Lords Sitting of 26 February 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

BANGLADESH
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in association with other Governments concerned, they will offer their services to help to restore normal State relations between Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, including the release of prisoners of war, the repatriation of civilians, and the recognition of the sovereignty of Bangladesh.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, we have already made known to the Governments concerned our willingness to help. However, they have resolved to settle their differences themselves without outside mediation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask her whether it might not be possible, with the attendance of the Foreign Secretary in Paris at the Vietnam Conference, to approach both the Soviet Union and China with a view to joint influence to bring about an end of this situation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, these matters have been discussed with other interested Governments, but, as I said in my original reply, the parties prefer to settle the matter between themselves.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: EXTERIOR CLEANING
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now consider cleaning the exterior of the Palace of Westminster, in view of the experiments which they have already carried out.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we now have a successful method of cleaning the Palace, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hopes shortly to submit firm proposals to the appropriate authorities of the two Houses.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how pleased many Members of this noble House will be with the reply he has given? Might I suggest that, if it is found that the cost is excessive, possibly the courtyards could be left to a later date, so long as work on the facade, which is a great tourist attraction, could be carried out reasonably soon? I feel sure that both noble Lords and the officials of the House would be willing to put up with the inconvenience which I am sure will be caused by having windows covered and things of that kind.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the question of whether the internal courts should be cleaned as well as the outside walls is, of course, one of the things included in the feasibility study which will be put before the appropriate authorities. It is appreciated that there will be a certain amount of inconvenience and discomfort—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor no doubt experienced a little trouble last summer. But I am assured by the authorities that when the cleaning is done no one window will need to be covered for more than two weeks at the most.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, the Question refers to the cleaning of the exterior of the Palace, but would the noble Lord not agree that it would be more to the

357
advantage of your Lordships, as part of Parliament, if better accommodation were to be provided for noble Lords who attend this Assembly on the occasions when they are called and wish to do so?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, better accommodation is something which I think we all aspire to and hope to get for noble Lords and Members of another place. But I think the aesthetic beauty of the buildings of our capital city—and this the Mother of Parliaments—is also an important matter.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are aware that King Richard Cæur de Lion's sword, at the main entrance to your Lordships' House, is tarnished, and will they seek to restore it to its former shining glory?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if King Richard Cæur de Lion's batman is not available to do the job, no doubt my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will look at it.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is much more urgent to get on with the cleaning of Westminster Abbey than of the Houses of Parliament?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, knows that church buildings come under a different authority.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that King Richard Cæur de Lion's sword is not tarnished in the accepted sense of the word—it is bent by bomb blast?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, he was a doughty warrier.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, could the noble Lord give any indication as to when Oliver Cromwell is going to be uncovered again?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to enter into this conversazione, but I think we are getting a little wide of the Question.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that there are Members on this Bench
358
who hope that Oliver Cromwell will never be uncovered?

E.E.C.: INTERNAL AIR FARES
2.40 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will initiate discussions with the Civil Air Authorities in other E.E.C. countries with a view to negotiating agreement that air fares within the Common Market should henceforward be charged, not at current IATA rates, but at the rates normally charged on internal or cabotage routes.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, this is one of a number of matters in the civil aviation field which will require examination when the Council of Ministers comes to consider whether the transport title of the Treaty should apply to civil aviation. In the meantime, it would be premature to initiate discussions on specific aspects such as the relative level of internal and inter-State air fares.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it really is rather an anomaly that a London to Edinburgh flight costs £23·10 economy class whereas a London to Bonn flight of the same duration costs £38·80? Now we are part of the Common Market, could we not take some initiative in trying to solve these problems, treating these short international flights like internal flights, not only on price structure but also on the time required to report before the flight goes? It is not sensible to report 45 minutes early for a one hour flight; 15 minutes would be much more acceptable in this day and age.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend has said, although I am not sure that the second part really relates to the Question he has asked. As to what he said on the comparison between fares, there is, of course, no common rate per mile for internal services, either in this country or elsewhere. The charge depends on a number of factors, including the length of the journey, the

359
competitive situation and the like. I would repeat that the transport title of the Treaty of Rome is not yet applied to civil aviation, but that in June, 1972, the Commission did initiate a proposal for a study and this has been referred for an Opinion to the European Parliament and to the Economic and Social Committee.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord but with rather less to those who drafted his original Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the verbiage in the original Answer was rather difficult to unravel? Would he agree that, if the Treaty of Rome is to mean anything, then the Economic Community ought to be treated as one area for cabotage purposes? Would he see what can be done to speed up that desirable end?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the actual wording of Article 84(2):
"The Council may, acting unanimously, decide whether, to what extent and by what procedure appropriate provisions may be laid down for sea and air transport."
The Council has never yet considered this matter.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all I am asking is that they should consider it, and fairly quickly?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, did the noble Lord mean kilograms or pounds?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am at a loss to know to what the noble Lord is referring.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord referred to a "rate per pound".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, "rate per mile".
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, then presumably he meant kilometres?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, miles here so far; kilometres elsewhere.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, do not the Government consider themselves at the moment to be elsewhere?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government are "with it", and very much on the spot.

LIBYAN CIVIL AIRCRAFT DISASTER
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice—namely,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek to initiate an impartial inquiry through the International Civil Aviation Organisation into the circumstances of the disaster of the Libyan civil aircraft with the loss of many lives over the Sinai Desert on February 21, 1973".
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that the Libyan and Egyptian Governments have already called for such an inquiry. Her Majesty's Government's representative to the International Civil Aviation Organisation is being instructed to support this request.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not want to exacerbate the feeling on this issue and do not want to prejudice the hopeful tendencies towards the beginning of a settlement, and I shall content myself by thanking the noble Baroness for her Answer.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that almost all people in this House will approve of what has been done by Her Majesty's Government, and that we hope that a sensible, calm appraisal of the circumstances will lead to some sort of constructive proposal?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for their very helpful contributions. We thought that this was the best and fairest way to find out what happened.

EDUCATION (WORK EXPERIENCE) BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The need for this Bill arises from the action of Her Majesty's Government in raising the school leaving age from 15 to 16—a change which was brought into effect last year. The provisions of the Bill are intended, in one small sector of education, to restore a situation which existed before the age was raised.
First the House might welcome an explanation of the term "work experience". This term is used in a general sense to describe a range of activities undertaken by pupils as part of the process of learning about the adult world within the context of general education. The distinguishing feature of a number of existing schemes is the introduction of the pupil to the conditions and circumstances of adult work. To achieve this, first-hand experience must be provided which is both more sustained and of greater depth than that which can be obtained, for example, through half-day or whole day visits by school parties for conducted tours of factories or other undertakings. This is not to depreciate the value of short visits as part of a child's education; they certainly have a place and a continuing function. But they are not designed for the same purpose, and they do not present the same considerations as schemes in which a pupil or group of pupils is brought into close contact with the work of an organisation and where the boy or girl may—and, if full benefit is to be gained from the scheme, should—take some part in the work.
It is here that the problem arises which this Bill seeks to resolve. As the law stands, participation to this degree in these schemes constitutes employment for the purpose of the Statutes prohibiting or regulating the employment of children, and in this context a child is a person who has not attained the upper limit of compulsory school age. Participation in work experience is, therefore, restricted to pupils who are above school leaving age, because the relevant enactments impose
362
prohibitions on the employment of persons who are below the school leaving age. This prohibition may mean a complete prohibition; as, for example, in factories and industrial undertakings, or in mines and quarries, where the employment of children is totally forbidden by legislation which extends back to the Employment of Women, Children and Young Persons Act 1920, which also applies to Scotland. Other enactments impose partial restrictions; the most relevant of these is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the 1937 Scottish Act, which forbid the employment of children during school hours or for more than two hours outside school hours of any school day in any form of employment.
In fact, most of the schemes for work experience which have been in operation have been designed for pupils of 15-plus and for those who are just 16. These are the pupils who, until the school-leaving age was raised last year, had decided that they would stay on at school voluntarily. The experience of the schools and of the employers who have taken part in these work experience schemes, is that they are of very great value indeed in the education of pupils and that they have particular relevance for pupils of the age which I have mentioned, for they are able to appreciate what is involved and can link the experience acquired in an office or a factory with the supporting part of the educational programme given in the schools.
The difficulty is that the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 last year postpones by one year the date on which any individual pupil ceases to be of compulsory school age and therefore ceases to be a "child" for the purposes of the Statutes relating to the employment of children. This would mean that the very group of pupils for whom most of the work experience schemes have been devised would be excluded from these schemes until they reached the new compulsory school-leaving age. Accordingly, my right honourable friend undertook consultations during 1971 to discover the views of the various interests concerned on the proposition that the law could be changed to enable pupils of 15-plus to continue schemes after the raising of the school-leaving age, in the same way and subject to the same controls and the same

363
safeguards as they had been able to do before. The response was almost unanimous. That of the representatives of the local authorities, the employers and teachers was one not merely of agreement but of enthusiasm. Only the Educational Institute of Scotland had reservations, as also did the Trades Union Congresses for England and for Scotland.
We have in this country a long history of legislation designed to protect the young by prohibiting the use of child labour and by imposing restrictions on the employment of children and young persons. These laws have been passed in the interests of the young people, to prevent them from undertaking tasks which would harm them because of their physical or mental immaturity, or by interfering with their education, and many of these restrictions have been linked with the statutory school-leaving age, but, in this case, it is the overwhelming opinion of the educational interests that these courses are valuable for pupils as they approach school-leaving age "as part of education". May I draw the attention of your Lordships to the words "as part of …education" in line 11 on page 1 of the Bill, which mean that work experience will not be something which a pupil can just go off and have, but will usually entail both preparatory and follow-up study at school in connection with the work which a pupil will temporarily experience.
I should not like to give the House the impression that work experience schemes generally, or almost always, relate to industry, although I think all local education authorities who have had such schemes relating to industry are deeply grateful to both sides for the facilities which have been provided. I have heard of one small country town where girls went to help the dentist's receptionist; of another scheme in the local council offices where they went to learn about committee procedure and the work involved in any local authority, seeing officers representing different professions; of another scheme in a public library, discovering, among other things, how much time and patience one needs in dealing with people.
And I have heard of a scheme on the other side, based on an engineering firm,
364
where there was both engineering and clerical work. It was supervised and instruction was given by selected and skilled workers and foremen, under the supervision of the personnel and training officer. Safety was emphasised at all times the pupils were there, and they were all given a copy of the accident prevention code for young workers in the engineering industry. It seemed to me, when I read about that example, that it had been a success. One of the pupils wrote afterwards:
"Although the hours were longer than at school, the actual work we did was easier and we had a very good lunch."
So, after taking account of the views, so far as she possibly could, my right honourable friend concluded that, given proper conditions and safeguards, this sort of practical experience was of such value, particularly to pupils of this age, that the law should he changed to allow those schools and education authorities who wished to do so to continue to provide it.
The provisions of the Bill are straightforward. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 removes the application of the enactments relating to the employment of children, subject to certain conditions: namely, first, that the employment is within the pupil's last year of compulsory schooling; secondly, that it is part of arrangements made or approved by the local education authority as part of an educational programme; and, thirdly, that it conforms with additional requirements set out in subsection (2). The requirements of subsection (2) impose the same safeguards relating to health, safety and welfare as previously applied to pupils of this age in such schemes, and these safeguards are fairly comprehensive. Work experience, as provided for under subsection (1), will not be permitted if legislation specifically forbids employment for persons of specified ages. Because of the particularly hazardous nature of employment on ships, additional restrictions are imposed in that respect; and no work experience arrangements will be made which would entail work which was illegal for young persons.
There is one category of pupils who, under this Bill, can be included in work experience for the first time. Since 1945, handicapped pupils at special schools have been of compulsory school age

365
until sixteen-plus, not until fifteen-plus. They have therefore never been able to take part in these schemes until they were the age of sixteen. It seemed not unreasonable to bring these pupils into line with others, now that the school-leaving age is common to all groups. It may be that no schemes will be devised for handicapped pupils, but this Bill will enable authorities to make schemes for them if they decide that it is right and in the interests of these pupils as part of their education. Finally, it is the intention of the Government, if this Bill is passed, to issue guidance to schools and education authorities about the organisation of work experience schemes, about the safeguards which should be applied and about the need for careful consultation with those who will be asked to co-operate in carrying them out. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Belstead.)
2.58 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the Bill in such a clear way and for explaining its purpose. It is a far cry from the days that I remember my husband describing, in the mining valleys of Wales, when children were allowed to leave school at 12 as a result of getting what was known as the labour certificate. It was ironic that the brighter children were the only ones who could obtain that certificate, so they were the ones who were lost to the more academic schooling. Happily, we have moved away from that situation and of course we all welcome wholeheartedly the raising of the school-leaving age. In this context, it is useful to look at the regional differences, which I am sure the Minister has done as I have recently read some of his speeches, which I found extremely interesting. It is important to remind ourselves that in the South-East 39 per cent. of the children stayed on when the school-leaving age was 15, whereas in the North only 27 per cent. stayed on. Whatever we are talking about in connection with the raising of the school-leaving age, we must look all the time at the support that may be necessary in certain areas in order to get the best out of it. I appreciate that work experience is extremely useful, but as an ex-teacher I would say that there is no true substitute for a learning
366
situation. The extra year at school should give this.
In my humble opinion, vocational training should come after children leave school. Nevertheless, we recognise that the pattern of work experience has already been extended throughout the whole of our secondary system on an ad hoc basis. I was glad to hear the Minister make reference to some of the safeguards, because I think it is important that this work experience should be tightly controlled. It would be all too easy for a child to say that he is going to work or to work experience, and in fact to be having a day off. As we know, the dropout rate or the truancy rate (although it is not described as such any more) is rather too high when pupils move from one class to another. How much time will be taken up by the work experience? I am not sure whether the Minister told us that. I think this is important when we realise that, unhappily, these children are now committed to take external public examinations. Of course, many schools are already carrying out work experience on an ad hoc basis.
The other point I feel it is important to recognise is that there should be an opportunity for work experience in several situations. This may prevent the changes that some children seem to make when they leave school. Recently, I had a boy before me in court who had had nine jobs in a year; and, unfortunately, his case is by no means uncommon. It seems that some career guidance and some work experience would have been extraordinarily valuable in that case. The counselling and the careers guidance and advice is good in some schools, but not so good in others, and, bearing in mind how closely linked it must be, I am sure it will be necessary to keep a close watch on this.
I noticed that the Minister said the T.U.C. had some reservations. I would suggest to him that, unless he carries the T.U.C. with him, the work experience may not in fact be as successful as we would hope. The Minister also mentioned the safeguards. I wonder if he could tell me how employers get round the question of insurance in this connection. Would it not be possible to have a code of practice for these young people? Because they will be exposed to all the normal

367
hazards that any other worker is exposed to in a situation of real work, and not just visiting a factory. I wondered if the gentleman who had the good lunch had in fact been working, or whether he had been on one of those tours of factories that we are often given and at the end of which you even get some beer. I am still hoping to be invited to a mink coat factory. My Lords, the mere raising of the school-leaving age will not achieve what we all hope and expect unless it has a great back-up. It must have a great back-up of facilities and quality of teachers, and it has got to have buildings; moreover, a much harder look must be taken at the further education facilities. Some of these children who would have left school at 15 with no qualifications will now leave school at 16 with some qualifications, and one hopes they will wish to pursue these in the world of further education.
I was particularly glad that the Minister made reference to the fact that this would not merely be in engineering works and factories, because it is really rather disturbing to see in the figure for the day release schemes that among the pupils aged from 15 to 17 girls fared very badly. Nineteen per cent. of the boys had day release schemes—and, while we know that this is lied up with employers, I think there is some relation between these figures—whereas only 6 per cent. of the girls had day release. This seems to me to suggest that we have to watch very carefully that the work experience of the girls is going to be offered not only in factories and shops but also, as the Minister has said, in clerical work and indeed in the professional and the ancillary services. My Lords, I am delighted to know that the children are going to have the opportunity of another year in school. To me, as I have said, education is something which, in this society of ours, we still have not truly valued, and I hope that work experience will remain a valuable part of this extra year.
3.5 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I rise to give this Bill a rather less cautious welcome than I think the noble Baroness has given it. Along with very many other people, the education-
368
ists in the Liberal Party have been feeling more and more the necessity for now integrating education as much as possible into the community. This is not just a spatial concept, a concept of organisation: it is of course important in terms of time, too—to try to lessen the break between home and school and between school and work. It is, I think, a failing of every Western educational system that there is too much a thing called education which is institutionalised and too separate from the life of the community. I think that this Bill will take a modest step towards helping to break down this institutionalisation and this dividing into compartments. It is of course only an enabling Bill; but it is, I think, an important one, and one which will be appreciated by a great many people who have already taken steps to incorporate work experience in their plans for the raising of the school-leaving age. It is, unfortunately, rather sad that not enough people have made good plans, and that as a whole our educational system is, as I think, threshing about somewhat in a void with the raising of the school-leaving age and not enough having been done. But a number of people have done quite a lot, and a number of people are really starting to think what we should do about this educational age group of 15 to 18.
I thought that the Labour Party Green Paper on education had a great deal of important and sensible things to say on this subject, but there was one particular emphasis which I did not like. They suggested that youths in the age group 16 to 18 should be considered definitely as in education. While we need to encourage as much as possible, and indeed make compulsory, some day release and some block release, I think that the psychology should be the other way round. I think the psychology should be more towards making education a part of life and a part of employment than extending the period when people feel that they are in the educational system, because people of that age feel that they need to be a bit freer of the whole school set-up by the time they get to that age. In fact, because society has progressed a long way since the days that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was talking about, we may be getting back to a stage where it may be right to say that the brighter children are the ones who should be allowed to leave

369
school and then have education made available to them over long periods at different times, but be given choices, and that the people we want to keep in school are the ones who have not yet attained the educational achievements to enable them to cope with school and community. Good work has been done with all this educational experiment and work experience by a large number of people. I have been particularly impressed by the literature I have read produced by the Trident Trust, of which my noble friend Lord Byers is the chairman and Lancelot Fleming, who was for so long an ornament and an addition to your Lordships' House, a member. The work that the Trust has been doing in Hampshire and the West Riding seems to have been most rewarding indeed, and much appreciated by both employers and pupils.
Now like the Baroness, Lady Phillips, I have one or two reservations which I should like to put. Obviously, we must avoid the charge that we are producing cheap labour, but I do not think that that is too difficult a hazard to avoid. We must be careful, I think, that it does not just become one of the shibboleths, "Yes, but we must have work experience", and to see that it is properly done. Every exercise in this sphere must be well thought out; and here I should like to quote a few words from Dame Muriel Stewart, who, as most of your Lordships know, was chairman of the Schools Council, an ex-President of the National Union of Teachers and also, I am glad to say, a member of my Liberal Party Education Panel. She says:
"This kind of experience is what young people need, instead of the visits of the past in large groups to factories where only two or three pupils would be interested in the work that they would be seeing and intend to enter. Such visits were inevitably superficial and limited to a morning or afternoon. Experience for a week or weeks in factory, mill or office is what these pupils need. Only in this way can they find out what it is like to work a full day, to work with other people, to observe rules and to carry out tasks for which they carry responsibility."
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when she says that this experience must be tied up with an increasing efficiency and expansion of the whole of the careers advisory structure. One of the good things about the Bill is that it will almost certainly enforce a certain expansion and improvement in
370
that service. I think we must be very careful that it does not become something available for the least satisfactory pupils, for those who are not very good in the classroom. It is very important that we avoid the attitude: "We can't think of what to do with them; take them out and put them in factories". On the raising of the school leaving age this is a problem which will face particular pupils.
As we have already seen with the Trident Scheme and other schemes, many firms and employers are very good at giving opportunities. I wonder whether it may not be possible, or even necessary, to produce some kind of tax incentive for firms who really co-operate in this way. The long-term benefits, I am sure, will be worth while but the short-term benefits may not always be very obvious to them. I have one question. Like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, it is about the insurance problem. I am sure that the problem is covered. I ask merely because I notice that the Hampshire County Council Act 1972, which was the Act passed to allow the Trident experiment in Hampshire, and is really the precursor of this Bill, had a special section dealing with insurance. I wonder why it is not necessary to have that in this Bill. With those one or two reservations and one question, on behalf of my colleagues I give a very warm welcome to the Bill.
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I want from these Benches to add a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on introducing this Bill, and to say how much I support it. So far, those who have taken part in the debate have talked in terms of education and release for education and experiments in industry in what I might call the town-type of work. Naturally, that is very important since so many in our population live entirely by industrial work. But I should like to make a plea for those areas where agricultural work is of great importance. It is most necessary that the urban children should have an opportunity, if they wish, to learn something about the countryside and agriculture because it is an industry of great interest. It is also one which has a considerable labour shortage. I am not suggesting that any child should be used, so to speak, as an agricultural worker,

371
but simply that children should be introduced to what is a most fascinating type of work. So many people in the Department are geared to industry and urban conditions, but there should be someone in the Department and in the local education authority areas who is looking out for something to attract young people to the countryside.
The Northumberland Education Committee has established what is almost a country school, where children are sent for a week to gain experience of the countryside. That is not work experience; it is learning about the countryside. Those children are of ordinary school age, not the 16-year-olds about whom we are now thinking, but the school has been a tremendous success. Children have come from urban areas to the country, which is real country. My own education authority started two countryside schools where children can come for a week or a fortnight at a time and learn about the countryside. I hope that when it comes to the school leaving age range of experience we shall not concentrate entirely on urban conditions but also look at the countryside.
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, I feel that we should not allow the Front Bench speakers to get away with the whole of the debate and that is the only reason I rise to speak. Many children of 15 to 16 look forward very much to starting work; not only for materialistic reasons, in order to earn money, but because some of them feel that they have had enough of school education perhaps six or nine months before the time comes for them to leave school. Sometimes when children start jobs they do so most enthusiastically. But after a few months, for want of encouragement, they become disillusioned with their job. It is not easy for youngsters to know what a job means before they do it and it would be a pity if they had to try a number of jobs before they found one which interested them. So it seems to me that this Bill is on the right lines.
Sometimes, of course, children do not have a great deal of choice about what kind of job they will take to start with. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and with the noble Lord, Lord
372
Beaumont of Whitley, about the need for this to be very carefully controlled. During the work experience I think that much will depend on the attitude of fellow workers. Generally, these young people will be very much welcomed by their fellow-workers, but I think there is a slight risk in the other direction: that they may be anxious to give the youngsters a good time and make sure that they enjoy the experience and perhaps thereby fail to give a perfectly fair picture of what the job means.
Of course, parents do not always give a very lucid account to their children of what their own job means, any more than some children give a lucid account to their parents of what goes on in school. I remember one parent who was displeased with what his child told him went on at school. So he wrote to the teacher, and the teacher wrote back saying: "If you will not believe everything that your boy says about what goes on in his class, I will not believe everything about what I am told goes on at home." So I felt that much will depend on the attitude of their fellow workers. I am sure that there will be good will. But it will be important that the fellow workers do their best to explain what the job amounts to and that it should be carried out in an atmosphere of reality and seriousness and not be just something to be included in the syllabus because it seems to be a good thing. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, with the one proviso that the provisions be watched and controlled very carefully in order to ensure so far as possible that the youngsters get the value out of them that I am sure they will if those precautions are taken.
3.20 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I want to say in a couple of minutes how warm a welcome I give in a broad and general sense to this Bill. It may need some slight amendment in Committee. I want also to underline the point made by my noble friend Lady Phillips that in similar schemes in the past the girls do not appear to have had quite as fair a deal as the boys. I have always been interested in girls. At the age of 74 I think I probably still am, but it seems to me that there are quite a number of occupations of which girls in their last

373
year at school might be glad of some experience. We all know that girls of 15 or so think of themselves as budding Florence Nightingales and after leaving school some plunge into hospital work. Some of them are disappointed, others become dedicated to a life-time of that kind of work. It might be useful if, as part of this scheme, they were allowed to see what hospitals are like and what kind of duties would be required of them if they took up such hospital work. It is not only hospital work but office work. I think it would be a good idea to give girls equal opportunities with boys in this particular part of their teenage education.
On the whole I think it is a very good thing indeed that boys and girls, soon about to leave school, should be given some broad idea of what the world is like outside the school and the playground. At present they have little knowledge of what goes on outside in industry and commerce and it is a tendency—which is disastrous in some cases—for children to plunge into the first job that appears to be available. Giving them the opportunity to see what happens in various branches of industry and commerce would enable them to take a much better-informed view of the occupation into which they ultimately enter. My first job was in a solicitor's office. If I had stayed there I might have been a very respected and highly-esteemed member of society, but I left it quickly. I am sure that far too many children at the present time plunge into one job, leave it quickly, leave that and then go into another job. This Bill will give them an opportunity to take a really studied view of the life that lies before them.
Nothing has been said about whether these children will receive any payment when they go into an office or a factory. I presume that they will not; but it might be of interest to parents outside this House if this aspect of the matter were made clear. I want to underline what has already been said about the dangers of physical injury to these children, especially those who go to work in a factory or engineering job and the like. It may be that we shall have to think of some Amendment in Committee stage to ensure, first, that the Factory Acts regulations are very strictly observed so far as they are concerned and,
374
secondly, that adequate provision is made for compensation if they sustain an injury.
It has been said already by my noble friend Lady Phillips that this scheme might lead to a tendency for teachers to neglect the later stages of the schoolroom education of those children who are not brilliantly academic and that there may be a tendency to say, "Johnnie is not very bright. Let us send him to a factory." That may have some sense in it, but at the same time it means that this kind of child is going to lose the advantage of some intensive instruction which he might normally receive in his classroom in his last year at school.
My Lords, the only other point is that there could in some cases be trouble with the trade unions. I sincerely hope that the education committee, or whatever other authority is responsible for administering this scheme, will gather round it an advisory committee of trade union officers for the particular locality concerned, in order that any difficulties may be smoothed out before they arise.
3.24 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have given a broad welcome to this Bill, which is small but important. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for reminding the House of the differences between the various regions of the country in the figures of those staying on voluntarily at school. How right the noble Baroness was to make that point! It was precisely for that reason that her Government envisaged and this Government carried out the raising of the school-leaving age. This brings both sides of the House together in trying to iron out regional differences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, brought out various points on the Bill and I thought that I could best reply in this way. Every work-experience project, I feel, must be a co-operative venture between the schools, the employers and those working for the employers. The channels of communication will vary according to the size and nature of the school and the firm, but certain individuals must be identified as the normal contacts. In the formative stages, I think schools would be well advised to bring into consultation, as appropriate, school

375
governors, local authorities, the inspectorate for the Children and Young Persons Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act; Her Majesty's inspectors of factories, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, representatives of those working in the particular organisation concerned and the local education authority careers officers. Before the actual visit is made, parents ought to be informed about the proposed arrangements. Some authorities have decided to obtain the written consent of parents for the participation of individual pupils. This was extremely wise.
When the noble Baroness said that she felt that there could be a loophole here for more truancy, well, this is supposed to be, as the Bill says, a part of education; and this means that it is up to the schools and the educational interests to go and visit the factories when they are welcome to do so, to make sure that the pupils are there.
There will be no payment involved in schemes of this kind. Work-experience schemes are regarded as part of the general curriculum of the school, with the intention of showing pupils the relevance to adult life of their studies at school. The work-participation parts of the schemes must be seen and planned as part of a course, with these general aims. They are not supposed to be vocationally biased. There are advantages—and both the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, have brought up this point—in letting pupils see work in occupation that they may not go into themselves. Nor are these schemes designed to be part of a vocational guidance scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred none the less to the prospects of pupils afterwards; in other words, to pupils' careers. I would suggest that experience gained in work experience inevitably will add to a pupil's knowledge about possible future jobs and will help a boy or girl in discussion with the careers teachers and officers to make a better informed decision about what he or she wants to do. To this extent, the schemes offer a bonus to the careers education and guidance programme, and both teachers responsible for careers education in the schools and the local education authority
376
careers officer should know of the schemes which are operating.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asked about insurance. The Hampshire Act for the Trident scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, talked about, contained provisions for insurance for special reasons because it was a local Act. This is an enabling Bill and does not affect arrangements for insurance which the local education authorities and the employers have made in the past. It is a subject on which I am sure the local education authorities might wish to have guidance from my right honourable friend. In the light of what your Lordships have said this afternoon we shall consider what guidance ought to be given if this Bill is enacted.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for the general welcome that he gave to the Bill. I was interested, as were many others in the House, in what the noble Lord said on the more general terms concerning the continuing educational prospects of all young people, whether they are academically very bright or not so bright, after reaching the school leaving age. That may be a theme which the noble Lord may wish to develop in the future if we have a more general debate on education. The noble Lord specifically mentioned the Trident Trust. I should like to thank him also for mentioning this, because my right honourable friend's Department welcomes the arrangements for this project, which includes the participation of the local education authority—in this case, Hampshire—and the business of local interests: and, indeed, the Trades Union Congress have seen their way to serving on the advisory committee of this scheme, which of course owes its initiative to some farsighted people. In this connection, I hope that perhaps your Lordships who have held in the past, and still hold, important positions in the Trades Union Congress may draw the attention of the T.U.C. to remarks which have been made in the House to-day; and perhaps, in the light of what has been said this afternoon, the T.U.C. will feel able now to give a welcome to the proposals which are being put forward in the Bill by the Government.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, referred to agricultural work. All

