true that magistrates may impose very high fines, but experience shows that the maximum fine imposable for any offence is usually a very long way away from the maximum fine actually imposed for an offence. I should have thought that if we were going to accept the principle—which I would fully endorse—that one only imprisons in extreme cases persons who are a danger to the community, here we have such a case. Magistrates can imprison persons who burgle houses. No, I am wrong—magistrates cannot imprison persons who burgle houses; they can imprison persons who burgle premises other than dwelling houses. I should have thought that a person who causes serious accidents involving injury is a

547
great danger to the community. He may be well-to-do and quite able to pay a fine of £100, or a fine of £50 or £60, which is more probable, and he may not be deterred from acting in the same way again. I would strongly urge upon the House that this Amendment is one which stands rather in a class apart from those which follow.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but may I quote two examples which I know personally, and then bring them together? Rather late one night my wife and I parked at the kerb in order to look at a shop. She wanted to do so. We both got out of the car, fortunately. Just at that moment a driver came along at about 70 m.p.h. and drove smack into the back of my car on the offside wing. He almost ran up the wing. I saw this. He slid off, went on, and no one ever found him. No one was hurt.
The other example I want to quote is the case where my wife and I were coming home again late one night when the roads were deserted. We saw a very serious accident. I should not like to say which driver was at fault, but a car crossing the main road double carriageway was hit in the rear portion very hard by another car again travelling at great speed. In this case the person had to stop because his own car was damaged and he was injured. It so happens that my wife and I were the only people there.
I combine these two stories because this is exactly what would have happened had my wife and I been in my car on the other occasion. There were four people in the car in front. The man in the front nearside seat was clearly dead. A young girl had come through the back window of the care. Her legs were hanging over the back of the seat and her body was curved over the bonnet. She was bleeding very badly from the mouth. There was simply no one there except my wife and I. I held that girl in a horizontal position while my wife rang for an ambulance. I held her for 20 minutes at least, and your Lordships may imagine the strain that caused. But later I had the satisfaction of learning from the hospital that my action had undoubtedly saved her life. I think that any driver with a sense of what should be done surely would report such an
548
accident. Having looked at the Schedule I see that the fine which may be imposed is now £100. Both morally and also from the point of view of the damage which may be caused one asks, "Is this enough?" If there is an answer, in the sense of action capable of being taken elsewhere, I should like to know. I apologise for intervening, but this is a matter of which I had personal experience. It was a shocking experience and so I was moved to say the few words that I have said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, clearly the House will have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Collison. It must indeed have been an agonising experience, at any rate on the second of the two occasions which he described. Nothing which I am about to say is designed in any way to qualify what I have just said. But I think that we must try to clear our minds about these first two Amendments and what we are talking about and what we are not talking about. My view has always been that this kind of Amendment in this kind of case is very much overdue. May I say two things by way of preface. I share to the full the respect and admiration for the Magistrates' Association expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. As the noble and learned Lord whom I see below the Gangway will know full well, Lord Chancellors are President of that Association ex officio. I do not think that they could carry on their work in this particular department of their business were it not for the mutual co-operation and respect with which the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Magistrates' Association regard each other. Therefore, nothing that I say must in any way be construed as critical either of the Magistrates' Association or of magistrates in general. When I refer to them separately it is because I believe that the Association is a 98 per cent. "closed shop". So, happily, there are few magistrates who are not also members of the Magistrates' Association.
The other thing I want to say is that I do not want in any way to deny the basic seriousness of the two offences or the three offences which we are discussing under the first two Amendments; under Section 25(4) of the principal Act, failing to stop after an accident and

549
giving particulars or reporting the accident; under Section 9, tampering with motor vehicles, and regarding the second of the two Amendments, driving uninsured or unsecured against third party risks. These are serious matters and they are commonly dealt with by monetary penalties of a relatively serious kind. Part of this exercise is to ensure that they are covered by monetary penalties rather more serious either than the maximum now allowed or that magistrates commonly inflict.
May I also say that I am commonly depicted by people who criticise my utterances as being a sort of hard-liner on crime who spends his time chewing glass and bleeding at the mouth. The fact of the matter is that I do not want to be soft on crime at all. But, equally, if anybody knows the state of our prisons at the present time and if anybody reflects on the little value to a man's or girl's or boy's character by taking away their liberty for three months and then letting them out again, all I can say is that they would be as keen as I am to get rid of short sentences of imprisonment whenever we can, partly because it does no good to the criminal who is treated in this way—if he is going to prison, he ought usually to go for a longer period—and partly because it makes almost impossible the task of those who wish to make our prisons, badly designed and disgustingly sanitated as they are, slightly more civilised places. I feel that strongly, and I think we are losing sight of it in talking about relatively minor motoring offences. I start therefore with the strong conviction that prison is altogether inappropriate in these cases. I also say that it is quite wrong to talk as if we were taking away from the magistrates their right to send to prison. That is not what we are doing. We are stating, if Parliament supports us, that we do not think prison is an appropriate penalty to impose for a type of offence. That is Parliament's business and, with the greatest respect to the Magistrates' Association, not magistrates' business.
As a matter of fact—and I can speak with a long experience of magistrates' courts going back to 1933—I have never known a sentence of imprisonment inflicted for any of the offences covered by these two Amendments, although I think some of them were not offences during part
550
of my experience at the Bar. I find that my experience is incomplete, because taking failure to stop, which the noble Baroness described as the worst offence, I find that there were 13,500 cases of conviction in 1972 for that offence, of which 38 only were sent to prison—something like 2 per cent. I ask the House to consider what this reflects. Does it mean that a given bench of magistrates, having 100 such cases in the course of about five years, will select two appropriately bad ones and send those miscreants to prison? My Lords, it does not. Do not let us deceive ourselves. The reality is that it reflects a slightly inconsistent sentencing policy on the part of some benches. What in fact one wants to avoid more than most things is an inconsistent sentencing policy about relatively minor offences in different parts of the country. If prison is used as a deterrent to that extremely limited extent, I should have thought that the case for abolishing it was absolutely overwhelming.
My Lords, I move on from that to the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. He began by talking about the alternative sentences which the noble Baroness talked about in Committee stage. I share most of my noble friend's predilection for these novel methods of sentencing, but I should like to put a rather more broad and perhaps philosophical point about the treatment of the young in magistrates' courts, These alternative methods of dealing with young people—community service and attendance centres—are designed as alternatives to prison. I beg the House to accept that they are not designed as additional nasty ways of treating young people. They are designed in order that when a young person comes before you for whom prison would otherwise be the inevitable sentence, you give him something other than prison. They are not designed to substitute, in a case where an adult would get a fine, a kind of alternative to prison for a young person. It is by treating young people in this way that magistrates get themselves a bad name. Young people are to be treated for the purposes of sentencing at least as kindly as adults, and I should think more so.
The next thing I should like to say is this. What one has to consider in this

