Lords Sitting of 12 July 1976

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

EDMONTON:COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is intended to start community service orders in the Edmonton petty sessional division.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is for individual probation and after-care committees to decide, subject to my right honourable friend's approval of the general arrangements proposed, when to introduce community service arrangements to particular petty sessional areas. The Middlesex probation and after-care committee have indicated that they are not yet in a position to propose a date for extending community service arrangements to Edmonton.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that seven out of the eight petty sessional divisions in Middlesex are able to make community service orders, and that it is the opinion not only of all the magistrates in the Edmonton petty sessional division, but also of the Probation Service, that perhaps the Edmonton division needs community service orders more than any other petty sessional division within Middlesex? We have five courts sitting on five days a week and have an enormous case load, and I have it on the very highest authority that a number of people who are now in prison could have been provided for by community service orders if they had been available.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what the noble Baroness has said rather indicates that it is for people in Edmonton—the probation officers and the magistrates, to whom she has made reference—to bring pressure upon the Middlesex probation and after-care committee. What she says about the other areas in Middlesex being provided for in relation to community service orders is perfectly true. But, if I may say so with the greatest respect, I think that the matter is in the hands of justices and others in Edmonton, who can bring some kind of pressure to bear upon the probation and after-care committee.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lord, is the noble Lord aware that there is a difference of opinion between the Home Office and the Greater London Council, and that it seems to me to be the Greater London Council who are holding this up, because they will not allow us to have another office? Can the noble Lord do anything in his power to see that the other office is supplied as soon as possible?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, all I can say at this stage is that we are under the impression that arrangements in relation to community service orders in Edmonton will come into being during the latter part of this year. I do not think I can go beyond that at this stage.

KIDNEY FAILURE TREATMENT
2.39 p.m.
Lord PLATT: 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 are satisfied with the provision made for the treatment of patients with kidney failure; and if not, what plans they have for improvement.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords. Facilities for the treatment of chronic renal failure are insufficient to meet the total need. The extent to which they can be increased is for Health Authorities to determine, having regard to other competing claims on their resources. There is also a need for more transplants to take place, as the noble Lord will know, but this is governed by the availability of cadaver kidneys which at the present moment remains insufficient.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that not very satisfactory reply. With regard to his first point, may I ask how it is that the Department of Health and Social Security withdrew a grant to the Royal Free Hospital for the treatment of children with renal failure, and, if they can withdraw a grant, why the Department cannot make another grant in its place, or more grants? With
4
regard to the supply of cadaver kidneys, what exactly are Her Majesty's Government doing to increase the supply? There are many road accidents and there is no shortage of kidneys.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the grant was given for research purposes. It was given for a specific purpose and for a limited period. That is why the arrangement to which the noble Lord has referred has come to an end. With regard to what the Government are doing, they and the Department have encouraged the public to give their help via the kidney transplant donor scheme. Kidney donor cards are circulated through a whole variety of agencies including surgeries, chemists, hospital waiting areas and so on. We sent out 6 million kidney donor cards last year to the various agencies drawing attention to the need, and the Chief Medical Officer of Health wrote to all area medical officers, regional medical officers, regional administrators, blood transfusion directors and area administrators, drawing attention to the need for more kidneys for transplantation. But 6 million cards were issued last year, although that does not mean that 6 million came back.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether there has been any increase in the supply of dialysers which I believe are called quick-acting and are, I think, made in France? Secondly, can the noble Lord say anything about dialysers which people can carry about with them when they are travelling or going on holiday?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the only information I can give the noble Lord is with regard to patients who are on dialysers. On 30th June 1975, in England, 1,224 patients were being treated in their own homes, and 598 in hospital units, making a total of 1,822. In the year ending 30th June 1976, which was only a week or two ago, 580 kidney transplants were carried out in the United Kingdom. In the previous year 599 kidney transplants were carried out. Those are the only statistics that I have.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, 1 am sorry to press the matter further, but with regard

5
to the noble Lord's reply about the withdrawal of this grant, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that now it is almost impossible to dialyse anybody who is under the age of 15, which means that the parents of a boy or girl of 12, 13 or 14 may have to be told that there is just no place for their child—in other words, that he has to die? Is not this a unique occurrence in our National Health Service?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not describe it as a unique occurrence. One has to face the fact that over the years the National Health Service has been faced with making decisions which have had unpleasant consequences for other people. I accept that the present situation is far from satisfactory. I accept also that decisions have to be made which are favourable to some people who need treatment but unfavourable to others, and that a decision has to be made on medical criteria, those criteria being much better known to the noble Lord than to me.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, on the second part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, could the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, tell us when, as a result of sending out 6 million cards to people asking whether they would be prepared to become kidney donors, he expects to know the result of all this publicity and whether, as a result of it, he believes that more kidney donors are coming forward? My understanding is that one of the difficulties about kidney transplants is that there is space in the hospitals and that doctors are willing to perform the operation, but that not enough kidney donors are available.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the last point made by the noble Baroness is perfectly true; that is, that there are facilities but that people are not coming forward. At present, however, the Government feel that they have done everything that is humanly possible to try to advertise this need, with a view to getting more donors. We should be very receptive—I say this quite sincerely—to suggestions from any quarter as to how we could improve the position. But this is a situation in which I agree with what has been said by the noble Baroness.

UN SPECIAL SESSION PROPOSAL
2.45 p.m.
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 they will propose that a Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations should be held to recommend measures to end the suppression of freedom of thought and the non-violent advocacy of political opinion.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we shall certainly keep this suggestion under review. We should need to he sure that such a proposal would receive sufficient support, so that the very valuable aims which the noble Lord has in mind would in fact be promoted rather than retarded.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask him whether he agrees that the greatest deterioration in human relations all over the world since the last war has been the persecution of opinion? Is it not the case that not only dissidents in the Soviet Union but hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia, India, Uganda, South Africa, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil are being imprisoned for their political opinions? Therefore, is it not desirable that internationally the British Government should make a stand to end this persecution?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, indeed; I think that we would all agree with what my noble friend has just said, especially with the even-handed way in which he has approached this matter. I do not need to remind my noble friend that the International Covenant on Human Rights, if implemented by the countries he has named, as it is by this and like-minded countries, would cover the ground he is so anxious to see improved.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Brockway, does not this Question show an extraordinary ignorance of the

7
General Assembly and its resolutions and procedures? Are not the two implications behind his Question—on the one hand, that the United Nations is the seat of World Government and, on the other, that it is the stronghold of divine wisdom —an insult to one's intelligence? May I add that it would be better for people like my noble friend to be conscripted and sent to the General Assembly of the United Nations for three months every year for five years running, as I did, so as to learn something about what is happening?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gaitskell speaks from passionate experience—at least of the United Nations, if not of my noble friend Lord Brockway. I think we must take a good look in perspective at the possibilities and the deficiencies of the United Nations. It is the only world authority which we have and it behoves us to use its capacities with considerable thought and with as much expertise and foresight as we can muster. Indeed, from time to time this is perfectly possible. Of course, after a mere 30 years of life the United Nations cannot instantly settle all these worldwide questions. Mankind has been at it for a few thousand years without much success.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is it not rather odd that people should be so selective in their condemnation or their enthusiasm? To the long list of names of offending countries which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, could we not add the names of almost all of the countries in Eastern Europe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, unfortunately we can. No country is wholly blameless in this matter: that is why I commended my noble friend Lord Brockway, as I do now my noble friend Lord Pannell, for being so evenhanded in their blame and their praise.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, reverting to the reply to my second question, may I ask the Minister this, constructively: is it not the case that most countries have accepted the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which says:
"Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference."
Would it not therefore be quite appropriate for the United Nations to ask the
8
Human Rights Commission to make an investigation into this situation and to make proposals?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is perfectly open for the noble Lord or for anybody else to advance this suggestion. All I have said—and I think I carried all sides of the House with me—is that, when we make these very large proposals in New York, we must be careful that we have thought them out carefully and that we are reasonably assured of the requisite amount of support. I do not want to quote invidious recent comparisons, but we are all aware of a move somewhat in this direction last year by one of our friends and allies which really left the situation rather worse than it was before.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, in view of the farcical situation which has now arisen in respect of the United Nations and which is well known to every Member of this House, as well as to every person who thinks, is it not time that some kind of arrangement should be made between civilised nations whereby they can come together to try to solve the many problems which they understand on moral grounds, and not be forced into accepting serious and, in many cases, murderous ideas put forward in the United Nations at present?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend, more than anybody, would agree with me that any attempt to exclude from the membership of the United Nations any member country on the ground of varying interpretations of its civilisation would indeed do nothing to help in this situation. I think we could agree that a Special Session—and here I accept that my noble friend has a constructive proposal to make—is a procedure in the United Nations which, after due thought and proper preparation, could usefully be engaged in. Her Majesty's Government take the view that certainly at this moment we could not proceed with any certainty of obtaining the right amount of support leading to anything like the results that my noble friend and I should like to achieve, that is, that we should at this moment succeed. Therefore, a little more time should elapse during which this procedure should be kept under review until it seems likely to succeed.

MRS. DORA BLOCH
2.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 any information has been received about Mrs. Bloch, one of the hostages hijacked in a French aircraft, who holds a British passport and is so far missing.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House and that of my noble friend, I shall be repeating at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. the Statement on this subject to be made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who deals with African affairs. I shall of course be pleased to answer questions at that time in the normal way.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but would he be kind enough to answer my Question? Is he aware that since I came to your Lordships' House I cannot recall a single occasion when a Question was deferred because a Statement was to be made subsequently? He refuses to answer the Question, but apart from that, I wanted to ask two supplementary questions. The first is whether, in view of the failure to ascertain the whereabouts of Mrs. Bloch, the Government contemplate any further action, and if so, what? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that in view of recent events it seems obvious that the holder of a British passport travelling overseas can no longer be guaranteed protection by the British Government and, in those circumstances, what do the Government propose?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will acquit me of having demanded in any way that he should wait until the Statement was made before I answered his questions. I have taken note of the two questions he has put and I shall certainly be in a better position to answer when I repeat the Government Statement after 3.30 p.m. I think the noble Lord will find, when he looks at my reply, that I
10
couched it in the words, "with the leave of the House", and then I myself inserted the words" and that of my noble friend" —I will answer this Question when I come to repeat the Statement. I hope he will meet my request and conform to, I think, the general usage of the House.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat two Statements at a convenient moment after 3.30. The first, as he has already mentioned, is that about Mrs. Dora Bloch, and the second is on the execution of the three mercenaries in Angola.
RACE RELATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:—
Standing Order No. 39
Line 4, after ("Questions insert ("and Unstarred Questions").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
2.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland)

11
Order 1976 be approved. This is one of a regular series of measures which have been enacted for Northern Ireland to deal with miscellaneous matters of a financial nature. The most recent was the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1974. These measures have been concerned mainly with increasing the limits which are provided in Northern Ireland legislation for particular categories of financial transactions. This draft order, too, is mainly concerned with increasing a number of these statutory limits to cover expenditure up to the end of the next financial year. In addition to providing for these increases the draft order deals with a number of other matters of a financial nature. I propose to deal briefly with the content of each article, but from what I have already said the House will realise that this order does not deal with the appropriation of funds required for public services.
Article 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 deal with four forms of expenditure which may be charged on the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The items concerned are expenditure in connection with roads where it is proposed to increase the present limit of £150 million to £200 million, expenditure for industrial development where the limit would increase from £425 million to £550 million, and loans for agricultural development where it is proposed that the limit of £13 million should be increased to £18 million. The fourth item is that of issues made from the Consolidated Fund to provide advances to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The present limit of £250 million applies to the aggregate of the amounts issued. A similar limit of £150 million exists in relation to issues made for the purpose of advances to the old Northern Ireland Housing Trust whose functions, liabilities et cetera were inherited by the Housing Executive. The proposal in the order consolidates these two limits, applies the consolidated limit to the amount of principal outstanding and sets a new limit of £550 million. As this applies to net, not gross, the change effectively increases by £245 million the borrowing powers of the Housing Executive.
Article 4 provides for an increase from £800,000 to £2 million in the amount of principal which may be outstanding from
12
the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund to the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund. The higher rate of unemployment coupled with higher average earnings suggests the need for this increase. It will be recalled that a similar increase was granted to the Great Britain Redundancy Fund by way of the Protection of Employment Act 1975. Article 5 would increase the amount which may be outstanding from the Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund. The Fund lends to local authorities and other public bodies in Northern Ireland. It is proposed to increase the present limit of £600 million, which it is anticipated will be reached early in 1977, to £700 million. The National Loans Fund is currently the the main source for borrowing by the Northern Ireland Government, and onward lending in Northern Ireland is at the same rates of interest as those charged by the Public Works Loans Board.
Article 6 empowers the Department of Finance to borrow from the Government Loans Fund for the purpose of operating loans pools transferred from former local authorities to the Department as part of local government re-organisation. The local authorities had access to the Government Loans Fund for this purpose, but this source of borrowing is not available to the Department which has to resort to the outside market. Article 7 applies a new limit to the borrowing powers of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. The statutory limit is composed of two tiers, primary legislation setting the first and providing for the second to become operative by means of subordinate legislation. The proposal is to increase the limit from £350 million and £500 million to £650 million and £750 million respectively to enable the electricity service to meet capital expenditure necessary to accommodate the demand for electricity into the 1980s, notably the completion of the new power station at Kilroot, County Antrim.
The remaining articles of the Order deal with a number of items of financial management. Article 8 increases from £1,000 to £2,000 the financial limit on certain district council contracts not required to be made under seal. This increase is designed to take account of higher levels of cost. The proposed provision also seeks to make future I increases by means of subordinate legislation.