377
I would say on that is that I agree with the noble Baroness that farming is fascinating, particularly for young people; but year by year it becomes more and more mechanised, and this means, I think, that the opportunities for farm work experience schemes become less easy to come by. But of course, if they can only be arranged, I agree with the noble Baroness that they become all the more worth while.
From what I have heard during the debate, I think it is common ground that the objective of raising the school-leaving age is not just to tack one extra year on the end of a secondary school course, but to try to provide every pupil with a full five years' secondary education. We know that work experience has been of value to boys and girls of 15-plus for reasons which I submitted in moving the Second Reading. Therefore, to remove from the secondary curriculum any opportunities of a foretaste of the world at work, just at the moment when everyone is seeking to make the secondary course as full and fruitful as possible for pupils who are both examination and non-examination candidates—picking up a remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—would seem to me to be very wrong. That is why the intention of this Bill is to allow work experience schemes to continue to be offered for those who are 15. But it is because no stone must be left unturned to see that the schemes are efficiently planned that the same control and the same safeguards will continue to apply. It is in that context that I hope your Lordships will now agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down at the end of that very satisfying speech, what about the girls who were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Phillips and myself?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I very much regret that I was unable to satisfy the girls.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
insert—

PART I PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST SAFETY OF AIRCRAFT")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, a new title for the first Part. Clauses 12 to 21, it is proposed, will constitute the second Part, and the remainder will go into the third Part.
LORD BESWICK: Obviously I do not quarrel with this Amendment, but I think it right at the outset that we might get one or two things fairly clear in our minds. During the original Committee stage certain noble Lords on the other side, and we on our side, tried to move certain Amendments, and the noble Lord stressed to us, not once but several times,
"that the primary purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Montreal Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation."
Later, he said:
"Since the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Montreal Convention, to go beyond that is not so straightforward as it might appear at first sight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 7/12/72, c. 377.]
This was the noble Lord's great argument for rejecting the Amendments which we put forward. What I am really trying to establish now is the philosophy behind some of these Amendments. It is proposed that we widen the Title of the Bill, although it was argued against me on the earlier stages that it would be unwise to widen the Title of the Bill. Can I ask the noble Lord: Are we now primarily legislating for the purpose of the Montreal Convention, or are we going wider than that? And if we are, what about

379
those arguments that it would be unsuitable, unreasonable or inefficient to have legislation which went wider than the Montreal Convention? Secondly, if we are going wider than that, to what extent does the noble Lord's argument arise that we ought to rely upon established legislation when dealing with matters outside the ambit of the Montreal Convention? I put this forward not because I want to appear unfriendly or unreasonable, or to try to make a point, but I should like to understand the basis on which we are now proceeding.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has put a perfectly reasonable question. I had thought that the best course would be if when we came to Part II I gave some explanation of the philosophy of that Part and the new Amendments to Part III but as the noble Lord has asked me this question, perhaps I can say at this stage that the philosophy of the Amendments that are now being made is to secure that there is protection against the commitment of acts of sabotage, and the like, and not merely deterrence and punishment afterwards. In other words, as I explained earlier on, originally our thought was to rely on the voluntary procedure to ensure that searches are carried out as appropriate. On further consideration, we have felt that the public would expect us to ensure that we do not rely only on voluntary co-operation, because it may well be from time to time that it may not suit all operators of aircraft to conform with the voluntary system, or they may have a different assessment from ours of the risk at any given moment. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to bring in these additional safeguards. I hope that gives an adequate explanation of the basic reasons. We could not of course wholly have achieved our purpose without amending the Long Title because at the present time, while we are seeking throughout to implement the Montreal Convention so far as the protection of aircraft is concerned, this does not actually extend to the protection of aerodromes from which the aircraft operate: yet the safety of the aircraft may depend on what is happening on the aerodromes. It is for that reason that we felt it right to extend the Long Title.
LORD BESWICK: I am not arguing about the extension of the Long Title,
380
but asking questions about the philosophy. With respect, the noble Lord has not really answered the point. The argument he advanced against the Amendments we sought to make in Committee was that it would be inefficient and render us less effective if we went beyond the purposes of the Montreal Convention. As I understood the argument of the noble Lord, it was that unless all the signatories to the Montreal Convention have identical undertakings it would make it difficult for us when the occasion arose to require other countries to ratify and to give us reciprocal undertakings.
We seem here, in my view, to be going beyond the Montreal Convention. Does the noble Lord say—and I do not ask him to put on a sackcloth or any-think of that kind, but I want to find out the facts—that it does not really matter if we legislate for something that goes beyond the Convention? Will he be able to assure us that, despite what he has said, it does not in any way make the ratification of that Convention less effective if we have legislation of this kind?
3.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There certainly is no conflict with the Montreal Convention. Of course in a sense here we go beyond that, because we do take powers. Perhaps it might make things a little easier when we come to Part II if I were now, in the light of the noble Lord's comments and if the Committee so wishes, explain the contents of Part II and the other Amendments so as to get this matter into perspective. If this would be for the convenience of the Committee, I would willingly do it.
When I introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I spoke about the Government's approach to aviation security and said that three main objectives were involved. At the present time we are going to deal with aviation security from the point of view of what happens on the ground, whereas the Montreal Convention is talking all the time about endangering safety in flight. We are here considering the steps to be taken on the ground to avoid the endangering of the aircraft in flight. One of the three main objectives I have referred to was to support and contribute

381
to international action in the United Nations, in IcAo and elsewhere, and the other two were to ensure that the necessary organisation is available and that the procedures are developed to combat possible acts of violence, to respond to any incident involving the United Kingdom, and to ensure that appropriate and effective security measures are taken at our airports and by our airlines. I then went on to say that the two main considerations which influenced our approach to security measures were, first, that the hijacker must be prevented from joining the aircraft or the saboteur from planting his bombs on the aircraft; and, secondly, that security measures should be related to threat and be concentrated on those operations most at risk. I indicated that security was being achieved through voluntary co-operation and liaison and with financial assistance from the Government. Indeed, I paid tribute to all concerned for their readiness to work together with the Government to achieve these objects.
However, as I said, we have now come to the conclusion that the public would expect the Government to take steps to ensure that an appropriate and effective degree of security was being provided, consistent with the threat to our civil aviation, and to have available the necessary powers to see that prompt and positive action is taken where necessary. Circumstances might arise in which, for recoanisable reasons, commercial or otherwise, airlines or airport authorities might not wish to act unless they were formally required to do so by the Government. If the general intention to reinforce the present voluntary system with reserve statutory powers commends itself to your Lordships—and I emphasise that they are intended to be reserve powers and used only in emergency or in the event of voluntary action proving inadequate—these new clauses and Amendments to Clause 8, which is the definition clause, would be needed. If they appear formidable—and they are, I admit, a rather large mouthful—it is largely because of our anxiety to restrict the powers to the essential minimum.
Although the purposes of the Amendments, namely, to deal with acts of violence affecting aircraft, persons and property carried by aircraft, are closely
382
connected with the underlying purpose of the Bill as set out in the Long Title, technically, as I said, an Amendment to the Long Title is needed to make the protection of the aircraft against acts of violence complete. Such protection cannot be afforded without also protecting aerodromes. The conception upon which the new clauses and amendments are based is that it is not enough, when acts of violence take place, to provide for deterrence and retribution as the Bill at present does, in line with the Montreal Convention: we need also to take the necessary powers to prevent the commission of acts of violence. I agree entirely that I was pressed to do just this at the earlier stages of the Bill, and I welcome the contributions to our thinking that were made in this matter.
The new Part II therefore deals with the protection of aircraft and of aerodromes, and of persons and property on board aircraft or on aerodromes; and the first new clause states the purpose of Part II and defines acts of violence. So that the Secretary of State may know what protection and prevention measures are at present being taken and what directions may be required in any given circumstances, the second new clause (that is Clause 13) empowers him to require information about existing measures, notification of further measures introduced in future and of measures which are discontinued.
The next two new clauses enable him to give directions about searching passengers, aircraft and aerodromes. At present most, if not all, contracts for the carriage of passengers entitle aircraft operators not to carry a passenger if, inter alia, he does not submit himself to search on request. The new Clause 14 permits the Secretary of State to give directions appropriate to the circumstances to any operator of aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, requiring him not to admit people to aircraft unless searches have been carried out. Amendment No. 28 defines what is meant by an aircraft operating in the United Kingdom, to cover aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom and which are for the time being allocated for flights to or from United Kingdom aerodromes.
Subsection (5) of the new clause contained in Amendment No. 18 makes it clear that directions requiring anything

383
to be done outside the United Kingdom apply only to an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and cannot require anything to be done which is at variance with local law but may override the terms of any contract. So far as aerodromes are concerned, the directions may require not only searches to be carried out, but for aircraft on the aerodrome itself to be guarded and buildings to be constructed, altered, demolished or removed or other works to be executed whether within or outside the aerodrome. Provision is made in Amendment No. 25 for compensation to owners or occupiers of land outside the aerodrome where they are adversely affected by such directions. It is not thought that such works will often be needed and, if they are, they are likely to be of a minor character.
Directions may specify the number of persons to be used on a search and the qualifications of those who have to carry it out. There may be a high degree of urgency in searching an aerodrome; hence the power to specify numbers. As to qualifications, the term is to include training and experience. Searches are to be carried out by constables, unless the directions specify other persons and describe their qualifications. In the case of searching of passengers and baggage by operators of aircraft, this is normally done under the operators' own arrangements by persons other than constables. Constables are defined in an amendment to Clause 8 as including
"any person having the powers and privileges of a constable"
and British Airports Authority constables have such powers within B.A.A. aerodromes. Neither the B.A.A. nor any other owners of aerodromes have power to give orders to the civil police. That is why, while operators of aircraft are required to take all steps as in any particular circumstances are practicable and necessary to prevent persons going on board aircraft unsearched, or the aircraft being permitted to fly unless the aircraft has been searched, aerodrome managers are required to use their best endeavours to ensure searches required are carried out. Where appropriate, constables will be duly authorised to carry and will carry firearms when carrying out searches or taking other measures required. Subsection (1) of Amendment 18 makes it
384
clear that no direction is to require or authorise any person to carry a firearm. It is for the chief officer of a police force to decide who is to be licensed to carry a firearm and in what circumstances he may carry it. The Bill does not change the existing manner of controlling the use of firearms. In regard to searches, directions may also specify any apparatus, equipment or other aids to be used for the purpose of searching or guarding.
Directions may also be given under new clause, Amendment 14, that specified aircraft shall not be allowed to fly unless specified modifications or alterations of the aircraft, or of apparatus and equipment installed in it have been made. Before making such directions the Secretary of State must inform the Civil Aviation Authority and take account of any advice given him by the Authority. Under subsection (2) of new Clause 17, directions may specify the qualifications which those carrying out such modifications must have.
Lastly, the new Clause 20 makes it an offence for any person—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask which is new Clause 20? I do not see it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should say the new clause which forms Amendment No. 20. I am sorry, I was using shorthand. This new clause makes it an offence for any person, unless he can prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to have with him or in his baggage on any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, wherever it may be, or in any other aircraft when it is in or over the United Kingdom, or on any aerodrome, any dangerous article including any firearm, airgun or pistol, any explosive, any article looking like such a firearm or explosive, or any other article made or adapted for use for causing injury to, or incapacitating a person, or for destroying or injuring property.
LORD BESWICK: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am very grateful to the him; he is being extremely helpful and all he is saying is in response to questions that I asked. But I wonder whether it would not be easier for all concerned if we stopped at this point and dealt with the particular clauses. Possibly the explanation of the clause which the

385
noble Lord has now given would be more easily digested if we have the explanations when we come to the actual clauses.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course I am very glad to fall in with the wishes of the Committee. It was suggested that it would be helpful if I gave a conspectus of the whole matter first of all, and then we could deal with the individual clauses. I thought it might help if I drew together the various proposals which are in different new clauses, on different parts of the Marshalled List. I have just said "lastly", and I should like to say a few more words to put the whole matter in perspective. Under new Clause 22 constables, or other persons specified in the direction, are given an additional power, where they have reasonable cause to suspect that such an article is in or may be brought into an aerodrome, to detain and search without a warrant any person on the aerodrome, or any part of the aerodrome; to enter and search any building on the aerodrome; to stop and detain any aircraft, vehicle, goods or property for so long as is necessary for the search. Since the maximum penalty in the new clause forming part of Amendment 23, for offences in relation to dangerous articles is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine, or both, a constable will have under Section 2(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 power to arrest any person when he has reasonable cause to believe that he is about to commit the offence, and any person other than a constable may also arrest without a warrant a person who is in the act of committing an offence, or whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of committing it.
There is no doubt that in certain respects the powers that are being sought are unprecedented, but we face an unprecedented situation. We know the form this violence can take. We believe that the best protection is to discover guns and bombs before they can be used, and we also believe that the public would expect the Government to have armed themselves with the necessary powers to take such measures as might be required to deal with this menace. However, I assure your Lordships that the Government are very conscious of the breadth of the powers they are seeking. These will be used sparingly and with proper regard for the rights of the individual. When it
386
is necessary to take action we shall do so with all proper and responsible care, and after proper consultation. We now believe these measures to be necessary, and we believe that they will be an important addition to the continuing efforts to combat violence against civil aviation. I hope those introductory remarks will be of help.
LORD KINGS NORTON: May I make a semantic point? The description of Part I is inaccurate because Part I deals less with penalties for unlawful acts than the offences which may attract the penalties. I suggest this title might be thought about again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We will look at his suggestion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 [Destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft]:
3.57 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
"() In this Part of this Act "unlawfully"—

(a) in relation to the commission of act act in the United Kingdom, means so as (apart from this Act) to constitute an offence under the law of the part of the United Kingdom in which the act is committed, and

(b) in relation to the commission of an act outside the United Kingdom, means so that the commission of the act would (apart from this Act) have been an offence under the law of England if it had been committed in England or of Scotland if it had been committed in Scotland."

The noble Lord said: This additional new subsection in Clause 1 is the definition of "unlawfully" as at present in the Bill in Clause 8(1). The expression only needs to be defined for the purposes of the original Bill. Accordingly, it is now inserted in Part I as a minor modification to indicate that it applies only to Part I. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I suppose this means that acts committed outside the United Kingdom could be pursued in the courts either in England or Scotland, according to which was most convenient.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 32.
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting Amendment. It is thought that the words from "Kingdom" to the end of line 32, are not necessary and that their presence creates difficulty by contrast with the absence of any corresponding words in the new clause, which is Amendment No. 12.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. In a way it is minor but it makes sense out of what was nonsense. I am extremely grateful to him for having redrafted it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert ("building or ship so used, and including any apparatus or equipment so used whether it is on board an aircraft or elsewhere").
The noble Lord said: It had been intended to take this Amendment on Third Reading, but it was put down for to-day in response to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 provides that it shall be an offence to destroy, damage or interfere with the operation of property used for the provision of air navigation facilities. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 defines what is included in such property. This Amendment alters that definition by making it clear that property used for the provision of air navigation facilities includes any ships which may be used for that purpose. It also amends the definition by bringing within it apparatus and equipment on board aircraft which is used for provision of air navigation facilities. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: As I have criticised, may I add a word of thanks also, as I thought that this was an essential Amendment.
LORD WILBERFORCE: May I turn this into a chorus of approval?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged—may I make the quartet?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BESWICK: On this clause, in addition to suggesting that the protection should be extended to ships which carried air navigation facilities, I pointed out that there had been threats of interference against shipping itself. Although the noble Lord insisted that the Title of the Bill was such that it precluded any Amendment which brought shipping into the purview of this Bill, nevertheless when we discussed Clause 2 on Committee stage he undertook to consider the possibility of further discussions on this point. He said that although he was not the Minister in charge of the Department he would put to his honourable friend that it would be useful to discuss with the advisers of the Chamber of Shipping the points that I had made. I now ask the noble Lord whether he has put this matter to his Department, whether those discussions have taken place, and what is the outcome.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, the discussions have not taken place. I am bound to say that I did not envisage that those discussions would take place with relevance to anything that transpired in this House, because at the time when I said that we were thinking in terms of getting the Bill before Christmas. We are advised that this matter would be right outside the Long Title of the Bill because it is right outside the purpose of the Bill, which is the protection of aircraft. This is a different kind of animal from the kind of Amendment we are moving here which still relates to the protection of aircraft, even though it does need an alteration to the Long Title of the Bill. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of this matter and I shall make certain that it is pursued before the Bill goes to another place.
LORD BESWICK: But surely the noble Lord does not rely upon the possibility of re-commitment in order to be reminded that he has given certain undertakings? Those undertakings were very clearly emphasised in the Committee stage of

389
the Bill. It was some time ago. It is a most unusual circumstance that we have a re-commitment and there has been all this additional time. I am disappointed that the noble Lord has not put into train the undertakings which lie gave and the consequent discussions with the advisers of the Chamber of Shipping. I should now like to have some copper-bottomed guarantees that he is going to consider with the Chamber of Shipping how they can extend to ships the protection which it is now intended to extend to aircraft.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The only thing that is really relevant at the present time is whether some amendment of this particular Bill would be appropriate. I have already expressed opinions upon that and I have said that the whole matter is being examined at the present time, of course, I believe by the Law Commissioners. So far as further talks are concerned, I must apologise to the noble Lord. For my part, I confess that I had overlooked it. He will appreciate, of course, that there has been a great deal of work involved in the preparation of these new clauses and our attention has been directed to those clauses rather than to this particular point which, quite honestly, I felt we had disposed of in this House. I am quite prepared to see that it is looked at further.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Penalties and proceedings]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know whether it would be appropriate to take Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together. They are all to add the words "this Part of" to the Bill and are purely consequential on the addition of the new clauses and dividing the Bill into separate parts. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 3, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").
Page 4, line 6, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").
Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("this Part of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 8 corrects a mistake made on reprinting
390
the Bill after the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Extradition]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 are to add the same words and are purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 35, after ("under") insert ("this Part of");
Page 4, line 43, after ("under") insert ("this Part of");
Page 5, line 3, after ("under") insert ("this Part of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Powers to prevent persons front travelling in aircraft]:
4.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This clause has been embodied as subsections (1) and (3) of Amendment No. 22, with the minor Amendments referred to in the notes when we come to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question is, That Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I moved to leave out Clause 6.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question I put was, That Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 6 disagreed to.
LORD BESWICK: There is a mistake here which the noble Lord himself had better clear up. We are leaving out Clause 6. It is the Amendment to which I think the noble Lord wishes us to agree, not the clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The fact I wish to achieve is to leave out Clause 6, and I do not really care how the Chairman puts it so long as we leave out Clause 6.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Committee has decided "Not content" on the Question, That Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—

PART II PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT AND AERODROMES AGAINST ACTS OF VIOLENCE
Purposes to which Part II applies
.—(1) The purposes to which this Part of this Act applies are the protection against acts of violence—

(a) of aircraft, and of persons or property on board aircraft, and

(b) of aerodromes, and of such persons or property as (in the case of persons) are at any time present in any part of an aerodrome or (in the case of property) forms part of an aerodrome or is at any time (whether permanently or temporarily) in any part of an aerodrome.

(2) In this Part of this Act "act of violence" means any act (whether actual or potential, and whether done or to be done in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) which either

(a) being an act done in Great Britain, constitutes, or

(b) if done in Great Britain would constitute,

the offence of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide or assault, or an offence under sections 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 or 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, under section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 or under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 or, in Scotland, the offence of malicious mischief.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. Subsection (1) of this clause sets out the purposes to which Part II of the Bill applies; namely, the protection of aircraft, aerodromes and persons and property in aircraft and aerodromes, from acts of violence. There is a reference too, for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies, in the following Clauses, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 26, to which we shall come. The word "aerodrome" is defined in the additions now made to Clause 8. Subsection (2) defines acts of violence where used in Part II of this Bill. The definition, in substance, is the same as that already contained in Clause 1(6) of the Bill, except that there is a reference to a potential act. Secondly, crimes against property have been included by referring
392
to Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and to similar offences in respect of Scotland. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether I might ask a question which applies to the whole of Part I, and indeed to the remaining Amendments that are before us. In this Amendment, and particularly in the consequent Amendments, the noble Lord is asking for some very wide powers indeed and therefore I ask him what consultations he has had with the airline operators, the British Airports Authority, the Aerodrome Owners' Association and indeed the British Airline Pilots' Association, all of which are most intimately concerned with what we are proposing to do. Will he tell us whether he has had such consultations and, if so, what was the outcome?
LORD DRUMALBYN: There have been consultations, and of course these are the very people who are co-operating from day to day in the voluntary arrangements. It was a decision for the Government whether these powers were required, and I am not aware that this particular question was put as to whether we should take these powers or not. This seems to be a decision for Parliament to take on the recommendation of the Government.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord really cannot get away with that. Of course it is the ultimate decision of Parliament on the recommendation of the Government, but I am asking whether consultations were held and were the powers agreed to by those people who will be intimately concerned with the execution of them if the need arises? It is relevant, and although I accept the responsibilities of the Government I do not believe the noble Lord has answered the question which I put to him. If I continue to speak for a moment or two longer that will enable the answer to come along, and I hope it will be fairly detailed. I hope I shall be assured that those concerned have indeed recognised that they were asked to make concessions or to agree to proposals which can have a very serious effect upon the operations of an aircraft or the running of an aerodrome. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me the assurances that I seek, and that they will be fairly detailed.
LORD STOW HILL: May I seek to assist my noble friend's purpose by asking one further question? Can the Minister give me an example of a potential act which, within the meaning of subsection (2) of this Amendment, could constitute an act of violence? What potential acts are referred to there?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I suppose it might have been expressed as "intended acts"; in other words, acts that may take place. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the use of the word "potential". No doubt it would have been more difficult to prove an intention, but it may be possible objectively to prove whether a thing was probable, likely or possible.
LORD STOW HILL: I should be grateful if the Minister would look again at that drafting. I do not quite understand how an act which is potential and therefore in the assumed circumstances has not taken place can amount to an act of violence, any more than an intended act, which equally in the assumed circumstances will not have taken place, can amount to an act of violence.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should have thought that this was a question of definition for the purposes of this Part. What we are seeking to do is to prevent acts of violence from taking place and to give powers in anticipation of acts of violence taking place, to see that such acts do not take place. I shall be most grateful for the assistance of the noble and learned Lord in this matter, if he can help us to get a better word.
I think I was on the right lines in what I said before. There has been voluntary co-operation and it has been done through the National Aviation Security Committee.
LORD BESWICK: Voluntary cooperation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes. That is done through the National Aviation Security Committee. That Committee was consulted. Support has been received from the British Airline Pilots' Association and the airlines have also been consulted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions. I welcome the second Part
394
of the Bill; indeed, to some extent it may be said to be an extension of some of the argument that I had with the noble Lord earlier about what happened when the doors of the aircraft were opened. I must admit that the noble Lord rather took the bit between his teeth and went a good deal further than I had anticipated, but it fully meets the point which I had in mind. May we be told in some way how these directions are supposed to operate? As the noble Lord has said, they are unprecedented. They enable the Minister to override contracts, rules of law and Acts of Parliament. They are said to be only reserve powers in an emergency, but, with great respect, we have no knowledge of that. There is nothing in the new clause about limitation. The noble Lord could make this a permanent regulation and I think we should look most carefully at how he proposes to use these powers.
To take an example, there are some things which must be done immediately and I would not hamper the Government in any way from doing them, but there are other things which may be on a semi-permanent basis. Indeed, this is so. Reports must constantly be made to the Department as to what arrangements are in force with regard to the safety of aircraft and the searches which have been carried out. Must we treat all those directions in exactly the same way, or could we not have some Parliamentary procedure for certain types of questions while other types would not require Parliamentary procedure?
As I see the position at the present time there are only limitations, or sanctions, on what the Minister does: one is that he will have to pay compensation for the damage created, which may be from breaking a contract or it may be from breaking through an Act of Parliament; and the other sanction is that afterwards he may be questioned and he may be censured in Parliament. At the present time those are the only limitations which apply to the use of any of these directions and I am wondering whether we should not look a little more closely to see whether we can tie him to using these powers, as he himself said, sparingly and with respect for the rights of man.

395
There are two other questions which I should like to ask. I am very keen that the Minister should have power and also that we should know who has it. In this new Part there is a reference to "constable": there are at least two sorts of constable and there may be many more. There is reference to "authorised persons"; there is reference to "the personnel specified". Whom do these come under? Who is responsible? If something takes place at Heathrow, does the Minister of the Environment accept full responsibility? Who is capable of acting? In the Amendments it is said that they do not want to use firearms or violence but it is quite obvious that they do not want to discourage other people from using firearms or violence. This comes out quite clearly, but apparently they do not accept responsibility for it themselves. The time may come when someone will have to make up his mind as to who is going to use violence. Who will that person be? Will it be the Home Office? Will it be the Minister of the Environment? I feel it must be made quite clear who is really responsible.
Finally, a good deal is said about pilfering at these big aerodromes. I see that among other things Part II provides for the protection of property. I do not know whether it is the intention, directly or indirectly, that it will in any way be covered by these particular provisions. Probably something is to be done there and it may be that these powers will be used incidentally for this purpose, but I shall be interested to know whether the governing words of this Part of the Act would exclude the use of these powers for the protection of property, which may be baggage or freight or anything else, which is being pilfered. I welcome these proposals. We have not had very long to look at them; we have had no Second Reading, no Explanatory Memorandum or Financial Memorandum. We have had only about three days to look at the final drafts. I hope the noble Lord will not take exception if we ask a lot of questions as to what the different clauses mean.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Selkirk says as regards the possible dangers of the powers which the
396
Executive are taking in this Bill. No member of the Committee wishes in any way to question the right steps for protection of aircraft, but the powers in this Bill could in fact, if exercised in certain ways, bring civil aviation to a halt. They could make the use of aerodromes and the use of airliners for transportation impossible if they were applied in certain ways. It may be necessary at some time to use the powers in an extreme way. The point I would ask the Minister is this: what machinery is there for the operator or the aerodrome owner who feels, while fully supporting the purposes of the Bill, that the powers are being used impractically, without sufficient knowledge of his particular problems? What machinery of appeal is there for the man affected or the enterprise affected by the sweeping use in possibly not the best, most practical manner of the powers? I think it is necessary that we should have some safeguards for the operators and aerodrome owners.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to share the concern expressed by noble Lords on both sides, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I have only in the last day or so had a chance to see these new proposals and I cannot pretend even yet that I am in a position to be very knowledgeable about them. I am concerned by what I have read so far. I hope it may be possible for a decision on these most important matters to be deferred in some way to enable us to have a chance to look at them more carefully and consider all the points the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, have raised.
4.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall not be in the slightest in any way upset if a lot of questions are asked. I should expect them to be asked. I shall be astonished if I can answer them all, but if I am not able to answer any particular question I will certainly get in touch with the noble Lord who asks it. There will, of course, be further opportunities on this Bill; this is not the last stage, even though it is now the fourth stage. While it is certainly true that all these Amendments have not been very long before the House, they have been in one form or another before the House for about a week, and I cannot

397
say that I have seen them for very much longer myself.
I think the important thing to understand here is that what we are seeking to do is to give statutory force to what is at present being done by voluntary means. I explained in my initial remarks why it is thought to be necessary to do that. It is not a bad thing to have a statutory background to voluntary powers. It is not intended that we shall give directions right away, because the voluntary system seems to be working well. On the other hand, at any given moment, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested, an emergency might arise, and then it would be highly desirable to seek the quickest possible and most comprehensive method of dealing with that emergency. The directions are to be given, of course, by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 13 speaks of notice in writing. Amendment No. 14 does not say notice in writing. I imagine the reason for that—I did not inquire, but it seemed to me obvious—is that the circumstances might be so urgent that it might not be reasonable to expect notice in writing to be given.
The kind of things that are being done are the searches, where appropriate. The Security Committee work out in what circumstances the searches should be carried out, and the risk is evaluated from time to time. In accordance with that, the appropriate action is taken, as I say, at the present time through voluntary means. If necessary, directions would be given. But in many cases time will be of the essence. There will be consultation within government before directions are given, but it may well be that there could not be consultation outside before directions are given. There is a clear chain of command for dealing with any incident, and detailed arrangements have been made. I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to give details of the arrangements that have been made.
My noble friend spoke of various kinds of directions. There is the first one as to information. That is in a sense a "one-off" one, because it requires information about the present state of affairs together with information about any further developments of aerodromes, the measures being taken on aerodromes, or any measures that are being discontinued. That is a general direction. As to directions
398
requiring Parliamentary procedure, I do not really understand what my noble friend has in mind. The kind of directions for the alteration of an aerodrome, or something like that, which might relate to particular circumstances, might be given on the spot, to deal with a particular situation. On the other hand, it might be that long-term work was required and there would be plenty of time, and whether a direction need be given at all would be open to doubt.
The noble Lord asked who has the powers. I explained as well as I could in the early stages that there are two separate sets of cases here: first of all, the operators of aircraft dealing with searches. In this case the contracts that they make with those whom they carry provide, as a condition of the contract, that the individual to be carried will submit himself to search on request. I understand that is common form in all contracts now, so there are no special powers required for that. What we want to be certain of is that searches are carried out, and that nobody is allowed to go on to aircraft unless he has been searched, in the particular circumstances that are envisaged. At the present time this is done by voluntary co-operation. It could be a matter for a direction in special cases.
As to the powers, the British Airports Authority managers have certain powers. They have their own constabulary, and somebody equivalent to a Chief Constable. As I explained before, it is not possible for all managers of aerodromes to give instructions to those who are to carry out searches on aerodromes, for the simple reason that they may very well be carried out by constables over whom they do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, all they can do is to use their best endeavours to have these done. As to pilfering, Part II starts in this way:
"The purposes to which this Part of this Act applies…"
The prevention of pilfering is not, so far as I am aware, a part of the purposes to which the Part of this Act applies.
I suggest that the whole question of search is the main weapon of the Bill here, and it is something that is being done in aerodromes all over the world at the present time. In some cases no doubt it is used with special powers, and in some cases, as has occurred so far in this country, voluntarily. It is always

399
our way to act voluntarily in so far as we can, but I would suggest that this is a case that is so serious and vital that where voluntary action is apparently not going to be adequate there should be the powers to give the directions. I suggest also that it is not practicable to invent a Parliamentary procedure which would have to be gone through before those directions are given. I have no doubt that in an emergency of this kind there would be a report to Parliament, but it would probably be a post hoc report.
I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give these powers to the Secretary of State. After all, what we are trying to do is to ensure that in emergencies the necessary action is taken without delay.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I do not know whether the noble Lord has clarified any minds, but certainly he has succeeded in confusing mine. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I certainly am not trying to deny him the necessary powers, and I feel that no one else is either. What we are trying to do is to obtain an understandable Act of Parliament. At the moment some of the words here are not understandably clear.
May I ask the noble Lord this straightforward question: Is there any difference in constitutional right, or power, or authority between the Secretary of State making a notice in writing or giving a direction? If there is no difference in effect as between giving a notice in writing or giving a direction, why do we not use the same terminology? When the noble Lord gives his explanation he says, referring presumably to Amendment No. 14 which we also seem to be discussing, that there it is necessary to have regard to Parliamentary proceedings. But in the circumstances envisaged in Amendment No. 14, they are precisely the circumstances in which Parliamentary proceedings cannot come into the matter because there we are faced with an emergency.
As I understand the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, he is asking how this direction is to be given. Is it enough for some member of the Department to pick up a telephone and say "Do this" or "Do that"? Is that to be considered a direction? If so, we understand it, and let us have it
400
straight. But why, in those circumstances, do we use different terminology from Amendment No. 13, where we simply talk about giving a notice in writing? Why cannot we have the word "direction" in both cases? I think that there is a case here for looking at the wording to see whether we can get it a little more straightforward.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry to be persistent, but the Minister either failed to appreciate my point, or I was unable to make myself clear. I am not talking about an emergency, I am talking about the routine which will, in future, have a statutory backing and which is at present being carried out voluntarily. The daily routine at present, as the Minister says, is voluntary; now the Executive are going to take legislative powers from Parliament to do by law what is being done voluntarily and in a satisfactory manner.
What machinery is there for the oppressed operator, or the oppressed aerodrome owner, who finds the execution of what is at present done voluntarily being done under Statute, and in fact somewhat differently applied? Let us assume that the hours at present are arranged voluntarily for the police to conduct their searches. The police now find that it would be more convenient to carry out these searches at different times which are possibly not convenient for the timetable of operators. Where is there any redress in the way of appeal for the disgruntled or discontented operator or aerodrome owner? It is not unreasonable to ask, when you have statutory powers, that there should be some measure of appeal for the citizens affected.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think that the noble Lord has quite grasped the situation that we are in. He talks about emergencies, and I am quite sure that the Committee will willingly give him any emergency powers that are required. I think that we would be wholeheartedly behind him in doing that. But this series of Amendments is saying that the Minister may permanently override any Act of Parliament. I am asking whether that is really necessary. There is nothing about emergencies in these Amendments at all.