551
case is not the kind of horror put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Collison. Quite obviously, if a man drives dangerously, drunkenly or carelessly, fails to stop and is later caught, he ought to be prosecuted for failing to stop. But that is not the case you posit when you are discussing the maximum penalty for that offence, because if the man is caught he will be punished for driving dangerously, drunkenly or carelessly, and, I hope, punished severely. The case you have to posit for the logical discussion of an offence of this kind is not the case where the man has driven dangerously, but the case where he has not driven dangerously and can be prosecuted only for failing to stop, unaccompanied by the aggravation of any other crime. The question that the House must face is not what you would do to such a man if he had driven dangerously: the answer is that you would treat him as having driven dangerously, and this offence would be subsumed under the dangerous driving offence and a nominal penalty, perhaps, attached in addition to cover it. But you have to consider the case where he has done nothing else except fail to stop. If you really face that issue, my respectful submission to the House is that, in the light of sentencing policy which we have been trying to persuade the public of for years now, short sentences of imprisonment are to be avoided if possible and the only answer you can give, if that offence is isolated from any other criminal offence, is that the person ought not to be sent to prison.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that I interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I think it must be some time since he has heard these cases in the courts. It is a fact that the only convincing evidence that can be brought before the court is evidence of failure to stop, although there may have been a very strong probability that he drove dangerously, and so forth. I do not raise the question of drunken driving, but where very serious injury has been caused to somebody and the driver has not stopped, I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that there is a great a priori probability that he has a sense of responsibility or guilt about it, and in any case it is the only charge which will lie.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness is shocking me more than I liked to be shocked. If there is no evidence that that man drove dangerously, he must not be punished for another offence on the assumption that he may have driven dangerously. If the only charge which lies is failing to stop, and nothing else, then I would submit that prison is an inappropriate sentence and that a sentence of three months, even if you inflicted the maximum, would do no good. This is an attempt to turn away from the sentencing policy, about which I had thought Parliament was fully agreed, and to do it in relation to an offence for which custodial sentence is totally inappropriate if it stands by itself. If it does not stand by itself, then I respectfully submit to the House that the penalty should be inflicted for the offence which is proved and not for any offence which may be suspected.
I fully agree that the offence of failing to stop is one which ought to be treated seriously, and I hope I have said nothing which does not imply that. That maximum penalty is being multiplied by four, but I still maintain that the maximum penalty for that offence alone ought to be a monetary penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, attempted to ask: "But what if he does not pay his fine?" Apart from the technicalities, which have already been answered by my noble friend so I will not repeat them, the short point, as my noble friend demonstrated, is that that situation arises when anybody is fined. That, if it is to be accepted, would be an argument against fining anybody. The fact is for a very large number of offences a fine is the penalty inflicted by the court; indeed, for a very long list of offences it is the only penalty the court may inflict. In my respectful submission, to say that the fact that a man may not pay his fine is a reason for imposing a sentence of imprisonment in the first instance, is to put the cart before the horse and move away from the kind of liberal approach to sentencing policy which I feel sure we all want to see. I submit that on these two cases the sentence of imprisonment is obsolete. The length of sentence contemplated will do more harm than good, and the power should be swept away, as in many other cases where there