13
Articles 9 to 12 are similar in content. They seek to impose interest on overdue instalments of loan repayments where an instalment is more than 31 days in arrear. The loans in question are those made to catering establishments, industrial undertakings, businesses qualifying under the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) (Northern Ireland) Act 1966 and harbour authorities. In each case the additional interest rate is to be determined by an order made by the Department of Finance. There is also provision for the waiving of additional interest.
Article 13 is a general provision to clarify an anomaly encountered since the imposition of value added tax in relation to certain Northern Ireland legislation The proposed provision makes it clear that any part of sums received that represents value added tax is not required to be appropriated in aid of expenditure on the service. Article 14 seeks to increase the fee payable by catering establishments to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board for the purpose of a certificate of registration. The fee, which is based on the net annual value of the premises concerned, is to be increased from one-third of 1 per cent. to 1 per cent. The proposed increase is designed to reflect more closely in the charges in the cost of the service. The increased fees would be applied from 1st April 1977. Article 15 proposes an amendment to the Saving Bank Act 1887 to permit variation of the fee payable for a certificate of birth, marriage or death, for the purposes of the Act, to be by means of subordinate legislation. The lee of 5p prescribed by the Act still applies in Northern Ireland, and is clearly in need of revision. In Great Britain power to vary the fee by means of subordinate legislation was taken in the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968.
Article 16 would remove the requirement placed on district councils to seek the approval of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as successors to the old local government boards, to the fees fixed for internments in district council burial grounds. In general, district councils have the right to fix fees and charges for services provided by them. This proposal, therefore, removes what is now considered to be an unnecessary restriction on district councils. Article 17 proposes the removal from the Rights of Light Act (Northern Ireland)
14
1961 the requirement that a fee payable under that Act should be exclusively by means of Land Registry adhesive stamps. The use of such stamps is to be abolished in Northern Ireland from 1st April 1977 in favour of collection by direct means such as cash or remittance. Article 18 deals with the usual provision for repeals. My Lords, I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 17th June, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

APPROPRIATION (No. 2) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
3.6 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, which was laid before the House on 22nd June, be approved. My Lords, this order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The main purpose of the order is to appropriate the balance of the 1976–77 Main Estimates, the Vote on Account of 1976–77 having been appropriated in March this year by the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The present order also appropriates certain sums arising out of Excess Votes for the financial year, 1974–75.
My Lords, the Northern Ireland Main Estimates are being presented for the first time this year in a revised form, similar to that now used for United Kingdom Supply Estimates. Estimates will from now on be set out by public expenditure survey programme, rather than by Department, thus bringing out their relationship to the public expenditure survey and showing more clearly the purpose for which money is being spent. The total of the Main Estimates provision for 1976–77, including the sum already voted on account, is some £1,038 million, compared with a 1975–76 total of £827 million and a total Estimates provision in that year, including Supplementaries, of £1,028 million. Details of the provisions

15
sought are set out in the Main Estimates Volume.
I shall briefly take your Lordships through the major increases in expenditure over 1975–76 included in the present Estimates. In Class II No. 4, Compensation for Price Restraint, £23 million is provided for the Northern Ireland electricity service and £3 million for the gas undertakings to compensate for losses caused by compliance with policies of price restraint in 1975–76. In Class II No. 5, Functioning of the Labour Market, there is an increase of £6·4 million, which is mainly due to the provision of new or extended schemes as part of the measures introduced last year to relieve unemployment. In Class V Vote 1, sub-head A1, Housing Services, there is an increase of £10·7 million for grants and subsidies to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is due for the most part to an anticipated increase in the number of new houses on which subsidy will become payable in the course of the year. In Class IX, Health and Personal Social Services, and Class X, Social Security, there are increases of £5·2 million and £12 million respectively, which are mainly the result of pay and price changes, and increases in the rates of benefit, made on the basis of parity with Great Britain.
There were Excess Votes, amounting to £0·9 million, on five votes of the Northern Ireland Estimates in 1974–75. Details of these, and of the reasons for them, are set out in the statement of Excesses. The Excess Votes have been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which has recommended that the necessary sums should be made available. Copies of the Main Estimates Volume, the Statement of Excesses and of the Northern Ireland Financial Statement for 1976–77, which provides details of the estimated receipts and payments of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for that year, are available in the Library.
This order will be considered in another place shortly. My purpose has been to indicate the general nature of its contents, but I am, of course, prepared to deal with any question arising from the Order which your Lordships may wish to raise. My Lords, I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd June, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS (CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES) BILL
Report received.

POLICE BILL
3.12 p.m.
Report received.
Viscount MONCK Viscount MONCK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 44, after ("direct") insert ("that a member of the Police Complaints Board, not being a member who was concerned with the case under this section, shall be present throughout the hearing of those charges and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the kind permission of your Lordships, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 together; they are all related. During the Second Reading both the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme paid tribute to Sir Robert Mark, and my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme said that it appears that Sir Robert Mark wants nothing to do with this Bill. I stand second to none in my admiration for Sir Robert Mark, but I also have the fullest admiration for those chief constables whom I know and have known, who are many, though as Jacob said, from the Book of Genesis,
"Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been."
As your Lordships are aware, he was aged 147 at the time.
Let us come to this question of discipline and authority. This was referred to very forcefully in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and also by my noble friend Lord Amory. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that next to national defence the most important matter in our lives is the protection of the person, a matter which lies in the hands of the police, and in the pursuit of which they frequently put at risk the loss of life or limb

17
on their part. I submit that in no other country in the world does the general public—and that means us—have more, or as much, confidence in their police force than in the United Kingdom. They are a wonderful body of men and women. But to ensure that they continue to maintain the confidence of the general public it is essential that they should be subject to strict, though fair, discipline.
The police forces in the United Kingdom have their commanding officers, the chief constables and the chief officers, on whom at present lies the responsibility of ensuring that discipline is maintained. Here I would remind your Lordships that a chief constable or chief of police can be dismissed by his police authority, though he has a right of appeal to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has power to tell the police authority that it must dismiss its chief constable. But what does Clause 4 state? It states that in a disciplinary charge there shall be a tribunal consisting of the chief officer of police and two members of the Police Complaints Board, and that the question of guilt or otherwise may be a majority decision. Therefore, a chief officer of police, the commanding officer of his force, could be compelled to declare a member of his force innocent when he firmly believes him guilty, or worse still, to declare him guilty when he firmly believes him innocent.
What happens to the authority and the morale of a chief officer of police in such a case? If we introduce this principle into the police, where is it going to end? Would it not possibly become the thin end of the wedge? Might it be introduced into the Army, when a sentence of 28 days CB—to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred in Committee, and which I am sure he never got in the Tank Corps—would be decided not by the commanding officer but by a majority vote of the commanding officer and two district councillors?
I have already referred to the fact that, under the present position, a chief constable or chief of police can be dismissed. My Amendments to Clauses 3 and 4 provide for a member of the Police Complaints Board to be present at a disciplinary charge, to put any questions to witnesses and to tell the chief officer of police his opinion. If a member of the
18
Police Complaints Board considers that a chief officer of police has made wrong decisions he can go to the Home Secretary and say, "Look, old boy …", or if he is seeing the noble Lord, Lord Harris, "Look, my Lord, Mr. X must go, or at least receive a severe raspberry". I beg to move.
3.17 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I suggest to your Lordships' House that this group of Amendments, moved so persuasively by the noble Viscount, should be approached with some considerable caution and hesitation, because the combined effect of this group of Amendments will be, will it not, to destroy the rather delicate balance which has been achieved in this Bill in the course of its long progress in the other place and its progress so far in your Lordships' House? This Bill is clearly a compromise. It is not necessarily any the worse for that, and I think it should perhaps be accepted as being that, a compromise. There are those who believe, with complete justification, that the present system, leaving every aspect of discipline in the hands of the police force itself, works with great efficiency and great fairness and has done a great deal to contribute towards the standing of the police. There is that view on the one hand. On the other hand, there is the view that, however efficient the present system might be, there is a particular public concern about the integrity of the police force, and it is important that the confidence of those who complain should not be undermined, if their complaints are dismissed, however rightly they may be dismissed, by the belief that they are in fact dismissed because the tribunal that deals with them is one that consists of representatives of the very force or a similar force, the very body against whom they are complaining.
In those circumstances, the balance that has been achieved so far in this Bill is this, is it not? First, that in a very large variety of situations the chief officer of police will still be primarily responsible for discipline. He will be responsible for investigating reports; he will be responsible for considering them, for preparing charges, for conducting disciplinary hearings, and for awarding punishment, if that be necessary. That is so in the very large majority of cases. What Clauses 3 and 4 seek to provide—which

19
would be amended out of all recognition, if I may say so, by the Amendments of the noble Viscount—is that in certain very limited situations there should be tribunals set up where the chief officer of police should be assisted by two members of the Board.
The circumstances are only these: first, that under Clause 3(5) a tribunal may be ordered of that nature where there are exceptional circumstances. As I understand it, that means where there is a matter of particular notoriety, of particular gravity, or perhaps of particular complexity affecting the behaviour of certain police officers. I cannot believe that chief officers of police would do other than welcome the assistance in those circumstances of two members of the Board in dealing with a particularly difficult inquiry of that nature.
The other circumstance in which a tribunal may be ordered is perhaps a more difficult one to consider; that is, under Clause 3(2), where the chief officer of police has decided not to prefer disciplinary charges and the Board are of the view that disciplinary charges should be preferred. I suggest that that is an occurrence that is likely to be extraordinarily rare. All of us who have ever taken part in the disciplinary bodies of our own professions know perfectly well that no one is more keen to ensure the high standards of members of a profession than the bodies that are composed of that profession and are trying to administer its discipline. I find it almost impossible to concieve that a situation will occur with any regularity at all in which a chief officer of police decides that charges are not to be preferred and yet the Board decides, after consultation, to overrule him and nevertheless to direct that charges should be preferred.
In those wholly exceptional circumstances the Bill provides that there should be this tribunal consisting of a chief officer of police and two members of the Board. Again, it seems to me to be an integral part of the compromise that has been reached that, in that very unusual situation, the matter might be dealt with in that way to give confidence to the public that all sides of the matter, and in particular the public interest, is being properly represented on those occasions. On the grounds that
20
these Amendments will very much impair a balance that has been rather precariously arrived at after protracted discussion in both Houses, I venture to hope that the noble Viscount will not press these Amendments.
3.23 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I an looking forward to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, telling us who is not going to like this group of Amendments, other than possibly himself, because it has run through all the debates on this Bill that whenever anybody seeks to change even quite small details of the Bill it has been suggested by the noble Lord opposite that one or other of the parties to the compromise, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has rightly referred, would find the particular suggestion unacceptable.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out extremely clearly, and I think entirely correctly, what the situation would be. I should like to explain—and this is no surprise to my noble friend Lord Monck—why it is that I am a little disquieted by these Amendments, though my personal disquiet should not be taken in any way as advice to my noble friends if they do not wish to think on the same lines as I do. I think that we on this side of the House would like to decide this entirely on the merits of the argument, and I should not be in any way offended if they all, with one accord, disagreed with me.
The way I look at it is this: we should be very careful in approaching this group of Amendments because I believe I am right in thinking that they emanate from the chief officers themselves. If they do, they have gone a long way from the position at which they left it at the end of the working paper. If they have suggested to my noble friend the form of these Amendments, what they have done is abandoned the idea of the second Ombudsman-type machinery altogether and they are content that the independent element should be inserted into the disciplinary machinery under the Police Act itself. This is a substantial change.
I am not sure, all the same—bearing fully in mind what my noble friend has said about the supreme importance in the police force of the chief constable's disciplinary control and his ability to run