401
Then the noble Lord goes on to talk about searches. Well, perhaps regulations about searches should be permanent; there should be a more or less permanent format in which searches should be carried out. I quite agree that that may be so, but that is quite different from the emergency action. The noble Lord says that these powers are unprecedented probably since the time of Henry VIII, and I cannot think of any Parliament that asked for a power to override an Act of Parliament—and to do it by a telephone call. I am saying that this is too much. We must really restrict it in some way, and put it into some shape which makes sense.
I also asked who was going to be in command. The noble Lord said that the chain of command was quite clear, and then he made it perfectly clear that it was not; people had to get the constables and others to act with good will. I really do think that the chain of command should be there. Action may have to be taken in the very firm way that we have known has been necessary in other places, at Heathrow and elsewhere. I think that my noble friend Lord Balfour has made a point here. Ought there to be some machinery to bring this forward? Has the person aggrieved a right to his Member of Parliament? Has he a right to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, or the Department of the Environment, or ought there to be some arrangement whereby he can get this matter put right? I know there are provisions for compensation, but should not there be something a little fuller as to the manner in which compensation should be used?
LORD TREFGARNE: I hope that I am in order in speaking again, and I wish to reinforce a point that I made before. I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said about the rights of airline operators and aerodrome operators to secure some redress for any complaint that they may have. To say that there are financial provisions in the Bill by which the Minister may make payments to cover inconvenience or damages is really not good enough, because sometimes situations arise where money is not the point, or at least no feasible sum of money can really recompense people for gross inconvenience or loss of goodwill. I
402
hope the noble Lord will take seriously what my noble friend has said, and will either give some guidance or perhaps accept some Amendment at a later stage.
4.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall always be willing to accept an Amendment but, to some extent, we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. I thought I had made it clear that it was intended that the voluntary machinery would continue to operate. It has to be remembered that these powers are being taken primarily to deal with an extreme emergency, and for that the chain of command is well-established. I felt it right to point to the difficulties of, for example, the relationship between managers of aerodromes and those who have to carry out a search on aerodromes. But in fact we do not anticipate that these difficulties will in any way prove to be obstacles, since they have not so far done so. This procedure works perfectly well and can be expected to work well in the future.
I was asked whether we ought to have the same kind of nomenclature for, on the one hand, directions and, on the other hand, notices in writing. So far as information is concerned, notice in writing is given and the reason for that is that if the Minister is to be able to give intelligent directions, he must know what is being done at that time, so that he can add to the directions and say, "Please also do the following". It is necessary that the state of security should be known and maintained in each aerodrome. As I mentioned at a previous stage of the Bill, one by one the state of security at each of the 25 principal aerodromes is being examined and I do not think there is anything to fear there.
I agree that the powers in the Bill appear to be very sweeping; for example, the overriding of an Act of Parliament. Naturally, I myself inquired about these powers when I was going through the Bill, but in practice the scope here is very narrow indeed. Let us take the case where, for some reason or another—perhaps because it obscures the view—it is decided that a tree should be removed from neighbouring property. It might well be that that could not be done because of a tree preservation order, and that order and the Act of Parliament would have to be overridden. But my

403
noble friend ought not to exaggerate what is happening. He must remember those governing words at the beginning of Part II, "The purposes to which this Part of this Act". Anything that was done would have to be strictly for the purposes of this Part of the Act.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, that the arrangements are well in hand at the present time and are working very well on a voluntary basis. I should have thought the likelihood of their not continuing to work well was extremely remote, because it is very much in the interests of the operators of the aircraft themselves to work them, to make certain that searches are properly carried out and that nobody who has not been searched goes on to an aircraft, where there is any risk of hijacking or sabotage in flight. So I should not have thought there was any difficulty; and, to a large extent, operators make their own arrangements.
My noble friend said that there is nothing in the Bill about financial provisions to alleviate what may happen, and I agree with him that financial provision afterwards cannot compensate. But I would make it quite clear that what we are talking about are matters which are not only in the common interest, but are also in the interests of individual operators of aircraft. I should have thought we could continue to look for the same co-operation as we are now getting to deal with this menace. Goodness knows, the British Airline Pilots' Association are as strong against it as anybody else in the world, and I should think the aircraft operators are equally strong. We should be able to expect the utmost co-operation here, and it will surely be fully appreciated that directions are to be given in an emergency in order to save time, and in those circumstances they will have to be given in whatever way is appropriate.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry to be persistent, but I am getting exasperated. I have twice asked the Minister whether he will kindly explain to me the position when these powers are used by daily routine, which they will be. I am talking not about the emergency where everybody will accept that anything
404
can be done, but about the daily routine. What redress, what machinery, what provision is there for the harrassed, oppressed operator who finds the conditions under statutory rights very different from voluntary working? The Executive is asking for a blank cheque, without any undertaking that in the distant future it will not be used in an oppressive and even obstructive way. The question I ask again is: what will the Minister provide in the way of assurance that there is some machinery for redress or appeal, whatever you call it. I suggest that if the Committee is being asked by the Government to give a measure of power to the Executive without any safeguard to the citizen, it will be very much better if the Minister takes this Bill back and thinks again. Alternatively, will he give us some undertaking now that he will consider this point before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I really must appeal to my noble friend. He must surely have some confidence in his own Government in this matter. I have said, time and time again, that the voluntary procedures will continue. There is no question of a day-to-day routine being established to take the place of those voluntary procedures. They are there, they are working and they will continue.
The National Aviation Security Committee is the committee on which all those concerned are represented and by common agreement, in accordance with the guidance they get about a situation at the time, they voluntarily take appropriate measures. I say again that it is only in the case of emergency that we shall have recourse to directions, except that in cases such as the modification of aircraft it may be thought desirable, in anticipation of an emergency, to make the necessary minor modifications, but only after consulting the licensing authority on safety—that is, the Civil Aviation Authority—and that applies only to United Kingdom operators. We have thought it right to have background powers, so that we may not be caught out in an emergency. We already have a security organisation at airports and on aircraft, and that voluntary organisation will continue. I hope that I have made the position clear to my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
Power for Secretary of State to require information
".—(1) The Secretary of State may, by notice in writing served on any person who is—

(a) the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or

(b) the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom,

require that person to inform the Secretary of State of the measures, of a description specified in the notice, which are being taken in respect of aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which he is the operator or in respect of that aerodrome, as the case may be, for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) of this section shall specify a date (not being earlier than four weeks from the date on which the notice is served) before which the information required by the notice in accordance with subsection (1) of this section is to be furnished to the Secretary of State.
(3) Any such notice shall also require the person on whom it is served, after he has furnished to the Secretary of State the information required by the notice in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, to inform the Secretary of State if at any time—

(a) any further measures, in respect of aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which at that time he is the operator, or in respect of the aerodrome to which the information so furnished related, as the case may be, are taken for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies, either by way of alteration of, or addition to, the measures specified in any information previously furnished by him under this section or by way of applying any measures so specified to aircraft, or to a part of the aerodrome, not comprised in the previous information, or

(b) any measures taken as mentioned in that subsection or in paragraph (a) of this subsection are discontinued.

(4) In so far as such a notice requires further information to be furnished to the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, it shall require that information to be furnished to him before the end of such period (not being less than seven days from the date on which the further measures in question are taken or the measures are discontinued, as the case may be) as is specified in the notice for the purposes of this subsection.
(5) A notice served on a person under subsection (1) of this section may at any time be revoked by a further notice served on him by the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: I think we have covered quite a lot of this ground already.
406
As I have said before, the object here is to require an operator of a United Kingdom registered aircraft, or an operator of an aircraft not so registered but which is for 'the time being used for flights to and from the United Kingdom, and the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, to inform the Secretary of State of the measures, of the descriptions specified in the notice, which the operator (in respect of his aircraft) or the aerodrome manager (in respect of his aerodrome) is taking for the purposes for which this Part of the Bill applies; that is to say, for protection from crimes of violence. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree to look at the point which I put to him. This clause requires that the Secretary of State give notice in writing, and it also provides that,
"A notice under subsection (1)…shall specify a date (not being earlier than four weeks from the date on which the notice is served)"
by which, presumably, he gets a reply. The element of urgency appears to be lacking here, because we are talking about "not…earlier than four weeks". I can visualise an occasion on which the Secretary of State may want information much more quickly than that. I really do not quite see why we go to the trouble of saying a "notice in writing" in Amendment No. 13 and use the term "direction" in Amendment No. 14. If we want information, there may well be occasions when we want it in a hurry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the first time that we have had the words
"operator of…aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom".
I am not very sure of any sanction behind Amendment No. 13, but the words "operating in the United Kingdom" are put in, and elsewhere we have the words "an aircraft allocated for use on flight". I am afraid I have no idea what that means. Does it mean that this applies to the airlines coming here? Does it mean any aircraft which lands in this country? Is an aircraft "allocated to flight" here, or what does it mean? Does it mean that, whatever the number of aircraft firms operating in this country, they must answer this request in writing, or does it mean something else? It does

407
not sound to me is if it means all aircraft operating in this country, but perhaps it does.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In reply to the last question, I think it is intended to cover the flights of any planes that are allocated for flights to this country, whether on charter or on regular services, or whatever it may be; and, of course, it will apply to any aircraft which are allocated from time to time for that purpose, so that if the operator changes the aircraft allocated one day to another aircraft, that will still be covered. It is intended to cover all aircraft that are operating in and out of aerodromes in this country but not registered as in the United Kingdom.
I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, but there is a difference in kind between a requirement to give information and a requirement to take drastic action in the way of searches, modifying aircraft, demolishing buildings or whatever. The difference in terminology between Amendment No. 13 and the later Amendments reflects this difference in the nature of the requirements. They could both have been called "directions" if it had not been thought desirable to bring out the distinctions between them. So far as the clause that we are dealing with now is concerned, I should like to make certain of this, but as I understand the position it is this. The Department are well aware of the measures that are being taken at the present time, but they want to be in a position to be certain that they know what is the state of security measures on any given aerodrome at any particular time, and that is why this particular notice provides that unless they are getting that information the D.T.I. will be able to get it by notice in writing. That is the effect, as I see it, of this particular provision; and not only the state of security at the moment, but also to require notification of further changes for the future, too. It was thought right to give a decent interval for compliance. This is not unusual. Again, this is not one of the emergency procedures: it is a background provision to put the D.T.I. in a position to fulfil their responsibilities.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so that the noble Lord can read the note that
408
he has now had placed before him, perhaps I may put a further point to him. I accept that there is a distinction between getting information and giving a definite order, but I should have thought that there may well be occasions when it is necessary to have further information before one gives an order in an emergency; and, that being the case, if one wants to give an order immediately, as is provided for in Amendment No. 14, I should have thought one would probably need information earlier than the four weeks provided for in Amendment No. 13. I suggest that the noble Lord might look at this again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am perfectly willing to look at it again. Of course, the fact that you give somebody four weeks to give you information does not necessarily mean that he will take four weeks to do so, and with the relationships that we have between us I should have thought that it would have been quite possible to get the information at very short notice if the information was required at very short notice. But for the purposes of the obligations and the duties that are laid down, and the sanctions which are attached, it is obviously better to give a decent period. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that the note I have received coincides with what I have already said to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft
".—(1) For the purposes to which this Part of this Act applies the Secretary of State may give a direction to the operator of any one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or to any person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator, requiring him—

(a) not to cause or permit persons or property to go or be taken on board the aircraft, or to come or be brought into proximity to the aircraft unless such searches of those persons at that property as are specified in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction, or

(b) not to cause or permit the aircraft to fly unless such searches of the aircraft as are specified in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description so specified.

(2) Subject to the next following subsection, the Secretary of State may give a direction to the operator of any one or more aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or to any person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator, requiring him not to cause or permit the aircraft to fly unless such modifications or alterations of the aircraft, or of apparatus or equipment installed in the aircraft, as are specified in the direction have first been carried out, or such additional apparatus or equipment as is so specified is first installed in the aircraft.
(3) Before giving any direction under subsection (2) of this section the Secretary of State shall inform the Civil Aviation Authority of the modifications, alterations or additional apparatus or equipment proposed to be required, and shall take account of any advice given to him by that Authority with respect to those proposals.
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, a direction given to an operator of aircraft under subsection (1) of this section may be given so as to relate—

(a) either to all the aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time he is the operator or only to one or more such aircraft, or to a class of such aircraft, specified in the direction;

(b) either to all persons or only to one or more persons, or persons of one or more descriptions specified in the direction; and

(c) either to property of every description or only to particular property, or property of one or more descriptions, specified in the direction;

and a direction given to an operator of aircraft under subsection (2) of this section may be given so as to relate either to all aircraft registered in the United Kingdom of which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time he is the operator or only to one or more such aircraft, or to a class of such aircraft, specified in the direction.
(5) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, any direction given under this section to an operator of aircraft not to cause or permit anything to be done shall be construed as requiring him to take all such steps as in any particular circumstances are practicable and necessary to prevent that thing from being done.
(6) A direction given under this section to a person, as being a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator as is mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, shall not take effect until he becomes such an operator; and, in relation to such a direction, subsections (4) and (5) of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications."
The noble Lord said: This new clause gives power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft. I think the main point I should draw attention to here is that the Secretary of State is given power
410
to give a direction to an operator requiring him,
"not to cause or permit persons or property to go or be taken on board the aircraft, or to come or be brought into proximity to the aircraft, unless such searches of those persons or that property as are specified in the direction have been carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction,"…
In other words, the power is not to direct a search but to direct that a person should not go on board the aircraft without having been searched. The second paragraph reads:
"not to cause or permit the aircraft to fly unless such searches of the aircraft as are specified in the direction have been carried out…".
Normally, one would expect these to have been carried out, of course, before the passengers were admitted to the aircraft or the freight was loaded on to the aircraft.
This is a long clause, and I do not know that there is anything I need to comment on further except to say that it is of course open to a person to elect not to board the aircraft rather than to be searched. The main purpose is to ensure that the wrong people, people with the wrong articles in their possession or in their baggage, do not enter the aircraft. Subsection (2) deals with modifications or additions that have been made to aircraft, and again I would draw attention to the fact that the duty on the aircraft operator is to prevent his aircraft flying if the modifications are not made. The purpose of subsection (3) is to ensure that the Secretary of State's requirements are not inconsistent with the airworthiness or other safety requirements of that aircraft where he is giving a direction as to modification. The other subsections speak for themselves, but I shall be glad to explain anything which any noble Lord wishes to have explained.
LORD BESWICK: I have only one question. It relates to subsection (2), which refers to modifications which may be required to be carried out. One of the modifications which I understand the Department may have in mind is that which would create a division between the flight deck and the passengers. As the noble Lord knows, there is a feeling among the pilots, certainly, that such a division would be a mistake. I have heard the argument advanced in this House that

411
one effective deterrent or prevention to the hijacker would be to have this physical barrier between the passengers' compartment where the potential hijacker is and the flight deck; but it is not quite as simple as that. It would be possible for the potential hijacker to get hold of a steward or stewardess in the passenger compartment and to threaten to take the life of that person unless the pilot listened to what he wanted to tell him. In any case, the captain of the aircraft sometimes requires to go back to see what is happening in the passenger compartment.
There could be an argument here whether it was wise or not to require a modification to an aircraft along these lines. I raise here a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. What is the procedure by which a decision or a consultation can take place or an appeal be made against a direction of the Secretary of State if the aircraft operators thought the direction was not sensible or was unwise for one reason or another?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I find it difficult to see how subsection (2) of Amendment 14 does not say almost exactly the opposite to subsection (5)(b) of Amendment 16. One says that you can insist that no aircraft flight can take place until a modification is carried out. The other one says that you cannot. I must admit that the wording is close but it seems to me to read that there shall be no requirement to prohibit an aircraft or forbid it to fly unless a modification is made. It seems to be in direct contradiction to the other.
The other point is this. The noble Lord says that these directions can be made applicable to any aircraft landing in this country with passengers. This may be governed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority in the U.S.A. or the equivalent body in any foreign country. They may not consider that our Civil Aviation Authority is sufficient authority for making this modification. Is there any provision for their refusing to obey the orders of the Secretary of State and thereby committing an offence because they have not the authority of their own Board to make the modification required? I say this to meet a possible difficulty in certain circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN: So far as modifications are concerned, no decision of any kind has been reached as to what sort of modifications might be required. All that I can say to my noble friend is that I will take note of what he said. This was discussed, if not in connection with this Bill, in connection with the Hijacking Bill last year. I do not remember which. But we have no definite plans to require modification at the present time. One of the more likely ones could be systems to prevent doors from being opened in flight, particularly what I understand are called ventral or tail doors, which enable the hijacker to parachute out, or something else to be dropped out.
On the question of appeals there is no provision for appeals at the present time. We can give consideration to the idea of appeal. I should have thought that these things would be done after consultation with the airlines concerned and that they could not require alteration or modifications to be made except for aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord will see.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Only the United Kingdom?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It only concerns aircraft registered in the United Kingdom.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Operating in England?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No. If the noble Earl looks at subsection (2) he will see that it says:
"Subject to the next following subsection, the Secretary of State may give a direction to the operator of any one or more aircraft registered in the United Kingdom—".
On the point as to possible conflict with Amendment 16, the noble Earl will see that Amendment 16 says:
"A direction under this section…shall not require any…".
It is important to know under which section a direction is being given. A direction of that character will be given under the specific provisions of Amendment 14 and not under the general provisions of Amendment 16.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: For the first time the Minister has been kind enough to meet my point in a reply to the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, by saying that he would consider the question

413
of appeal machinery; although he said he did not think it was particularly appropriate. All I would ask him to do is to give consideration to the question of appeal or, failing that, of laying down procedure whereby representations of discontent by someone on the application of these regulations could be made.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, I will certainly do that. But may I add that with these airport security committees there is a considerable degree of intimacy in the co-operation and I think the Department will know very well where there are difficulties and complaints and their main purpose must be to keen the machinery working smoothly.
LORD BESWICK: With respect to the noble Lord, he has made the matter worse. Airport security committees have nothing at all to do with modifications to aircraft.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understood (and if I was wrong about this, please forgive me) that my noble friend Lord Balfour had gone back to the previous point that he was making about appeals and was not confining his remarks only to modifications.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My general point covered the whole field including modifications because the Executive are taking large powers, are asking for a blank cheque.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.8 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes
".—(1) For purposes to which this Part of this Act applies the Secretary of State may give a direction to the manager of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom requiring him to use his best endeavours to secure that such searches to which this section applies as are specified in the direction are carried out by constables or by other persons of a description specified in the direction.
(2) The searches to which this section applies, in relation to an aerodrome, are searches—

(a) of the aerodrome or any part of it;

(b) of any aircraft which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time is in any part of the aerodrome; and

414

(c) of persons or property (other than aircraft) which may at any such time be in any part of the aerodrome."

The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the powers to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes and subsection (1) of the clause enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the manager of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom
"requiring him to use his best endeavours to secure that such searches to which this section applies…are carried out by constables or other persons of a description specified in the direction".
Such searches as are specified in the direction are set out in subsection (2) of the clause. The persons who are to carry out any search specified in a direction under this clause are given express powers of search et cetera in so far as are thought appropriate in Amendment 22. However, there could be other powers under which searches could be carried out: for example, other Statutes; even under contractual rights obtained by the aerodrome manager. No powers of search will be required for a search of the airport manager's own property. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies
(".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may give a direction to any person who is—

(a) the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or

(b) the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom,

requiring him to take, in respect of aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which he is the operator or in respect of that aerodrome, as the case may be, such measures for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies as are specified in the direction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, the measures to be specified in a direction given under this section to an operator of aircraft, or to the manager of an aerodrome, may include the provision by the operator or manager of persons charged with the duty (at such times as may be specified in the direction)—

(a) of guarding the aircraft, or

(b) of guarding the aerodrome, or persons or property (including aircraft) in any part of the aerodrome,

against acts of violence.
(3) A direction given under this section may be either of a general or of a specific character, and may require any measures specified in the direction to be taken at such time or within such period as may be so specified.
(4) A direction given under subsection (1) of this section to an operator of aircraft may be given so as to relate either to all the aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom of which at the time when the direction is given or at any subsequent time he is the operator or only to one or more such aircraft, or to a class of such aircraft, specified in the direction.
(5) A direction under this section—

(a) shall not require any search (whether of persons or of property) to be carried out, or prohibit anything to be done unless such a search has been carried out, and

(b) shall not require any aircraft to be modified or altered, or require any aircraft to have any of its apparatus or equipment modified or altered, or to have additional apparatus or equipment installed in it, or prohibit any aircraft from being caused or permitted to fly unless a modification or alteration of the aircraft or of its apparatus or equipment, or the installation of additional apparatus or equipment in the aircraft, has first been carried out.

(6) A direction may be given under this section to a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be about to become such an operator or manager as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; but a direction given to a person by virtue of this subsection shall not take effect until he becomes such an operator or manager, and, in relation to a direction so given, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications.
(7) The ownership of any property shall not be affected by reason only that it is placed on or under, or affixed to, any land in compliance with a direction under this section.")
The noble Lord said: This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction to a person who is an operator of a United Kingdom registered aircraft, or of other aircraft for the time being used in flight to or from the United Kingdom, or the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, requiring him, in respect of his aircraft or aerodrome, to take such measures for the purposes set out in Amendment No. 12; that is, purposes for the protection against acts of violence as may be specified in the directions. I do not suppose that noble Lords will wish me to go through the requirements in detail, but if there is any point troubling noble Lords I shall be glad to try to answer it.
LORD BESWICK: There is one point about which I should be grateful if the noble Lord could help me. Subsection (5)(a) states:
"A direction under this section —(a) shall not require any search…to be carried out, or prohibit anything to be done unless such a search has been carried out…"
I confess that I cannot follow that, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell me what it means.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I tried to explain this point when my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, raised it during the discussion on the last Amendment. The object here is that directions for searches should be given under the provisions of Amendment No. 14 and not under this new clause. It looks as if this is something which cannot be done at all. It can, of course, be done under the provisions of Amendment No. 14, and it would be, I am told, inappropriate to have two clauses providing for the same thing, one specifically and the other generally or by implication.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask one question? Subsection (1)(b) says:
"…such measures for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies …"
I understand that would cover modification matters which we have been discussing on the previous Amendment. Does this provision mean that the operator of a foreign aircraft landing once in this country could then have a direction given that a modification must be carried out?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The modification provisions are dealt with again in Amendments 14 and 17. This Amendment is dealing with directions requiring measures to be taken—such measures as are specified in the direction. It is precisely because this is a wide general power that restrictions are imposed as in sub. section (5) which specifically says:
"A direction under this section shall not require…any aircraft to be modified or altered"—
and so on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
Matters which may be included in directions under ss. (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to he taken for purposes to which Part II applies).
"—(1) A direction under subsection (1) of section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) or under section (Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes) of this Act may specify the number of persons by whom any search to which the direction relates is to be carried out, the qualifications which persons carrying out any such search are to have, the manner in which any such search is to be carried out, and any apparatus, equipment or other aids to be used for the purpose of carrying out any such search.
(2) A direction under subsection (2) of section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) of this Act may specify the qualifications required to be had by persons carrying out any modifications or alterations, or the installation of any additional apparatus or equipment, to which the direction relates.
(3) Before specifying any qualifications in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, the Secretary of State shall inform the Civil Aviation Authority of the qualifications proposed to be specified, and shall take account of any advice given to him by that Authority with respect to those proposals.
(4) A direction under section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act may specify—

(a) the number of persons to be employed for the purposes of any measures required by the direction to be taken by an operator of aircraft or by the manager of an aerodrome, and the qualifications which persons employed for those purposes are to have, and

(b) any apparatus, equipment or other aids to be used for those purposes.