553
is an option to send to prison for three months.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, there are two points which I, as a serving magistrate, feel that the noble and learned Lord, with respect, seems to have overlooked. Regarding his very able argument about the use of such alternatives as the community service order, and that it should be used only instead of imprisonment, I think he is overlooking the great difficulty that many magistrates' courts are in every day in these particular times when they do not want to send people to prison. So far as I am concerned—and a great many colleagues in my court and in other courts take exactly the same view—magistrates get to a stage where they are either at the end of the road with, for instance, a young person, and the idea of paying a fine or even a disqualification has either been tried before or does not work, and they want to use the community service order instead of imprisonment. It becomes a fatuous argument to say that the courts would send them to prison. Taking it quite coldly, magistrates may want to say that the person should be sent to prison, but in fact they would rather use a community service order instead. They cannot do so, however, because according to the Criminal Justice Act the order can be used only instead of imprisonment. I would say that this and that provision ought to be made for magistrates' courts to be able to use these alternatives.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Baroness used, perhaps inadvertently, the example of driving while disqualified. Nobody denies that prison for driving while disqualified is an appropriate sentence; that is not what this Amendment is dealing with.
BARONESS BIRK: I did not say that, my Lords. What I said was that we had often tried disqualification; that has been used but then the person comes before a magistrate for another offence. I think this means that the whole aspect of sentencing ought to be looked at. Why on earth do the Government not wait for the James Committee Report? The James Committee are sitting at the moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but the James Committee have
554
nothing to do with this Amendment at all.
BARONESS BIRK: I am sorry; I am confusing the Amendments.
My Lords, I do not want the right of imprisonment: I want the right to be able to use other methods. I also want the right to be able to compel the defendant to come to court, not on a warrant when he or she has not paid a fine, but to ensure they have to go to the trouble of coming to court. For many people the actual appearance in a court is really part of the penalty. I object to what I call a "post office method" of dealing with these matters. As the noble Viscount said, the defendant cannot be compelled to attend, and that does away with what should be in some cases a more personal relationship between the court and the defendant.
3.40 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg to disagree with the conclusions he has formed from some of the arguments he has used. Let me put it in a simple form. If, in fact, the magistrates have sentenced very few people to imprisonment, although there have been many cases and many offences committed, does it not show that the magistrates themselves are capable of deciding whether imprisonment should be inflicted? They have experience and ability. I say this with the greatest respect, but some of us have practised in their courts, and know this to be the case. The fact of the matter is that magistrates have before them thousands of cases a year and they do not sentence people to imprisonment unless they are satisfied that this is the only way in which the case can be dealt with. Under this Bill they are deprived of that possibility. I say that that is entirely wrong.
With regard to the point the noble Viscount made in relation to failing to stop, if a person fails to stop he may regard it as a trivial matter, and motorists, unless there is a possibility of sentencing a person to prison for this offence, will regard the whole thing as trivial. It may well be that the consequences of an accident have not been fully understood by the person who has failed to stop. It is highly essential that any person who fails to stop should be

555
liable to a term of imprisonment if the magistrates think this is appropriate, apart from any other offence which he may have committed. This is my view and I think it is the view of the magistrates and they are entitled to express it. I do not want to detain the House any longer; we are getting towards the end of the day. Many arguments could be used. I am hoping your Lordships will go to a vote on this matter. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the magistrates—the practical people in these matters—should not be deprived of the possibility of imposing imprisonment, which carries with it the points that have been made about the detention and other orders.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I call the next Amendment I think my noble friend wishes to make a statement.

RAIL ACCIDENT AT EALING
3.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will answer the Private Notice Question which was asked earlier, by way of a Statement.
Let us put it this way: a youngster is sentenced and his Saturday afternoon is affected and he is prevented from going, say, to football matches. That in itself is not a very terrible thing. But to that young person it is a great deterrent from continuing the kind of action that had taken place and caused him to be sent to an attendance centre. The position, in my view, is very clear, and I hope that your Lordships will vote in favour of this Amendment.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Janner, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Collison, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Monson, L.

Snow, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Hacking, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Roberthall, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grenfell, L.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Polwarth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bradford, E.

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

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Furness, V.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

I very much regret to inform the House that at 5.37 p.m. last night an 11-coach passenger train from Paddington to Oxford was derailed when travelling at speed between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing stations. Ten passengers were killed and 53 injured, 8 of them seriously enough to be still detained in hospital.
The House will wish to know that my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries has received a message of sympathy from the Queen and Prince Philip which, at Her Majesty's request, he has passed on to the Chairman of the Railways Board. My right