21
and to be the centre of, and in charge of, the whole of his force—that this would not go a little too far in the way of taking from the Police Complaints Board the public confidence which I hope will repose in it. I do not, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, envisage the tribunals under Clause 4 happening all that often. I believe that the majority of the work, and certainly the majority of the physical work of the members of the Board, will not be their investigatory powers but their overlooking of all the complaints which go through the disciplinary machinery under the Police Act.
This will be a substantial job, and their influence will very largely be made known in the police forces in that way, and their role in upholding the public interest, and, to some extent, the interests of complainants, will lie in that fact; that is, merely the fact that they are there and looking at every complaint which comes in which does not go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, or is withdrawn by the complainant. Therefore, the actual tribunal, though very important, will be a much more occasional and rare occurrence for them to assert their influence. When it happens, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, it is likely to be a fairly important occasion. The difficulty about leaving it with the two independent members simply as assessors, which is the result of this set of Amendments, would be that the public would never know what effect had been achieved by putting the independent members in this position at all.
We discussed in Committee what the procedure would be: it is to be in private. I suppose the only member of the public who is likely to know the outcome is the complainant. He alone will discover what has happened. But I do not suppose that even he will know what went on after the end of the evidence and when, under this Amendment, the two assessors from, the Board and the chief constable were applying their minds to what happened. If even he does not know whether both the assessors perhaps disagreed with the outcome and were overruled by the chief constable, I believe that the opportunity to impress the public with the usefulness of this Bill will be damaged.
After all, this Bill has been given a Second Reading. It was given a Second
22
Reading with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham showing that he rather begrudged the machinery that had been put in; but nevertheless it has been given a Second Reading. I am afraid that if we go this far the public will never know whether they can really trust this Bill as having set up a satisfactory piece of machinery whereby the two members of the Board could, if necessary, overrule the chief constable either way, as my noble friend says.
The realities are much more important. I should have thought it inconceivable that, in any but a minute number of cases, there would be any question of a majority verdict being reached. I imagine that the people who are going to be put on a Police Complaints Board will be of high calibre, and I do not imagine that they will be so thick that they cannot understand the elements of the charge, or indeed, after a little while at any rate, the nuances of police disciplinary machinery and the way the police force works.
I should have thought that it was fanciful to suppose that, in more than a minute number of cases, there would be anything other than a unanimous verdict taking place, and if that is so there will be no trouble. When it does not take place, I am afraid that the only way in which a secret tribunal can be acceptable by the public as having an effective independent element is if, at any rate in theory, the chief officer of police could be overruled. For those reasons I personally find it very difficult to accept these Amendments but, as I said, I do not want to discourage any of my noble friends from listening most carefully to the persuasive arguments of my noble friend Lord Monck and anybody else who wishes to speak in his favour.
3.30 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the House will not be altogether surprised to learn that I share the view just expressed by the noble Viscount, who, during the discussion of an Amendment which he moved in Committee, foreshadowed the position he has taken today, and I will set before the House the arguments why the Government find these Amendments objectionable as a matter of principle. But before going

23
into the central feature of the argument, I will deal with the analogy of the Armed Services. The noble Viscount thought that this might be the forerunner of some legislation in which commanding officers could be overruled in some form of court-martial. That is, as he will no doubt agree, a slightly fanciful anxiety because what we are talking about so far as this Bill is concerned is complaints by members of the public against police officers; we are not talking about the internal disciplinary machinery of the Police Service where, say, a policeman is proceeded against under the disciplinary regulations for not carrying out an order given him by his superior. That is a parallel which I would accept immediately so far as the Armed Services are concerned, but that situation is in no way covered by the Bill; here we are talking exclusively about complaints by members of the public against police officers and, with respect, there is no parallel with the Armed Services.
There are, as I have indicated, substantial differences between the noble Viscount and the Government on this matter and, while I do not want to weary the House, I will go through the point which was made with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when he discussed the circumstances in which a tribunal would be set up in the first place. There are two such reasons for setting up a tribunal. The first is where there are exceptional circumstances—and I would agree with Lord Wigoder almost precisely in the formulation of the argument he put; there will be a minority of such cases and they will be decided on by the Board with, I think, some proper hesitation—concerning the public interest, where it is, in the judgment of the Board, desirable to have a tribunal. But, secondly, there will be the other set of cases—and I again agree with Lord Wigoder, in that I think there will be few of them—where the Board decides that the deputy chief constable is wrong in not preferring disciplinary charges against the police officer. I repeat that I think there will be few such cases, but they could arise and we obviously have to consider the situation when they do arise.
It is our judgment that, in the circumstances I have outlined, the right procedure is the one set out in the Bill, which is that
24
the tribunal should consist of the chief officer of the force concerned together with two members of the Complaints Board. They would all—that is, the three of them—decide on the question of guilt or innocence, but on a finding of guilt the chief constable alone would decide on the punishment. What does the noble Viscount say in his Amendments? He says essentially that there should indeed be present a member of the Board who could ask questions and address the chief officer, but that is all; that would be his only function at a tribunal hearing. We have to ask ourselves whether we could possibly accept a procedure of that kind for the two types of case I have outlined to the House: first, the case where the Board has directed that disciplinary action should be taken following a decision by the deputy chief constable not to prosecute the officer concerned under the disciplinary regulations. I must put it to the House that there are, I suspect, very few Members even of this House who, in a situation of that kind at a tribunal hearing as a complainant—where they would know that the Board had over-ruled the deputy chief constable on whether proceedings should be brought against a particular officer—confronted with a tribunal with only the chief officer deciding the question of guilt or innocence, admittedly with a member of the Board present to ask questions, would really believe that in all the circumstances justice would have been done.
Then there is the second type of case where the Board has certified that there are such exceptional factors in a case that there should be a tribunal hearing. Again, it seems wholly inappropriate that in a case of that sort—I repeat, I do not believe that there will be a large number of such cases, but I assure the House that I see cases of that sort coming across my table as a Minister, and they sometimes raise very serious issues—when we are changing, as we are in this Bill, the machinery of complaints against the police, we should have a situation where, even though the Board is satisfied that there are exceptional factors in the case, the only consequence of so certifying would be that one member of the Police Complaints Board could attend, ask the odd question, address the chief constable, and that would be the end of the matter.

25
I do not think that that would be right and I come back to a particular point which is not unimportant. This argument about the machinery of complaints against the police has been going on for many years, certainly for seven or eight at the very least, and some would no doubt argue for longer still. It is now essential to bring this argument to a conclusion. It does not serve the interest of anyone, inside or outside the Police Service, to have this long and now, frankly, debilitating argument continuing year after year. We have done our best in the Bill to be fair to all concerned, to the public interest but also to the members of the Police Service, and I must tell the House bluntly that I fear that if Amendments of this kind were to be written into the law, after the passage of the Bill we should have a situation where a very substantial argument would continue as to whether the machinery was really adequate. It is for those reasons that I very much hope that the noble Viscount will decide not to press the Amendment.
Lord HALE: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as I understand it, asked for the whole of his Amendments up to Clause 7 to be taken together and that the Question put from the Chair—That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?—is in accordance with the Rules of the House and does not eliminate the other Questions being put without further discussion unless somebody seeks it. I am extremely reluctant to intervene in this discussion, but I must say that the last words of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich were a little inhibiting when he referred to a "debilitating argument". I had three years of this. The Royal Commission was set up primarily on this very point. It was set up at a time when two or three chief constables were under personal prosecution for malfeasance, for crime, and when another place had spent an immense amount of time discussing the question whether or not two Scots boys had had their backsides kicked by a policeman, which finally resulted in the Prime Minister himself moving the setting up of a Tribunal of Inquiry. I, who had said that I would never support a Tribunal of Inquiry again, spoke in support of it because at that stage of the proceedings nobody had ever thought of listening to what the police had to say.
26
Nobody had heard what the police had had to say and the whole Press, the country and the two Houses of Parliament had heard the allegations against the police which, when the Tribunal was held, proved to be a little evanescent. So we were in difficulties and, after sitting for four years, we produced in 1962 22 proposals for dealing with complaints against the police. After long and earnest argument, we tried to accept the police point of view that, in the main, the original complaints should be dealt with by police officers. Of course, there were admirable precedents of police investigations.
I have tried to follow this debate. I certainly do not say that I understand all the noble Viscount's Amendments. I was certainly interested in Amendment No. 5, which, I take it, is under discussion now. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord on the Front Bench did not refer to it specifically or explain it. I start always from the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder: I am very much biased in favour of the police. I have had to live with them. I have been pinched by them more than once, so I can be said at least to be free from any obvious bias. However, I know the difficulties and I should have thought that all of us would be very reluctant to embark upon steps which might embarrass them or cause disaffection at a time when the police are performing deeds of very great heroism and where a junior member of a disciplined force may nevertheless be called upon—and this is one of the inherent and inevitable problems—to make a decision upon which many lives may depend. He may be called upon to do so without advice, almost without reflection, almost instinctively doing what is necessary for the major task of preserving life. These are not circumstances in which one wishes to dot the i's and cross the t's.
I apologise to the House if, at an advanced age, I have failed fully to understand all the points which have been argued. However, eight days ago, the Sunday Times referred to a case of a type which I, as a member of the Royal Commission, had never heard of before and did not know could arise. That was a case in which a complaint had been made by a young stable boy of an assault by the police in the course of an investigation which, if I read the paper correctly, did