(5) In so far as a direction under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act requires searches to be carried out, or other measures to be taken, by constables, the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables will be duty authorised to carry, and will carry, firearms when carrying out the searches or taking the measures in question.
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall be construed as limiting the generality of any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act.
(7) In this section "qualifications" includes training and experience."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause, the rubric of which says:
418
"Matters which may be included in directions…(Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken far purposes to which Part II applies)."
This new clause provides that a direction under new clauses 14 and 15 may specify the number of persons by whom any search is to be carried out, their qualifications, the manner in which the search is to be carried out and equipment or aids to be used in carrying out the search. The purpose of specifying numbers was that there might be a case of urgency for a quick search of an aerodrome and you would have to get a strong body of searchers on the job at once. But in the main this is not likely to apply to operators of aircraft. Subsection (2) provides that a direction may specify the qualifications required by any person carrying out modifications or additions to the aircraft or its equipment pursuant to such a direction. The idea there is that they should be properly qualified before they are allowed to touch the aircraft, which seems good sense.
I do not think there is anything that I need draw attention to in particular, except in the matter of firearms which is referred to in subsection (5). This provides that in so far as a direction given in this Part of the Bill requires measures to be carried out by constables the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables are authorised to carry firearms when taking those measures. I explained the situation earlier. The point here is that an ordinary citizen requires a firearms certification from the chief office of police, under Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, to carry a firearm lawfully. In the same way, other bodies of police—including, for example, the British Airports Authority Constabulary, not being a police force and their chief constables not being chief officers of police within the meaning of the Police Act—require firearms certificates like ordinary members of the public. I must emphasise again that the Bill is not intended to change existing measures controlling the use of firearms by police; but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that in certain circumstances it would be highly desirable for the police to be armed, in view of the fact that those with whom they will be dealing are very likely to be armed.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have asked over and over again who is the authority in this matter. An emergency may arise at any well-known airport and somebody has to take decisive action. It is clear that the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot do so. He cannot authorise the use of violence. He cannot authorise the use of firearms. He is entirely dependent on the local chief constable. Is the noble Lord really sure that this is enough? Should not someone at a pretty high level be able to take decisive action? He is deliberately taking away the immediate authority to use force in extreme circumstances when it might be necessary. In saying that, I am going a long way, but I think that the noble Lord should think again about taking further powers for emergency cases such as he has emphasised.
LORD TREFGARNE: May I put one other point to the noble Lord on the question of modifying aircraft? Subsection (1) of this new clause provides that persons who carry out such modifications have to be suitably qualified. Is this a departure from the fundamental requirement at present, that modifications should be carried out only in accordance with the British civil airworthiness requirements, or am I mistaken? At present, as noble Lords may be aware, only properly licensed engineers, or those holding suitable approval, are authorised to do such work as this, and I should have thought that the present arrangements were adequate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: To deal first with the point raised by my noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, he will bear in mind that under the new clause the subject of Amendment No. 14, the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the Authority on airworthiness, has to be consulted before any directions as to modifications are given. No doubt, if necessary, they will also be consulted about the qualifications required.
Then, dealing with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, there are procedures laid down already for dealing with any act of violence at United Kingdom airports. I ought not, I think, to give details, but my noble friend can be assured that overall direction will be at the highest level and will be passed down through a proper chain of com-
420
mand to the incident. I know that it looks loose for an aerodrome manager only to be required to use his best endeavours, rather than to be empowered to give orders, but to give orders would require taking further powers. I noted that my noble friend did not flinch from taking further powers in a case like this. I am sure this is a matter which ought to be considered further, and we shall go on giving it consideration. But at the moment I would say that there does not seem to be any particular reason why one should anticipate that there would not be co-operation between the police and the aerodrome manager or, for that matter, the aircraft operator, as the case may be. If there were, I imagine that representations would be made very quickly by the person who had received the direction, whether it is the aerodrome manager or the aircraft operator, and the matter would be taken up very directly with the chief constable if there was any difference of opinion. In a matter of order of this kind, I cannot for the life of me see how the civil power would not do as it always does; that is to say, take all necessary action in the circumstances.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer. I have no possible objection to any powers in an emergency, but I sometimes suspect the Government of using emergencies for continuing power. That is the point I am making.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
Limitations on scope of directions under ss. (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies).
".—(1) Without prejudice to subsection (5) of section (Matters which may be included in directions under sections (Powers to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies)) of this Act, a direction shall not require or authorise any person to carry a firearm.
(2) A direction shall not have effect in relation to any aircraft used in military, customs or police service.
(3) A direction shall not have effect in relation to any aircraft of which the operator is the Government of a country outside the

421
United Kingdom, or is a department or agency of such a Government, except at a time when any such aircraft is being used for the carriage of passengers or cargo for reward or is for the time being allocated by that Government, department or agency for such use.
(4) A direction (except in so far as it requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed) shall not be construed as requiring or authorising the operator of any aircraft, or the manager of any aerodrome, or any person acting as the servant or agent of such an operator or manager, to do anything which, apart from the direction, would constitute an act of violence; but nothing in this subsection shall restrict the use of force (whether at the instance of such an operator or manager or otherwise) by a constable or its use by any other person in the exercise of a power conferred by the following provisions of this Act.
(5) In so far as a direction requires anything to be done or not done at a place outside the United Kingdom—

(a) it shall not have effect except in relation to aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, and

(b) it shall not have effect so as to require anything to be done or not done in contravention of any provision of the law (whether civil or criminal) in force at that place, other than any such provision relating to breach of contract.

(6) In so far as a direction given to the manager of an aerodrome requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed on land outside the aerodrome, or requires any other measures to be taken on such land, the direction shall not confer on the manager of the aerodrome any rights as against a person having

(a) an interest in that land, or

(b) a right to occupy that land, or

(c) right restrictive of its use;

and accordingly the direction shall not be construed as requiring the manager of the aerodrome to do anything which would be actionable at the suit or instance of such a person in his capacity as a person having that interest or right.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any exemption or immunity of the Crown in relation to the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(8) In this section "direction" means a direction under section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft), section (Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes) or section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act.".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. I would draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (1), which provides that, except for the carriage of firearms by constables under the clause with which we have just dealt,
422
no direction should authorise or require the carrying of firearms. Any direction involving firearms, as indeed any direction impinging on the liberty of the individual, will be the subject of close consultation with the Home Secretary. Here again, I do not think there is any matter that I need draw particular attention to, though some of the provisions are complicated.
It might just be worth drawing attention to the question of an act of violence, which is defined so that it includes an assault and an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act. The effect of subsection (4) on a direction given under Amendment 14 is that it is not an assault to use reasonable force to prevent trespass. If a passenger having no proprictory rights in the aircraft were to attempt to board it against the wishes of the operator, reasonable force, not amounting to an act of violence, could be used to prevent him from doing so. The position with regard to allowing persons and property into proximity of the aircraft is the same, except that as a question of fact the aircraft operator would not normally have any interest in the land on which the aircraft was. If he has no such interest, any use of force against another person would be an assault and therefore not within the direction. The operator will no doubt make appropriate arrangements to ensure that, like most operators at present, he has a contractual right so far as possible to exclude persons from the aircraft unless they are searched.
LORD BESWICK: I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, thought it worth while to call attention to the reference to violence, because subsection (4) of this new clause seems to me to be an absolute gem of legislative ingenuity. It says that a direction shall not require any act of violence to be committed, but it is thoughtful enough to say,
"(except in so far as it requires any building … to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed)".
I find it extremely difficult to see how you are going to demolish or remove a building without committing some degree of violence. I wonder if in the interests of purity of legislation here we cannot have this subsection looked at again.
LORD STOW HILL: Perhaps I might follow what my noble friend has just said

423
by asking the Minister to be a little more explicit with regard to the scope of this new clause, and to refer, as my noble friend did, particularly to subsection (4), which says:
"A direction (except in so far as it requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed) shall not be construed as"
authorising violence. The implication of that is, I suppose, that a direction can require a building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed. Where, when one looks at these Amendments, does one find any limit to the implied power conferred by those words? What buildings can be demolished? What buildings can be required to be executed? I do not know where there is to he found any limit to this. If I may look forward to Amendment No. 19, one finds that subsection (2) of that clause reads:
"In so far as any such direction"—
that, I take it, includes the direction we are talking about—
"requires anything to be done or not done in the United Kingdom, the direction shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any contract…or contained in, or having effect by virtue of, any other Act or any rule of law…"
If those words qualify the direction which is being referred to in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 18, are we not contemplating here conferring extremely wide powers? The only limitation I have noticed (perhaps the Minister can refer me to some other limitation) is contained in subsection (6) of Amendment No. 18. That limitation, as I read it, only applies to the case where buildings are
"to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed on land outside the aerodrome".
But if one is talking about land inside the aerodrome, is there any limitation at all? Supposing you have a large and elaborate aerodrome, could some Minister who had temporarily taken leave of his senses require it to be taken down? Clearly that cannot be the intention, and quite obviously any Minister who gave such an order would find that its passage through this House or the other place would be somewhat difficult and prickly. Surely, in drafting legislation one should try to draft powers which, in the assumed circumstances, have to be extensive, but
424
nevertheless must be pretty clear, so that one knows what are the powers one is conferring upon the Minister who is to exercise them.
That seems to be a general provision. It finds its place in Amendment No. 18 which seems to have a general application to directions which are to be given under this Part of this Bill, and I do not know really where one looks to find the boundaries of these powers. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to say what limits there are in the implied power referred to, in the authorising of the Minister to direct a building to be demolished or for one to be erected. It seems to me extraordinary that there should not be some attempt (although I may have missed it) to confine those powers in so far as one is talking about land within the area of an aerodrome. I quite agree that if one looks at land outside the area of the aerodrome the power must be limited in such a way as not to invade the rights of other people, but if one is looking at land inside the aerodrome there seems to be no such limitation, and I should be very grateful if the Minister would be so kind as to give more information on this. I cannot help feeling that I must have missed something.
LORD CAMOYS: I must first of all apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for being so late, in spite of having travelled at high speed, probably breaking the 70 m.p.h. limit for a considerable distance. I am afraid that I was not in time to hear the first part of this debate. I am particularly worried about security, especially at Gatwick, because three weeks ago there did not seem to be any security at all. Your Lordships may have discussed this matter before, in which case I must apologise for taking up the time of the Committee.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will take note of what the noble Lord has said, and perhaps if there are any particular aspects of security which are worrying him he will let me have full details. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has raised what seems to be a difficult point. I am advised that the limit on buildings or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed is to be found in subsection (6) of this new clause. So far as I understand it, in an emergency

425
there may be a requirement for the rapid removal or construction of a building, and the direction here might involve the use of violence against that building. I understand this is the effect of the Criminal Damage Act—that this would mean an act of violence on the building itself—and that is why the words in brackets are included. If I am wrong, I will gladly write to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to look at that point again. I referred to subsection (6). I do not think I misread it; but perhaps I might remind the Minister that it reads:
"(6) In so far as a direction given to the manager of an aerodrome requires any building or other works to be constructed, executed, altered, demolished or removed on land outside the aerodrome…".
There are some restrictions to be imposed on work outside the aerodrome, but I hoped I had made it clear that my question related to land within the area of the aerodrome. I did say, seeing that there was a limitation in the case of work outside the aerodrome, that what I was asking for was some indication as to where the limits lay with regard to a direction about the execution or demolition of works situated within the area of the aerodrome. If the Minister would be so kind as to say he will have another look at this point, I shall be perfectly content, but it seemed to me a point to which attention should be drawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understand that there is no limit in those circumstances. I will look at the matter again, but would repeat that we are dealing here with emergency situations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord a very short question? To what aircraft does this apply, and how do we read Amendment 18(3)? The definition appears to be:
"…such aircraft…being used for the carriage of passengers or cargo for reward…".
This could cover a number of curious things. For instance, the R.A.F. sometimes charge for carrying passengers. B.O.A.C. at times carry R.A.F. passengers under contract. Some big corporations like the British Steel Corporation have
426
their own aircraft. I do not know whether they sometimes charge for the use of the aircraft. Do they then immediately come under this category? I am not objecting, but I wonder whether there should not be a slightly closer definition.
LORD TREFGARNE: Before the Minister replies to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, may I give him a further problem along similar lines? What about aircraft that are not carrying passengers or cargo for reward? My noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned the British Steel Corporation. To the best of my knowledge, that Corporation do not have an air operator's certificate and therefore cannot carry passengers or cargo for hire or reward; but it may be that the provisions of this subsection ought to apply to such circumstances.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should have thought that the British Steel Corporation would know who their passengers were, but I dare say that if there was a general alert any search might be extended to them. However, I should have thought they would know exactly who they were dealing with and therefore the danger of sabotage or hijacking would be extremely remote. I will undertake to look into that point, however. The other two subsections, subsection (2) and subsection (3), are different. Subsection (3) deals with aircraft of which the operator is a country outside the United Kingdom. There the test is: is the carriage for hire or reward, or not? If it is operated purely by the Government of a country for its own purposes alone, then of course it would be excluded, in the same way as under subsection (2) aircraft used in military, customs or police service of this country are excluded.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask the noble Lord to help me, not now, but on some occasion before the next stage of this Bill? When he is dealing with this rather extreme power to execute, demolish or remove a building, he says that we are dealing only with a state of emergency. I wonder whether he could write and tell me exactly how this power is related to a state of emergency? It is not entirely clear. If we are giving powers at this stage, it seems to me that we may be giving powers that are perhaps rather wider than is thought.
LORD CAMOYS: May I ask whether this question of building would come under planning control?
LORD DRUMALBYN: But for the Bill, this would come under planning control. In the kind of circumstances contemplated, this is one of the controls that would be overridden by the Bill. I shall be glad to look at the point the noble Lord has raised. It seems to me that an emergency aspect was the reason for these words having been inserted in subsection (4). Obviously, it is not only the emergency aspect that applies in connection with the construction or the removal of buildings: it might be to get a better view or to provide special buildings for the personnel who will be required for these tasks—anything like that—on the aerodrome itself. I will look at this point again and, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Will the Minister consider some sort of provision for redress or representation by someone who is told about the removal of a building and they think it unreasonable? It may not be an emergency; as the Minister has said, it may be a building which is required for accommodation, possibly for police or for stores.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will look at the implications of that point. I rather suspect that it is not as serious as my noble friend seems to think.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
Operation of directions under Part II in relation to rights and duties under other laws.
".—(1) The following provisions of this section, where they refer to a direction under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, shall be construed as referring to that direction as it has effect subject to any limitation imposed on its operation—

(a) by section (Limitation on scope of directions under sections (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies)) of this Act, or

(b) by any exemption or immunity of the Crown;

and any reference in those provisions to compliance with such a direction shall be construed
428
as a reference to compliance with it subject to any limitation so imposed.
(2) In so far as any such direction requires anything to be done or not done in the United Kingdom, the direction shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any contract (whether a United Kingdom contract or not) or contained in, or having effect by virtue of, any other Act or any rule of law; and accordingly no proceedings (whether civil or criminal) shall lie against any person in any United Kingdom court by reason of anything done or not clone by him or on his behalf in compliance with such a direction.
(3) In so far as such a direction requires anything to be done or not done at a place outside the United Kingdom, the direction shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any contract (whether a United Kingdom contract or not); and accordingly. where such a direction is inconsistent with anything in such a contract, it shall (without prejudice to any proceedings in a court other than a United Kingdom court) he construed as requiring compliance with the direction notwithstanding that compliance would be in breach of that contract.
(4) No proceedings for breach of contract shall lie against any person in a United Kingdom court by reason of anything done or not done by him or on his behalf at a place outside the United Kingdom in compliance with any such direction, if the contract in question is a United Kingdom contract.
(5) In this section "United Kingdom court" means a court exercising jurisdiction in any part of the United Kingdom under the law of the United Kingdom or of part of the United Kingdom, and "United Kingdom contract" means a contract which is either expressed to have effect in accordance with the law of the United Kingdom or of part of the United Kingdom or (not being so expressed) is a contract of which the proper law is the law of the United Kingdom or of part of the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which relates to rights and duties under other laws. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has already referred to subsection (2), and I will say something about this Amendment as clearly it has special features. Subsection (1) provides that in this clause reference to a direction and any duty to comply with it shall be construed as referring to it as it has effect subject to the limitations in Amendment No. 18, and any immunity or exemption of the Crown. This subsection has been included to ensure that the far-reaching effects of this new clause, Amendment No. 19, are subject to the limitations mentioned in the subsection. Subsection (2) provides that so far as anything is required to be done or not done in the United Kingdom by direction given under the Bill, the

429
direction shall have effect notwithstanding any contract, Act or rule of law to the contrary, and no proceedings, civil or criminal, in a United Kingdom court shall lie against a person in respect of anything done or not done by him in complying with the direction.
This subsection deals with the manner in which the direction is to take effect inside the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to ensure that in the United Kingdom within the important limitations referred to in subsection (1) of this clause, and the limitations contained in Amendment No. 18, in particular subsection (4), the emergency measures required to combat any threat to security of civil aviation are not frustrated or delayed by the normal restrictions imposed by the law. The limitations make this subsection far less Draconian than might appear on first reading. In practice I do not think it will amount to anything like as much. Because of further limitations imposed by the new clauses, Amendments Nos. 14(5), 15(1), and 16(5), the only directions which are likely to be made that might over-ride other Acts are directions under Amendment No. 16 to carry out works on land on the aerodrome, which is the point the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised before.
I have already referred to the right to refuse or allow a passenger on to a particular flight, and how this is unlikely to be at variance with a contract. I should add that a foreign legal system may impose conditions in a contract which cannot be avoided. In view of the international concern relating to violence against civil aviation, we hope that no foreign legal system would prevent a United Kingdom operator from securing by contract the right to comply with a direction, and this subsection should be little used in practice. With that short explanation, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to intervene on a similar point, but the Minister in an earlier part of the debate referred to a direction which would require a contravention of a tree preservation order. Supposing there were trees subject to a tree preservation order not within the area of the aerodrome, but outside it. When one looks at subsection
430
(6) of Amendment No. 18 one thinks that fortunately those trees will be preserved because they are outside the area of the aerodrome. When one looks at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 19, one's expectations are disappointed. Looking at the final words of subsection (2), one finds that no proceedings shall lie against any person who complies with the direction, although it goes against the law. He can over-ride the law in complying with the direction and no proceedings are to lie against him.
When one looks back at subsection (6) of Amendment No. 18 one finds that he is in a situation of a person against whom no proceedings would lie. That being so, it would seem on one reading of subsection (6) that the trees preserved by a tree preservation order outside the area of the aerodrome are liable to be destroyed if a direction requires them to be cut down.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, have complained that there is nothing the citizen can do about that; there is no right of appeal. He can write letters until he is blue in, the face, but I do not suppose that will do him much good. I suppose one might have the situation in the future in which beautiful trees are unnecessarily destroyed. As has been said several times in this debate, of course emergency measures must be provided for and have to be taken. One has to safeguard unfortunate passengers from the risk of a semi-lunatic brigand 5 or 6 miles up in the sky. But when one is talking about demolition of buildings, erection of buildings, destruction of trees, is one in that area at all? If there is to be a power to direct the destruction of a number of trees—whether inside or outside the area of the aerodrome—which have been made the subject of an order, should there not be some means provided whereby a citizen can complain and say, "Do not carry on with this order. The harm which you are going to do easily outweighs any possible advantage that can be obtained."? I should be grateful if the Minister would say that he will give some further consideration to what seems to me—although I may have misread it—to be a conflict of terminology between subsection (6) of Amendment

431
No. 18, and subsection (2), and in particular the concluding four lines of subsection (2), of Amendment No. 19.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. May I ask the Minister this question? Is it intended that all damage done under Amendment No. 19 will attract compensation? I was interested in the reference to the law of the United Kingdom. I honestly did not know that there was any such thing. I have heard of Roman law, common law and Scots law, but I have never heard of the law of the United Kingdom. It may be a good thing if we had it; I do not know.
5.39 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I can only answer the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill in this way: this is a matter of proportion. In this Bill we are dealing with the possibility of very serious damage to life as well as property. One has to set that against the very unlikely eventuality of trees having to be demolished under the powers of this Bill. It would not be done except in an emergency: the provisions of the rest of the Bill would secure that. The land can be dealt with only by consent. There are no compulsory powers for the acquiring of the land outside unless the powers of the Minister or of the British Airports Authority were used.
So far as the question of compensation as a whole is concerned, as I explained at an earlier stage, the cost of running the security services as a whole is being borne by Her Majesty's Government to the tune of about £1 million for the current year. Amendment No. 26 deals with the expenses
"which, for purposes to which Part II of this Act applies have at any time on or after 1st June 1972 been, or may at any time after the commencement of this Act be, incurred by that person in relation to those aircraft or to that areodrome".
So the answer is that the cost of this would plainly be reimbursed to the manager of the aerodrome and he in turn would compensate whoever else might have been adversely affected. Finally, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in connection with the tree preservation order on land outside an aerodrome, that is overruled by Clause
432
19(2). Clause 18(6) only prevents private property rights from being overridden.
LORD STOW HILL: I hope I do not seem to be too persistent, but in taking the tree preservation order I was simply using the example which was used by the Minister. If an aeroplane is thought to be taking off in circumstances of danger I do not see how it could ever really be necessary to give an order suddenly to cut down 20 magnificent trees. It seems to me that could not be the subject of an emergency, but that was the example chosen by the Minister; and while one accepts that for the sake of preserving the safety of human beings one must go a very long way, and I accept that trees must give way to human lives, surely some means can be devised by this legislative process which the Minister is commending to the Committee whereby there could be some pause for reflection and some opportunity given to the citizen, either to appeal or to procure a delay for a short time so that the matter could be subjected to some external consideration by an appellate body or a tribunal.
Putting aside the tree preservation order, as the Minister does not like his own example, there are many other types of operation within the scope of the two Amendments about which we are speaking. For instance, there is the erection of buildings or the destruction of buildings which surely could have been spread over a period of time that would have made it practicable for the citizen to make some effective representations to some appellate tribunal that was not guided and constrained by the view of a particular Minister. I hope the Minister will say that he will give consideration to this because it would be an improvement to the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall gladly give consideration to that, but I would emphasise that there is a strong distinction between what has to be done in an immediate emergency and what is of the nature of planning for an emergency.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask where the distinction is to be found in these Amendments?
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is not a distinction in the Amendments. I am saying that there is in fact this distinction and one must assume, as I said at

433
the beginning, that the Government will exercise these powers with great discretion.
VISCOUNT AMORY: That is the difficulty some of us are in. There is no dispute that in an emergency whatever is required must be done to save lives, but some of these instances, like cutting down trees, demolishing buildings and erecting buildings, seem to some of us who may be only laymen in this matter to be so remote from an actual emergency that it is difficult to believe that the same procedures should apply to them as to other things. It may be that in the interests of longer-term safety cutting down trees or erecting buildings will be required, and, if so, arrangements will be made for that to be done, but it is difficult to believe that there can be the same need for haste. Therefore one doubts whether precisely the same procedure could cover all those eventualities.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I take the point raised by my noble friend, but, as I understand it, these works (whatever they may be) carried out outside an aerodrome are, by and large, only to be carried out by consent, and that is with agreement as to what the compensation and the like are going to be. What the Bill says is that if it is considered necessary, and if the appropriate arrangements are made, then time consuming legal matters and other considerations can be overridden, and it is difficult to see why that should not be so in these particular circumstances. After all, in defence matters of this kind with emergency aspects arising it must be important to have certain work done, and the people who would judge whether it has to be done are those who have to operate in the emergency.
LORD BESWICK: I shall look forward all the more eagerly to what the noble Lord writes to me about the provision in this Bill which restricts these acts to a condition of emergency or, as he now says, for defence purposes. I find it difficult to see in this Bill anything which qualifies these acts for either emergency or defence purposes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.5.58 p.m.
5.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
Offences in relation to certain dangerous articles
".—(1) It shall be an offence for any person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which shall lie on him) to have with him—

(a) in any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, whether at a time when the aircraft is in the United Kingdom or not, or

(b) in any other aircraft at a time when it is in, or in flight over, the United Kingdom, or

(c) in any part of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom.

any article to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to the following articles, that is to say—

(a) any firearm, or any article having the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not;

(b) any explosive, any article manufactured or adapted (whether in the form of a bomb, grenade or otherwise) so as to have the appearance of being an explosive, whether it is capable of producing a practical effect by explosion or not, or any article marked or labelled so as to indicate that it is or contains an explosive; and

(c) any article (not falling within either of the preceding paragraphs) made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person or for destroying or damaging property, or intended by the person having it with him for such use, whether by him or by any other person.

(3) For the purposes of this section a person who is for the time being in an aircraft, or in part of an aerodrome, shall be treated as having with him in the aircraft, or in that part of the aerodrome, as the case may be, an article to which this section applies if—

(a) where he is in an aircraft, the article, or an article in which it is contained, is in the aircraft and has been caused (whether by him or by any other person) to be brought there as being, or as forming part of, his baggage on a flight in the aircraft or has been caused by him to be brought there as being, or as forming part of, any other property to be carried on such a flight, or

(b) where he is in part of an aerodrome otherwise than in an aircraft), the article, or an article in which it is contained, is in that or any other part of the aerodrome and has been caused (whether by him or by any other person) to be brought into the aerodrome as being, or as forming part of, his baggage on a flight from that

435
aerodrome or has been caused by him to be brought there as being, or as forming part of, any other property to be carried on such a flight on which he is also to be carried,

notwithstanding that the circumstances may be such that (apart from this subsection) he would not be regarded as having the article with him in the aircraft or in a part of the aerodrome, as the case may be.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which a person would, apart from that subsection, be regarded as having an article with him as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward Amendment with regard to offences in relation to certain dangerous articles. I do not think it gives rise to any difficulty. It simply makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof of which is upon him, to have with him in any United Kingdom registered aircraft, anywhere in the world, or in any other aircraft when it is in or over the United Kingdom, or in any United Kingdom aerodrome, any firearm, explosive or any article made to look like a firearm or explosive or any other article referred to in subsection (2). I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord and his advisers and draftsmen on being topical, as it were, in the light of what happened recently in Aldwych. Here we have a provision which applies not only to a firearm but to an article which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether it is capable of being discharged or not. I wish to ask only one question. In Clause 8 it is provided that the meanings of the terms on this clause shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them, and that a firearm shall include an air-gun or pistol. Does this mean that there is any qualification, taking the two together, to this refinement of a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not? Does it equally mean a pistol or an airgun capable of being fired or not?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I suggest that some proper provision should be made for saying what weapons may be carried lawfully. A great many weapons will be carried, such as humane killers for pigs, cartridges for shotguns, or indeed there may be rifles going to Bisley. I have frequently had a cine camera
436
mistaken for a revolver. I suggest that some simple authority should be given whereby those who search know that they are entitled to allow a person to go on board although he is carrying, say, a toy pistol. It would make it much easier in operation if something were laid down as to the manner in which it could be done.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. We shall certainly have a look at it. Possibly it could be dealt with in some other way. Whether what he has referred to—for example, humane killers for pigs—could be adapted for use in other respects, I do not know, but I shall certainly have the point looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised a point. I shall certainly write to him if I am wrong about this, but it seems to me quite clear that if "firearm" is defined to include something, then the words "whether capable of being discharged or not" apply to those other things which are included; namely, in this case, shotguns and pistols.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry; there is another question. I may have missed this, but this clause provides that these articles shall not be carried without lawful authority. Can the noble Lord give us some guidance as to what is lawful authority? If a consignment of toy pistols which has been imported recently happened to have been imported by air, where is the lawful authority required for the carrying of such a cargo?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I see the words "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". He has to prove what is lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It is a question of fact for him to prove what is lawful authority. For example, he may be a policeman authorised to have a pistol or something of that kind. It may be lawful in that sense.
LORD BESWICK: But there may be a case, and there may well have been cases recently, where some of the toy pistols imported into this country have come as cargo by air. In such circumstances what kind of lawful authority has to be obtained?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him whether a traffic officer of British

437
European Airways would be a lawful authority to give power for a shotgun, in this case, to be carried in the luggage compartment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to tell noble Lords that at present there seem to be practically no cases of what would or could constitute lawful authority. It is simply a question of fact to be determined on the particular circumstances in each individual case. If there were a whole cargo of toy pistols without a whole cargo of people to handle them, I should have thought that they would not be likely to cause any damage to aircraft. That is the whole point of the provision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
Inspection of aircraft and aerodromes
.—(1) For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to give a direction to any person under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, or of ascertaining whether any such direction is being or has been complied with, any person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State (in this section referred to as an "authorised person") shall have power, on production (if required) of his credentials, to inspect—

(a) any aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, at a time when it is in the United Kingdom, or

(b) any part of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom.

(2) An authorised person inspecting an aircraft or any part of an aerodrome under subsection (1) of this section shall have power—

(a) to subject any property found by him in the aircraft (but not the aircraft itself or any apparatus or equipment installed in it) or, as the case may be, to subject that part of the aerodrome or any property found by him there, to such tests, or

(b) to require the operator of the aircraft, or the manager of the aerodrome, to furnish to him such information,

as the authorised person may consider necessary for the purpose for which the inspection is carried out.
(3) Subject to the next following subsection, an authorised person, for the purpose of exercising any power conferred on him by the preceding provisions of this section in relation to an aircraft or in relation to an aerodrome, shall have power—

438

(a) for the purpose of inspecting an aircraft, to enter it and to take all such steps as are necessary to detain it, or

(b) for the purpose of inspecting any part of an aerodrome, to enter any building or works in the aerodrome or enter upon any land in the aerodrome.