557
honourable friend the Prime Minister has also sent a message to the Chairman. I know the House will join with me in expressing most deep sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed and with the injured. The police, fire and ambulance services were on the scene within five minutes of the derailment. I should like to acknowledge the magnificent way in which they and the voluntary services carried out the work of rescue. It is also right to mention with gratitude the immediate help given by drivers from local depots; they have called off their non-co-operation for the time being in order to get things straight as soon as possible. I am not able at this stage to inform the House of the cause of this tragic accident, but I understand that neither vandalism nor the recent repairs to the track at this point were any part of the cause. One of my Department's Inspecting Officers went to the scene last night and the Chief inspecting Officer will be holding a public inquiry as soon as possible.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply to my Private Notice Question. I am sure the House will wish to join with Her Gracious Majesty and Her Majesty's Government in their expressions of sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident, and with the many injured. In the case of many accidents in the past, members of the public who crowded to the scene have made the work of those capable of dealing with the injured more difficult. In this case I would echo the words of Commander Payne of the Metropolitan Police, who praised the public for their co-operation and, as he put it,
"instead of having to contend with a large number of sightseers, those who have been here have been very helpful".
I am sure this House would wish to thank those who did come and who were helpful, and those who, realising their incapability of helping, stayed away and left the roads clear for the ambulances and the other services.
Also, at a time when railwaymen are not particularly popular, I as a railway-man
558
should like to thank the Government for their expression of gratitude to those railwaymen who forgot their immediate difficulties with their employers, who turned out and are helping to do everything possible to clear things up. Guesses as to the cause of the accident would be very ill-timed at the moment. We must await the result of the inquiry of the Chief Inspecting Officer. When his report comes, we shall have to consider that; but for the moment I end where I began, by echoing the expression of sympathy made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her Statement, may I join with noble Lords on behalf of my colleagues in expressing our deepest sympathy with the relatives of those killed and injured in this accident. May I also express our admiration for the police and the ambulance and hospital staff in the admirable work they have done. I should like to express our admiration for those members of the public who live near where the accident took place and who, as we understand, opened their houses and gardens in order to assist the injured and those who were doing the wonderful work of relief.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, may I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Champion and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their expressions of sympathy for those involved in this disaster, and for their acknowledgement of the great help given by the public in this matter. We are grateful also for their expressions of admiration for the police, fire and ambulance services, and for the many residents who live near the accident and came forward to help. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his acknowledgement of the Government's statement of appreciation of what the railwaymen have done in this particular circumstance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the former Member for Oxford City, I should like to express my personal distress at what has happened.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
3.58 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, column 4, at end insert—
("or
(c) for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause or to be likely to cause danger;
£400 in the case of an offence of carrying on a goods vehicle a load which, by reason of its insecurity or position, is likely to cause danger.")—(Lord Janner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 12, column 4, leave out ("£200") and insert ("3 months or £200 or both").—(Lord Janner.)
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I should like to support this particular Amendment, No. 40, rather than either No. 41 or No. 42. From what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend the Minister have said, it is generally recognised that magistrates do not imprison offenders for any offence unless from their experience there is no alternative. Also, I hope it is recognised that the vast numbers of motoring offences which are dealt with in the magistrates' courts make the members of the bench more experienced than, with the greatest respect, some learned judges in higher courts. The Amendment which I wish to speak to, No. 40, deals with reckless and dangerous driving generally, driving or attempting to drive when unfit through drink or drugs, and driving or attempting to drive with blood alcohol above a prescribed limit. My noble friend, the Minister, gave us some figures during the Second Reading speech which I believe prove that the power of imprisonment is necessary for the magistrates' courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think we may be in a bit of a muddle and it may be my fault. Amendment No. 40 is about driving uninsured. I think the noble Baroness is speaking on No. 41 at the moment, because she is
560
talking about alcohol, and I am wondering where we have got to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has called No. 40, but if it would assist the House I beg to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
4.2 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 20, at end insert ("or 4 months or both".").—(Baroness Phillips.)
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I am sorry. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As I was saying, my noble friend the Minister said that there were 8,439 findings of guilt for dangerous and reckless driving, of which only 113 offenders received immediate prison sentences and 131 received prison sentences which were suspended. In my submission, those figures surely show not only the tolerance of magistrates but also that there are people in our society whose conduct warrants imprisonment. The Minister said, in my view quite rightly, that imprisonment is not likely to improve a person's driving, but if that person has received a two or three months prison sentence which had been suspended for two or three years, that person is not likely to offend again within that period. I am quite certain that a suspended prison sentence is the best form of deterrent.
The Minister hinted that he might consider a non-custodial sentence. With the greatest respect, I suggest that a defendant who has perhaps three findings of guilt, one for careless driving, another for care less driving and a third for driving in a manner dangerous, is not going to be deterred from driving badly again by having to paint a senior citizen's sitting-room. May I take the hypothetical case of Mr. X, who has been found guilty of dangerous and reckless driving. Because of his past record, the magistrates think that a two months prison sentence suspended for two years is the best way to deal with him. If the Government do not allow this Amendment, he can only be fined and disqualified from driving. He could not go to a detention centre or an attendance centre. But if the magistrates feel that a suspended sentence is

561
correct, they will send him to the Crown Court for trial, where the learned judge will probably give him exactly the same sentence, two months imprisonment suspended for two years, thus wasting everybody's time and certainly the Crown Court's time.
There are two other aspects to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that I think it should still be a person's right to be judged by a judge and jury if he so wishes. This would vanish if the Government's proposals are accepted. The second point is that, as my noble friend said, the case can go on indictment to the Crown Court but only the instructing solicitor for the prosecution can decide that without the magistrates having heard the case or the defendant having the right of choice. When we realise that magistrates can send an offender to prison for such comparatively trivial offences as keeping an unlicensed pet shop, three months; drunk and disorderly, one month; breach of regulations as to labelling pre-packaged food, three months; allowing a child or young person to beg, such as on Guy Fawkes' night, three months; and unlicensed peddling, one month, it would, I suggest, be seen to be weak if the magistrates' courts were no longer able to imprison for the far more serious offences that we are discussing to-day. The magistrates in this country, through our Association, would not be asking for these Amendments to this Bill without very careful consideration indeed. As one of those magistrates, I support these Amendments.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I venture to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has said. I strongly support the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary in his view that people ought not to be sent to prison unless they are a danger to the community. I am of the opinion that, on the whole, too many people are sent to prison rather than too few. Therefore, I welcome the removal of the magistrates' powers of sending people to prison for minor traffic offences. I am concerned solely with the first Amendment, driving uninsured, and this Amendment, drunken driving. I am bound to say that I do not regard such people as not being a danger to the community. It is on this
562
question that a great deal of the difference of opinion has arisen. The noble Viscount, at the Second Reading of the Bill, said that if we cannot do this in the field of motoring cases, where can we do it? This is obviously to suggest that all motoring cases are relatively trivial offences. They are offences which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a few minutes ago referred to as relatively minor cases.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a misapprehension that I must dispel. I may have put it badly, but I was intending to say that where you are dealing with very short terms of imprisonment imposed by the magistrates, this seemed to me to be a good area in which to start. I agree that where there is a very bad case which is taken on indictment to the Crown Court, it is absolutely correct that there should be a term of imprisonment and, if necessary, quite a long one.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I agree with what is proposed so far as minor and trivial, and indeed most, motoring cases are concerned. What we are concerned with here is drunken driving. Nobody has answered one of the questions put in the letter to The Tines of November 23 from the Chairman of the Magistrates' Association and the President of the Justices' Clerks' Society, when they said:
"We have repeatedly asked, without any answer, what magistrates' courts could do with the occasional road traffic offender who has heavy unpaid fines and no job or prospect of paying, but who may now be fined up to £400 instead of up to £100!"
It is a real and practical question for them. In relation to nearly all motoring offences, I think that the proper answer is that this is not a case for imprisonment in any case; it is just too bad and there it is. But I cannot think that that should apply to drunken driving, The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that this has nothing to do with the James Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has got it entirely wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was talking about the previous Amendment when I said that. The previous Amendment had only to do with a plainly summary offence which could not, in any circumstances, come