27
not result in any proceedings being brought. I am not concerned with the surrounding circumstances, but I am concerned with the fact that, helped by the Stable Boys' Association and others, the boy brought proceedings for damages against two police officers; that the case went, after some considerable delay, to the High Court; that the boy was represented by a well-known firm of solicitors, and the police, on the instructions of the local police authority, by a no less distinguished advocate than the former Attorney General. I think it right to mention his name, because there is more than one former Attorney General. So if I may do so without being called to order, I shall say that it was Sir Peter Rawlinson.
At the end of two days, despite the determination of the police authorities to support their officers in full, a settlement was arrived at by which £2,500 was to be paid out of public funds as damages to the boy. It was then disclosed that there had been no interviews with the boy by any investigating authority at any time; that no inquiries had been made in any way adequate to the strength of his case, but that, under a procedure which I had never heard of—and I have no doubt that that was my ignorance—the two police officers had been given an indemnity in advance of any inquiry. They had been assured that no proceedings would be taken against them—and Heaven knows! I do not want any proceedings to be taken against anybody on small matters—and had been guaranteed their costs in advance of the inquiry, and that was done with the consent of the Home Office. I understand from what was said in the Sunday Times that it is also said that the Home Office has been refusing to answer questions about the details of the matter.
The police have a complete indemnity, so it is no use bringing any disciplinary proceedings, and an estimated £17,000 costs will be paid out of public funds. I know that these incidents sound much more serious when they are discussed here than they may appear at the time to those who are handling all the day-to-day difficulties of conducting a police force—in this case, the First Lancashire and Merseyside Force. It is quite true that the officer who gave the indemnity is—
28
if the Sunday Times was right; and one can quote a long and detailed exposition which at least merits respectful attention—the Chief Inspector of Constabulary for the country and a very well-known and respected personality.
All of us make mistakes, and I probably more than most, but it seems to me that, at this stage, the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench ought at least to make it clear that, somewhere in the verbiage of this Act, that procedure is abolished forever and that there is something which states specifically that indemnities cannot be given in advance of an inquiry, and that we are not setting up a tribunal which can be hamstrung by a unilateral—the noble and learned Lord shook his head when I suggested that they had had permission from the Home Office and I accept that there is a possibility of misunderstanding and that I may have been misled or have misled myself.
Is there anything to prevent the chief constable from giving an indemnity before the inquiry starts? There is, as I understand it, provision for postponing an inquiry pending litigation and for the inquiry not to be embarked upon until the litigation has been concluded. There seem very strong reasons for that in the kind of case I am speaking of and I know that, in this sort of field, when one quotes a single case one is apt to overlook the great difficulty of applying general principles to a whole mass of unenvisaged cases which may arise in the case of police procedure. In these circumstances, not desiring a prosecution and not at all desiring to embarrass a force which has twice in my lifetime passed through a terrible period of crisis, I still rely on the fact that the figure given was one complaint for about 40,000 hours of each police activity and that the absence of complaints was one of the great tributes.
I agree, too, that Sir Robert Mark took over at a time of very real crisis and that the measures he has taken, without any excessive publicity, have probably removed some very dangerous elements from the force. Probably this has been done in the best and most effective way possible. But I still feel that we ought not to hurry discussion of this matter while such questions may remain, even if they be only in my mind.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I find this a very difficult Bill. I also find it difficult to come to a conclusion about the Amendments. When we last discussed the Bill I said that I had been a magistrate for very many years, but I have had no legal training and it is very difficult indeed for an ordinary magistrate to make a contribution in this matter. I fully accept that in another place, and presumably in your Lordships' House, there have been discussions for years, quite rightly, to try to provide adequate machinery for complaints against the police. The Minister, in replying to the Amendment, kept on saying, quite rightly, that this was in the interests of the public. But on the other hand, I have found during my 38½ years in another place, that when new legislation is coming forward, the Minister introducing it, whoever he may be, is often so excited about having won a point—he keeps on referring to the legislation which he has the privilege of introducing—that he forgets the other side of the question. I noticed that today the Minister, in replying to the Amendment, kept on saying that it was a matter of convincing the public that the system was a good one in terms of dealing with complaints from the public. I agree with that. But on the other hand I do not want us to be too pro public because nowadays there are many members of the public who, if they had the chance, would make unjustified complaints against the police.
Therefore, it is equally important that the police should be protected at every level. If we are discussing building up a system by which the public has the right to make complaints, we should not become so concerned with this that we are not equally certain that the police also are properly protected. I noticed, with a certain amount of interest, that the Minister kept on saying that he was absolutely certain that there will not be many cases of the type which were being discussed, but I do not know on what evidence he said that because he did not give us any evidence. There may not be many cases which would finally come to be discussed by the Board which is to deal with the public's complaints. But I think it is a little unfortunate to give the public an impression that for years and years it has not been able to make complaints against the police because that seems to
30
indicate that there have been so many cases in which complaints against the police ought to have been made. I would not accept that view, because looking at the world today, and looking particularly at what goes on in London—though not in my part of the world—I can imagine that there will be masses of people who will be only too glad to make complaints against the police.
What worries me is that we have spoken about Sir Robert Mark and about chief constables and deputy chief constables, yet I do not think that your Lordships' House has been given enough detail about what the top people in the police force really feel about this matter. I do not want to be involved in passing a Bill of this kind, which gives reasonable protection to those members of the public who have just complaints—and I think that is fair—without knowing considerably more about the situation. I should like the Minister to give us information about what chief constables, deputy chief constables, Sir Robert Mark, and all those other people really think about this. I hate taking decisions when I do not feel that I have enough information. It may be awfully boring for everybody, but I like to know as many facts as possible. The Minister was very busy talking about building up a system to deal with the public who have complaints to make, but with great respect to him I do not think that he said enough about the protection of the police against false complaints. Perhaps he will be able to give us a little more information about this before I make up my mind which way to vote.
I am delighted to know that there are free votes. I say this bearing in mind that when I was in another place (and perhaps it is also the case in this House) there were not many Members who had been magistrates. I dare say that there are more magistrates in this House than in the Commons, but when I was there there were very few. Magistrates have to look after the interests of the public, including complaints from the public, but they also have to look after the interests of the police.
One can always pick up a lot of information when Bills of this kind come before another place or this House, but in this case I have been unable to find out how the whole machinery which is proposed in the

31
Bill is regarded by the police, particularly the top people in the force. I am not prepared to give my vote one way or the other until I have a little more information about how the police themselves look upon the machinery which is to be provided. I do not want to say anything more because this is an awfully difficult situation when one has been a magistrate without having had any legal background. But I have found in my part of the world that the police were really the friends of the people, but from what I see in London today, I believe that there would be many people who would be only too glad to have a go at the police, whether or not they were justified.

MRS. DORA BLOCH
3.59 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement on Mrs. Dora Bloch, made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State. The Statement is as follows
"Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a further statement about Mrs. Dora Bloch.
"On 7th July I told the House that we were sending our High Commissioner back to Kampala to discuss Mrs. Bloch's disappearance urgently and fully with the Ugandan Government. Mr. Hennessy saw President Amin on 9th July. On 10th July the Ugandan Government sent Mr. Hennessy a Note which continued to deny knowledge of the whereabouts of Mrs. Bloch and repeated that Israel shouldered the responsibility for her as for all other hostages. As we said at the time, this is totally unacceptable in that Mrs. Bloch was seen by a member of the High Commission staff in hospital well after the Israel operation at Entebbe Airport was over. We are just not satisfied with the results of any inquiries the Ugandans may have made.
"Our High Commissioner in Kampala arrived home this morning. I have had a report personally from him. As a result I deeply regret to have to inform the House that there seems little doubt that Mrs. Bloch was taken from her
32
room in Mulago Hospital at about 9.30 p.m. (local time) on 4th July and that she is no longer alive. We extend our deepest sympathy to all her family. In whatever circumstances Mrs. Bloch's death took place, the Ugandan Government must bring those responsible to justice.
"Her Majesty's Government's overriding concern, particularly in the present confused situation in Uganda, must be for the 500 British citizens who still reside there. We should do nothing which could jeopardise their welfare at this time. In the light of Mr. Hennessy's report, he will remain in London for further consultations, while we consider the future of our relations with Uganda.
"I should like to take the opportunity to put the record straight on misleading Press reports that Her Majesty's Government sent a message of condolence to President Amin about Ugandan soldiers killed during the Israeli raid at Entebbe. In the course of our many contacts with the Ugandan authorities after the hijacking incident, we did, as did other Western Governments represented in Kampala, express sympathy to the families of all the persons killed in the hijacking incident. These were not regrets to President Amin. No personal message was sent either by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary or by any other Ministers. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Israel also conveyed to the Israel Government our commiserations with the families of the Israelis killed in the course of the incident."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. It can only be outrageous that revenge for the successful Israeli operation against the hijackers should apparently have been taken by the murder of an elderly lady who was totally innocent and unconnected with any of these incidents. Whoever removed Mrs. Bloch from hospital, the Ugandan Government must be held responsible for what happened.

33
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord said that the Press reports about a message from Her Majesty's Government to the Ugandan Government had been misleading; but was it necessary to send any message at all to the Ugandan Government about casualties unless it was clear that Uganda was not assisting the hijackers? At present, the evidence still points to Ugandan troops taking a positive part in guarding the hostages for the hijackers. That means assisting in what can only be described as a diabolical crime. The crime of hijacking is something which, united, every country must surely try to stamp out. But can the noble Lord tell us whether Her Majesty's Government are now certain that the Ugandan troops were not employed in helping the hijackers? I am sure that all on these Benches would wish to be associated with the expression of sympathy extended to the family of Mrs. Bloch.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this statement, and we should also like to associate ourselves with the expressions of deep sympathy extended towards the relatives of Mrs. Bloch. May I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct their Representative at the United Nations to state that no credence whatever can be attached by Her Majesty's Government to any explanations given by the Government of Uganda for their behaviour at Entebbe Airport, unless and until they have apprehended and punished the people who are guilty of this barbaric crime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for what they have said. I find it extremely difficult to disagree with anything that has been said. I particularly welcome the assurance that the whole House joins in the utter detestation and condemnation of the infamous crime of hijacking, and of the consequences which inevitably flow from this kind of action. As to our own Permanent Representative's contribution, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that today, perhaps this afternoon, in the United Nations, he will be speaking on the same lines as the Statement I have given to the House this afternoon; that is to say, to indicate in no uncertain terms that we do not accept the explanations
34
so far proferred by the Ugandan authorities about this terrible incident.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked one or two questions. He was grateful for the assurance that no personal message had been sent to President Amin. I repeat that assurance. The noble Lord asked why such an expression of sympathy should have been made at all. I should like to inform the House that our excellent High Commissioner, who has acted with very great understanding and effectiveness in the most trying of circumstances, was present to make absolutely clear in the most forthright terms that any suggestion that Britain or the British Government had foreknowledge of, or any involvement in, the Israeli action was totally untrue. In so saying, he used words to this effect:
"In fact, our attitude is that we deplore and condemn all actions of a hijacking character; we sympathise with those people who suffer as a result whoever they are, from whatever country they are drawn; and we particularly sympathise with the families of those who have been killed as a result". In those circumstances, I think it was perfectly understandable that he should have spoken in those terms, and more than understandable that our Ambassador in Tel Aviv should have repeated that message to the Israeli Government on the spot.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister realise that all that the Statement does, apart from conveying a message of sympathy to the relatives of Mrs. Bloch on the assumption that she has died, is to call upon President Amin to deal with the culprits who are responsible? But may I ask my noble friend this further question. Let us assume that President Amin takes no further action. What do Her Majesty's Government propose to do? Are we going to rely all along in this matter on the need for diplomacy, on the need to protect British residents in Uganda and on maintaining good relations with President Amin; or are we going to consider what would be a simple act of justice associated with civilisation, and that is to take whatever action is necessary to withdraw from Uganda, lock, stock and barrel? Nothing would be lost by that.

35
Will my noble friend also answer a further question which I ventured to put to him earlier on, namely: What guarantee do the present Government provide to the holders of British passports, British citizens, who may be travelling overseas, and particularly in the Continent of Africa, that they will be afforded protection? What guarantee can be provided? Is it not better now to tell the truth; that is, that we are no longer capable of providing protection? Finally, may I ask this question. In the event of a resolution being moved at the United Nations which is digressive of the action taken by the State of Israel, can we be assured that on this occasion, unlike on previous occasions, the British Government representative will follow the lead of the US representative by condemning Amin and company and supporting the action that Israel in the circumstances was bound to take?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend asked three questions. In the first, he somehow seemed to pose two alternatives: whether to protect British residents in Uganda or, as he said, to take the clear step of withdrawing totally from Uganda. As I said, we are discussing with our High Commissioner, who returned from Africa only this morning, our relations with Uganda. I would remind my noble friend and the House that the several hundred British residents still remaining in Uganda, despite the events of the last three years which can hardly have been reassuring to any of them, do so very much of their own volition. It would be extremely difficult to persuade them against their will to return. However, he and I may unite in this: that the message would seem now to be clear, indeed.
My Lords, the second point that he made was to ask what guarantee Her Majesty's Government can give to passport holders that they will be protected from incidents like this. No more and no less than any other Government faced with this kind of behaviour can offer to its own nationals. The third point was whether, in the United Nations debate which is proceeding at this very moment, Her Majesty's Government will act according to how he, my noble friend, thinks it ought to act. This I can tell him. There are two resolutions coming on to the
36
Table—they are not quite there—in relation to this horrifying incident. One is inevitably from the African quarters and as expected, it is a denunciation of Israel. We have taken the lead with other like-minded countries to try to ensure that a fairer basis of debate for this whole incident is available to the United Nations. I think that my noble friend and the House will join with me in hoping that our representative this afternoon will succeed in the task that he has set himself.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will realise that many of us who know Uganda and its past history accept that a major consideration in the mind of Her Majesy's Government at the present time must be the security of the remaining British population within Uganda? Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government can persuade those who are still there to withdraw? Is it possible to ensure through the Ugandan Government that they will be able to do so in security and is it possible for the High Commission in Uganda to maintain contact with the British residents in Uganda at the present time to ensure that they are not under the very severe pressures and dangers to which they must all be exposed in the present situation in that country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the High Commission in Kampala extends a valuable service indeed to the 500 or so British nationals who have chosen to remain there. I have indicated the difficulties of persuading them to return. Many of them feel themselves to be as Ugandan as their black neighbours. They have a deep affection for and have contributed substantially to the country. They do not see why they should leave. Neither do we, if reasonable circumstances obtain in that country. However, as I have said, the logic of the situation must be one which they must come to themselves. If, in any way, the High Commission of Her Majesty's Government can assist our fellow nationals in Uganda to come to a decision and to implement it, then we stand ready to consider every possible action that we can take.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I first join in offering deep condolences to the family whom I happen to have known from Brynmawr for the terrible tragedy