(4) The powers conferred by subsection (3) of this section shall not include power for an authorised person to use force for the purpose of entering any building or works or entering upon any land.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause which deals entirely with inspection. If requirements are imposed there must be some means of inspecting to see that they are carried out. The provisions are simple and unexceptionable.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am afraid that they are neither acceptable nor simple. If we divide the position into two as we have been doing in the Committee, that is to say, first, an emergency, in which we all recognise any action necessary to be taken at that time can be taken, and secondly, the aspect of permanent statutory powers, it is now proposed in this clause to give permanent statutory powers for anyone to inspect an aircraft and to fulfill the duty of inspection to enter it. Therefore, any airliner in the workshops could be entered and inspected. Any noble Lord here who knows anything of aircraft construction knows that inspection and entry of an aircraft can be a hazardous matter both physically and technically. You would probably have to climb up ladders and walk along scaffolding. You have to be very careful where you tread because a great deal of technical damage can be done if one is not carefully escorted. Surely there should be in this clause some words which would guard the emergency position but that at the same time would safeguard the permanent powers of inspection of any aircraft at any time in any position in which an aircraft may be. I would suggest to the Minister for his consideration words such as
"the power of entry wherever required but subject where possible to the consent of the owner or operators".
"Where possible" would eliminate the danger of any refusal during an emergency, but at the same time some words such as those might safeguard the right of the operator or owner not to have his aircraft entered into at any time,

439
possibly to the detriment of the aircraft and to the physical danger of the person entering.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We shall certainly consider whether any such words are necessary. I would have thought in a case like that that the purpose here is quite simple. It does enable the Secretary of State through his inspectors to make an informed appreciation of the security measures required and of the security measures being applied for the purposes of this part of the Bill. The clause enables him also to satisfy himself that the provisions of a direction are being complied with. There is no question of an inspector's being able to force an entry. As my noble friend will see, subsection (4) says:
"The powers conferred by subsection (3) of this section shall not include power for an authorised person to use force for the purpose of entering any building or works or entering upon any land."
I do not know whether inspectors in this case would or would not give notice in advance that they were coming. In many cases it is not thought to be a particularly good thing. But they could be relied upon, I believe, to carry out their job in the least inconvenient manner possible. But they must carry out their job.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not think that you can give a blank cheque to any number of people to enter an aircraft at any time in 24 hours. Surely there should be some safeguards for the operator or owner. All I am trying to suggest is that, in an emergency, let anybody enter an aircraft at any time, but at other times surely try to do it with the consent, co-operation and permission of the owner.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I entirely agree with my noble friend that it should be done with consent, but the whole atmosphere of this Bill is that these steps should be taken voluntarily and by consent, but that there should be in the background a power to see that the right thing is being done and to ensure that acts of violence are avoided.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.8 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 22:

PART III
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Powers exercisable on suspicion of intended offence. 1971 c. 70.
.(1) Where a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that a person about to embark on an aircraft in the United Kingdom, or a person on board such an aircraft, intends to commit, in relation to the aircraft, an offence under Part I of this Act or under the Hijacking Act 1971, the constable may prohibit him from travelling on board the aircraft; and for the purpose of enforcing that prohibition the constable—

(a) may prevent him from embarking on the aircraft or, as the case may be, may remove him from the aircraft, and

(b) may arrest him without warrant and detain him for so long as may be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, where a direction given under section (Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes) of this Act to the manager of an aerodrome is for the time being in force, then if a constable, or any other person specified in the direction in accordance with that section, has reasonable cause to suspect that an article to which section (Offences in relation to certain dangerous articles) of this Act applies is in, or may be brought into, any part of the aerodrome, he may, by virtue of this subsection and without a warrant, search any part of the aerodrome or any aircraft, vehicle, goods or other movable property of any description which, or any person who, is for the time being in any part of the aerodrome, and for that purpose—

(a) may enter any building or works in the aerodrome, or enter upon any land in the aerodrome, if need be by force, and

(b) may stop any such aircraft, vehicle, goods, property or person and detain it or him for so long as may be necessary for that purpose.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall have effect without prejudice to the operation, in relation to any offence under this Act or under the Hijacking Act 1971,—

(a) in England and Wales, of section 2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (which confers power to arrest without warrant) or of section 3 of that Act (use of force in making arrest, etc.), or

(b) in Scotland, of any rule of law relating to power to arrest without warrant, or

(c) in Northern Ireland, of section 2 or section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967."

The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) is (with a modification necessary now that the Bill is divided into separate parts) the text of the existing Clause 6(1) of the Bill, whereas the new subsection (2) provides that without prejudice to subsection (1)
"where a direction given under section"—
Amendment No. 15—
"is … enforced, then if a constable, or any other person specified in the direction … has reasonable cause to suspect that an article"—
to which the new Clause 20 applies—
"is in, or may be brought into, any part of the aerodrome, he may … without a warrant, search any part of the aerodrome or any aircraft … property … or any person … in any part of the aerodrome, and for that purpose

(a) may enter any building or works in the aerodrome, or enter upon any land in the aerodrome, if need by force, and

(b) may stop any such aircraft … property or person and detain it or him for so long as may be necessary for that purpose."

Amendment No. 15, read in conjunction with Amendment No. 18, does not give an aerodrome manager the right to carry out any searches. As I said before, it is necessary for the Bill to confer such powers as are necessary, though not on him, and that is the purpose of this clause. Also the persons carrying out a search on an aerodrome may be authorised to do so otherwise than under this subsection; that is, by other statutory powers or property rights or contractual rights. It should also be noted that the power granted by the subsection differs radically from the normal power, in that the searcher need have only a reasonable suspicion that an article to which the new clause applies is on the aerodrome, and not, as in the normal case, a reasonable suspicion that the article is on the person or in the property being searched. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to give me a precedent in other legislation for giving powers to a constable to arrest a man without warrant and to hold him for as long as he considers necessary?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think there is a precedent here. As I indicated at the outset, there are some powers here that are unprecedented. We consider that as the circumstances here are also unprecedented, those powers are justified in those circumstances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
Penalties in connection with exercise of powers under Part II or under section (Powers exercisable on suspicion of intended offences).
".—(1) Any person who—

(a) refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him by a notice under section (Power for Secretary of State to require information) of this Act, or with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (2)(b) of section (Inspection of aircraft and aerodromes) of this Act, or

(b) in furnishing any information so required, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who refuses or fails to comply with a direction given to him under section (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) or section (Power to require aerodrome managers to promote searches at aerodromes) of this Act shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Any person to whom a direction is given under section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act, and who refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the direction, shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person who—

(a) wilfully obstructs or impedes a person acting in the exercise of a power conferred on him by or under section (Inspection of aircraft and aerodromes) or section (Powers exercisable on suspicion of intended offence) of this Act, or

(b) wilfully interferes with any building constructed or works executed on any land in compliance with a direction under section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act or with anything installed on, under, over or across any land in compliance with such a direction,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under section (Offences in relation to certain dangerous articles) of this Act or under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) in the case of an offence under section (Offences in relation to certain dangerous articles) of this Act, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, and

(b) in the case of an offence under this section, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause, which deals with penalties. I do not know whether I need go

443
into details. Perhaps I should draw attention particularly to subsection (2), which makes it an offence to refuse or fail to comply with a direction. I should make it clear that there is no provision for reasonable excuse as a defence. However, the nature of these directions makes reference to reasonable excuse in this clause inappropriate, since Amendment No. 14 can require an aircraft operator not to cause or permit persons or property to come into his aircraft, including taking all steps necessary and practicable to prevent entry. An absolute duty is thus imposed on the operator to make no mistake. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask my noble friend to clear up one point in subsection (5)? There in two places it is stated:
"… under this section … to a fine not exceeding £400…
(2) … or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both …"
and then under paragraph (b):
"… to a fine …" —
apparently of unlimited amount—
"…or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years …"
Is the wording "under this section" correct in both places?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to look at that question. I do not quite know the answer to it off-hand.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 24. This is a fairly standard clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause—
Offences by bodies corporate
".—(1) Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) In this section "director", in relation to any body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership an industry or part
444
of an industry or undertaking, being a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of that body corporate."—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
Compensation in respect of certain measures taken by aerodrome managers
.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where, in compliance with a direction under section (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies) of this Act, the manager of an aerodrome takes any measures consisting of the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of a building or other works on land either within or outside the aerodrome.
(2) If the value of any interest in that land to which a person is entitled is depreciated in consequence of the taking of those measures, or the person having such an interest suffers loss in consequence of them by being disturbed in his enjoyment of any of that land, he shall be entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or loss.
(3) If any land other than the land on which the measures are taken is injuriously affected by the taking of those measures, any person having an interest in that other land, who suffers loss in consequence of its being injuriously affected, shall be entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the loss.
(4) Any compensation to which a person is entitled under this section shall be payable to him by the manager of the aerodrome by whom the measures in question were taken.
(5) The provisions of the Schedule (Provisions relating to compensation) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section; and the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of that Schedule.
The noble Lord said: This is the clause which deals with compensation in respect of certain measures taken by areodrome managers, and it provides that where the manager of an aerodrome takes any measures consisting of
"…the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of a building or other works on land either within or outside the aerodrome"
this clause shall apply. The effect of subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment No. 19 is to create both a right and a duty for the works on the aerodrome to be carried out. As regards the carrying out of works on land outside the aerodrome, there is no right against the owners or other persons having an interest in it to carry out such work. At first sight it may appear strange that the

445
compensation provisions should apply in respect of works on land off the aerodrome. The reason for this is that if the work off the aerodrome were urgently required it would be possible for the owner of the land merely to give his consent, secure in the knowledge that he would have a statutory right to compensation. Without the provisions of this clause he could not safely give his consent until his compensation had been agreed, which could cause delay. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
Reimbursement of expenses incurred for purposes to which Part II applies
".—(1) The Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, reimburse to any person who is—

(a) the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or

(b) the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom,

the whole or part of any expenses which, for purposes to which Part II of this Act applies, have at any time on or after 1st June 1972 been, or may at any time after the commencement of this Act be, incurred by that person in relation to those aircraft or to that aerodrome, as the case may be, whether (in the case of expenses incurred after the commencement of this Act) the expenses are incurred in consequence of a direction given under Part II of this Act or not.
(2) For the purposes of this section any expenses incurred in paying compensation under section (Compensation in respect of certain measures taken by aerodrome managers) of this Act shall be treated as being expenses incurred as mentioned in the preceding subsection."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Subsection (1) provides that the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury and out of moneys provided by Parliament reimburse the operator of United Kingdom registered aircraft or of any other aircraft for the time being allocated for use on flights to or from the United Kingdom, or reimburse the manager of any aerodrome in the United Kindom, for any expenses incurred since June 1, 1972, or to be incurred by them for the purpose
446
to which Part II of the Bill applies in respect of those aircraft or of that aerodrome, whether in consequence of a direction under Part II of the Bill or otherwise. Since June 1, 1972, the payments that are referred to, at the rate of £1 million a year for the security services on aerodromes, are being made, and they are being made not in consequence of a direction but in consequence of the voluntary action that has been taken. This clause, therefore, does not validate that expenditure because it does not really require validation, but it does provide for continuity of that sort of expenditure now and in the future. I think if anything were needed to show the way in which it is proposed to operate this Bill the words at the end of subsection (1) make it clear that the expenses are
" … incurred in consequence of a direction given under Part II or this Act or not."
It applies equally to the voluntary expenditure and that made under direction. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord one question? This Amendment assumes that the only people to whom compensation will be payable will be operators of aircraft or managers of aerodromes. We are involving breaches of contract, and there may be a third party who might well suffer damages in consequence of a direction. Should we not make some reference to that in this Amendment No. 26?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think so, because so far as the managers of aerodromes are concerned they are in touch, no doubt, with any proprietors with rights, whether inside the aerodrome or outside it, and they will be responsible for making the payments in accordance with the Schedule we are coming to. The provisions relate to compensation provided due notice is given of the intention to ask for compensation. I do not think that this question will arise. I do not think that it is necessary to include the third party here. We are dealing purely and simply with the relationship between the Secretary of State, on the one hand, and the operator or the manager of the aerodrome to whom he gives direction, on the other. He will, in effect, be reimbursing the payments that have been made in either case for the works or whatever rights have been acquired.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I had in mind travel agencies who, I assume, might have an action against the airline, who, in turn, would claim compensation against the Secretary of State.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will certainly look at that point to see whether this can arise. So much of this clause is concerned with "search", and the contracts between the carrier and the passenger give the carrier the right to say that a person will not be admitted on to an aircraft unless he submits to search.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
Service of documents
".Any notice, direction or other document required or authorised by any provision of this Act to be served on or given to any person may be served or given—

(a) by delivering it to him, or

(b) by sending it to him by post at his usual or last-known resident or place of business, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or

(c) in the case of a body corporate, by delivering it to the secretary, clerk or similar officer of the body corporate at its registered or principal office in the United Kingdom (or, if it has no office in the United Kingdom at its principal office, wherever it may be) or sending it by post to the secretary, clerk or similar officer of that body corporate at that office."

The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the service of documents, and covers most of the ways in which a document will, in practice, be served. The clause does not prevent service from being made in some other way if it is thought appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation]:
6.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 7, line 1, at end insert ("except in so far as the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them, that is to say—
"aerodrome" means the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome as defined by section 28(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1968 and (if and so far as not comprised in an aerodrome as so defined) any land, building or works situated within the boundaries of an area designated,
448
by an order made by the Secretary of State which is for the time being in force, as constituting the area of an aerodrome for the purposes of this Act;
"aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom" means any aircraft which is either—

(a) an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or

(b) an aircraft not so registered which is for the time being allocated for use on flights which (otherwise than in exceptional circumstances) include landing at or taking off from one or more aerodromes in the United Kingdom;

"article" includes any substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour;
"constable" includes any person having the powers and privileges of a constable;
"explosive" means any article manufactured for the purpose of producing a practical effect by explosion, or intended for that purpose by a person having the article with him;
"firearm" includes an airgun or air pistol;
"manager", in relation to an aerodrome, means the person (whether being the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, a local authority or any other person) by whom the aerodrome is managed.")
The noble Lord said: This is the definition clause, and the first definition refers to the definition of an aerodrome, which is defined by reference to an area of land designed, equipped, set apart and commonly used for affording facilities for landing and departure of aircraft. That is the definition under the Civil Aviation Act 1968, but it may not be sufficient for security purposes at large aerodromes where many facilities are provided, and it may not be clear whether a particular facility falls within the 1968 definition. Accordingly, the clause provides that the Secretary of State may, but need not, define by an Order the area of land which constitutes the area of an aerodrome for the purposes of the Act. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord look again at the definition of an aircraft operating in the United Kingdom that is not registered here? Does he mean that any aircraft landing in the United Kingdom should be included in that definition, or does he not? If he does mean that, the wording of this description is extremely odd. I have no idea what the words "allocating an aircraft on flights otherwise than in exceptional circumstances" meant. If he means" any aircraft operating from this country", why not say so?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that we are here dealing with aircraft that are operated within the meaning of the word "operated", and not private aircraft and the like. That is where the distinction is. This provision does not necessarily apply to private aircraft arriving at an aerodrome in this country.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Lord mean that any commercial aircraft landing in this country comes under this definition? If he means that, why not say so? He uses words that I do not understand. Perhaps other people may, but I do not.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought I understood what the words meant, but I think that the noble Earl has explained in ordinary terms what is intended. I will certainly have a look at the matter to see the reason for defining the term in this way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, leave out lines 3 to 15 and insert—
" "measures" (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) includes the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of buildings or other works and also includes the institution or modification, and the supervision and enforcement, of any practice or procedure;
"operator" has the same meaning as in the Civil Aviation Act 1971;
"property" includes any land, buildings or works, any aircraft or vehicle and any baggage, cargo or other article of any description".
The noble Lord said: The words to be omitted from Clause 8 are now in Clause 1 of the Bill. The insertion comprises the further definitions now required that came after the definition of "military service". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert ("and anything done on board an aircraft while in flight over any part of the United Kingdom shall be treated as done in that part of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment adds at the end of Clause 8(2)(b) words to ensure that anything done on board an aircraft in flight over any part of the United Kingdom shall be treated
450
as done in that part of the United Kingdom. That is to avoid any doubt about which legal system, English, Scottish or the like, is to apply in regard to anything done on board an aircraft in flight over the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert—
("() Any power to make an order under subsection (1) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument whereby any such order is made shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
() Any power to make an order under subsection (1) of this section, or to give a direction under any provision of this Act, shall be construed as including power to revoke or vary any such order or direction by a further order or direction made under that subsection, or given under that provision, as the case may be.")
The noble Lord said: Two new subsections are added here. The first provides that an Order under Clause 8(1), the definition of an aerodrome, shall be exercisable by Statutory Instrument, to be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House of Parliament. The second provides that the power to make an Order under Clause 8(1), or to give a direction under the Bill, shall be construed as including the power to revoke, or vary, any such Order or direction by a further Order or direction under the same provision. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 10, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPENSATION
1. This Schedule applies to compensation under section (Compensation in respect of certain measures taken by aerodrome managers) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as "the relevant section").
2. No compensation to which this Schedule applies shall be payable unless the person to whom it is payable in accordance with the relevant section (or in accordance with regulations made under the following provisions of this Schedule) serves on the manager of the aerodrome by whom the measures in question

451
were taken a notice in writing claiming compensation under that section, and that notice is served before the end of the period of twelve months from the completion of the measures.
3. In relation to any measures taken by the manager of an aerodrome on land outside the aerodrome, any reference in the relevant section to a direction, or to compliance with a direction, shall be construed as if subsection (6) of section (Limitations of scope of directions under ss. (Power to impose restrictions in relation to aircraft) to (General power to direct measures to be taken for purposes to which Part II applies)) of this Act were omitted.
4. In calculating value for any of the purposes of the relevant section—

(a) rules (2) to (4) of the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall apply with the necessary modifications, and

(b) if the interest to be valued is subject to a mortgage, it shall be treated as if it were not subject to the mortgage.

5. Regulations made by the Secretary of State by stautory instrument may make provision—

(a) requiring compensation to which this Schedule applies, in such cases as may be specified in the regulations, to be paid to a person other than the person entitled to it in accordance with the relevant section;

(b) as to the application of any compensation to which this Schedule applies, or any part of it, in cases where the right to claim compensation is exercisable by reference to an interest in land which is subject to a mortgage, or to a rentcharge, or to the trusts of a settlement, or, in Scotland, to a feuduty or ground annual or to the purposes of a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or

(c) as to any assumptions to be made, or matters to be taken into or left out of account, for the purpose of assessing any compensation to which this Schedule applies.

6. Any statutory instrument whereby any regulations are made under paragraph 5 of this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
7. Any dispute arising under the relevant section or under this Schedule, whether as to the right to any compensation or as to the amount of any compensation or otherwise, shall be referred to and determined by the lands Tribunal.
8. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland—

(a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall be construed as a reference to section 12 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and

452

(b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal shall be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

9. In the application of this Schedule to Northern Ireland—

(a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall be construed as a reference to section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 (as substituted by section 13(1) of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964), and

(b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal shall be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

10. In this Schedule "mortgage" includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth, and any heritable security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Schedule dealing with compensation. I do not think that I need go through it in detail in all its various provisions. I would draw attention to the provision for regulations, and that is to permit the details of the compensation provisions to be brought into line with any changes in policy with regard to compulsory purchase compensation, so as to avoid cluttering up the Bill with excessive detail.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Title:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 33:
Line 2, at end insert ("and to make other provision for the protection of aircraft and aerodromes against acts of violence").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to the Title. The Amendment adds:
"and to make other provision for the protection of aircraft and aerodromes against acts of violence".
This is simply to reflect in the Long Title of the Bill the additional purposes of the Bill contained in the clauses that we have now added. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
6.30 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Lord Denning.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
LORD DENNING LORD DENNING moved the following Amendment:
Page 13, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
("(2) The provisions of this Act shall come into operation as follows—

(a) sections 5 and 15, section 19(1) so far as it relates to the paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 2 described below, section 19(2) so far as it relates to the entries in Part I of Schedule 3 described below, Schedule 1, paragraphs 3, 15(d), 15(e), 16, 17 and 18 of Part I of Schedule 2, and the entries in Part I of Schedule 3 relating to section 81 of the Solicitors Act 1957 and sections 10, 12(1) and 13(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Solicitors Act 1965, on 1st January 1974;

(b) the other provisions, at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 20 states:
"(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint and different dates may be so appointed for different provisions of this Act."
At the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Foot drew attention to some difficulties which have arisen, and which may arise, from the clause being in that form, since there might be an indefinite delay before provisions in the Bill came into operation. Consideration has been given to what my noble friend said, and I hope that a satisfactory solution has been found. The solution is that the great majority of the provisions of the Bill should come into operation not immediately on the day it is passed, but one month thereafter. The reason for that is that the Law Society and others have often said that it takes a good time to get copies of the Bill through and for it to become known to the profession. So what is proposed in paragraph (2)(b) of the Amendment is that most of the provisions of the Bill will come into operation
"… at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."
But there are other provisions which ought to be held up for a little while. The first is Clause 5, which deals with the powers of the Council of the Law Society to take possession of documents in case of a solicitor's default or to seize accounts. Application to the High Court is needed in that case, and rules have to be made in relation to such an application. It is therefore thought desirable to give time for the rules to be propounded, and it is suggested that the provision should come into operation on January 1, 1974. The same argument applies in the case of Clause 15, which entitles solicitors to administer oaths without any special permission for the purpose. That needs a little arrangement and administration, and it is therefore proposed that that clause, too, should come into operation on January 1, 1974. The remainder of the exceptions are simply in regard to consequential amending and repealing provisions. So that the object of the Amendment is to ensure that the great majority of the provisions in the Bill should come into operation one month after it is passed, and the others will come into operation on January 1, 1974. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, since this is a matter which I raised originally, I should like to say just three sentences. I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and to the Law Society for having accepted the substance of what I proposed. I had intended to make one or two further observations, but I do not think I should be justified in detaining the House any longer. Perhaps I may just say this in conclusion. What was worrying me about Clause 20 was that there was an open-ended discretion vested in the Lord Chancellor to decide when he should bring into operation any particular part of the Bill. I think that this is a matter of more general application and I hope that it may be possible, at some time in the future, for the House and Parliament to consider whether this sort of clause is constitutionally objectionable and whether, where this clause is written into any other Bill, it ought to be subject to consideration. I do not want to detain the House any longer, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having accepted the substance of my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I think it only remains for me to say this. This Amendment has been agreed with my Department, and therefore with me, and is perfectly acceptable to me. I explained, when the noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised his point on Committee, that whereas I was quite prepared for my Department to be used as a public convenience, I was reluctant to allow it to be turned into a whipping boy. The original commencement provisions were simply designed as a public convenience, and therefore I am perfectly content for fixed dates of commencement in this case to be substituted for them. However, I do not accept the constitutional doctrine of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I have already described my view with regard to it. It is of course perfectly open to him to raise on an appropriate question the propriety of the present commencement provisions in other Acts when we come to them, or by way of substantive debate, but now that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has moved this Amendment, the point does not arise here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Denning.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FURNISHED LETTINGS (RENTA LLOWANCES) BILL
6.37 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TILE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I take considerable pleasure in noting two important contrasts. Whereas, when we introduced the Housing Finance Bill last summer, there was controversy between the two Front Benches and the two sides of the House on many points, I think that on this Bill, with its narrow purpose, there will be no controversy at all. In the earlier Bill, we had to deal with 100 clauses and eleven Schedules, but in this Bill there are only four clauses and two Schedules and I think that that, too, will
456
be the cause of some satisfaction to noble Lords.
One gap in the Housing Finance Bill which we considered at great length last Session was any provision for rent allowances to be granted to tenants of furnished accommodation. It was an omission of which we were all conscious, and noble Lords opposite moved Amendments at both Committee and Report stages to enable the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the definition of "private tenant", in what is now Section 19 of the Housing Finance Act, to tenants of furnished as well as of unfurnished accommodation. We explained at Report stage that the reason why such provision had not been included in the Bill was that we were still at that time uncertain whether a practical and viable scheme could be devised for that purpose. We explained that if our discussions with the local authority associations turned out satisfactorily, the necessary legislation would be introduced and we gave an assurance that there was no intention of delaying more than was absolutely necessary the legislation for this purpose.
I am now glad to be able to tell your Lordships that we have been able to work out a scheme which we believe will be practical, and we shall have it in operation—Parliament agreeing—only four months after rent allowances have been introduced into the unfurnished sector. So this Bill fulfils, promptly and amply, the assurance that we gave during the passage of the previous Act. What this Bill does is to require local authorities to extend their existing rent allowance schemes for tenants of unfurnished accommodation, so that they apply also to tenants of furnished lettings. The Bill does not attempt to deal with any of the wider problems of the furnished rented sector. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is more limited, but we believe of great significance. And I would remind your Lordships that in making rent allowances available to tenants in furnished accommodation we are achieving something which has never been attempted before except by the City of Birmingham, who pioneered this move in the same way that they pioneered the rent allowances in the unfurnished sector—and it is something which is acknowledged by all the experts to be a difficult task.
As your Lordships will recall, the Housing Finance Act required local

457
authorities to introduce a rent allowance scheme for tenants of unfurnished accommodation in their area not later than the beginning of 1973. This Bill provides for local authorities to amend or replace their existing schemes on April 29 so that they apply to tenants of certain furnished accommodation as well. The reason for choosing April 29 is that that is the date on which we intend to bring into effect the increased scale of needs allowances for rent rebates and rent allowances which was announced as part of the second stage of our policy for dealing with inflation. It will make matters a great deal simpler for local authorities, especially those London Boroughs and county boroughs in whose areas there are substantial numbers of furnished lettings, if the change in their rent allowance scheme on account of the new needs allowances coincides with the change they will have to make to include tenants of furnished accommodation.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the Bill is in a rather unusual form. Because its purpose is to amend certain provisions relating to local authorities' existing duties in relation to the operation of rent allowance schemes and the granting of rent allowances, the Bill is drafted in the form of a series of amendments contained in the Schedules. Schedule 1 is in the form of amendments to the Housing Finance Act in respect of England and Wales, and Schedule 2 contains a similar series of amendments relating to Scotland. I fear that this way of doing things makes the Bill a little difficult to follow, and, that being so, we have issued Command Paper 5242, Textual Memorandum on the Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Bill 1972, which shows the relevant provisions of the two Acts passed last year as they would appear with the amendments proposed in this Bill made to them. I suggest that your Lordships may find reference to this Memorandum a convenient way of seeing what are the effects of certain provisions in the Bill. As I have said, the provisions relating to Scotland are precisely the same in almost every respect as those relating to England and Wales, and perhaps your Lordships with Scottish interests will forgive me if from now on I use references which apply solely to England and Wales, as I think it will be less cumbersome if I do so.
458
Because the Bill extends the existing rent allowance schemes of local authorities, most of the provisions of the Housing Finance Act relating to those schemes apply just as much to furnished tenants as they do to unfurnished. Thus the administrative arrangements set out in Schedule 4 of that Act for the granting of rent allowances will apply. So will the rules set out in Schedule 3 for the calculation of a tenant's entitlement to an allowance—the same scale of needs allowances, the same provisions relating to the minimum rent, the same deductions from any allowance entitlement because of the presence in the household of non-dependants. Moreover, rent allowances granted to furnished tenants will rank for subsidy at the same rate as those granted to unfurnished tenants, which means that until 1976–77 the Exchequer will meet 100 per cent. of the cost of the allowances.
There are, however, two respects in which the rent allowance scheme will differ in its application to tenants of furnished accommodation. The first concerns the amount of the tenant's rent which is eligible to be met by an allowance. I think there will be no disagreement that it would be wrong that that part of the rent which is paid for the use of furniture, or indeed for the provision of services, should count for allowance purposes. It would give the furnished tenant quite unjustified advantage over the unfurnished tenant if he were getting help in this way from public funds towards the cost of his furniture, whereas the unfurnished tenant has to meet it all himself. But it would be extremely difficult for a local authority officer, or for a rent officer if the local authority turned to one, to arrive at the appropriate proportion of the rent that should count for the purpose of assessing a rent allowance by assessing the rental value of the furniture and deducting that amount from the rent the tenant was paying. In practical terms this would be an extremely difficult imposition.
In the case of unfurnished lettings, there is provision in the Housing Finance Act (paragraph 14 of Schedule 4) that where in the case of a regulated tenancy no rent has been registered, the local authority are to base their calculation of a tenant's entitlement to a rent allowance on their estimate of the fair rent of that

459
dwelling. But those whom we have consulted on this matter—local authority officers and members of rent tribunals—were in no doubt that if this formula were applied in the case of furnished lettings also it would be quite unfair to the tenant. The rent for a furnished letting amounts to more than the fair rent for that same dwelling let unfurnished plus the appropriate amount for furniture and services. Letting furnished property involves more work for the landlord. He provides more services, and he accepts more responsibility for repairs and decorations. There is more risk in the case of furnished lettings of bad debt, and of the dwelling being empty because lettings are of shorter duration. This clement of management risk, if I may call it that, is reflected in the rent for a furnished dwelling, and it is only right that this element should be included in the proportion of the rent on which the tenant's rent allowance is calculated.
We have therefore provided in the Bill that, broadly speaking, the rent eligible to be met by a rent allowance in the case of a furnished dwelling is to be the local authority's assessment of the fair rent for that dwelling if it were let unfurnished plus 25 per cent. The relevant provisions in the Bill are paragraphs 17 and 26 of Schedule 1, which is at the top of page 5, from line 9 onwards. They appear in the Bill to be rather complicated, but the effect is as I have just described. However, this formula of the estimated fair rent plus one-quarter is subject to two ceilings. The first is any rent fixed for that dwelling by the rent tribunal, and the second is the rent actually paid by the tenant. If either of these is less than the local authority's or the rent officer's estimate of the fair rent increased by one-quarter, then that is the amount on which the rent allowance entitlement has to be calculated.
We believe that this formula is the best that can be devised at the moment, and we have taken the best advice we can get in order to arrive at it. But we recognise that when we have some experience of the scheme we may find that a 25 per cent. addition is too much or that it is too little, or we may find that it is too much in one part of the country and not enough in another. We have therefore provided in the Bill, at
460
paragraph 19 of Schedule 1, that this percentage may be altered either generally or for a group of local authorities, and we will not hesitate to make use of that power to make adjustments if the facts seem to merit it. That is the first difference. The second main difference between rent allowances in this sector and rent allowances in the unfurnished sector is that in the application of the rent allowance scheme to furnished tenants we think that the allowances should be concentrated, at any rate initially, on certain categories of furnished tenants who are especially in need of help. The Bill is therefore drafted in terms of a scheme applying to "qualified persons" among furnished tenants—this is paragraph 10 of Schedule 1—and the categories of tenants to be eligible are to be prescribed in regulations. In addition, local authorities are to have a duty to grant rent allowances at their discretion to any other tenants who they consider would suffer hardship if they did not get them.
The reason why we believe that this concentration of help is necessary is that, as many noble Lords will know, the pressure upon the furnished sector of housing, especially in London and one or two of the other big cities, is intense. For us to make rent allowances available to every furnished tenant would further intensify the pressure. What we are therefore seeking to do is to concentrate our help in the furnished rented market on those tenants whom we consider to be most in need of help; and, in particular, we want to give help to established families, to old-age pensioners, to the severely disabled and to the handicapped. We also want to help older single people and older couples who have no children. Many of these people do not have the opportunity to move to other areas and in the area where they are there is no alternative to furnished accommodation for them. These are the people we particularly want to help. It is for this reason that we seek powers to concentrate help.
There are other groups of people whose problems are different: young single people and young couples without children. Many have come to London or to the centre of other big cities as a matter of choice. They come because they are attracted by the desire for independence, the style of living and the