563
before the Crown Court. I told her because it was true, and she accepted it because it was true, that that had nothing to do with the James Committee.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am obliged; it was my misapprehension. I thought that the noble and learned Lord was talking about the James Committee in general. So far as the right to trial by jury is being removed, this is the very essence of what the James Committee was considering. I do not know that I necessarily agree with the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society when they say:
"The James Committee on the redistribution of criminal business between the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts is concerned with important issues, and our organisations consider it inappropriate and wrong that this attempt should be made to forestall its conclusions."
I am not prepared to say I think that in all cases it is necessarily wrong to change the law merely because it forms part of the remit of a Committee which is sitting. But this is the view which has been very much pressed by the present Government, particularly in this field.
The House will remember that in the Criminal Justice Act the Government—.and we applauded them for it—introduced a provision, which is now part of our law, that no criminal, however bad his record, however awful his offence, is to be sent to prison for the first time unless he has an opportunity of being represented. When I pointed out why we welcomed that provision it obviously remained quite inconsistent that thousands of people a year should be sent to prison for the first time, untried, unconvicted, because they had been refused bail.
The noble Viscount made no logical attempt, and naturally could not, to meet that argument, except that he said, "Oh, but the Home Office has appointed a Working Party on that, and once you have appointed any sort of a committee nothing ought to be done to change the law until it has reported". The House may remember that that is the working party of Home Office people which, although the effect of refusing bail to a woman with small children is quite different from that of a man, has typically, no women upon it. We were told that nothing can be done in this field until
564
this working party has reported. We have seen in the current statistics how many people now are sent to prison straight away, untried, unconvicted—some of them of course completely innocent—without being represented at all and where we still have no legal aid surveillance. All that was done in the sacred name that once you have appointed some sort of committee—it need not be a Royal Commission; it need not be a committee of the status of the James Committee, but merely a departmental committee—you cannot possibly change the law until it has reported. If that is right, and if that is the Government's view, then I think it cannot be right that in this field they should be seeking to jump the gun in relation to the James Committee.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, it is getting very late, and I shall not repeat any of the arguments which I tried to persuade your Lordships to accept before. But I feel strongly that in respect of this particular sort of crime there can be no question as to whether the magistrates' court should be entitled to imprison. It is all very well saying that it may carry very heavy penalties, but the magistrates' courts themselves have not inflicted very heavy penalties, and the two or three months' sentence is something which might be very appropriate in some cases. Why on earth do we not accept the fact that we have, I do not know how many thousand magistrates in this country—over 19,000—who on many days of the week are spending time in order to help the country and to deal with cases brought before them? They are dedicated persons who are not going to step wrong, and have not stepped wrong. This fact, I think, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, is itself the particular argument which should induce your Lordships to accept the idea that a magistrate should be allowed to continue to have this power of imprisonment. Again, remembering the fact that this Bill will now deprive the magistrates of power to make any of the other orders—detention orders, attendance orders, and all the rest—it is absurd because they will have no deterrent to put to the persons who have committed the offences: all they can do is to fine them. The results of some of these deterrent orders,

565
such as detention orders and so on, show that they have proved effective in the hands of the magistrates, because crime has been reduced by that type of deterrent.
Of course, we have not today used an argument which I am sure will be used at a later stage in another place and which has been used before; that is, the argument about depriving a defendant of his right to go to trial by jury if he so wishes. I am not going to go into that again today, but the fact is that that is a very important argument; and in respect of these particular crimes, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, I feel that the magistrates should have the possibility, not only of imposing imprisonment but of using the other remedies that they have in their hands at the present time, because without the power of imprisonment they cannot use them.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I shall not weary the House by delaying the debate. I have not spoken in any of these discussions so far, but I feel I must thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for the obvious trouble he has taken in fulfilling a promise that he would look at the question of the non-custodial orders—and that I appreciate. I did not accept his arguments, but that does not relieve me of the necessity to thank him for doing this. In addition to the arguments put so eloquently by noble Lords in various parts of the House, I would rest my case on a belief in the deterrent effect of quick punishment. I think the Crown Courts may very often delay matters so long because of the backlog of business that by the time the case finally comes up the whole incident is taken in a completely different context. I see the noble Baroness making some shrugging movement, so perhaps there is some point she wishes to make. I also feel that we have not had an answer to the question about what we (and by "we" I mean magistrates) are to do with the drunken driver or the dangerous driver who already has an unpaid fine and has no job. I think that during the passage of the Bill I asked for the figure of those fines which were unpaid, because I recollect that on one occasion when I heard both that figure and the number of people who had failed to pay their bond when called
566
upon to do so it was really rather frightening. It seemed to suggest that in some cases this was a purely academic exercise.
My Lords, I am not convinced by the arguments which have been put forward with such eloquence, but I should not like to go down in history as one of the "beat 'em and flog 'em" brigade. The magistrates want these powers, and however it is explained away by Her Majesty's Government, whether in the person of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack or in the person of the noble Viscount, I am afraid that it will appear both to the magistrates and to people outside that certain powers have been taken away. I can well recollect, when there had been a change of punishment in the schools, how quickly it got around. I have seen children say to a teacher, "There is nothing you can do to me". I strongly suspect that it will very quickly get around that there has been a change in this case, and that there will be a certain change in approach. My Lords, I am not at all happy about this. I recognise that the arguments which have been deployed are very eloquent, but I still feel that those which have been put forward by the magistrates have not been fully dealt with.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I know it is getting late but may I endeavour to clarify the issues here? First of all, let us look at the situation which will obtain if the Amendment is not passed and the situation which will obtain if the Amendment is passed. We are dealing with a variety of offences for which, broadly speaking, the penalty on conviction is, as the Bill stands, obligatory disqualification for more or less time, but probably 12 months. That is the first point to make, that the man, if convicted, loses his licence. If he is tried summarily, if the Bill is passed, he gets a greatly increased maximum fine and, I hope, a greatly increased actual fine. If he is tried on indictment, in addition to those possibilities he can be sent to prison, if the Bill is passed, for 12 months for the breathalyser offence, as it is inaccurately called, and I think for two years for the drunken driving offence. The difference that is made by the Bill to the existing law is simply that