37
which has occurred? May I ask my noble friend whether we have now really come to a stage when we must realise that appeasement of terrorists and their accomplices is literally out of the question; that the civilised world as a whole should get together (as I think attempts to do so have already been made in a measure by the EEC) in order to deal with this shocking position where hijacking criminals can not only commit offences but can be received in countries? Uganda is not the first country where the authorities themselves, the President and all the rest of their forces, are accomplices to this and other international crime. In these circumstances, may I ask my noble friend whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell has already indicated, this can be brought by our Representative forcefully to the deliberations that are and will be taking place in the Security Council and in the Assembly itself? Instead of deviating, as we have been from time to time, by not voting, by abstaining from voting, against attacks on Israel, when it is absolutely obvious that the criminals were getting their way, is it not time that we should, like America, say openly to those committing these crimes that we in the civilised world will not tolerate it? In view of the great concern felt throughout the civilised world at the present time at what has happened and their admiration of the wonderful achievement of Israel, which is an indication of how these criminal acts should be dealt with, will he please see to it as soon as possible that the civilised Governments with whom we are concerned and whom we believe in raise effective action with us to stop this terrible kind of barbarism from happening again?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly it is not within the power of this country alone to persuade the rest of the membership of the United Nations to take concerted action—even against the abominable crime of hijacking. But this country is taking and has taken the lead more than once on this matter in the United Nations. It is taking the lead this afternoon. It is leading the United Nations to a proper consideration of the views involved, all of them. I think that we can trust our Permanent Representative, Sir Ivor Richard, to give a good account not only of himself but of the way in which we in
38
this country view these enormities. I agree with my noble friend when he says that hijacking, in itself, is a dreadful crime, imperilling as it does the totally innocent; and that when an extra dimension of governmental connivance apparently is added to it the international authority must seriously apply its collective mind to finding an answer.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer two questions? First, has he any information on the reported deaths of 250 Kenyans massacred by the Ugandan authorities? If this is true it is just multiplying the horror of Mrs. Bloch by 250, and nobody is more distressed about her fate than I am. Secondly, will the noble Lord ask Her Majesty's Representative at the United Nations to point out that for those of us who take a strongly anti-Southern Rhodesia attitude it is terribly difficult to try to uphold those views when some of the independent African countries, seeming to be led by Uganda, behave in this purely barbaric and horrifying manner?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have seen reports in the terms that the noble Earl has indicated. I have so far no means of verifying them. If they are true, of course they complicate further an already dreadful and dangerous situation. On the second point, we should have to think carefully as to what steps we should take in that direction; but no doubt the noble Lord and I will have one of our usual discussions about this.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, while recognising the frequent difficulties of Her Majesty's Foreign Office in maintaining strict impartiality between good and evil, may one ask on this occasion whether it is the Government's intention to send a similar message of commiseration to Mr. Arafat and the Government of Palestine in exile on the unfortunate loss that they have suffered among their most highly trained and expensive hijackers? Secondly, may we on this occasion, while recognising as my noble friend has said that we are no longer capable of taking independent action against hijackers, at least give our salute to a spendid achievement by a nation which acted in a way which I wish this nation was still capable of doing?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, regarding the first part of the noble Lord's question—if it was a question—nobody enjoys his ironies more than he does. On the second part of his remarks, of course everybody responded from the heart to the courage and efficiency of the Israeli action. There are other considerations which must be brought into the general scene, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister presciently reminded the other place the other day. While we are entitled to congratulate our friends the Israelis on their performance, on technical and almost artistic grounds they will be the first to agree that, having done what they saw fit to do, like us and like-minded countries they must look to the future and see that the fabric of basic international rules, law and order, must nevertheless be preserved. I imagine that Israel will have as much to contribute to that—and perhaps more—as many countries, as they have contributed in this specific incident to the freeing of these harassed people.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I realise that the House feels deeply about this matter, as we all do; but with all respect we have now spent 25 minutes on this Statement and there is another important Statement to be made by my noble friend. I suggest, if it is the wish of the House, that we should now pass on to that.

ANGOLA: MERCENARIES
4.25 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement on mercenaries in Angola, made by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the trial of mercenaries in Angola.
"The House will recall my Statement on 29th June in which I referred to the appeal for clemency which the Prime Minister addressed to President Neto immediately after the judgment and sentences. Her Majesty The Queen sent a message on 4th July. To neither of these has there been a reply nor, as far
40
as we know, have the Angolan Government replied to numerous other appeals. As the House will know, last Friday, 9th July, President Neto issued a statement confirming the sentences of death. The four men were shot on Saturday afternoon, 10th July, by a firing squad. I am confident that I speak for honourable Members on both sides of the House when I express our shock and dismay that the Angolan Government disregarded so many appeals for clemency and have taken the extreme and irreversible step of carrying out the four death sentences. The House will know that we have already expressed our sympathy to the families in their distress. My officials have throughout been keeping in close touch with them.
"As regards the trial itself, although certain rights were accorded to the defence by the court, our conclusion is that the trial was not a fair trial in the sense in which we would understand that term. We have noted the absence of any presumption of innocence and the prejudicial nature of much of the process and evidence. Although all the defendants were accused and found guilty of the crime of being a mercenary we do not accept that it has been established that being a mercenary is a crime having a basis in international law.
"It was alleged in the trial that there had been complicity by the British Government in the recruitment of the mercenaries and arrangements for their departure. I need hardly say that this is completely untrue. We consistently expressed our opposition to all external intervention in Angola and ourselves abstained from any intervention. As to specific allegations about departure arrangements, no special facilities were given or special arrangements made by the Government. No authority in Britain has the power to prevent an individual from leaving the country with or without a passport unless he is wanted for a criminal offence.
"We shall leave the Angolan authorities in no doubt of our general opinion of the trial and of its procedures. We shall also consider the position of those men sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and action that we may be able to take on their behalf.
"Finally the House will recall the setting up of the committee under Lord Diplock to inquire into the law on the subject of mercenaries and to make recommendations. I understand that Lord Diplock will be presenting his report in the near future."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement which has been made in another place. We on these Benches join in the sympathy sent to the families of the men executed. It is deplorable and indefensible that the death sentences should have been carried out. Far from justice, this appears to be an act of barbarism. To be a mercenary in itself may be unwise or misguided, but it has not been regarded as a crime in international law, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be a capital crime. The offence of which it seems these men were found guilty was being on the losing side. The fact that the trial was not fair is very disturbing. Will the Government continue pressure in the form likely to be most effective to assist those who have been given long sentences?
There have been mercenaries in many armed forces. Other nationals have served in the United Kingdom forces, many with distinction, in both peace and war. We look forward to the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, which the Minister said would be coming shortly. Presumably this will deal mostly with our domestic law concerning mercenaries. Will Her Majesty's Government, with other countries, seek to obtain an advisory opinion from the International Court at The Hague on the legal position of mercenary service in the forms in which it is to be found at present?
4.31 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating that Statement. If I may, I should like to raise three matters. The first is that it is, of course, right that concern should be expressed on behalf of those who were executed and sympathy expressed to their families, but would it not have been appropriate if that concern had been expressed by the
42
Government in a practical way at a very much earlier stage in the proceedings? May I also ask the Minister why it was left to young members of the Bar to go out at their own expense and defend some of those unfortunate men, and why the Government did not provide full legal representation at the earliest possible moment?
May I further ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that it might be desirable not entirely to overlook that there may be distinctions between some of the mercenaries who have been tried? Some have been tried not only for being mercenaries but also for committing serious crimes punishable under any penal code and, indeed, no doubt punishable by capital sentences under many penal codes. Surely the real concern ought to be for those who were tried for no offence other that that they were mercenaries. I respectfully agree with the noble Lords' observation that under international law it is at the very least highly doubtful whether that is a recognised offence of any sort.
Finally, may I raise one matter which does not come within the noble Lord's ministerial responsibility but about which I should welcome a comment? Is he aware that, at the time when the wretched self-styled "Colonel" Callan's appeal for leniency was being considered by the President of Angola, Scotland Yard saw fit to put out a statement, and the BBC saw fit to broadcast it on sound radio, to the effect that the police had completed their inquiries into the activities of the mercenaries and were satisfied that Colonel Callan had killed no fewer than 167 people in addition to those with whose killing he was charged at his trial? Would the noble Lord ask his colleagues in appropriate Departments to inquire how it came about that at that particularly sensitive moment there was such apparently irresponsible behaviour by both the police and the BBC?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I reply at once to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I have no official cognisance of the matter, though, of course, I accept what he says. I will certainly consult my colleagues on this matter to see whether it needs to be taken further than it has been on the Floor of this House.

43
Referring to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I entirely agree with the tone and content of what he said. I am most grateful to him. We shall indeed continue in all the appropriate ways open to us to press for a mitigation of the unduly severe sentences passed on those who escaped the capital judgment suffered by the four other mercenaries. As to seeking an advisory opinion, of course, Angola is not bound by the International Court. Nor are we, except that we generally indicate that if we go to that Court we will abide by its decision, as we have done in a number of recent and famous instances, in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has been perhaps currently engaged. I think we shall need to look at the question of proceeding to the International Court of Justice after receiving the report of the Committee headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. That is one of the substantive matters which will need to be considered then.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that 35 years ago I expressed somewhat vehement views about a victor judging the vanquished on crimes which were not crimes at the date they were committed but which came to be considered as crimes only by reason of a unilateral law passed by the victors after the crimes had been committed and that I said at the time it would embarrass us later? Is the noble Lord further aware that any process by which a court without jurisdiction passes judgment on crimes that do not exist must be subject to some question? The general appearance of fairness in these later trials seems to me to have been a good deal superior to that which we provided at Nuremburg.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am almost hesitant to express a measure of agreement with my noble friend. I do indeed recall that he and quite a number of other people equal to him in repute and, if I may say so, in cogency, raised this matter—35 years ago, was it? It is a difficult question of how one adjusts normal juridical practice to rather unusual circumstances that arise from war or warlike situations. I give him the point entirely. As to his second
44
point, I think he should either make a speech or write an article about it, because I am sure that many other Members apart from me would like to know what he has to say on a very important and very difficult international legal point.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not true that we have recognised Angola, and therefore have entered into diplomatic relations? Is there not a sense of humiliation in Government circles that, having recognised Angola and having entered into diplomatic relations with that country, when we make an appeal for clemency, not only through the Government but through the Monarchy—which now in the circumstances appears to have been a mistake—our appeals are rejected? Is there a sense of shame about this? Can we not rectify the matter in two respects? Within the last 48 hours, the Prime Minister has declared that there is no illegality concerning mercenaries; but when some weeks ago the mercenaries went from this country to Angola, they were condemned by members of the Government. Can we not clarify the issue and make it clear beyond peradventure that if men—misguided, unwise, whatever adjective is used—decide to offer their services, whether for money or out of goodwill, in order to indulge in military operations in some other country, they should not be condemned? Finally, I ask this: should we not in the circumstances pay out of public funds the cost of returning the bodies of the three men who were executed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, to take the noble Lord's points in order, we have recognised the Government of Angola because they fulfilled the criteria which successive Governments of this country have laid down for recognition—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Does not Russia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are not in diplomatic relations with them so far. Perhaps some of the enormities we are discussing today might have been avoided if we had achieved diplomatic relations with that Government as well as recognising them—who knows? Secondly, on the question of making the legal position of mercenaries clear, this we

45
hope and expect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will assist us to do. I understand that he will report in the fairly near future. Thirdly, on the point of payment of costs, I think we have to consider the position of the relatives of an average of 1,500 British nationals who die abroad on their lawful avocations, without injury to anybody, who have no claim to governmental funds to bring the bodies back to this country and so far have made no complaint. I do not think we can engage in that kind of discrimination at this time. However, if anybody is destitute and cannot afford the basic humane right of interment, there is a way in which assistance can be given locally on the spot for that purpose.
The fourth point was the question: Do we not feel ashamed because we appealed for clemency for these people? No, my Lords, indeed not! I shall not mention the crowned head, but I am sure that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury does not feel ashamed that he, too, added his voice to that of many other international leaders of conscience and opinion. The people who ought to be ashamed are those who, despite the almost unanimous appeal for clemency not only from this country but from other countries as well, from leaders of all faiths and of none, nevertheless went ahead and shot these people. We should feel proud that, although we may find the actions of the mercenaries morally repugnant to us, we nevertheless were capable of making every effort to save their lives after such an event.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, in considering this matter will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that the Angolan Government gave a warm welcome to the Cuban mercenaries who put them in power?
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, while agreeing with almost everything that has been said by noble Lords on all sides about the fate of these unfortunate men, will my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to prevent further recruitment and export of mercenaries to African States; for instance, the recruitment which is already going on to assist and defend the illegal regime in Rhodesia, against the ultimately inevitable victory of Zimbabwe national forces? Also, will he take particular note of the
46
activities of a Mr. Banks who was interviewed yesterday on BBC radio, and who boasted that he would continue recruiting mercenaries to go and interfere in the affairs of African States and no doubt send them to their deaths as well?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take full notice of my noble friend's point. In the interim, while awaiting the statement of the position as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, sees it, and as I have no doubt Her Majesty's Government will, as a result, substantially see it, I am sure that it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to look at the situation and approach it in every proper way to prevent a recrudescence of a similar situation. I can go no further than that, except to indicate that I have already made arrangements to draw the attention of appropriate Ministers in the Government to the broadcast to which my noble friend referred, and which I myself heard. I am grateful to him for making the point which has not been lost on me or, I am sure, on Her Majesty's Government.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, under our scheme for giving international aid to other countries, we are giving any financial assistance to Angola? If so, what do the Government propose to do about it? May I further ask him a similar question about Uganda, which 1 was about to put when I was pipped at the post by the Deputy Chief Whip suggesting the closure?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are giving no aid to Angola and since, I believe, 1972 we have discontinued aid to Uganda.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us any information on one point in regard to our daily dealings with our African colleagues? Is it the policy of the Government, as I hope it is, that our representatives can urge upon neutral and friendly Africans that there are many friends of black Africa in this country, but that uncritical approval of things done by any African State, because they are done by an African State or are anti-Israeli, will erode the friendliness towards black Africa in things that are much more