461
opportunities for work. They know they are likely to have to pay quite heavily for furnished accommodation, but they make this choice, and they are free to make it, deliberately and in that knowledge. Moreover, the great majority of them can afford to spend a relatively high proportion of income on rent; and, because single people in that group can club together and four or five can share a flat, they can afford the higher rent because they can in that way reduce the amount they spend individually on rent.
It is on considerations of this kind that our selective strategy is based. Under the Bill, our proposals will have to be put before the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances, a statutory body (which was provided under the Housing Finance Act which my right honourable friend intends to set up shortly. We shall take good note of the Committee's advice and of any views which are expressed in Parliament. But subject to such views, the groups of people we have in mind to prescribe in the regulations are: families with dependent children, including single parent families who have been resident for six months in the local authority's area; old-age pensioners or tenants whose wife or husband is of pensionable age or whose household includes a pensioner and again who have been resident for six months in the local authority area; single tenants and couples with no dependent children or pensioners living with them with a longer qualifying period of residence in a local authority area and probably an age limit and tenants who are registered under the National Assistance Act as handicapped or who have such a person living in their household.
In addition to these categories, as I have mentioned, the Bill places a duty on local authorities to grant an allowance to any furnished tenant whom they consider would suffer hardship if he did not get an allowance. In forming their opinion as to whether a tenant would suffer hardship or not, the authority are to act in the light of guidance given by my right honourable friend. What my right honourable friend proposes to do is to provide guidance in a circular on the kind of tenants who in his view should or might be regarded as cases of hardship. There will be consultation with the
462
Department of Health and Social Security and with the Local Authority Associations before this guidance is issued. But I should like to make it clear that no restrictions regarding length of residence, or age, or family composition will apply when a tenant's case is being considered under this head. I should also like to make it clear that the authority have a duty to grant an allowance to such a tenant if it is their opinion that he would suffer hardship otherwise.
We are not seeking to tie local authorities' hands by issuing guidance in this way but are doing it because it was asked for by the Local Authority Associations themselves when they realised that if it was not provided there would be wide variation between one authority and another in the interpretation of what was hardship, and this would be undesirable and possibly unjust.
It is difficult to estimate how many furnished tenants will be eligible, under our proposals, for a rent allowance. On the best estimate we can make, there are about 600,000 furnished tenancies in England and Wales and a further 28,000 in Scotland. Of these 600,000, about 120,000—less than a quarter—are in receipt of supplementary benefit. Of the remainder, we expect something like a quarter to be eligible. Noble Lords should bear in mind that a significant proportion of tenants in furnished accommodation stay only a short time. Moreover, large numbers of them are young people who, as I have explained, we believe should not be included in the scheme at the outset. We are extremely concerned that all those eligible should know that they may be entitled to an allowance and should apply if they think they are. We are concerned that there should be a high level of take-up. We know that it will not be easy to achieve this, but we intend to mount an extensive publicity campaign and we should welcome any suggestions from noble Lords during the stages of the Bill to ensure this high take-up.
We are glad that it has proved practicable to respond to expressions from every side of the House last summer. We were proud then to introduce rent allowances for the first time in the privately rented unfurnished sector and are proud now to be introducing them again for the first time into the privately rented furnished

463
sector. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and invite you to give it a Second Reading.
6.55 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should not want to detract from the credit due to the Government for the promptitude with which they introduced this measure. The noble Lord said he thought it would be non-controversial. I hope that my remarks will be taken, at least, as being intended to be helpful and constructive, but perhaps some aspects of the measure would appear to be somewhat different as seen by us compared with the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put them. It is a commonplace to say that everybody needs somewhere to live. The satisfaction of that need is met in a variety of ways. Some people are able to satisfy their needs by purchasing accommodation. The State (and let us not forget it) gives a very considerable subsidy by way of tax relief on interest to those who purchase by borrowing. Others rent unfurnished accommodation from their local authority, from housing associations and from private landlords and, as the noble Lord said, we recently spent some time considering legislation which the Government introduced which brought the element of profit-making into what they wished to have called "fair rents", rents which local authorities now are called upon to impose on their tenants. Recognising, as the Government must have done, that these rentals will be exorbitant for many of the tenants, having regard to their earnings, the Government detailed a rent rebate scheme to alleviate undue hardship that would otherwise ensue. They also introduced a scheme of rent allowances for the private sector related to income.
The Minister has explained the purpose of this Bill at some length and in some detail. I know the House will wish to thank him for the care with which he has presented the case in its support. As he indicated, the purpose of the Bill is to bring under the umbrella of help the payment of rents which leave to those tenants who rent furnished accommodation too little to live in decency. On this side we welcome the intention as we thank the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation, but I
464
think we have a duty to see whether the Bill meets the position, as the noble Lord put it, amply and adequately, and to ask, "Does it match the need? Is good intention enough?" It is as well always to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I do not doubt the Government's intentions as I did not doubt them—gravely mistaken though I thought them to be when the Housing Finance Bill was passing through Parliament. The total of furnished lettings in England and Wales has been given this evening by the Minister and was given in the other place by Mr. Paul Channon, Minister for Housing and Construction, as some 600,000. I shall use the Government's figures although they seem on the conservative side. There are those who have studied housing seriously who consider that the figure may be as high as 700,000. Let us say that it is somewhere between those two figures. That constitutes some 10 per cent. of all local authority and privately-owned accommodation. Undoubtedly the largest proportion of furnished tenancies is in London. A large number of them are occupied by single persons. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord did not lightly dismiss the circumstances which have brought some of those tenants to London.
I recall that the Francis Committee stated that in London there were something like 96,000 furnished lettings occupied by families of varying sizes. As Mr. Channon put it in another place on January 23:
"About a quarter of all furnished tenancies are occupied by families. Among, these families are some of the poorest in the country. They live in furnished accomodation because that is the only type of housing they can get."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. col. 228.]
Of the 600,000, something like 120,000 receive rent allowances from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That leaves roughly half a million tenants of furnished accommodation not at present covered by the provisions of the Housing Finance Act and not receiving any allowance. This Bill defines certain categories within that half a million which will become eligible for a rent allowance. I do not think that there was any dispute during the Third Reading debate in another place—and the noble Lord has confirmed the figure which was mentioned

465
then—that this would be limited to some 120,000 of the half million. I am using the figure used in another place which was not seriously challenged. This means that 380,000 are left out of the scope of this Bill. Little wonder that Mr. Channon said that, if we pass this Bill, all we are doing is to set up an initial system. The fact remains, my Lords, that 380,000 out of half a million tenants of furnished accommodation will not qualify to receive a rent allowance. The estimated financial effects of this Bill are calculated to result in an annual charge of between only £5 million and £8 million which indicates its limitation. For a great many there will be nothing, and for others there may be very little.
My next point is that the allowance which will be paid to anyone of the 120,000 will be based not on the actual rent paid but on a fair rent fixed by the local authority for the premises viewed as unfurnished accommodation, plus 25 per cent. of that figure to cover the furnishings. If a fair rent is fixed at £4, then £1 is added and the figure on which allowances are based is £5. In all too many cases the actual rent will be considerably in excess of the fair rent figure but the allowance will be based on the fair rent figure plus that 25 per cent. To give an example which has been put to me, a man with a wife and one child living in Lambeth who has an income of £25 a week and who lives in two rooms pays an actual rental of £5·50 a week. The fair rent is likely to be about £2. If the allowance is based on the provisions of this Bill, taking account of the recent £3·50 addition to his needs, the allowance would be £2·62. In fact, his allowance, based on the fair rent plus 25 per cent. would come to only 82p.
To get the allowance the tenant has to contact the local authority and the authority must send someone to assess a fair rent. This involves the risk that the landlord will discover that an allowance is being sought and he may demand an even higher rent so that the allowance will go into his pocket. It is foolish not to recognise the possibility that this may happen when we recall all that has happened regarding housing in London. I think we need to take note of the lack of any real security of tenure for a tenant of furnished accommodation. Often there is no rent book when there ought to be
466
one, because that is where the tenant should be able to read his rights and find the address to which he should apply for a possible entitlement to a rent allowance. If the tenant is not very careful his tenancy may be at grave risk.
I have mentioned that one of the greatest weaknesses in this area of rented accommodation is the lack of security of tenure. Another is the matter of controlled rents about which we cannot be happy. We cannot be satisfied that the provisions for securing control work satisfactorily. To put it in a nutshell, we are dealing with a situation not of fair rents, but we ought to be bearing in mind the problem of market rents in a situation of acute shortage, extreme urgency and very limited protection for the tenants.
My Lords, I should like to turn to another point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and that is the position as to residential qualification in regard to entitlement to claims for allowances. He mentioned the categories of persons who will be eligible for allowance as of right: families with dependent children, including single parent families, old-age pensioners and those who have a registered handicap or hardship. I think we need to take seriously this business of the residential period of qualification being six months. Surely that is too long. I should have thought that a month, or even less if the local authority could do it in a less period, would be sufficient. This was a matter that was pursued on Third Reading in another place and I want to ask the noble Lord whether further thought has been given to lessening this period.
We have noted that guidance is to be given to local authorities in the discharge of their duties under this Bill. The noble Lord made some point of their freedom to deal with cases of hardship, but he said that they would be given guidance. Indeed, I should think guidance is necessary if we are to get any degree of uniformity in the treatment of this matter. I have also appreciated that the Minister in the other place laid stress on what could be achieved by way of orders. Accepting that this indicates a degree of flexibility in regard to the provisions of this Bill, I think that many Members of this House are becoming increasingly

467
concerned whether this is the most desirable method of making progress in this field, among others. Circulars giving guidance do not automatically come before Parliament for approval, and orders when made cannot be amended, even if it is desirable that they should be. One begins to wonder to what extent Parliament is going to be able to cope with the growth of the orders and regulations that are such a marked feature of so much of the legislation that we are getting from the Government recently.
I turn now, my Lords, to means testing and take-up. Apart from school meals—and here I think we have to recognise the oversight which teachers can give with effect, which shows that individual attention secures infinitely better results than advertising—the take-up of means test benefits by any yardstick, with possibly one or two exceptions (I think the noble Lord selected Birmingham with great care, because other instances could be quoted where the take-up is lamentably low), falls so far short of the desirable as to make a nonsense of so-called selective benefits. It will be surprising if the percentage take-up of allowances in this field exceeds the take-up of other social benefits. I should like to ask the noble Lord what the Government propose to do by way of securing effective publicity for this measure.
I have referred to the school meals service. It seems to me that, in so far as personal attention can be given, greater success is likely to be the outcome. This is among the very real problems in this field. How can we ensure that those who really need help get it? It is not enough to say that if people want, and need help, they can get it. I believe that that is the point at which means testing fails, because it does not, and cannot, allow for the sense of pride and dignity which causes people to keep to themselves their inability to earn an income adequate to their needs. I can understand their sense of pride and dignity. There is a point where in a democratic society concerned with decent standards we need to provide adequately in this matter of housing. It really comes down all the time to a matter of supplying adequately to meet the need. All the time that there is shortage, it seems to me that we need to control the cost of
468
necessities—and housing is a necessity—and to give a reasonable security of tenure to the person renting a dwelling place. This Bill, as the noble Lord said, is but a beginning. In that it is a beginning it is welcome, but I feel that it is, and time will show it to be, inadequate. As the noble Lord indicated, it may be the means for continued study, and we may be able to find a better answer.
Finally, my Lords, I would say that objection must be registered to the burden that this Bill will place on local authorities. As the noble Lord reminded us in regard to the Housing Finance Act—and of course this measure is bound up with it—they are to be saddled with the cost of administering these provisions, and after 1975–76 they will carry part of the burden of the cost of these allowances. Why? How can that be justified? I believe it to be wrong. I consider it is quite indefensible that relieving poverty should be a charge on rates, which is the most regressive form of taxation imposed. The Government ought to continue to carry 100 per cent. of the cost of these proposals. I believe that they have given us no good case for avoiding doing so.
My Lords, with those reservations, which I hope I have expressed with moderation, on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House I give the Bill a welcome, and I give the promise that we will do nothing to delay its passage other than what may improve the measure. We expect not too much from it, but what good it may do we shall encourage. It would, in turn, be agreeable if the Minister could indicate that some improvements to meet the points I have raised may be contemplated by the Government for introduction at Committee stage, or alternatively, if he could give us some idea of the extent of the use that will be made of regulations, letters of guidance and orders. Meantime, we shall not oppose the Second Reading.
7.19 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the Bill, and I have no complaint that he regards it as merely a beginning, because, as I have said, it is indeed a beginning. It is breaking entirely fresh ground in the furnished sector only four months

469
after we were breaking fresh ground in the unfurnished sector by providing rent allowances right across the board for the first time in the history of this country. The noble Lord mentioned, in passing, that the Bill defines the eligible categories. That is not so. The categories will be prescribed and defined by regulations. That is provided for in this way so that we can advance as we gain experience. But I would stress again the point I made before: that over and above the eligible categories to which the general provisions of the Bill apply, the local authorities will have discretion (subject only to the guidelines which my right honourable friend is going to lay down at the request of the Local Authority Associations) to go outside these categories in order to meet the plight of those who would suffer hardship if they were not to get a rent allowance. I confirm that we shall reconsider both the regulations and the guidelines in the light of experience, but with no experience at all to go on I do not think there is anything else we can do at present.
The noble Lord mentioned that, if we take away the 120,000 we expect to be eligible under the general framework that we propose to start with, and when we take away the tenants who are in receipt of the supplementary benefit, there will be 380,000 left who are not in receipt of rent allowances. The noble Lord seemed to imply that they should be. Maybe some of them should be, and maybe in the light of experience we can broaden the categories to embrace them; but I am sure the mere fact that you happen to be in a furnished letting ought not to entitle you to a rent allowance, and I do not suppose the noble Lord really intended that it should. The figure of 628,000 furnished lettings is the sum total.
The noble Lord then asked about the calculation of the amount upon which the rent allowances will be based. I would confirm again—I think I did mention this—that the 25 per cent. increment above the fair rent to arrive at the figure on which the rent allowance should be based is the figure which, on the best advice we have been able to get, seems to be the fairest in all the circumstances,
470
and particularly fair as between one tenant in a furnished letting and another tenant in an unfurnished house. However, I confirm once again that this figure can be adjusted upwards in the light of experience, either over the whole country or in a particular place or for a particular group of local authorities. I believe those specialised ways of doing it will prove to be the most practicable and just in the circumstances.
I was expecting the noble Lord to raise the question of security of tenure. He knows we have carefully considered this issue as regards furnished accommodation. We said we were doing that during the passage of the main Housing Finance Act and especially in the light of the majority recommendation of the Francis Committee, which was against increasing this security of tenure for reasons which I will not go into again now. Nevertheless, I confirm that although this point is not dealt with in this Bill, it has not been in any sense overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. I also confirm that it is a subject which we are still actively and carefully considering.
In answer to the noble Lord's point about greater publicity, I agree that this is an important feature of any Bill of this kind. We shall be running a big advertising campaign from April in both the national and the local Press. We shall produce an explanatory leaflet for wide-scale distribution by all the media at our disposal, and I will certainly send the noble Lord a copy of it. We are seriously considering a suggestion made by his right honourable friend Mr. Crosland in another place that we should employ a handful of field officers who would publicise the allowances on a personal basis. If there are any further developments in regard to which I can respond to the suggestion made by the noble Lord that no opportunity of extending this publicity should be lost, I will let him know of them during the later stages of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STUDENTS' GRANTS
7.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will raise students' university grants to take account of inflation and will do this by means of an interest-free loan which would be repayable after graduation, if and when the graduate's earnings reach some specified level. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sure that at this late hour your Lordships will be relieved to know that I shall not be speaking for more than about ten minutes. I think I should first explain why I have raised this Question only a short time before a general debate on the White Paper deal-mg with education may be expected. The reason is that I believe my Question raises a potentially emotive issue, and it would be a pity to risk altering the tone of a more general debate. I should also like to deal briefly with the subject of student unrest, because I do not believe the facts are sufficiently widely known and appreciated.
The history of student grants since their introduction in 1961 has been one of trying to cheesepare barely adequate grants. For example, the total increase recommended by the Brown Committee in 1968 was cut from £11 million to £5½ million and not restored to the recommended figure until 1970. By that time, of course, inflation had outdated the original Brown figure and, my Lords, do not let us be misled into thinking that a new review can be independent of the amount being paid at the time that that review is being made. The latest Government manoeuvre is to make £76 million available for the improvements of grants over the triennium 1971 to 1974, and to distribute it under three main heads: first, the phased raising of maintenance grants over the three years; secondly, improvements to the parental scale; and thirdly, certain increases in supplementary grants.
The Vice-Chancellor's Committee have been concerned about the changed emphasis from individual needs to a total sum being made available, and are not satisfied with the result of the review, in particular with regard to the maintenance grants. This is, first, because the Department
472
of Education and Science has calculated the cost of implementing the increase in grant established as necessary by its Working Party, in conjunction with the N.U.S., as being £72 million over the triennium. Further, it was generally accepted before that as halls of residence charges had been artificially pegged in the preceding period, the necessary rises, estimated at £8 million, would be taken into account, making the total grant required £80 million instead of £72 million. Secondly, as against this £80 million only £61 million out of the final settlement figure of £76 million is devoted to a general increase in grants. In the event, inflation from September, 1968, to September, 1971, proceeded at a higher rate than the Working Party anticipated, making a further £8 million necessary to restore the purchasing power of student grants.
The current academic year is the second year of the triennium for which maintenance grants were fixed in 1971. The grant for most universities was £430, as against a requirement of £478—a shortfall of about 10 per cent. Taking into account further inflation, a comparison for the year 1972–73 shows a shortfall of 12½ per cent., which is really an intolerable state of affairs when you realise that grants were always very minimal. I may say that I think many students in any case feel that they have, quite rightly, to do a certain amount of work in the vacations to increase their income. That is allowed for to some extent when we make these calculations. But even that does not get the situation out of the red.
My reason for suggesting that any addition to the present grants should be by way of an interest-free loan is twofold. First, it would be much easier for the Government to take this approach during a period of freeze or wage restraint. Secondly—and to me this is far more important—I believe people value more those things for which they themselves make some contribution. I further believe that we should prevent universities from becoming a soft option or line of least resistance for those who want to delay facing the harsher realities of outside life. Students who deliberately decide to go to university are far more likely to benefit by it and justify the very considerable cost to the nation which it involves.
A university is not a universal panacea for improving everyone or even giving them equality of opportunity or culture. It is a nonsense if students believe that they have a right for the nation to support them regardless. If they hold that view, then the State has a right to dictate what they should study and direct them to the jobs afterwards. Nobody would feel that that was a reasonable way of going about it. I know that there are difficulties in devising a scheme on the lines I suggest, but several other countries have done so with success and I do not believe that it should be too difficult, nor do I think that the Opposition need oppose such a measure on principle. The repayable portion of the grant which would meet what I have in mind could be quite small, perhaps £50 or £100.
Finally, my Lords, there is the problem of student unrest. I believe that nothing but good can come if more people have a knowledge of why and how it operates.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, will the noble Viscount forgive my interrupting him? When he says "£50" does he mean over one year or over three years, making £150 in all?
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I meant that figure for one year. Between £50 and £100 would provide this psychological incentive that I feel is so important and would get us out of the immediate trouble.
Continuing with the problem of student unrest, as I said, I feel it is important that people should know how it operates and should avoid condemning students as a body. In brief, the mechanism is an age-old problem and it has occurred in some trade unions. It is accentuated to-day in our permissive society, and because moderates are less sure of the line they ought to take than they ever were before they are less effective.
In the general analysis I am now making I am quoting figures which of course have no claim for absolute accuracy and which are used simply to illustrate the point I wish to make. The majority of students will go through university making a reasonable use of their time, although, as I have already said, a number will not benefit by such education. There is, however, a very small, hard core—in England this is not
474
more than about 1 per cent., although I believe that in some countries abroad it may be greater—of activists who are militant Communists, Maoists, and others with extreme views. They seldom agree with one another's views in the main, but they have two things in common: first, they are agreed that our present capitalist society is so bad that reform is impossible and that it must be completely destroyed before anything better can take its place. Just conceivably, my Lords, they might be right. But their second point of agreement can only he regarded as wholly evil: they believe that any lie, any misrepresentation, and almost any action, is justified in achieving their ends. Strangely enough, these people have no blue prints for a better society; they like to say, when asked, that it is a "non question". In fact, they think that it will take long enough to demolish existing society to have time to formulate alternative proposals. Among this hard core are a very few people who can be classed as such fanatics that they would gladly sacrifice themselves and die or kill others if it would further the cause. Nothing of this is of course new, but we need to recognise the threat.
There are, I submit, two things which should be done. First—and this is very relevant to the grants question—we must prevent justifiable grievances from going unremedied, because it is only when this is the case that the activists can get support from others. Secondly, moderates must be made aware of the threat and be encouraged to take their part in shaping the future. As has been said:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men shall do nothing."
I also believe, and I will say more in the general debate, that those far-sighted, responsible people within universities must be encouraged to make such changes as are needed within the extremely tradiditional ivory tower which the corporate body of some universities present. I think we must also remember the old saying that he who pays the piper has the right to call the tune. As I said before, the nation does not owe students a living. They are in university for only two or three years. Let us listen to them, but not necessarily immediately accept their views. Change, I believe, is necessary, and the modern concept in society is active protest; but let us be a little

475
tougher where the need arises. Protest is one thing, indiscipline is another. And do not let us think that everything can be justified under the convenient umbrella of "democracy".
LORD PLATT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I question him on his age-old quotation which he said was:
"He who pays the piper has a right to call the tune"?
I always thought that it was:
"He who pays the piper calls the tune",
which I think is almost exactly opposite.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I must confess that I made two quotations. The first one was:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men should do nothing".
I spent a long time searching for that with absolutely no success. The second quotation is one of those I have often used, and I have nearly always found that anything I quote frequently is inaccurate. I will certainly try to find out which of us is right.
7.39 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I hope that I shall not seem to be eroding our appreciation of the noble Viscount's having raised this subject if I say that I hope his first proposition in respect of grants attracts unanimous support in your Lordships' House and that his second proposition in respect of loans attracts no support whatsoever. Saying that, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the moderation with which he has expressed himself on this subject, and say how particularly glad I was that he acquitted most students of the charges which are so frequently made against them. I have some knowledge of students' unrest and I regret that sometimes students express themselves in ways which I personally find uncongenial. The broad mass of the population, particularly the Press, forget the vast majority of students who are marked by their compassion and their serious-mindedness. I wish that more often we could find good things to say about them than the media appear to find justifiable.
Coming to the Question that the noble Viscount has raised, I should like to sub
476
mit, first of all, that there are strong grounds for saying that discretionary grants should be at the same level as mandatory grants. That is the practice in Scotland and it was recommended by the Local Authorities Associations in 1971. At present there are many severe hardships which result from differences in policy between local education authorities and also from the parental means test. In fact we discriminate against students working, for example, for the Higher National Diploma, for membership of professional institutions and for paramedical courses, although the living costs of these students are no less than those of students coming within the mandatory system, whose grants anyhow are below what is required.
It is important to know how widely awards to students over 18 attending full-time courses which are not of designated course standard vary between one authority and another. Grants for London, for example, range from £410 and £400 in Devon and Leeds respectively down to £310 in Southend. Grants for institutions elsewhere vary between £370 in Durham and £285 in Gateshead. The grants for students living at home range from £284 in Brecon to £180 in Dorset. These are fairly random examples and there may well be more glaring discrepancies which I have not detected.
At this stage I feel that I must refer to the question of the parental contribution. I have always felt that this was wrong in principle and was only tolerable if financial circumstances meant that it could not be scrapped without damaging some other sector of education. I therefore support the National Union of Students in calling for its abolition. I do so first because a place at a university or other institution should be regarded as having been won as of right by the student and he or she should not be dependent upon help from a father or mother. Secondly, the system is unjust because some parents do not pay up—some because they cannot, others because they will not. I find it quite unacceptable that a student who has quarrelled with his comparatively well-to-do parents should therefore be denied a university education. Thirdly, I submit that it is absurd that the young man or woman

477
who can vote about the country's future should have their own future decided by their parents.
I know that last year there was some adjustment, but I am disturbed that the general trend is for the percentage of cost borne by parents to increase. In 1962 it was just over 17 per cent. and in 1969 24 per cent.; this year it may well be above 30 per cent. I therefore view with only qualified satisfaction the review which the Department of Education and Science and the National Union of Students are jointly undertaking into the cost of abolishing this obsolete piece of "Scroogery". Basically, however, my objection is to the general scale of awards. I believe that students have been treated very unjustly and I congratulate Mr. Jacks and the National Union of Students on the case they have put forward. Prejudice against students, stemming from well-publicised acts of folly or misbehaviour, should not lead to denying them reasonably effective safeguards against inflation. That would be even more regrettable than the rent strikes which some students have organised, the effect of which can only be to damage their university and themselves. In terms of natural justice students have, in my view, an unanswerable case for a higher level of grants, and if we deny it to them—and this is where I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—we should not be surprised if there are those who seek to exploit the sense of injustice which we have helped to create, and for which we share at least part of the responsibility.
I have said that the rate is inadequate. It is inadequate because the Government have dragged their feet, and because in any event, having accelerated the rise in the cost of living, the Government can no longer expect to get away with triennial reviews. To restore the value recommended by the Brown Committee, to which the noble Viscount referred, the home rate in 1972 should have been £415, not £355; the elsewhere rate £510 and not £445, and the London, Oxford and Cambridge rate, £560 and not £480. The N.U.S. calculate, moreover, that increases in the retail price index between September and December last year mean that the index will rise by 7½ per cent. in the current academic year. That would mean that for September, 1973, the home
478
rate should be £440 instead of £370 as proposed by the Department; the elsewhere rate £550 instead of £465, and the London, Oxford and Cambridge rate £600 instead of £500. Their view is shared, in part at least, by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. In July, after writing in strong terms to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (not for the first time), they issued a statement saying that the triennial award had not restored the 1968 purchasing power, but fell short of it by £50. They added that the £15 increase authorised for 1972–73 represented only 3½ per cent., well below the current rate of inflation. They called—unsuccessfully, I fear—for urgency in dealing with what I believe is a crisis for both the students and their institutions.
In October the Vice-Chancellors wrote to the Department again, saying that the grant was then seriously below the real need. Indeed, in the first ten months from September, 1971, the cost of those items of student expenditure in the grant, other than board and lodging, had risen by over 5 per cent. as compared with a 3½ per cent. increase in the grant. One is tempted to ask whether the Government's behaviour is dictated by a wish, not actually to direct students to live at home, but to make it more difficult for them to do otherwise. On February 2 the Vice-Chancellors again expressed alarm and called for an immediate rise of £1 a week. The Times commented:
"They are concerned about the Government's refusal to consider raising the level of student grants. They think that an immediate rise of £1 a week is needed. After a meeting of the committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in London yesterday Professor Hugh Robson, the Chairman, the Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield University, said the Committee reiterated its view that the level of student grants was inadequate.
"Student grants were one of the few areas of public spending that had not been compensated for the severe rate of inflation, and the Vice-Chancellors were convinced that the students had a good case."
I suggest that perhaps the most outrageous, unjust and intolerable aspect of the grant sysem is the treatment of married women students. It is in my view quite monstrous that if a girl student is married, or gets married, and lives with her husband, her grant this year will be only £275—as it was last year and the year before—no increase whatsoever in her grant, although other grants have