567
if a man is tried summarily the magistrates have not the option to imprison for four months, and the Amendment proposes that the status quo should be restored.
What will the effect of that be? It will be, of course, that the right of trial by jury is maintained and the matter will go automatically to the Crown Court, if the defendant so elects. I seriously ask those who pretend that we are going soft on these offences to reflect on what I have just said. There will, I believe, be a greatly increased number of convictions and there will therefore, by reason of what we are proposing to do, be a large number of dangerous drivers properly taken off the road, some of whom will remain on the road if the Amendment is accepted. That is the first thing I want to say.
What does the Amendment propose to do? It proposes to give the right to magistrates on summary trial to imprison for four months. Why four months and not three? Simply in order to give trial by jury. What could be more fantastic than this? I maintain, and I should have thought that the first person to agree with me would be the noble and learned Lord sitting now below the Gangway, that the right course for Parliament, if it wanted to impose a penalty, would be to impose a penalty which the crime deserves. But to impose a higher penalty solely for the purpose of giving rise to trial by jury is to impose a penalty for some other purpose than punishment. It must be a fantastic piece of Gilbertian, Alice in Wonderland logic to try to introduce this into our criminal law; and to do it when we were abolishing it in an unusual fit of logicality is really for the noble and learned Lord to stand on his head. But now he says that we must not act because of the James Committee. I spend my time during the Committee stages of various Bills begging him from the Government Front Bench not to jump the gun of his own Law Commission, but he says that the James Commission is to be a sacrosanct organ which will preserve the status quo in its present Gilbertian form. It will preserve trial by jury to enable magistrates to impose a sentence which they would not otherwise impose except for the purpose of giving trial by jury to those who will not want to go before a jury.
568
That is the situation in which we are now, according to the logic of the noble and learned Lord. But let me clear the way about the James Committee. Before Lord Justice James was appointed to that Committee I made absolutely sure that he knew exactly what was proposed by the Government in relation to road traffic offences. I may not, of course, say what passed between us, but I think that I can legitimately say that if I had thought that as a result of anything that passed between us there would be the smallest embarrassment to Lord Justice James in what we are now proposing to do, I would have been the first to ask my noble friend to desist from what he was about. But, my Lords, that is not so, and it is not so for a very simple reason, apart from any other. Perhaps I may give a practical reason. I know of practically nobody connected with the administration of the law in relation to the breathalyser offence who really thinks that the case ought to go before a jury at all. There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo which juries are some-times asked to waste their time listening to, but the basic offence is a question of measurement only. If magistrates cannot try a simple question of measurement without a man going to trial by jury, well, my Lords, I am a Dutchman. The fact is that nobody who has any familiarity with the breathalyser offence, apart from those who have a vested interest in defending defendants for that purpose, seriously believes that the time of the Crown Court ought to be taken up with it at all, except if a serious penalty of imprisonment is likely to be imposed. In that case the prosecution ought to ensure that it goes there: and that of course is what we are proposing.
But the other, and basically logical, reason why Lord Justice James cannot be embarrassed is this. Lord Justice James is asked to decide, among other things, as a matter of principle, what cases ought to be tried by jury and what ought not. This is simply removing a maximum penalty, which has the side effect of removing the possibility in this case. If you want to give trial by jury, well, give trial by jury, but do not impose a ridiculous sentence in order to give trial by jury by a side wind.
My Lords, I only want to add this. The answer to the noble Baroness, who asked what we are to do with a man who has

569
not paid his fines and comes before the court again, is simply to send him to the Crown Court to get a proper sentence. But I beg the noble Baroness not to come to the House of Lords and say that three months is a suitable penalty for this offence. A lot of them need prison. They need up to 12 months; they need up to two years; but three months, two months or one month is ridiculous for the purpose, and magistrates do not have the power to give a suitable sentence. Send suitable cases to the Crown Court to be tried on indictment, and let them get a proper prison sentence if they deserve it, but do not fiddle about with tiny sentences

HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL COMMUNITIES MEETINGS
4.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
of imprisonment, under what I am sorry to describe as an inconsistent sentencing policy in different parts of the country. And do not confuse your mind by thinking that at the same time you are going hard on these offences, when the total effect of what you are doing is to give more people an option to put lying defences before a jury in the hope that their counsel may deceive them.
4.27 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Content, 43.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Hacking, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B. [Teller.]