47
important to them, eventually perhaps to a damaging degree to their better causes?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as so often my noble friend Lord Gore-Booth has uttered words of great wisdom, to which I hope and expect our African friends will give full attention. Africa is not one man. It is a vast contitinent within which there are many leaders of constructive, moderate and humane views.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while holding no solid opinion as to whether being a mercenary is or is not illegal, or should or should not be illegal, is it not most important that we should convince ourselves and the world exactly what a mercenary is, and who is a mercenary? Clearly, a conscript fighting for his own country, or somebody employed as a soldier in his own national army, is not a mercenary. But, on the other hand, a great many soldiers of one country or another are serving in other countries. Some of them are there of their own free will; many of them are not. For example, we know that a large number of the Cubans who turned up in Angola were not there as volunteers, but were conscripted to go there from Cuba, so even they may not be mercenaries. But if some went there of their own free will and were there for ideological reasons, does that make them into mercenaries? It seems to me that there is a very wide basis—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the simple question that I want to put to the noble Lord is this. Will he define exactly who is and who is not a mercenary, and get this set out internationally so that we may have some idea of who are committing these offences?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I shall not, my Lords; but I am very sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I call attention to Standing Orders, under which it is not permissible to conduct a debate on a Statement, unless the House passes a resolution to that effect? Has such a resolution been proposed?

POLICE BILL
4.49 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Amendment No. 1.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister is going to ask leave to speak a second time. I hope not, because if he does I shall object, which I am entitled to do under Standing Orders. This is a Report stage and it has always been the custom in this House—which is sometimes broken—that, if possible, except to ask for clarification of a point, people do not speak after the Minister, and the Minister has no right to speak a second time any more than any other Member of the House, unless of course it is his Amendment. In this case, it is not his Amendment, that weare discussing, so I hope that the noble Lord will not ask leave to speak again.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am in something of a difficulty. Before I stood up I looked around the House. Nobody rose. I am now put in the rather difficult position that, as 1 have been asked a number of questions, it will appear to those who asked them to be more than mildly discourteous if I do not answer. I was going to ask the House whether I had its leave to answer, and I hope to do so briefly, otherwise I do not see how the rights of those Members of the House who have spoken are to be safe-guarded.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it is within the rights of a Minister of the Crown to speak again, with the leave of the House.
Lord DERWENT: Yes, my Lords, but I am objecting to leave being given. It is most unusual for leave to be given, and we must keep some kind of order.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, the objection can only be an impoliteness to the Minister. I spent 25 years in the other place and never knew leave to be refused. Therefore I do not know why courtesy in the House of Lords should fall below courtesy in the other place.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, the Minister can always speak again when it

49
is his own Amendment. In the other place I understand that usually they have two Ministers.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that the position is quite clear. If the House wish to hear the Minister answer the questions, with the leave of the House he will do so. If the noble Lord wishes to object, we shall have to divide upon it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to press this matter to a Division?
Lord DERWENT: No, my Lords, I shall not press it to a Division but I do not think that this situation ought to occur again.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will just say this to the noble Lord. I am sure that the point which he has made is not aimed at me in particular because, as I pointed out to the noble Lord—if I may have his attention for a moment—I attempted to respond to the questions which were asked and I will now do so fairly expeditiously.
My noble friend raised a question regarding an article which appeared in the Sunday Times about a case in the new Merseyside police authority area. It is a complicated matter. I was in correspondence with a Member of another place upon it but I do not think that it would be appropriate to become involved in the details of the case. All I would say is that I can assure my noble friend, as I did earlier by either a nod or a shake of my head, that the Home Office was not consulted before an assurance of immunity was given. As I say, it is a complicated matter and all I would say to my noble friend is that once again it emphasises the difficulty in which the police themselves can be placed in complicated police complaints cases.
My noble friend referred to the fact that the former chief constable of Merseyside, Sir James Haughton, is now Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said. It is the view of everybody who has had any contact with Sir James Haughton that he is a police officer of the highest ability and integrity.
50
What I am now about to say I do not wish to be related to the case in Merseyside. However, I would emphasise to my noble friend that it is only by having a new form of police complaints machinery as set out in this Bill that some of the problems involved in difficult cases affecting the police service, where members of the public complain against the behaviour of individual police officers, can be satisfactorily dealt with. All I would say to the noble Baroness who spoke subsequently is that when she examines Hansard tomorrow I hope she will find that I am right in saying that I have consistently said during both today's proceedings and the previous debates which we have had on this Bill that the objective of the Government—and I think the objective of us all—must be to be fair both to the public and to the police. Of course that is the position. It would be ludicrous if one created a new complaints system which took into account the interests of the individual complainant—and it is right that those interests should be taken into account—but which totally ignored those of the police service. That would be an absurdity. In this Bill we have attempted to create a system which is fair to all.
If I may conclude as I began, what we are discussing is the noble Viscount's Amendment and it is essential to come back to the point of what he is suggesting to the House this evening. It is that in the exceptional circumstances—and I would point out to the noble Baroness that "exceptional" is the word used in the Bill—where the Complaints Board take the view that it is right for a tribunal to be set up the Government believe that two members of the Board should sit with the chief constable. The noble Viscount says that a member of the Board should be there to ask questions only and to address the chief constable, presumably at the end of the proceedings. That is the difference on one aspect of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
On the second aspect the difference is that the Board have the reserve power to insist that disciplinary proceedings should be taken in a case where the deputy chief constable has decided that they should not be taken. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I take the view, as does my right honourable friend, that cases of this kind

51
will be extremely exceptional. Nevertheless, they may take place. All I would say to the House is this. How can anybody believe that the public interest can be safeguarded by a system whereby a chief constable sits alone to consider proceedings initiated by the Complaints Board in a situation where he is aware that his own deputy chief constable has decided not to initiate proceedings? How in a situation of that kind could the complainant be satisfied?
Once again I would say to the House that it is essential to bring this long debate to a conclusion. If at the end of this Bill there is still widespread public argument about whether the complaints machinery is fair to all concerned, frankly I think we shall have failed. What we have to do is to demonstrate to the reasonable public that the complaints machinery is fair and to demonstrate also to all members of the police service, from chief constables to members of the Police Federation, that it is fair. I believe that this objective is much more likely
to be ensured if the noble Viscount decides not to press his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has indicated his anxieties about the noble Viscount's Amendment, and so has the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I would only say once again to the House that this is a fundamental question so far as the Bill is concerned and that it would be quite impossible for us to contemplate a situation where an Amendment of this kind appeared in the final Act.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate any longer. I still like these Amendments and I wish to test the feeling of the House.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cornwallis, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cromartie, E.

Halsbury, E.

Sandys, L.

Daventry, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sempill, Ly.

de Freyne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Somers, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Derwent, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Teviot, L.

Gainford, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Vickers, B.

Glasgow, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mersey, V.

Westbury, L.

Goschen, V.

Monck, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Champion, L.

Fulton, L.

Airedale, L.

Chorley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Amherst, E.

Clwyd, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ampthill, L.

Collison, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Amulree, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Annan, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Crook, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Banks, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hawke, L.

Barrington, V.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Henderson, L.

Beswick, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacobson, L.

Boston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Brimelow, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Janner, L.

Brockway, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Faithfull, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Long, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Melchett, L.

Platt, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Meston, L.

Popplewell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Roberthall, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vaizey, L.

Ogmore, L.

Samuel, V.

Wade, L.

Oram, L.

Seear, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pannell, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Phillips, B.

Slater, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stedman, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 5 [Complaints that may involve criminal proceedings]:
5.7 p.m.
Viscount MONCK Viscount MONCK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 4, at end insert:—
("(4) Where any complaint alleges that a police officer has committed an offence and notwithstanding any decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to institute proceedings against the officer, the complainant decides to institute such proceedings on his own account, no action shall be taken by the Police Complaints Board or the chief officer of police to finalise the complaints investigation and the hearing of any disciplinary charges arising there from until such proceedings by the complainant have been finalised.
(5) Where during an investigation of a complaint it appears that an allegation against a police officer is such that the matter is one that is capable of being resolved by civil proceedings against the officer (or against the chief officer of police by virtue of section 48 of the Police Act 1964) the Board may, upon application being made by the chief officer of police, direct that the investigation of the complaint be suspended until such time as the civil proceedings are disposed of.")
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I tabled at the Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, very kindly undertook to look at the matter again. Therefore I have tabled the same Amendment at this stage, although I think it is more comprehensible than the last. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Viscount rightly said, I undertook to look at this, although I think he will agree that I was not an optimist when I undertook to look at it, because it seemed to me to represent a formidable difficulty. But of course, as the noble Viscount asked me to look at it, I agreed to do so.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that there is no difference between
54
the noble Viscount and the Government on the general objective of either of these two Amendments. What this Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that court proceedings take precedence over disciplinary proceedings and, as I have indicated, we certainly agree with him in this objective, and indeed it is the present procedure.
Perhaps I may take the two matters separately. So far as criminal proceedings are concerned, whether brought on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions or privately, no disciplinary proceedings would normally be taken—if at all—until the end of the court hearing; but as I explained on the last occasion, it is one thing to work to an agreed policy on this sort of thing and quite another to make it a statutory requirement. The cardinal principle is that the final decision on how and when to act is for the chief constable. This discretion would be removed by the Amendment.
Let me give an example—and, if I may say so, I do not think it is a particularly far-fetched one—of the sort of problems which would arise if this Amendment were to be placed on the Statute Book. A complainant might institute proceedings against a police officer alleging that he had committed a traffic offence, and the hearing might be delayed. Unhappily this happens all too often in the courts, owing to pressure of business, the fact that a witness is ill, somebody is on holiday or something of that sort. Yet police inquiries might reveal serious irregularities calling into question an officer's fitness to remain in the force. It seems to me that it would be fairly intolerable if, in a case of this sort, the chief constable was powerless to act promptly, yet it is our fear that he would be if this in fact was the language of the Statute.
So far as civil proceedings are concerned—and that is the second subsection of the Amendment—the noble Viscount