479
gone up by at least a small amount each year. The Government are in fact encouraging—almost suborning—girl students to live in sin. They penalise them for getting married at all and if the course on which the wife is engaged qualifies for only a discretionary grant, the penalisation becomes almost lethal. I hope that your Lordships will have noticed in the Evening Standard of February 13 the article about Ann Taylor, a 21-year old married student who is studying for a diploma at Maidstone Art College. If she was unmarried she would receive a grant of £326, but because she has a husband, she receives only £58.50 a year. The Evening Standard commented:
"Official thinking on cases like hers is that because she started her course when she was less than 21, her parents can help the couple out financially."
To me it amounts to an almost unbelievable piece of discrimination against women, and the suggestion apparently made to Mrs. Thatcher recently by a deputation of Conservative students, that a married women student should be means-tested on her husband's income, in my view is no better.
There are clearly four things which need to be done: first, the triennial review must be replaced by an annual review; secondly, the harassment and victimisation of married women students must cease; thirdly, discretionary grants must be raised to the level of mandatory grants; and, lastly, the grant level in all cases must be raised to keep pace with the cost of living. That is especially important in the case of mature students.
What we do not need is loans, in spite of the advocacy of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the support for them in The Times. The only argument in support of loans which I found even slightly attractive was the argument which the noble Lord advanced about its being easier to proceed in that way durin a freeze than by increasing the grant. But that slight attraction does not outweigh for me the disadvantages of a loan system. It seems to me to be yet another manifestation of the current trend of attacking anything which is free—museums and art galleries, the National Health Service, and now, apparently,
480
higher education. But even in isolation the proposal seems to me to be objectionable. As inflation races ahead the machinery for collecting the loans would probably cost more than the eventual revenue. In any event, enforcement would be very difficult and wide-scale evasion would be inevitable. The brain-drain would be given a new impetus unless we were prepared to do as the Soviet Union does and require would-be emigrants to pay for their education before being allowed to go abroad.
But quite apart from the practical difficulties, the principle itself is, to me at least, repugnant. To substitute loans for grants would strengthen the ties between wealth and higher education at a time when we should be moving further away from an educational system which has tended to be class-ridden in the past. The end result of student loans would almost certainly be more and more fee paying and less and less in the way of grants, or even loans. I hate the idea of young graduates, or young men and women recently qualified in teaching or nursing, having to start their careers with a millstone of debt around their necks. It would be a particularly heavy millstone if both parties to a marriage had to repay a debt, and the young woman would enter marriage with an anti-dowry, a negative dowry, for her husband. I am sure that the Labour Party's Green Paper was right when the Working Party said:
"Students who had to finance their education through loans would, in all probability, seek to reduce their debt burden by finding paid employment, not only during holidays as at present, but probably also during term time, again placing them at a considerable disadvantage compared with privately financed students and possibly necessitating an extension of the customary three-year undergraduate course."
There is no doubt, moreover, that very many people, especially with working-class and Nonconformist backgrounds, regard any degree of indebtedness as wholly unacceptable, and I believe that there would be many parents whose prudence or Puritanism—call it what you will—would make them counsel their children against giving such a grave hostage to fortune as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is asking for.
Therefore, my Lords, I take my stand firmly behind the Association of Education Committees which, at its last annual

481
meeting in Bournemouth in June, declared that,
"it would be wrong for student grants to be replaced completely or partially by loans."
I ask your Lordships to note the words "completely or partially", and I hope that to-night Her Majesty's Ministers will state quite firmly that they are opposed to loans but are embarking upon their forthcoming talks with the N.U.S. in a determined and genuine effort to treat the position of students with sympathy and generosity and to remove what is not just a real injustice to-day but is also a ground for bitter discontent to-morrow.
7.56 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, at this late hour I shall be very brief, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has stolen a great deal of my thunder. With him, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for the opportunity that this debate gives us. I, like the previous speaker, regret that the question of loans has been entangled with the question of student grants at the present time. It could be that there is a case for loans that should be discussed. I am not convinced by it. But it is a subject which has aroused much interest and which should at some time be gone into. But it should not, in my view, be raised at the present time when we should be focusing on what is indeed approaching an emergency situation in student affairs.
Perhaps I should have said that I have something of a bias in this matter having been employed for 25 years in an institution not unfamiliar with student disturbance, though we have survived it. And let me say, so far as one dare forecast or comment on the present situation, that the student disturbance to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred, seems to be very much in abeyance, if not, in many quarters, a slightly old-fashioned activity. But perhaps I am giving a hostage to fortune in putting it like that. I should like to emphasise the seriousness of the present situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has said—and I will not repeat in detail the points that he made—the simple fact of the matter is that the triennial review negotiated in 1970, the
482
implementation of which was delayed for a year in the first place without any cost-of-living or escalative clause being negotiated into it in anticipation of inflation, is now in purchasing power way behind the figure, the standard, that was negotiated in 1970. Students are shamefully behind almost all other sections in the community. That standard, before 1970, was already very low. Those of us who very pleasantly, at an increasingly long distance, remember the standard of living in the Oxford and Cambridge colleges in the inter-war years, perhaps have a picture of student living which is woefully wide of the mark at the present time. Not so very long ago I visited a girl student of mine who was living in one of the most insalubrious parts of London; sharing two rooms with a fellow girl student and spending a lamentably high proportion of her grant on a deplorable standard of living. If to the level of London lodging you add the cost of transport in getting around London, the residue left for ordinary living purposes is quite below what is tolerable for people who are attempting, and ought to be attempting, to do a hard day's, week's, year's work. In considering student finance, we sometimes forget that we in this country have only a three-year undergraduate period, unlike many other countries.
I personally deplore the idea that students should be supplementing their grants by earning. I agree that experience of work for short periods of time may be beneficial. We are still selective of the students who come into our universities, far more so than in European and American universities. If students who are selected for concentrated periods of study are worried about making both ends meet and are unable to spend money on those things which are necessary in order to be effective and efficient as a student, and are trying to supplement the grant by earnings during term time as well as during vacations, then the amount of reading, the amount of private study that they should be doing suffers very seriously. I know there are people who would regard this as an old-fashioned point of view, but with the concentrated courses of our universities the amount of time that students ought to be spending on supplementing their grant is very small indeed, and correspondingly the amount of money that they are in a position to earn is very small indeed.

483
I should like to make particular reference to problems arising in connection with hostels. It is absolutely true that at the moment the university college hostels cannot be run at their present prices because of the rise in costs, and yet, with student grants as they are, if the charges are put up to meet the rising costs the position becomes really intolerable for the students. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to student unrest, and, as I have suggested, to a considerable extent this is much less of a problem than it used to be. There has been quite useful most valuable rapprochement inside the universities, and I think both sides have learned a good deal about the needs and problems of the other. It seems deplorable that a question such as the charges in hostels should be exacerbating a situation which was on the way to very considerable improvement, and for this reason alone I hope that the Government will regard this as a matter of very real urgency.
In addition to the general question, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, on the question of the parental contribution. If one cannot immediately get rid of it—and it might be difficult for the Government to do this, although I very much hope this is what they will consider doing—could not the Government at least look at the surely anachronistic requirement that the parental contribution is required up to the age of 25 for students coming into the universities? Many people, very properly, spend a little time on voluntary service overseas or something of that kind, between school and university, and there are many people who believe that this adds to the value of what they get out of the university. This means that after a year of active and responsible work they come hack to this country, aged perhaps 22 or 23, and then find that in order to get into the university, in order to finance themselves, they have to turn to their parents, with whom they have not been living for some time. This is discouraging to some of the very people who can benefit the most, and, incidentally, contribute most to the life of the university.
I would add, too, that the parental contribution hears especially on the girls of the family. Your Lordships will surely
484
be aware that it is still a very common practice, if there are several children in a family, with the level of income at which parental contribution is required, to take for granted that somehow or other the money will be found for the sons but not for the daughters. Only a couple of weeks ago the Deans of several medical colleges were giving evidence at the Anti-discrimination Select Committee of this House, and they were saying that they were worried at the shortage of girls coming forward for medical school. I do not think that anybody need be surprised at this so long as the parental contribution lasts, for with the length of medical training being what it is, the parents with sons and a daughter are hardly to be expected to encourage the daughter to go in for a medical course. Yet surely it cannot be the intention of the authorities in this country, and Her Majesty's Government, to discourage suitable girls from coming forward for medical training.
Finally, may I reiterate the plea that something should be done about the grants for the married women students. I am aware that I have raised this matter previously in your Lordships' House, but I make no apology at all for raising it again. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has said, no increase has been made to this category of students even in comparison with the meagre increases which have been given to other students. The assumption seems to be that these are a different class of students for whom support is not really necessary because they have husbands. These are the very people we most need to encourage—I am thinking particularly of the older married woman—those who did not take the opportunities, or perhaps, for a variety of reasons, the opportunities were not available when they left school but are now wishing to qualify for responsible posts. As I think is now well known, it is on these older women that we are going to rely primarily for the female labour force in this country in the professions and elsewhere. They are an extremely valuable source of potential teachers and social workers, on the one hand, but also of qualified workers in a wide range of occupations as more new occupations open up to women.
They are women coming back after a period at home, with 20, 25, 30 years'

485
work ahead of them. Only women of very considerable determination qualify themselves, apply and get accepted for courses at this stage in their lives. Therefore, they are a self-selected group of a high order. And yet this very valuable group of people whom we are going to need very badly indeed are severely discouraged, for surely if a woman knows that the taking of a course on her part is going to be a real strain on family finances, only if she has the most exceptionally progressive husband is she going to proceed with the scheme of getting trained. To our very great loss, a great many of those women inevitably never come forward, and many fall by the wayside. So I would specially urge, first, that we should look at the question of parental contribution; and, secondly, that the Government should this time take really seriously the question of grants to the married woman student. At this late hour, I will say no more, but merely reiterate that the relationships in universities are a great deal better, despite isolated unfortunate incidents. It is surely the very greatest pity that cheese-paring at this stage should make more difficult the continuation of the improvement that is well under way.
8.8. p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has persisted in asking his Question, and, of course, it comes at a most opportune moment, because I understand that it is to-morrow that the National Union of Students will be meeting a representative of the Department of Education and Science to discuss the claim which they put in last October. It was in December that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was on the Record as saying that the Secretary of State for Education and Science
"does not consider it necessary to introduce a system of Government loans to supplement the present grant system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12/12/72, col. 470.]
I hope very much that he will repeat that sentiment to-night. But, of course, simply leaving the matter at that is far from adequate.
I should like to pay tribute to the National Union of Students—of which some years back now I had the honour of being a Vice-President—for the way in which they have worked out their case
486
on behalf of their members in the documents and the work that has gone into them. In the light of remarks by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on student unrest, I wish to congratulate them on the way in which they organised their demonstrations in support of their claim last week. Precise estimates of people marching in support of claims are very difficult to come by, but I think that a conservative estimate would be that some 50,000 students were in London and in the major university cities in the Provinces last week, and they were perfectly controlled, with not one single untoward incident, let alone any evidence of violence. That in itself surely undermines completely the argument of the noble Viscount about student unrest. I was particularly glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, emphasised that, although there had been a difficult period some years ago—and one has had the isolated incident here and there since—on the whole, relationships between the administration in the universities and the student body have improved.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I did not think that I had made an argument about student unrest. My main point was—and other speakers have said this—that we should not allow something like inadequate grants to cause unrest again. I do not think that I made any argument which was exceptionable in any way, or in any way blamed students. I made a further point that we should not, in any case, give students a bad name. That was one of the reasons why I discussed the matter.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Viscount, but I am anxious that the impression should not get abroad that we were linking this question of previous student unrest with the question of the justifiable grievances about grants.
I do not wish to go over the arguments that have already been put forward with great force by previous speakers in this debate, but I think that one should emphasise some of the genuine grievances under which students are at the present time labouring. There is the absolutely crucial and major grievance that student grants have not kept pace with inflation and with costs. This implies

487
not only that the students are in difficulties, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, emphasised, the university authorities themselves are in difficulties because their costs have gone up. I believe that in one or two instances there are empty rooms because students cannot pay the costs that universities are now obliged to charge. I know that the noble Lord is in something of a difficulty to-night because negotiations are pending, but I hope that the Government will take very seriously the proposition of a student cost index, or whatever one chooses to call it, whereby there will be annual reviews instead of triennial reviews. The triennial reviews do not work satisfactorily in a period of inflation such as we are at present experiencing. It seems to me entirely justifiable that the students should ask for a procedure of this kind to be adopted. I hope that the Government will look upon this, or something like it, with favour.
The question of married women students has been raised by one noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I will satisfy myself by saying that this really is one of the grossest forms of discrimination. The married women students, as I understand it, have had no increase in their grant since 1965. When one thinks of what has happened to the value of money since 1965, this is something that any Government, whatever their ideology, should regard as unsatisfactory. I hope that this particular group of students will not be discriminated against in the future, as it has been quite grossly in the past.
I am also concerned with the matter of discretionary grants. It was only last week that I signed a cheque for a modest sum of something just over £300 out of a small family educational trust for adult students in one of the residential colleges, to help to top up the very meagre grants that some of them receive from certain education authorities. There is the most fantastic discrepancy in the amounts given to students in comparable circumstances between one authority and another. There is no justice in it. This is a situation that we ought not to allow to continue. I do not know how the Government propose to tackle it because there is a very wide range of discretionary grants. What is the justice if one says that a Higher National
488
Diploma is of university degree equivalent, when one is on a mandatory grant and the other is not?
May I come to the particular problem of loans, which presumably was one of the main reasons for putting down this Question. I hope that the Government will stand very firm on this. My noble friend Lord Greenwood has referred to the Green Paper issued by the Study Group of the Labour Party on Higher and Further Education just a few weeks ago. There is quite specific reference to this matter. The name of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and my own name appear on this Report. I think that he was rather more active in the deliberations of the Committee than I was. I am entirely in support of our section on the question of student finance, in which we point out that, given the escalating costs of the education budget, there will obviously be consideration of various methods of increasing resources by limiting the growth of public expenditure, and in this atmosphere proposals for a system of student loans or taxes will again be heard. Because we thought that this matter was likely to be raised in the financial situation in which the Government find themselves, we looked into the matter with care. We tried to examine the proposition objectively, and we also looked at a possible variance of it. Instead of straightforward repayments, for example, we thought that it could be possible to work out some system of special taxes for those who had the benefit of an advanced course of education, which would be related to the post-graduation income rather than the amount of the loan they had received, and would therefore be less unjust both to low wage earners and, as my noble friend Lord Greenwood pointed out, possibly to married women, who would be burdened with a negative dowry.
Having examined this and various other aspects of a possible loan system, and having looked at what happens in other countries—for example, in Sweden—we came to the conclusion that it would be a completely unsatisfactory way of dealing with it. The injustices at all levels would be intolerable, and it could also lead to distortions which none of us would regard as desirable. For example, if one extended this notion of a loan system to persons engaged in training for occupations which are nationally necessary

489
(teaching, medicine, dentistry, and so forth), and the Government found that if there was a substantial loan element in the financing of such courses sufficient candidates were not coming forward, it seems to me that they would inevitably have to change the basis. They would say that we must have more teachers and more dentists; they will not come forward on this loan basis; therefore we shall have to go back to paying the entire cost of the course.
Then we might be reverting to the old discarded system of pledging yourself to teach, or whatever it might be, in return for outright payments instead of loans and so forth. We might also have a different sort of distortion. If we were to have, as is suggested in the White Paper, A Framework for Expansion, a new two-year diploma of higher education, and if one could get this more cheaply and therefore repay one's loans more easily, we might very well have people taking up a two-year course when they really ought to be taking up a three-year course, simply because they would then have a lesser loan burden to repay in future years. All kinds of possible distortions within the system could result, if people felt that in order to obtain their education they would have to burden themselves with loans in the future. There is a great deal more that one could say, particularly about the parental contribution and the way in which that, as a proportion of student maintenance costs, has increased over the past decade, so that per capita the proportion paid out of public funds has diminished. I am not speaking of the total amount, because the number of students has increased, but per student the calculations that I have seen indicate that trend. Therefore, for so many reasons, I believe that any suggestion of undertaking a loans supplement, just because at the present time we are in a somewhat difficult financial position nationally, would be ill advised and I hope very much will receive no support.
8.22 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I suppose I have been an academic for something like 53 years. I went to the university as a young person of 16. I went in Wales to the college which, fortunately, was in the town where I lived. It was only because there was a university
490
in the town where I lived—which was Aberystwyth—that I was able to go to the university, because my mother had been widowed, there was not much money and it was only by living at home that I could go there. There, thanks to the way in which my mother was prepared to sacrifice, I was able to get a university training. An uncle who had regarded himself as being, in effect, an adviser to my mother, said when I was 14 years old that it was time I left school and went to earn some money. In those days it was only with difficulty that one got a grant for going to the university. However, there was one way in which you could get a grant and that was by committing yourself to be a teacher. You could say, "Yes, I promise to be a teacher" and you were given a grant. You signed on the dotted line that when you left your university you would teach for two years or three years and that you would repay the money. Some of those who were a bit more astute—and, after all, the young who go to universities are not noticeably unintelligent—noticed that they were minors when they signed that undertaking and that, consequently, it was unenforceable, so they just ignored the condition under which they were given a grant, but the others obeyed it.
Over my period of life in the universities, until this system was abolished, I noticed the devastating effect that it had upon education. It was deplorable in every way. It was deplorable morally, because it meant that the astute, the unscrupulous let us say, "got away with it", whereas the ones who were prepared to abide by the apparent rules, which were not legally enforceable, were trapped by them. I remember that at the University of Reading, where I taught for a period of ten years, our students had first to take a general degree, which was a three-year course, before they took an Honours degree. The ones who did well and who happened to have this grant were faced with a choice: they either went into the Education Department at the end of the three years, or they paid for an extra year in order to get an Honours degree.
Are we really concerned with dispensing our education in this meagre, stingy way? It meant that those who could not afford it, or who were too scrupulous, did not get what they ought to have got, what all their ability, all their training,

491
all their effort entitled them to get. Thank Heavens! we have abolished that system. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has asked this Question with the most admirable motives, but I assure him that if we go back to a system in which people have to borrow money to get education, we shall be going back fifty years in the whole educational training of this country. It would be a disastrous move. So although I can understand why he has put this suggestion forward, I believe it is something which should never be considered by a responsible Government.
When we look at what education is about, we find two different aspects. On the one hand, sitting in a Legislature, we ask ourselves: what is the benefit to the country in having an educational system, and a higher educational system? No one can deny that to-day we could not run the industry of this country, we could not run the whole of our commercial services and we could not run the whole of our Civil Service, without an advanced higher educational system. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who is sitting with us to-night, put this extremely clearly in that Report which changed the whole attitude of this country towards higher education. It set a new pattern for it, a pattern that we should regard higher education as something that is vital to our continuance as a country of civilisation and of industrial and commercial significance.
These are things which we can accept to-day. We regard this as being normal. In other words, this is not something which we talk about and discuss any longer. We know perfectly well that a first-class higher education system—and by that I do not mean simply what was regarded as the old university system, but am including the whole polytechnic system, the whole range of higher and further education—is vital if this country is going to continue as a country of any significance in the modern world. Because do not let us forget for one moment that in Russia they are streets ahead of us in the volume of their higher education; that in America they are miles ahead of us in the volume (I do not say the standard, but in the volume) of their higher education and that if you look
492
all over the world you will see that every country is concerned with this problem of having a sufficient quantity of higher education. If we do anything which interferes with higher education we are doing something which is cutting absolutely at the roots of our whole standard of living, of our whole civilisation in this country.
My Lords, this is the national outlook and, of course, in the Legislature we are concerned with the national outlook. But there is also something which is of concern to anyone who has been immersed in higher education, as I have been for what your Lordships may feel is too long, and that is the question of the individual in higher education. It is the question of the student, of the person who goes into higher education. I suppose I was not unusual. Most of us went into higher education with a glow and a feeling in our hearts that we were starting on something which was going to lead us to worlds which we could only vaguely conceive. We were going far beyond ourselves; we were going out into the unknown. My Lords, when young people do this, do not be surprised if they do all sorts of things of which we do not approve. Because that is the whole purpose of higher education. I do not expect any student who has worked under me to believe what I told him. I only hope that he may have got from me a little of the feeling and the enthusiasm for wanting to go out into the unknown and do something entirely new; and if, in his laboratory, he does something which is dangerous, as I have done and as a social scientist does in his laboratory, which is not the same as my laboratory, am I to be surprised? Am I to be shocked? Far from it. One should rather say that this is the purpose of our higher education: to open the mind, to let the person go ahead and do something which he feels or sees that he must do.
If we are going to do this we must surely say that we must give them a reasonable living grant. They do not ask for an enormous amount of money. They are not asking to be millionaires. My late wife was chairman of the committee in the city of Newcastle which dealt with grants, and she was constantly considering cases which came up. She met a number of working-class people there whom she knew very well, and they would come to

493
her and say, "What about my son? He is doing quite well in school. Do you advise that he should go on to the university?" My wife would say, "Yes, of course", and would try to urge them. But the answer would be, "But if he goes to the university he will get a grant of only" (I think it was in those days)" £350 a year, whereas if he goes to work he can earn twice that amount. He is going to lose all that during the period that he is in the university". When one talks about students living well, it is nonsense. When one talks about the prospects for the future, of course they have prospects for the future, but then so does anyone who is prepared to study and work—and we should be prepared to give them the opportunity. But in this country at the present time, despite our system of grants and despite the fact that anyone can get a grant, on average the working-class children do not go to university. They do not go, not because they are incapable of passing the qualifications to get in but because they will be sacrificing too much over too long a time in order to profit by it. That is why they do not go.
My Lords, this is a very dangerous thing—extremely dangerous. Other countries have been progressing slowly towards our system. Do not let us turn back and look at America. Do not let us look anywhere else in the world. Let us look at our own past. Let us look to see what we have done well and to see that we can do it better. I would urge on the Government that this is a matter of absolute necessity. This is not a matter to quibble about. It has nothing to do with the freeze; it has nothing to do with any question of standards of that sort. It is an absolute necessity that the grant for students is brought up to the value that it had twelve years ago and which it does not have to-day. If the Government are not prepared to do that, the Government are shirking their responsibilities in higher education. I throw that challenge out to them. Do not let them for a moment imagine that they will get away with it. All the time—yes, all the time—it has been absolutely necessary for any Government to carry with them the educated opinion of the young people of the country; and if they do not do that they go down the drain.
8.38 p.m.
LORD ROBERTHALL: My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter to-night. And like every noble Lord and noble Baroness who has spoken, except the noble Viscount, I am in favour of increasing the grants but not in favour of doing it by allowance. There was an extremely interesting article in New Society of January 11 of this year, by a Mr. Ernest Rudd, which gave comparisons between the real value of the grant when the present system originated about ten years ago and its value to-day. That showed, roughly, that the value of the grant had gone up from between 38 per cent. and 48 per cent. during a period when the index of retail prices had gone up by 66 per cent.—and since then, of course, prices have risen very fast indeed. He gave other calculations, with which I will not weary your Lordships, making the point which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has already mentioned: that at the same time as the value of the grant was being eroded, the relative value of the parental contributions was rising. So the total cost as distributed between the individuals and their parents, on the one hand, and the local education authority, on the other, has tipped very much. It is clear that during this period students have been worse off and parents have been worse off.
What is the object of our present system? As I conceive it, it is to move in two directions: first, in the direction of equality of opportunity; and, secondly, in the direction of making the best use of our human resources. Whatever we think about equality, a difficult conception, I think that equality of opportunity is a concept to which almost every one will subscribe. We are still very far from it. The children who come from well-to-do homes and educated homes clearly have much greater opportunities than those who do not. We ought to move much further in the direction indicated in the Plowden Report. But, as children move up the educational ladder, if they survive as far as that, the system does, or did, become much more equal. On reaching university age, the original system was intended to put

495
everybody on at least a reasonable living scale. It was a system which I think we can be justly proud of; a system that we could defend, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said, so far as quantity was concerned, but so far as quality was concerned. We could be proud of it against all countries except possibly the Communist countries.
The effect of the changes that we have experienced over the last ten years is that we are gradually tipping the system back away from what I think was the admirable concept of putting all on an equal footing. If the grant is too small and the parental contributions have been increased, then we are again benefiting the children of the better off and damaging the children of the worse off.
Similar arguments apply to what I consider the second purpose of the system, to make the best use of our human resources. Clearly, the bigger the catchment area from which you are drawing for higher education, the more likely you are to get in all the best people. Again, it seems to me that it is a retrograde development, although, with Governments economically-minded, not perhaps a very conscious one; but the fact is that the grants have not kept up with the cost of living and at the same time the real burden on the parents has increased. Therefore, I agree strongly with the speakers who hope that the Government are going to look at this question again. I think that there are really strong general arguments for going back to the system as it was originally intended to operate.
My Lords, the second part of Lord Hanworth's argument was about loans. At this late hour I will not repeat the arguments which have already been put forward against a loans system. It would be extremely difficult to operate; we should get very little money out of it and, more important, the concept behind it (which seems to imply that the purpose of education is to benefit the student or his family) is quite wrong. The purpose of the system is to make the best use of our resources. If you require the student to pay something back then you are returning to the pre-1939 system when those with enough money got a university education and those without (unless they were scholars) did not. After repaying
496
a small loan they might say that they were "quits"—when what I think should be stressed should be their duty to the community in return for what they have been given.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, thought loans would have an advantage in that they would not breach the pay code. As I am very much in favour of the present Government's anti-inflation policy I was rather shaken by this; and thought that loans were better than nothing. But I have looked hastily through the document we have had this afternoon and I do not think there is anything there about grants. Therefore, if the Government want to do so, they could assimilate them with social security payments. But paragraph 83 reminds us that the pay limit is £1 per week per head plus 4 per cent. of the average pay bill. I can say that if you made a special case of the students, then everybody else who had a special case—and there are a good many of them—would come up Four per cent. is not much good to the student but £1 a head would be quite a lot. In fact, the wise provision that it should be slanted towards the least well paid could make quite a large contribution in this case; so if you were worried about presentation you could say you were keeping to the code.
My final point is that I should like very much to support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the Government should look again at the whole question of parental contribution—in relation not only to the arguments already put forward but to the whole system of parental contributions, which to my mind is an anomalous one. Parents are taxed according to their income. Part of the purpose of that tax is to pay for the educational system. There is a sort of double burden on those who have little money and who are unfortunate enough to have a child at university. It is not like primary and secondary education or the National Health Service. In those cases if you want to pay, you can do so; but you have an option of not paying. When it comes to the university, you do not have that option. As has been said already, the Government are looking at this is the moment; but I hope very much that they will look at the points

497
mentioned to-night at the way the scheme was originally supposed to work, how it has been eroded, and the desirability on all possible grounds of getting back to the original concept and not slowly sliding from that towards the bad system where your education was dependent on your parent's money.
8.49 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord who raised the Question has done his best to make it appear disarming. He has shown a good deal of sympathy with the hard-pressed student. Nevertheless, I believe that the principle he advances is bad and dangerous—bad because it is stirring up trouble for the future. I am told that when the mandatory system of grants was introduced in 1962, the maximum hall-related grant at redbrick universities was £380. Now, ten inflationary years later, it is £445 and the National Union of Students calculate that the shortfall is about £80. Suppose the principle of pegging the grant rate had been adopted in 1962 and the rest was to be had on loan, the poorest first-year student to-day would be incurring a debt of £145 a year; and, allowing for a little further inflation during his remaining years at the university, he would accumulate a total debt of something like £500. So the question we have to ask to-day is what would be the position of the student in 1983 if the noble Lord's proposal was accepted? Because once the loan principle is accepted, I am sure that the grants will never be raised again. Students in fact would be eligible for a form of supplementary benefit but a benefit all of which would be repayable. That is why I think it is bad in principle.
I also said that the principle is dangerous. It is dangerous because this is merely the most modest of proposals for making people from poorer families contribute to the cost of their student years. I am sure that if we went along with it to-day it would stimulate even harsher demands. This idea of making loans to students instead of grants has been around for ten years or more. I have been fighting against it in several newspaper offices over those years. It has attracted Conservatives because it would be a cut in public expenditure; and even some people in my own Party have flirted
498
with the idea because it can be stretched to fit some kind of idea of equality. They say that young people who receive a superior education will certainly enjoy higher earnings than those who do not do so and they ask, "Is it not fair that out of their earnings they should pay retrospectively some of the cost of their higher education?". It is a rather spurious argument. For one thing, the moment graduates start earning, like the rest of us they pay a substantial sum in tax. The moment a graduate leaves the university he pays a fair share of the cost of education and contributes to other public expenditure and will do so for the rest of his working life. Over the early years, many graduate jobs are ill-paid. The average male industrial earnings to-day amount to something like £35 a week. A graduate schoolteacher, unless he is lucky and gets some form of promotion, does not reach that average until he starts his sixth year of teaching. There are other professions, such as law and accountancy, where it takes some years to attain the standard of living of the prosperous factory worker.
My Lords, I view with horror the idea of young people starting out in life with a debt, the whole or a great deal of which was put upon them in the form of a loan, amounting to £1,000 or more. I am appalled at the idea of introducing into the educational system a system of "Learn now—pay later". A system like this would certainly reduce our educational expenditure, but largely because many young people would prefer not to go to a university if it meant that they had to start life in debt. I know that from personal experience. What was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, applied exactly to me. I could have gone to university with a training grant, if I had been willing, at the age of 17 or 18, to decide that I was going to be a teacher. But as I understood it in those days, the condition of the grant was that if I did not become a teacher I should be liable to repay the grant to the local authority. I was unable to face what at that age seemed to me to be the grisly alternative of either becoming a teacher or paying back the money. So I am the only non-graduate taking part in this debate, and indeed I may say that all the other graduates are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, though the last two speakers I