Janner, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Collison, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

de Cliflford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Diamond, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenway, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Amory, V.

Hailes, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

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

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elles, B,

Lauderdale, E.

Ferrers, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Lyell, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Gowrie, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Grantchester, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Granville of Eye, L,

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

about recent meetings of the Council of European Communities. The Statement is as follows:
"There have been two meetings of Finance Ministers and one each of Foreign, Agriculture and Social Affairs Ministers.
"External trade agreements have been concluded with India and Brazil There has been further consideration of agreements with Mediterranean countries and with those former members of EFTA that have not acceded to the Communities, and of Community adherence to the International Sugar Agreement; work on the simplification of Customs procedures is to be pursued; the improvement of the CAP was discussed, as was a programme for consumer protection; the Community budget for 1974 was finalised at a level

571
slightly lower than in the current year but within the total figure the Social Fund has been increased by about £19 million (45 million units of account), as already agreed.
"This week's meeting of Foreign Ministers was dominated by the problems of Energy and the Regional Development Fund. No agreement was reached but the Council agreed to resume the discussion not later than January 7. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave a good deal of information on these matters to the House at question time yesterday.
"Finance Ministers agreed a series of measures defining the content of a second stage of Economic and Monetary Union to apply from 1974 on. A resolution on the move to a second stage was also broadly agreed but since it included references to the setting up of the Regional Development Fund and the work to be undertaken on energy matters, it was deferred until those issues were settled.
"The Council has agreed on a programme of action in the field of industrial and technological policy, in accordance with the decision taken at the Paris Summit. The Commission have been charged with submitting draft Directives.
"Social Affairs Ministers agreed on a programme of action to be embodied in a Council Resolution. The programme represents a major stage in the development of the Community Social policy envisaged at the Paris Summit."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful for this Statement In many ways it is rather like a Christmas tree in the pauper's house: dressed up but very little within it. We are very pleased to see that agreement has been reached with India and Brazil, and there is no reason to believe that those countries are not satisfied. It is also good to see that some new steps are being taken in the social affairs area of the Community and also in the industrial and technological policy. But the main concern must surely be, first of all, the failure
572
to reach an agreement on the International Sugar Agreement, because this is having a serious effect in the sugar producing countries. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give an indication of when she expects a decision to be taken here.
But, perhaps the main and most disturbing part of the Statement must be the reports that have been coming out, during the last two days, on the Council meeting in regard to the Regional Development Fund. Noble Lords on this side of the House always felt a sense of dissatisfaction with the terms under which this country entered the Community, but it was the Government who set great store, and persuaded both Houses, that the Regional Development project would provide great opportunities for this country. We were led to believe that there would be massive European money made available for regional development in this country.
Not only was this important in terms of our own development, but it was held to compensate for the very considerable sums of money which we ourselves now pay in to the Community, mainly through V.A.T. and to the French farmers. Therefore, we must press upon the Government that they must remain determined to see that there is a very substantial sum of money made available under the Regional Development Fund. If the Government fail to achieve this, it will have a disastrous effect, so far as they are concerned, and those who have supported entry into the Community, because it will look quite clear, in those circumstances, that we shall continue to be a net provider for the Community, withdrawing very little out of it. This is particularly emphasised when one sees the balance of trade between this country and the Community.
My Lords, I see that the next meeting on this matter will be January 7. I hope that the Government will give us a report on the first day we return after the Recess. We hope that it will be a report that will be acceptable to Parliament. If it is not, then quite clearly we shall require a very urgent debate in order to discuss this matter.
4.43 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we must certainly be thankful for small mercies, such as the small increase in the

573
Social Fund, and the other matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd referred. But would not the Government agree, would they not think that the situation now reached, in which, as we all know, we are blocking much-needed progress towards a common energy policy—to say nothing of a common monetary policy, which is extremely important from our point of view, because the Germans will not agree to give us what we want, or all that we want, in regard to the Regional Fund—is in itself deplorable? Would they not agree that it would have been much better if this Summit had not declared, as they did in their communiqué, that the Regional Fund would in fact be set up by January 1 next, only to find that the Foreign Ministers would not allow this to be done? Would it not have been much better for any impasse in this subject to have been referred to the Summit, rather than the Summit, in effect and ineffectively, referring it to the Foreign Ministers?
Finally, my Lords, would not the Government further agree that it is now essential for some compromise—and I repeat, some compromise—on the total amount of the Regional Fund to be reached at the next meeting of the Council on January 7? I think the noble Baroness, by error, said February 7, but I believe it is January 7. Even if we cannot get all we want, we must not, by undue insistence on what we think, perhaps rightly to be in our own national interest, run a considerable risk of breaking up the entire Community. That would not be in our national interests either.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would clarify the question of the date. I know I am getting old and senile, but I heard her say February 7. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said January 7. which is the date I thought it was. Did she mean February or January?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must first of all thank the noble Lords who have spoken. If I did, by a slip of the tongue, say February 7, I should like immediately to correct it, with apologies to your Lordships, because of course it has always been January 7—the earliest possible moment after Christmas and the New Year. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I understand that both
574
India and Brazil are happy with the agreements that have been reached. As regards the International Sugar Agreement, an attempt was made to agree whether the Community should join the I.S.A. Unfortunately, unanimous agreement could not be reached. This does not affect, of course, the question of 1·4 million tons of sugar from the Commonwealth, which I know that the noble Lord and I have very much at heart.
On the question of the Regional Development Fund, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it is perfectly true that we have at the moment temporary difficulties, not only over the size of the Regional Development Fund, but over the energy policy and the second stage of economic and monetary union. But I would suggest to the House that when long-term policies of this importance are under consideration, it is hardly surprising; and there is the convention in the European Community that one can stop the clock. Therefore, the meeting which takes place on January 7 is really a continuation of the meeting which has just ended and will be continued as such. It is important in many ways to have further time for reflection so that in the end we obtain the right decision. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we are guile determined to see that there is a fair policy on the amount which is contributed to the Regional Development Fund, as we have always thought that this was equally important to the Common Agricultural Policy.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness tell us whether it is the practice to keep a verbatim record of discussions in the Council of Ministers?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR, OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that there is a tape, but as some of these meetings are considered confidential this is not released.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness go a little further and perhaps be willing to answer this question? Since we are confronted by what has been described by high priests of the Community as a crisis in its affairs, and our information comes from ex-parte statements, whether British,