55
said that he did not want complainants to use the complaints machinery as an alternative to civil proceedings, or as a "dummy run" for later proceedings in the civil courts. But the difficulty is this. If the deputy chief constable, who, I must repeat, is the person who makes a decision in matters of this sort, does not know or suspect that a civil action is to be brought, he must cause the complaint to be investigated in the normal way. But once it is known that a civil action is pending, it is already normal practice to defer investigation of matters which would be the subject of court proceedings.
As the noble Viscount will recall, I quoted at some length the Home Office guidance on this point, which made it clear that, as in the case of criminal proceedings, there could be circumstances in which investigation of the complaint and the preferring of disciplinary charges ought to proceed. I have indicated that I feel it would be far better if the noble Viscount were not to press this Amendment. I think grave problems would be created and, if I may say so, the Amendment would inhibit not the Complaints Board, but the chief constable. I am quite sure, in the light of what the noble Viscount said on the previous Amendment, that in fact that is not his intention.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for looking into the matter. He has obviously given it a long think, although I doubt that in the recent spell of weather it has been a cool think. I am very grateful to the noble Lord opposite, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Complaints regulations.]:
5.13 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 9:
page 6, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring Chief Officers of Police and the Police Complaints Board to furnish to the relevant Police Authority such information as may be defined therein to enable them effectively to discharge their duty with regard to Police complaints under section 50 of the Police Act 1964."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This Amendment is very similar in intention to one moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, on Committee stage, but there are two differences. First of all, this is an Amendment to a different clause; and, secondly, there is a very important difference in the drafting, because while this Amendment still attempts to meet the responsible feeling of police authorities, it is also worded in a genuine attempt to meet an. objection voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he was replying to my noble friend during Committee stage. May I explain very briefly what this Amendment seeks to do.
My Lords, Section 50 of the Police Act 1964, which is referred to, lays a duty on police authorities, without giving any clear powers enabling them to carry out that duty. Section 50 of that Act says:
"Every police authority in carrying out their duty with respect to the maintenance of au adequate and efficient police force … shall keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints from members of the public against members of the force are dealt with by the Chief Officer of the police."
Therefore, it is extremely relevant to this Bill. The position has not been wholly satisfactory since that Act reached the Statute Book in 1964, and I submit. that it will be even worse if this Bill becomes law, because there is now the Board, which is an addition to the pattern. Admittedly, police authorities will receive annual reports from their chief constables. Section 12 of the 1964 Act says:
"Every chief constable shall, as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year, submit to the police authority a general report in writing on the policing during that year of the area for which his force is maintained."
Presumably that can cover also the specific matters referred to in Clause 50, but very late in the day. Subsection (2) of the same Section says:
"The chief constable of a police force shall, whenever so required by the police authority, submit to that authority a report in writing on such matters as may be specified …".
It then goes on, in subsection (3), to give the chief constable power where he considers such a report
"would contain information which in the public interest ought not to be disclosed, or is not needed for the discharge of the functions of the police authority, he may request that authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State;".
That is not a very satisfactory pattern,

57
particularly in the light of the new provisions of the Bill we are now discussing. Of course, an off-hand chief constable—I am not suggesting there are many, but there could be one who is not on the best of relations with his police authority—could in fact rely on that power to a larger extent than Parliament intended when passing the 1964 Act. I think we ought now to consider a reference to the Board as well as to the chief constable.
My Lords, my Amendment contains certain words which may be puzzling to those who have not followed this very carefully. Why have I included the words,
… such information as may be defined therein…"?
I thought that when regulations were drafted to cover this point, there should be power for the Government to exclude certain matters such as details of individual cases of complaint with which it has never been the tradition of the county police authorites or watch committees to concern themselves, and where it would be a pity if they should begin to do so now. None the less, they should be given power to call for information of a rather more general kind, and also to do it without having to wait for it to be included in the annual report. This is in no sense intended to be an intrusion into the chief constables' responsibilities or the Board's responsibilities, for individual cases.
I hope the House will be clear on that, and not think that I am just trying to get round that point by bringing in other words. I am trying genuinely to meet the objection voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, during Committee stage. If these words are in the Bill, then a chief constable and the Board would be protected from any unnecessary interference by a police authority which might develop an over-fussy frame of mind. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it has not been a tradition for police authorities to concern themselves with individual cases of complaint, which is clearly the responsibility of the chief constable, and I agree that it is a mistake to start now.
My Lords, during our discussions, the noble Lord has spoken many times of the balance between the different interests concerned, and very difficult it has
58
doubtless been. Most of the discussion has been about the balance between the associations representing the different ranks and levels in the police force, and the general public, and, to a lesser extent, the new Board. Less than due attention, I submit, has been paid to the position of police authorities, which have very great responsibility in their areas, a position made no easier by the recent local authority re-organisation. At present, there is a delicate balance, too, between the Home Office and the counties; that is between central and local control. The setting up of a further central body; that is, the Complaints Board, is bound to alter this balance, albeit to a small extent, against the local link.
My Amendment does not in any way intend to seek to increase the influence or to widen the field of influence of the police authorities, or to add to their powers. The Amendment simply makes their position, as set out in the 1964 Act, clearer, at a time when it is very important that any uncertainty should be cleared up. If their position is made clearer, then the general position is helped at the same time.
However, there are some people in the country who are in favour of a more central control of our police. It is said that there is some opinion in the Home Office leaning that way. Hence there may be advisers to the Minister who may think that this effect of the Bill, increasing the central control slightly at the expense of the local people, could be no bad thing, because if it is not going to be so very long in any case before we have one national police force this Bill might be bringing that situation one day nearer. But there are some who think otherwise and would prefer to see the present system continued.
I believe it is true that in an increasing number of counties today the more enterprising county councillors tend to belittle membership of the police committee or the police authority, whose work is becoming more and more that of a rubber stamp. That is a pity, and it is something that we should not allow to go further. This Amendment is intended to redress the trend. It is intended to be fair between all authorities and associations, whether central or local, and I hope it will receive wide support. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Inglewood has explained the aims of this Amendment so clearly that I think there is very little that I need add. I hope the House will consider the points he has made and will support the Amendment. The starting point is that the police authorities have a statutory duty under the Police Act 1964 to inform themselves as to the way in which complaints are being dealt with and to satisfy themselves that this is satisfactory. To enable them to do so they were put in the position of receiving information as to the procedures from the chief constable or the chief police officer. I should like to confirm what my noble friend has said, that there is no intention in this Amendment to give the police authorities any new responsibilities or any new functions, or to add to their present functions in any way, but solely to enable them under the new provisions of this Bill to carry out their existing statutory duties. I think I mentioned on the Committee stage—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, confirmed this—that it is the Home Secretary's view that they should continue to have their statutory responsibilities as laid down by the Act of 1964.
So the only question is, are any of the changes made under the new procedure such as to make it more difficult for them to obtain that information? It seems to me they are, because under the old procedure the chief constables only could provide the information the police authorities required. Under the new procedure it will not be precisely the same information, and it seems to the police authorities that if they are to continue to fulfil these functions adequately they will need some information, as heretofore, from the chief constable or chief officers, but also some information from the Police Complaints Board.
I think my noble friend's Amendment is much better than the one I put forward because my Amendment said, a little loosely, that they should receive "any information" from the Complaints Board. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, with his usual courtesy and firmness, tapped me down on that, and pointed out that there would be some information which would be utterly irrelevant to the carrying out of the functions of the statutory authority and which they would not require. I
60
saw at once that in that respect my Amendment was faulty in its drafting. I think my noble friend has put this right by the inclusion of the words:
"The Secretary of State shall make regulations … such information as may be defined therein to enable them …"
—that is the police authorities—
"effectively to discharge their duty with regard to police complaints under Section 50."
That seems to me to put the matter entirely in order.
I hope very much the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will say that this would simply be putting the statutory authorities in the position in which they have been to obtain such information as is required. If that information can be wholly provided by chief constables all the better, but, from what they tell me, they think that there will be some information that they will require from the Complaints Board. As this Amendment is drafted it seems to me that there will be no risk of their asking for or having to be given information which would be irrelevant to their function. Therefore, I support without hesitation the Amendment my noble friend has proposed and would support him in very strongly pressing this Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I want to add only a word on this. I must say at once that I am another of those who believe that there should be local police forces rather than a national one, and anything which tends in that direction is a good thing. Whether or not the way to do it is by regulation is something that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will tell us. I wish to emphasise that I believe that the principle that underlies this Amendment is absolutely sound. There will be occasions when, in the course of looking at disciplinary complaints, which they may never actually deal with in the tribunals themselves, or generally being on the scene, the independent members of the Board will be able to put their finger on some organisational problem or some matter of general application in the area of the police authority which the police authority ought to know about at once. It certainly ought not to have to wait for the Board's annual report to find out about it. It certainly ought not to have to rely solely on the chief constable relaying the information in accordance with his existing statutory duty.

61
I should have thought that the public confidence which we all hope will repose in the Complaints Board would be greatly increased if they could be seen to be taking up matters of principle, issues which do not go to the individual cases but which go to the duties and responsibilities of the police authority. If they were seen to be taking those up with the police authority as a matter of standard liaison and intelligent co—operation, I believe this would be a good thing.
As my noble and learned friend said on Second Reading, the police machinery is an elaborate vehicle. It has got five wheels already and it is now getting a sixth, so it becomes an articulated vehicle; no doubt it has "long vehicle" written on the back. What I want is for all its wheels to spin smoothly round, and I believe my noble friends have put their finger on an important point in seeking to ensure that smoothness.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am certainly on this occasion looking with even greater care to see whether any noble Lord is on his feet. Perhaps I may first of all deal with the point of principle raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and which may conceivably be in the minds of some of his noble friends and indeed in the minds of some of the police authorities. I would make it absolutely clear that the Government's position is the one already stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. There is no enthusiasm for a national police force so far as the Government are concerned.
This matter has been discussed on many occasions within the Police Service. I have now been the police Minister in the Home Office for over two years, and I am bound to say that I can think of few ideas which would be less desirable than the creation of a national police service. I think there are many things central Government can do but I do not think a wise central Government would want to take over from the local police authorities responsibility for the local police service. There is an important issue of principle here; it is very important to keep the police near to the people. I think our system of control is the right one and it would be highly undesirable to move away from it. Let me make that clear right at the outset.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to elucidate. I entirely agree with what he says; I think it would be disastrous to move towards a national police force. I was not quite sure whether he was implying that there was something in this Amendment which was moving towards that.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords, not in the least. It was only that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, touched on some fear of centralisation, and I wanted to push on to one side any suggestion that there was any sort of takeover so far as we were concerned. But we do not like the idea of proceeding as this Amendment would have us proceed. I gave some of the reasons on the last occasion when the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, put down an Amendment, not in precisely the same language but in fairly similar terms, and our position has not changed since then.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, believes that there is some risk that the local police authority will not have the same amount of information as hitherto available to them. I do not think that this is right. There will still be an obligation to maintain a register of complaints; the same register as exists at the moment, which is held by all the police forces in this country. That will remain. The overwhelming majority of complaints will also be dealt with exclusively by the chief constable. As was said on a substantial number of occasions during the last debate it will be a truly exceptional matter when a tribunal is set up. Therefore, although the Complaints Board will have possession of a considerable amount of relevant and interesting information, I am not sure that they will have such a quantity of information as to make it desirable to have an enactment of this sort.
There was one point which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made on which I very much share his opinion, and that is that it is right for us to remember that local police authorities have had no locus in so far as dealing with individual complaints is concerned; they never have had, and it would be undesirable if they were to have, for the most obvious of reasons. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord was just mildly unfair when he suggested that the views of the local police