499
think went there in "Phase 2" of their education, if I may use that phrase.
As has been pointed out, the situation of the debt-ridden graduate will be even worse if he or she marries another debt-ridden graduate. My noble friend spoke of a negative dowry. I see it in another way. The graduate bride going to the altar will have not merely a veil on her head; she will have a price on her head, too. How the young graduate couple loaded with a debt are ever going to acquire a house at current or future prices and start a family, God only knows! So when is the debt to be collected? Only perhaps when the children are grown up and are building up debts for themselves at university.
There is another thing to remember. It is that the boys and girls from the poorest homes will require the largest loans and so will incur the largest debts. Very often many of these people feel that they have another debt to repay, that is, to their parents. Whatever the loan or grant even in to-day's conditions, no student from a poor home can go to university without there being some parental sacrifice; and the decent instinct of many young people when they start earning is to try to pay back a part of this debt. Indeed, these filial obligations may last for many years. I believe that this proposal, which sounds so benevolent, is a rather horrid thing for society to do to its young people. It is said that it is done in Socialist Sweden. If that is true it is a blot on the Swedish Welfare State which we ought not to make on ours.
The cost of maintaining so many undergraduates is, of course, high. But, surely, as one or two noble Lords have said, we did not embark on university expansion simply because we wanted to give young people an opportunity of being educated up to their intellectual and academic abilities. That beautiful motive was in our minds, of course, but it was not the only one, the compelling one. Surely, the compelling one was that in a country which depends for its standard of living on its investment, its technological, commercial and banking skills, we must have a sufficient number of people trained and educated to exercise those skills. It puts a heavy burden on society, but it enables society to bear that burden, and indeed to profit from the
500
additional wealth that the educated members of the community are able to create. The question is not whether we can afford to keep up the expansion; it is whether we can afford a contraction, and that, I am sure, is what a loan scheme would bring about.
Students are not always lovable to-day, but we do not deny justice to people simply because they are unlovable. There are quite a few old-age pensioners who sometimes come on deputations who are not exactly charming. But whatever we may blame students for—and we may blame them for all kinds of things, for inadequate dress, untidy speech, or rather too fierce demonstrations—there is one thing for which we cannot blame them, even the most militant Marxist or Maoist; that is, we cannot blame them for the inflation. They did not cause it; they are suffering from it and I think it is up to the Government to see that they do not suffer for too long.
9.0 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must declare an interest. Although I am expressing solely my own views, I am this year Vice-Chairman of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has kindly pointed out, three times since July the Vice-Chancellors have petitioned the Government to do something about students' grants and three times the Government have refused even to consider the matter. In so doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, pointed out, they have totally breached the Anderson principle on which is based the whole system of student support and, what is rather embarrassing for the university authorities, on which is based the whole system of charges to students.
Students' grants are the only part of university finance which is unprotected against inflation. The dons are protected by pay reviews. So are the technicians and the supporting staff; and when their wages are raised the universities get increased supplementary grants. Only the students are defenceless. What is more, again as the noble Lord, Lord Robert-hall, emphasised, the Exchequer has gained substantially from the effect of inflation upon the means test. That test starting at £1,100, there must be very few parents left who are not liable to

501
pay something; and I regret to say that there are a considerable number who refuse to pay what they should pay, with the result that students are hit twice over.
What can be done? The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has suggested a scheme this evening which I am afraid has not met with much support, certainly not from me. I do not think that loans are the answer, and if they are to be introduced, in part or wholly, instead of grants, it needs to be done as part of a considered policy and not smuggled in as an emergency measure. I do not want to go over the admirable arguments against loans which have been made tonight, because the points have already been made. I will just add one more cynical point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may care also to consider: it is that one of the disadvantages of introducing loans is that if the Secretary of State were to introduce such a measure she would not reap the harvest that she had sown; it would be reaped by her successor in seven years' time. That is the person who would gather in the receipts. Perhaps as a result, the Government's White Paper on education was conspicuous for what it did not say as well as for what it said. It made the point that various things should be done in higher education, but it remained silent as the grave on the question of loans. I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on her decision on this issue. Because it is clear from the White Paper that loans are not to be introduced and I ask her to stick to that.
My Lords, it does not look as if the Government are going to be moved by the appeals that have been made continuously, and have been made this evening in your Lordships' House. If they restored the full value of the grant, I calculate that this would cost them £36 million. Again, I saw my friend the Vice-Chancellor of Newcastle in The Times on Saturday urging the Government that if they were prepared to allow all workers a pay increase of £1 a week, plus 4 per cent., they surely would be willing to institute that additional rise for students. I calculate that that would cost about £26 million. I think the universities must be realistic in this matter. We are not going to get what we think is right and proper, because the Government are in a situation where they are
502
having to institute cuts in expenditure in view of devaluation, and they have before them a long list of special cases. Although I think this special case is a particularly good one, I have to recognise, as a Vice Chancellor, that we are probably unlikely to get away with it.
Another factor is that the Secretary of State had her White Paper expenditure approved by the Cabinet last autumn, and now others among her colleagues in the Cabinet are determined to get her feet out of the trough and their feet into it when it comes to expenditure. When in negotiation, if you cannot get the bigger deal, is it not worth while seeing if you can get a smaller one? It may be inequitable, it may be derisory, but is not something better than nothing? So I ask the Government to-night whether we can persuade them to pay out a much smaller sum. One way to approach this matter would be to do exactly what Mr. Crosland did when he increased the overseas students' fees. Your Lordships remember that he then had to deal with an attack which was based on cases of hardship. What he did was to set up an eleemosynary fund for cases of hardship. I must admit that the administration of that scheme in universities was a nightmare; but I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say that we should be willing to work such a hardship scheme, even if it had the disadvantage of imposing yet another means test. At any rate, it would have the benefits that it would be equitable, in the sense that one would try to find out which were the hardest hit students and do something about them.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the Government are incapable of responding to argument?
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that Governments cannot always respond to the case for maximum support which is put to them. Very good cases for support are argued all the time by every conceivable pressure group which is concerned with public expenditure and increasing the public expenditure in their sector. All I am trying to do is to find some way in which we can get some money allocated to support for students; and that, I should have thought, was certainly one of our objects this evening.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is most important because of his position, and perhaps I might ask him this. Is he giving a sticking point at the £26 million? Is it only the difference between the £26 million and the £36 million that might conceivably be met in certain instances by his eleemosynary fund? I think it is important to know where the noble Lord sticks.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I try to enlighten the noble Baroness? I am going far further than that. I want to make it plain to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that I stand behind every other speaker in this House in asking that the full amount of £36 million be paid for student grants. I do not want any misrepresentation of my views on this matter. It is extremely important that it should be understood that this is the stand that the Vice Chancellors' Committee have taken, although, as I say, I am speaking solely for myself. I should not wish there to be any delusion on this matter. What I am now saying is that if you cannot get a Government to move on a claim of this sort, is it not worth while trying to get them to move for some smaller amount? Therefore I suggested the possibility of setting up an eleemosynary fund.
My Lords, I now go on to a second suggestion, which from my point of view is less palatable but for which I believe that there may be some hope. I noticed on Sunday, for instance, that that well-informed lady, Miss Nora Beloff, referred to subsidies on halls of residence and refectories. I am bound to say I think this would be a very inequitable scheme to put forward—very inequitable. There are many students who live in lodgings and they would benefit comparatively little from such a scheme—perhaps by no more than £5 out of the £65—whereas those who lived in halls of residence and ate their meals there would benefit much more. But again, something, however inadequate and inequitable, may perhaps be better than nothing. Therefore, I would ask the Government to explore the possibility of these halls of residence and refectories in universities being brought into line with other institutions in the public sector such as hostels, and being permitted to set against their corporate funds such items as heat, light, the replace
504
ment of equipment and indeed a proportion of direct labour costs.
I do not know whether all your Lordships recognise that the financial regulations which govern refectories and residential blocks in universities are based fundamentally on the reasoning of the Royal Commission of 1923 dealing with Oxford and Cambridge. In those days the Commissioners were determined to see that the revenues of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges were devoted to education, religion, learning and research and not to enabling the dons to eat oysters at high table every night. As a result, very stringent and strict regulations governing the expenditure in these fields were laid down. It is these regulations which govern universities in these matters. We are forced to set all sorts of items of expenditure against the income which universities derive from direct charges to students instead of setting them against corporate revenue, as other institutions can. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government whether they would not give universities a subsidy of, say, between £5 million and £10 million to bring them into line with the system of charging for accommodation and refectory service in other comparable institutions. As I said, this is a very inequitable solution. Students in lodgings would benefit only to the tune of about £5, but they could benefit more if they ate their meals regularly in refectories. Those in university accommodation would benefit very considerably.
Of course, I recognise that the Secretary of State might demand a quid pro quo in that such a subsidy would be made available by the U.G.C. only in universities where no rent strikes were operated. Only twenty-three (under half) of our university institutions are affected by strikes and it may well be that a Vice-Chancellor would be required to certify that a normal situation prevails as regards the payment due in respect of refectories and accommodation before the subsidy could be granted. But this would enable the individual student unions to judge whether or not they wanted the subsidy and the relief it would afford. It would be up to them to choose, and if they decided to reject it the choice would be theirs, and they would be absolutely free agents in this matter. I think it is very important that they should be given

505
this opportunity, if any scheme of this kind should be put into operation.
I have tried this evening to do something more than just put the formal strong case which has been made from all quarters of your Lordships' House for the full amount of the grants to be paid. I recognise that in so doing I am giving hostages to fortune, but I would rather give a hostage to fortune and have some chance of success than have no chance of success whatsoever. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to consider the suggestions and ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State also to consider them. May I ask him, further, whether he could give an assurance that if the Government are willing to consider any of these suggestions they would give the Vice-Chancellors' Committee the opportunity of being consulted on the matter, together with the National Union of Students? Finalily, my Lords, I should like to emphasise that what the Vice-Chancellors want is no interim solution of these matters. What they want is what they view as the only right and equitable solution, not merely from the point of view of individual students but from that of the whole system of higher education itself; namely, the payment of the full grant.
9.14 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House for not having put my name down on the list of speakers, but I have returned from a journey abroad only in the past 12 hours. May I also be excused if, in the few remarks that I make, I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his severely practical proposals, but descend once more into the realms of high principle on which your Lordships have been discoursing during the greater part of this very interesting debate. There have been a number of propositions put forward with which I find myself in complete agreement. I find myself in complete agreement with the proposition that the real value of student grants has diminished because the money grant has not kept pace with inflation. That seems an absolutely incontestable proposition. How matters should be met, whether they should be met in full, or by partial solutions of the kind the noble Lord, Lord
506
Annan, hinted at, is a matter that I do not wish to discuss.
The proposition has been put forward that the discretionary grant system gives rise to grave anomalies. I agree. I see very little justification for the retention of that element in the system—whether or not this is the moment to abolish it is another question. For a very long time I have felt that the parental means test was a relic of the past which might well be dropped when it was found to be financially possible and expedient. As for the treatment of married women, I agree with every word that has been said by those who have denounced the present practice, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said, is in a sense an indirect subsidy to living in sin. On all these matters I find myself in agreement with the consensus of opinion which has been expressed in various speeches this evening. But when the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was criticised for the second part of his proposition, I thought there was released in your Lordships' House such a crowd of red herrings as I have not seen for a very long time—a complete misapprehension of the implication of the new pair of trousers that the noble Lord was asking the Government to step into.
If I may, I should like to take up three or four moments in elucidating a little of what I have in mind. May I start from the proposition which was advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Baroness based part of her case against loans—and I ask your Lordships to notice that I am not defending loans at this juncture—on the comparison between the free entry (which many of us have striven to defend) to museums and galleries, and free higher education. This is surely a complete non sequitur. The National Gallery is open to all in the land; the universities and polytechnics are selective.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I think the noble Lord has muddled my remarks. I never mentioned museums, and I did not discuss loans.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon; I thought she mentioned the controversy with regard to charges, and represented the proposal of the noble Viscount as an encroachment on the principle of freedom. Perhaps I

507
injected into her argument my own apprehensions about the imposition of charges on galleries. Certainly there is no analogy there. The educational system is highly selective; the people who are selected for the benefits of higher education are a minority of the population and, during the period of their education, capital is invested in them which is not placed for the benefit of other members of the population.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that point? Would he agree that the capital that is invested bears very little relation to the grant that is given? The capital invested is about £1,500 per annum.
LORD ROBBINS: I am coming to that point in a moment, my Lords. I said that I was not defending loans in the sense in which they have been denounced by successive speakers, from the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, onwards. I know all the arguments, if your Lordships will forgive me for saying so, against loans in the old-fashioned sense—indeed, I fancy that I invented the term, "negative dowry". Of course I would agree with the proposition which has been put forward that loans in that sense burden the young with indebtedness which they will endeavour in various devious ways to evade, and that this burden of indebtedness is extremely unfair on people who go into occupations which are less well paid—or less well paid at an early stage—than other occupations that they might enter.
All this is so jugé, I suggest, among those who have examined these matters at all carefully. But what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was suggesting was surely something quite other, and, if I do not misunderstand him (and I have had no opportunity for conversation with him on this subject in recent months), what he is suggesting is in fact a system of repayable advances suggested by Professor Prest, who is certainly one of the greatest authorities on public finance in the country, the repayment to depend essentially upon the achievement of a higher income level than the average level, which presumably therefore can be regarded in some degree as a return on the investment which has been made.
The Prest system would let out the woman who wished to be a wife and a
508
mother rather than to go into a profession; she would not have a negative dowry hanging round her neck under the Prest system. The Prest system would exempt the talented man who chose to become a clergyman rather than a barrister. The Prest system would not bear hardly on the poverty-stricken young lawyer struggling to become a successful barrister. The Prest system, and the system which is implicit certainly in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would simply require some repayment from those who have been privileged at the expense of others and whose incomes are thereby made higher than those of others; and, for the life of me, although I am not suggesting that this should be introduced at this moment—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that if you were to introduce that sort of thing it should be part of a considered scheme—yet it seems to me, with the greatest respect in the world to the preceding speakers, that for the most part they have been barking completely up the wrong tree in this connection. I earnestly recommend those in your Lordships' House who are interested in the finance of higher education to pay a little attention not only to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but also to Professor Prest.
9.24 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for asking this Question because it raises two important issues which it may be convenient to separate, as I think most of us have done: first, should the level of student support be raised to take account of recent inflation, and second, should any such increase be implemented by means of a supplementary loan rather than an increase in grant? In saying that, it does not mean that I have not listened with the greatest care to—and I hope profited by—what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has also just said. May I first take the question of the level of the grant. Grants are reviewed every three years, as we all know, and the current triennium, as we also know, covers the academic years 1971–74. In all, the Government provided the figure which the noble Viscount mentioned—£76 million—for improvements in the grants structure, and most of this, but not all, went into improvements in

509
the basic grant rates. For instance, the level of grant for students living away from home to attend universities other than Oxford, Cambridge and London was raised by 13·1 per cent. in the first year and 22·3 per cent. for the whole of the three-year period.
If I understood the noble Viscount correctly he criticised both the allocation of the global sum and also its subsequent subdivisions. In answer to that, may I just remind the House that stage one of the arrangements for this three-year period was a purely fact-finding operation in which the students were involved for the first time; that stage two was a Government decision, after discussion with the local authorities, to allocate the £76 million, a decision taken with the knowledge which had been discovered in stage one; and that finally, by negotiation and discussion between the Government, the local authorities, the Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the student bodies, ways and means were decided for allocating the total sum. I am not going to affirm that this is the only method for reaching a triennial grants settlement, but may I ask your Lordships, in fairness, to compare this process with arrangements for previous triennial reviews, when an independent advisory panel would be set up which would make recommendations in the way indicated by the noble Viscount. And then what would happen? At every review the Government would arbitrarily reduce the rate of improvements which had been recommended.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said that students had been treated very unjustly. The fact of the matter is that the language of education is the language of priorities as all Governments know, and in 1970 the process was self-evidently as fair to all the parties concerned as it was then possible to arrange. In saying that, may I express my appreciation, none the less, for the way in which your Lordships, many of whom have great experience of higher education, have spoken in this debate? I believe that from all sides of the House it has been a constructive debate, and I, at least, have very much appreciated that. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, put two points, one about a special fund and the other that the universities should be brought into line
510
with the public sector in respect of lodgings and refectory services. I do not think that the noble Lord would expect me to give an answer in a moment's time, but I shall give him two assurances. One which he asked for, is that the Vice-Chancellors and Principals will be properly consulted in forthcoming negotiations. My Lords I certainly and gladly give that assurance to the noble Lord; and the second is that I will personally draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the remarks of the noble Lord, not only in his main speech but also in the exchanges which occurred subsequently.
Since the review, it is true that there have been general rises in student costs. These will be taken into account in the next triennial settlement which will apply to the period 1974 to 1977. In spite of these rises, for reasons which I shall try to advance now, I do not believe that the level of grant is insufficient to enable students to undertake their chosen course of study. But what I should like to say to the House is that my right honourable friend is keeping a careful watch on the position and is listening carefully to the views which are being put forward. For that reason, I hope that the noble Viscount will not think that although he has had to wait for a time for this postponed debate to take place it has been in any sense a waste of time.
May I refer to two particular problems? The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned students who are living in university halls of residence which are charging higher than average fees and who have a particular difficulty. It is a difficulty which I concede and with which I sympathise. The University Grants Committee have recently conducted a survey of hall costs and the results are now being evaluated. When that has been completed, which should be quite shortly now, we shall be in a position to see what the facts are and whether any special action ought to be taken. Meanwhile I am sure that universities will examine their position very carefully to see how costs can be kept down, and I say that in the context that standards of halls of residence vary quite considerably.
Another difficulty arises when students do not receive the fully assessed parental contribution. Several noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of

511
Rossendale, mentioned that. I appreciate and fully sympathise with the problems of a student in that situation. It is sometimes urged that all students should be treated as independent and that parents should no longer be required to make any contribution at all. I have my doubts whether that is desirable in principle. I know, in saying that, that your Lordships may not agree with what I say. But in any case abolition of the parental contribution really would throw a pretty substantial additional burden on public funds. Various figures have been thrown about in past months, but what we know is that it was probably about £35 million in 1971 and it would be considerably more now. I am sure taxpayers and ratepayers would not wish to see sums of that order added to the bill they already have to meet, if it could be helped. If such sums could be made available, there are other items in the educational field which would have to be considered in competition. These are some of the problems.
Might I remind the House of what the Government have tried to do to meet some of the problems? First there was the £76 million settlement on the general improvement of the grant structure, and for all universities this meant a quite considerable rise. I gave the percentage —22·3 per cent. for the provincial universities. And, of course, the steepest part of the rise came in the first year and was meant to be as I hope it was, helpful. As I have described, the rates were decided only after we had a joint working group of my right honourable friend's Department, the Scottish Education Department and the student bodies, who carried out a fact-finding study on price levels since the previous review, and this fact-finding study related to costs for students. So, in a sense, if I might answer the noble Baroness, Lady White, the students' cost-of-living index entered into the calculations on that occasion.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, the point is that things do not stand still in the present circumstances during the triennium, and therefore it becomes out-of-date and correspondingly irrelevant. That is the whole burden of the argument.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not deny that, but the noble Baroness, if
512
she will forgive my saying so, spoke as though a cost-of-living index was needed and had not in fact existed at all. If I am misrepresenting the noble Baroness, I apologise.
BARONESS WHITE: I could not have made myself clear, my Lords. My emphasis was that unless you have, not a static examination once every three years, but a continuous examination at least once a year, you cannot keep pace with the changes in the value of money, and therefore your grant system is based on inadequate facts.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, might I try to reformulate that in more general terms? Would the noble Lord not agree that in earlier years we all thought that rolling triennia, systems of that sort, were superior to year-to-year grants, with all the disadvantages the noble Lord has mentioned? But the fundamental fact is that that enlightened system is defeated all along the line by inflation. That is the fundamental point.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I first of all apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has now made herself entirely clear. The only difficulty is that if the noble Baroness's own Party had made itself clear on this subject, life would be easier now. I do not make a political point out of this. There was a difficulty, as I said before the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, came in, which both Governments have had to face— that the language of education is the language of priorities.
In addition to the fact-finding study which was undertaken, there was also a review of charges at halls of residence. This was undertaken independently by the students themselves. The noble Viscount in his opening speech mentioned that halls of residence charges were held down in the early part of the 1968–71 triennium as a result of the prices and incomes freeze at that time. It was in fact precisely because these charges were artificially low in 1970 when the review was undertaken that an additional £15 was added to the figure recommended for the provincial rate. The recommendations of that Working Party were accepted. I concede immediately, before the noble Lord, Lord Annan, tells me, that all parties to the agreement would

513
very much have liked more. Nevertheless, that agreement of 1970 was accepted by the Vice-Chancellors, the local education authorities, the student bodies and the Government.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must interrupt on that. It is perfectly true that we agreed to it, but immediately the settlement was made the Vice-Chancellor's Committee said it was inadequate.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord has made himself clear on that. All I am saying is that it was accepted at the time, and it had been arrived at through a series of three stages, which were in all respects superior to the sort of machinery which had gone before. I see that the noble Lord is nodding. On that occasion, I think it can be said that it was as reasonably fair a settlement as could possibly have been reached on that occasion. The difficulty is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has put to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady White.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, spoke of the parental cost of the total grant increases. I would not for one minute contradict what the noble Lord said, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned this too. This is due considerably to the increase in wages and salaries in an inflationary situation, but the scale will certainly be looked at at the next review. I will also see that the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are noted. I was a little surprised that she mentioned the inequities of the parental scale continuing until a man is of the age of 25. It is different for a woman student. The age which pertains for a woman student is 21, which is perhaps discrimination in another direction, and one more acceptable to the noble Baroness.
At the review, the position of parental contributions was improved. The threshold went up from £900 to £1,100; the contributions are reduced until the parents residual income reaches £1,700, when the contribution continues at the previous rate. I concede that difficulty can be caused if a parent will not pay the contribution required, but the 1971 review brought help to where it was most needed; to those on lower incomes.
514
Finally, the review improved allowances for a student's dependants and, with the amendment put in by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the package was accepted.
Your Lordships may have in mind cases of hardship which you do not believe fall within the circumstances I have mentioned to the House. There is, in addition, in the general grant structure a power for local education authorities to make additional vacation grants for hardship up to £6·55 per week. There is also the situation which the House has debated recently where students take on extra responsibilities, such as marrying and having children while still on their course. This situation is being dealt with by the small Education Bill which has been debated in this House and is now in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, mentioned the matter of discretionary grants, and gave it as his opinion that they should be mandatory. He was calling for a system in England and Wales broadly similar to that in Scotland, where for non-advanced courses local education authorities have discretion about the making of awards, and once that decision has been taken the award has to be in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Scottish Education Department. One further point I was not sure about was whether the noble Lord was asking for complete parity of rates between discretionary and mandatory, or parity of certain elements such as board and lodging, which I think is what happens in the Scottish situation.
Recently the Expenditure Committee on Further and Higher Education in the House of Commons said:
"In view of the enormous number of courses available, we are sure that some exercise of discretion will always prove necessary."
Despite all that the noble Lord said, I do not think that he would dissent fundamentally from that. The Committee then said:
"The problem, in our view, lies in the anomalies as between one authority and another."
May I remind the House that in Circular 571 my right honourable friend has laid down guidelines for the use of their discretion by local education authorities. In particular, he gave us the reminder—which point was also touched on by the

515
noble Lord—that the cost of a student's maintenance is related to the place where he is living, not to the level of the course he is taking. But the courses we are talking about vary from G.C.E., "O" or "A" levels, to H.N.D. courses, and, although I know that my right honourable friend is always prepared to listen to representations, the consequences of adopting a system of mandatory rates, where the making of the award is discretionary, could have results which I do not think have beeen made entirely clear during the debate this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady White, and other noble Lords all spoke about married women students. The rates of grants for married women students on full-time courses are the same as the rates for other students, except in the case of a woman living at home with her husband, when he is neither a full-time student nor incapacitated and dependent upon her. For the single category of married woman at home, it is perfectly true that the rate is £275 and has remained so since 1965. I think it is undeniable—and I listened carefully to what noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said—that this particular grant has come low on the priority list and remained unchanged in 1968 and again in 1970. In practice, the argument is that a husband's earnings are there to keep his wife and family, as they should be for families, and this is why widowed, divorced or separated women students are treated differently, and received increases in grants for this triennium, but when a married woman must live away from home for study she receives the same rate as any other student. But I have listened carefully to what your Lordships, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have said about the effect of the married women's grant on older women. In another place, my honourable friend Mr. St. John-Stevas has said that we shall be looking at this matter, and at this juncture there is nothing further that I wish to add.
May I turn quickly to loans? It is very much open to question whether there is need to supplement the present grants by means of loans. The issues are complicated and require a good deal more study by anybody who supports this sug-
516
gestion. But, in essence, I think the main considerations are these. The British system of three-year degree courses is shorter than comparable courses elsewhere, and the system of guaranteed support in the form of grants is unique. I must say—and I say this purely on personal grounds; there is no question of policy in what I say—that I was a little sad that such a hail of criticism descended upon the noble Viscount's head. He obviously has a point and has thought about it very carefully indeed, and if my researches are correct there is a loan element in student support in such countries as Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Holland, West Germany, Canada, Japan and the United States of America. So one feels there might be a point in what the noble Viscount was putting forward.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that in those countries which have some loan element in their higher educational system, they have progressed from a point where no student grants were given at all? That was certainly true in Denmark when I worked there fifty years ago.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I shall certainly take that from the noble Lord, but the point is that their systems are not the same as our system. All I am saying is that, on personal grounds, I was a little surprised at the hail of criticism which descended upon the noble Viscount's suggestions. If I may make the Government's present position clear, the Department has been looking into the question of loans for post-graduate students in substitution for part of grants. A scheme for undergraduates would, however, raise entirely separate issues.
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said, which has gone far wider and deeper than I am capable of going, I really do not think I would wish to add anything more on the question of loans except just one point, and that is this. I understand and appreciate the ordinary, administrative, mechanical difficulties which some noble Lords queried, one after another, in what they held to be or thought to be the noble Viscount's suggestions. If I may pick out one only, because it was mentioned only once, I think, as I listened to the noble Viscount and then heard the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, talking

517
about being trapped by the loan system. I was not sure of the effect on an undergraduate who progressed on to postgraduate work. If he raised a loan at both levels of study, his financial burden, it seemed to me as I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Ardwick, might very well become considerable; and even if he did not do so, the period before he would be in a position to start making repayments if he had then gone to the postgraduate level would be considerably delayed.
My Lords, I echo only that one reservation but there are many other reservations before the House and they have all to be taken into account. They lead the Government to feel unable to accept the terms of the noble Viscount's Question this evening, but this does not mean that my right honourable friend will not share the interest of the House in the general argument which has been put forward by the noble Viscount. For there is, finally, the suggestion which he has made that more and more young people enter higher education without a sense of purpose, and that the introduction of a loan scheme might encourage them to think more sharply about their reasons for going to a university or a college. I think it is likely that, if such a scheme were to be introduced, some people would be faced with having to think more seriously about their future than is perhaps now the case. I am not altogether certain, however, that this would be a significant proportion, or that those who decided not to proceed with higher education because of the financial obligations to which they would be bound would necessarily be taking the right decision in their own or the country's best interests. It is certainly true that not all sixth-formers entering a university or a college can say at the time, with confidence, why they want to do so.
Perhaps I may end by reminding your Lordships of what my right honourable friend said on the subject in her recent White Paper, Education: A framework for Expansion. The White Paper said:
"The motives that impel sixth-formers to seek higher education are many, various and seldom clear-cut. A minority wish to continue for its own sake the study in depth of a specialised subject to the top of their bent. It is crucial for the world of scholarship, research and invention that their needs should be met. This has always been a leading function of
518
the universities and must remain so. Some students have a specific career in mind. A larger number are anxious to develop over a wider field what the Robbins Committee called 'the general powers of the mind', but not without questioning whether a specialised honours degree course is the best way of achieving it. Some ask for no more than a stimulating opportunity to come to terms with themselves, and to discover where their real interests and abilities lie. Others have no better reason than involuntarily to fall in with the advice of their teachers and the example of their contemporaries. But not far from the surface of most candidates' minds is the tacit belief that higher education will go far to guarantee them a better job. All expect it to prepare them to cope more successfully with the problems that will confront them in their personal, social and working lives".
My Lords, for many this is the blueprint of the plan for their own careers; and, in mentioning a blueprint, I do not think that the noble Viscount was quite fair to himself or to a speech which he made on universities just over a year ago. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will find in the passage I have just quoted an echo of what he himself said in this House a year ago. For him, if I remember rightly, the aims of higher education were, broadly, three-fold: to train future academics and research workers; to give students training that will be useful in their work afterwards and of direct benefit to the nation; and to develop intellectual ability and to make, students happier and better potential citizens. I think it must be the aim of all our higher education institutions to make their distinctive contributions to these objectives.

METALS SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Order applicable has been complied with, received: Ordered to lie on the Table and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
UPPER MERSEY NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Order applicable has been complied with, received: Ordered to lie on the Table and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.