575
German, or whatever they may be—none of them complete, and some of them very brief, like the one that we have had this afternoon—might there not be a case for requiring publication both of the proceedings and of any votes that took place?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, no votes took place because it was desired to try to reach a decision on these matters by consensus. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said yesterday—and I quote—he thought it was desirable that matters of economic and monetary union and matters of regional policy and energy should all be settled at the same meeting; at any rate that considerable progress should be made; and this is the endeavour.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree, however, that there is something to be said for trying to get a proper publication of what takes place in this supreme organ of the Community to which we all belong, whose decisions have a binding effect on our citizens?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree that it would be quite fascinating to get a record of all the discussions which go on within the Council of Ministers. But what emerges, of course, are the decisions, and these really are the matters which will be binding on us, not the general discussion.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not appreciate that it may be that she knows what went on in the Council of Ministers, but we, who are Members of Parliament of both Houses, have only the newspapers to go by and the odd reports that one may have on radio or television on what the Ministers say in the corridors at Brussels. Our reading of the situation is that there was, and still is, a major crisis at Brussels within the Community. Whether you support the entry into the Community or whether you think we should withdraw, clearly it would be a matter of major consequence to this country and to Europe if the crisis were to develop in such a way that, as the noble Lord, Lord
576
Gladwyn, said, the Community was to break up. But would the noble Baroness not agree that if we had the Select Committee procedure in regard to the scrutiny that we discussed the other day this would be a procedure and a forum by which Parliament—in confidence, perhaps—would have a greater knowledge and understanding of what the crisis was about and what was the position taken by the British representatives.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I support the plea that has been made to her? It is perfectly obvious that Parliament should be in a position to know what attitude is taken by our Government, and possibly by other Governments, no matter what the decision may ultimately be. In these circumstances, unless we are aware, by some kind of record, of what is taking place, it is impossible for Parliamentarians, either in this House or in another place, to deal with the matter in the manner in which they might deal with it if they knew what arguments were being put forward by the various countries. Possibly the noble Baroness will consider that there should be some record, and that that record should be available to us.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I can understand the concern expressed by noble Lords, but I should like to put it to them that while it may have appeared as a crisis, as one of our Commissioners responsible for regional development policy, Mr. Thomson, said (I am not quoting his precise words), in his opinion this was an interim procedure within the Community. It is not unknown for the Community to have some very animated debates on all kinds of subjects. I think the general consensus at the end of his meeting—which was difficult, there is no doubt about it, because we have always thought that the Regional Development Fund was of great importance—was that there should be a temporary cessation during Christmas and the New Year and that there should be a resumption on January 7. In order to give, not the confidential proceedings but a general description of what was really at issue on the Regional Development Fund, I will say that the United Kingdom proposed 3,000 million units of account for the Fund, the Commission proposed 2,250 (all this over three years) and the

577
German Delegation proposed 600 for the same period. It is really this difference of opinion in regard to the amount which has been the cause of the difficulty.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if the noble Baroness thinks that this is only an interim crisis—and I agree with her—is she not aware that there is a strong movement in the European Parliament, and I think it extends to members of all the political groups, that when and if the Council of Ministers come into a real impasse, at that moment there ought to be a public debate between the Ministers and the representatives of the Parliament in order to try to resolve the difficulty? Does not the noble Baroness think that that is quite a genial idea?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am not so sure, to be quite honest. I think it might be better to consider this matter as a meeting which is only half concluded, and the rest will conclude on January 7.
I omitted to reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with regard to the Select Committee. As I understood it—and I read the report of that debate with the greatest of interest because I was in Nigeria at the time the idea really was to sift various instruments and to examine certain policies before a conclusion was reached. In this particular case I think that the Select Committee—as indeed the House—is well aware of what the United Kingdom's position is, and the position of the Commission. I am not sure, and I would not commit myself on this matter because no doubt the Government are to consider finally, in January, what to propose to the House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House further, but I would say to the noble Baroness that she should do her homework a little more thoroughly. She will see that the Select Committee was to go a good deal wider than she has indicated, and will meet the point that I put.
My Lords, the next speech will, I presume, be on the Motion, That the House do now adjourn. While I do not myself approve of speeches being made on the Adjournment. I should like to wish
578
the noble Baroness a very happy Hogmanay, and to other noble Lords who may be of that extraction the same. For the rest of us, I wish noble Lords a very happy Christmas. I wish I could add, "and a very prosperous New Year"—but we will keep up our hopes.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, I am the only incumbent left on these Cross Benches, but may I also wish the noble Baroness a very Happy Hogmanay and a very Happy New Year as well!
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I acknowledge the very gay good wishes. As a Scot, may I say that we also celebrate Christmas. I wish all noble Lords a Happy Christmas and a jolly good Hogmanay.