63
authorities had not been listened to sufficiently carefully during this now protracted period of discussion and negotiation. They have. They have been involved in the discussions since the present Government came into office, and I believe that they were involved as members of the Working Party when the noble Viscount and his friends were in office. Their view has been listened to. Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting them not so long ago to discuss certain questions relating to this Bill, but the problem was that the proposals which the police authorities put forward did in fact get them involved in individual complaints made against members of police forces. That is why we were not able to agree with them. They have not had such a position in the past. We did not consider it right for them to become involved now. Although it is always unfair to pray in aid the views of the police service when they help your case and ignore them when they do not, nevertheless it is only fair to say that that view on this particular matter was shared, so far as I am aware, by the representatives of all the police organisations. Therefore, that is the reason why we have not been able to agree with the views of the police authorities so far as their proposals for this Bill were concerned.
May I come to what we have in fact attempted to do. We recognise that the police authorities have a clear responsibility laid down in Section 50 of the Police Act 1964 and in no way is it the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or myself that we want to whittle away that responsibility. Indeed, we have changed the Bill to some extent to make quite clear what the new responsibilities of the police authorities will be, to supplement the power they have under Section 50 of the 1964 Act. I hope not to weary the House by going through these points again. I dealt with them on the noble Viscount's Amendment in Committee.
However, I should like to remind the House what steps the Government have taken to underline the police authorities' role. First of all, under Clause 8(2) the Bill empowers the Board to report to the Secretary of State—that is, the Complaints Board—on any grave issue coming to its notice in the course of its work. A copy of any such report will
64
be sent to the police authority and the chief officer concerned. Secondly, under Clause 8(5) the Board will be required to provide each police authority with a copy of its annual report, supplemented by statistics relating specifically to complaints in its police area, and any general information which the Board considers should be brought to the notice of that police authority in connection with its functions under Section 50 of the 1964 Act.
Thirdly, the Government have undertaken that current Home Office advice to chief officers on the information to be supplied to police authorities in connection with their responsibilities under Section 50 will be revised, in consultation with police authority representatives, to take account of the activities of the Board. Fourthly, we have also given an undertaking that no regulations will be made under the Bill relating to complaints and the activities of the Board without full consultations with the Police Advisory Board, on which of course the police authorities are represented. Fifthly, should the police authority representatives desire separate consultations with the Home Office on regulations or on other matters arising from the Bill and falling within the Home Secretary's responsibilities, these would obviously be arranged wherever possible. But again I come back to the point I made earlier, that neither the police authorities nor the Home Secretary himself will have any power to intervene in the decisions of the Board in individual cases.
It is always a pleasure to look back at speeches made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and I did so on this occasion because I thought that he ended his speech on the last occasion we discussed this matter, in particularly happy language when he decided not to press his Amendment. I hope not to embarrass him, but it is so elegantly expressed that I will repeat it.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, before the noble Lord does that, will he remember that my Amendment was not a terribly good one and was not as well drafted as my noble friend's Amendment? If I ended on that happy note it was because I was a little conscious of that fact—I mean, happy note to the noble Lord. As I never read my speeches, I have not the least idea what he is going to quote.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Viscount is, as ever, modest. He made it clear that he was sorry but he would have preferred to have the language of his Amendment spelled out in the Bill, but the point of principle to which he addressed himself on 30th June at column 861 of the Official Report really comes to the centre of this particular issue. He said:
"If it is their"—
that is, the Government's—
"intention that the powers"—
that is, the police authorities' powers—
"will not be diminished, then those powers need not be diminished. However, we should still have preferred to have this spelled out in the Bill. I attach importance to what the noble Lord says. I know that he does not make these statements light-heartedly"
And he then ended by withdrawing the Amendment. I think that the central question is what is the intention here. I can perfectly understand the attitude of the police authorities who feel that they would like some sort of further guarantee, but, as I have tried to indicate, we have gone a long way down the road with them. We have written into the Bill additional safeguards so far as their position is concerned, but in the final analysis it is, as the noble Viscount said on the last occasion we debated this matter, a question of what will be the spirit underlying the new relationship between the Home Office and the police authorities. That, far more than the language of the Statute, is what will be the central question.
I have endeavoured to point out to the House that we have safeguarded, in my view adequately, the position of the police authorities under the Bill. We are anxious to ensure that they continue to play a most valuable part in the administration of the Police Service in this country, but we do not believe that it is necessary to add to the language of the Statute in the way set out in the Amendment, and for that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, say that in his view we should keep the police near the people. That is very important. I did not want to be unfair in the one remark for which he criticised me and I must say that by the time he had concluded his speech, which was extremely charming though not convincing, he had said nothing against either the purpose or drafting of the Amendment. I came to the conclusion that he was really in favour of it, except that because he sits on the Front Bench opposite he could not put it in more specific terms. I am encouraged to think, therefore, that I should press the Amendment, not least in order to give Lord Harris a chance to support it in the Lobby.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Glasgow, E.

Monck, V.

Alport, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amory, V. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Newall, L.

Arran, E.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, B.

Atholl, D.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Birdwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Spears, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Derwent, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Praser of Kilmorack, L.

Mersey, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fulton, L.

Pannell, L.

Amulree, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Avebury, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Banks, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Boston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Samuel, V.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Seear, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shephard, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Vaizey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wigg, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wigoder, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Ogmore, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 11 [Disciplinary charges in criminal cases]:
5.49 p.m.
Viscount MONCK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert ("or of an offence against discipline which taken alone would not constitute a criminal offence.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in connection with this Amendment I received on Saturday morning at breakfast a very courteous and comprehensive letter from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, so comprehensive in fact that he even burst into French. He kindly informed me that the Government were endeavouring to table an Amendment of their own for Third Reading. Therefore, while awaiting with interest what they will bring forward, I do not propose to move this Amendment.

HILL (LIVESTOCK (COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1976
5.50 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 29th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allow
68
ances) Regulations, which implement the livestock subsidy provisions of the EEC Directive on the Less Favoured Areas, provide for compensatory allowances to be paid to farmers in hill areas on breeding cows and breeding ewes. Shortly after 1st January, when these regulations came into force, the Council of Ministers increased the maximum rates payable under the Less Favoured Areas Directive from 50 to 52·5 units of account for each livestock unit. The overall financial limit which is imposed on the total allowances payable in respect of each hectare of eligible land is set at the same level and was therefore similarly increased. Following the Annual Review of Agriculture, it was decided that the United Kingdom rates of compensatory allowances should be increased by £4·50 to £29 and the overall financial limitation to 52·5 units of account, which is about £29·90. Both these changes occurred too late to affect the initial 1976 payments to hill farmers, but these amendments to the principal regulations will, with the approval of Parliament, enable any supplementary payment due to farmers to be made at an early date.
In addition to these increased rates, which I am sure will be very acceptable to your Lordships and to the farmers concerned, this amending order also makes two minor technical changes to the regulations. The first of these relates to Regulation 3(4) of the principal order and substitutes the word "in" for "throughout the greater part of". The reason this change is being made is to remove any doubt as to payment of grant on changes

69
of occupancy when, for example, a new occupier (perhaps a son) takes over with the eligible land the previous occupier's herd or flock in the latter part of the year preceding the qualifying day.
The second change relates to Regulation No. 6 and widens the powers to apportion, for the purposes of determining payment for eligible land available, to more than one claimant. The need for this arises primarily from the difficulties of apportioning common land. Some claimants for compensatory allowances who have grazing rights on a common do not always take advantage of these rights. The regulation on apportionment— Regulation No. 6—as originally worded, refers only to land being grazed, whereas under the regulation governing the financial limitation—Regulation 3(4)—it is possible, when assessing a claimant's maximum entitlement, to take into account land which he has the right to use whether or not he does so in practice. The amendment is designed to bring the two regulations into line and to enable common land to be apportioned to claimants to whom such land is available as a result of their legal grazing rights, whether or not they exercise those rights in any particular year.
Both these two alterations stem from the experience gained in operating the new rule which imposes a limit on the payment per hectare. This has shown the need to be able to apply the rule with more flexibility. I hope the House will see fit to approve these amending regulations so that any supplementary payments may be made as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 29th June, be approved.— (Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for bringing the full details of this order before your Lordships. The details of the extended terms of compensation will indeed be welcomed in the industry as a whole. There are three questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord and of which I have previously given him notice.
70
First, will the terminal date for the order coincide with the 1977 Farm Price Review? Secondly, can a farmer who claims a State retirement pension remain eligible to claim the hill farm allowances and continue farming? Thirdly, what contribution does the FEOGA fund make towards this arrangement under the order?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord in thanking the Minister for explaining so clearly the scope of these amendments to the regulations? I have no questions to ask the Minister and I should merely like to say how much we on these Benches welcome the amendment to Regulation No. 3, which deals with matters relating to changes of occupancy and makes it much easier for people wanting payments. Also, we welcome the modification to Regulation No. 6, which widens the powers for payments of more than one individual and, in particular, enables people who have rights over common land to obtain some kind of compensation. We are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these regulations so clearly.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the welcome they have given to these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me three questions and I am grateful to him for having given me prior notice, as he said. First, there is no terminal date for these regulations. Member States are at liberty to change the rates within the limits of the Directive. Any changes of rate in the United Kingdom would normally be a matter to be decided after the annual review and any subsequent change in the regulations would require the approval of both Houses.
The noble Lord also asked me about retirement pensioners. A farmer in receipt of a State retirement pension is not required to sign the five year undertaking to remain in farming. A farmer who has signed an undertaking will be released from it when he starts to receive his State pension. The allowance will continue to be paid to State pensioners, I am glad to say. As your Lordships will remember, the original Directive did not permit this and indeed the matter was raised in your Lordships' House. I am glad to say that

71
we were able to get this difference of treatment removed, although each member country has to bear the full cost of the livestock subsidy paid to pensioners. In other words, this particular subsidy does not come out of FEOGA.
I was asked about the extent of the FEOGA grant. Expenditure by Member States in pursuance of the Directive will attract reimbursement by the guidance section of FEOGA, currently at the rate of 25 per cent. This means that FEOGA will contribute about £12 million of the United Kingdom's annual expenditure in 1975 on the new allowances, which are estimated at just under £50 million. The United Kingdom is expected to be a net beneficiary under the Directive. I hope that that has answered the three points.

CHILD BENEFIT AND SOCIAL SECURITY (FIXING AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATES) REGULATIONS 1976
6.1 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 28th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the regulations be approved. The purpose of these regulations is to provide for the rate of child benefit announced by the Government on 25th May and for the consequential adjustments in social security benefits. Last summer we passed the Child Benefit Act creating this new benefit for all children, and these regulations, together with the orders and regulations laid before your Lordships' House at the same time, complete what is needed to start the scheme in April 1977.
Before I get on to the detail of the regulations, it may help your Lordships if I give some preliminary explanations. There cannot now be many people who do not know that we have been obliged to bring in the child benefit scheme in a more modest form than we had originally hoped. I will try to explain as clearly as I can what the issues have been and what led us to the decisions we have made. The object of the full child benefit is
72
eventually to replace both the existing schemes of family support—family allowance and child tax allowances. A single universal tax-free benefit will replace the present dual system. It will cover all children, including first children who are excluded from family allowances at present and those in families below the tax threshold who do not benefit from child tax allowances now. It will also transfer family support from the father—who now receives the chief benefit through child tax allowances which are worth more than family allowances—to the mother, who is usually responsible for the day-to-day care of the children.
In passing the Child Benefit Act last summer we provided the necessary vehicle for payment of the benefit. The repercussions on tax allowances were however to be made later in a Finance Bill; and of course the rate of benefit could not be fixed until we knew what resources might be available.
When the Government came to consider the rate, the public expenditure situation was very grave indeed. Child benefit is a very expensive benefit because it is paid for all children, irrespective of income, and there are nearly 14 million of them. Any improvement, over and above the existing cost of child tax allowances and family allowances, costs £6 million net for every penny of benefit. It was evident that there was not enough money for a rate which would give a good overall improvement for all children; even the extra costs involved in making payments for first children and for families below the tax threshold were considerable. And then came a pay policy based, for the first time ever, on take home pay, which acquired a significance —let us be frank about this— that it has never had before.
The fall in take home pay which would have been caused by abolishing even the lowest rate of child tax allowance would, for most family men, have exceeded the net increase permitted under the pay policy, so they would have ended up with less money in the pay packet than they are getting now. If we could have afforded a really good rate of benefit so that we could have pointed to a good gain for the family as a whole, this might have been tolerable. But, as I have explained, this kind of rate was out of the question.
One answer to this dilemma would have been to postpone the whole scheme. But come what may, we thought it wrong to defer the benefit for the first child because it is a reform which has been needed and wanted for many years. So we are introducing the child benefit scheme at a rate of £1 for the first child and £1·50—the same as family allowances now—for the other children. Family allowances will be abolished but child tax allowances will continue as they are. The benefit will be subject to tax and clawback like family allowances. This will mean that while working families below the tax threshold will get the full £1, it will be worth only 30p net to other families. The mother's benefit will go up £1 and the father's take home pay fall by 70p. The child interim benefit, which gave one parent families £1·50 a week from this April, will cease, but a premium of 50p will be paid to them on top of the £1 so that they will not lose.
The cost of these proposals is about £95 million net. The effect will be that we shall have made a modest start—we recognise that it is only a modest start— on our child benefit scheme. There will be a payment for the first child, working families under the tax threshold will benefit more than others, and there will be some transfer from husband to wife. And we shall have done this without risking the serious damage to pay policy which, in our view, the full scheme would have involved.
But let me make it quite clear that we remain committed to the full scheme. As your Lordships may know, a Working Party has been established by the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress to consider means of implementing the scheme fully. The Government will play a full role in the Working Party, which we very much hope will come forward with constructive proposals, although it will be for the Government to decide what they will recommend to Parliament on this.
I now turn to the regulations themselves. Regulation 1 is formal. Regulation 2 deals with the rate of child benefit and as I have explained that is laid down as £1 for the only, elder or eldest child and £1·50 for others. Your Lordships may wonder why first children could not have the same rate; namely, £1·50, as other
74
children. The answer is quite simply, that it would cost too much. To give all children £1·50 would cost another £100 million, more than doubling the cost of the scheme. Exceptions made in this regulation to the rule that the first child gets £1 and the others £1·50 are one parent families, in which the first child is to get £1·50, children in the care of voluntary organisations and families dealt with under the transitional provisions relating to apprentices.
I will come to the first two a little later, but perhaps I should just say a word now about apprentices. Those very few apprentices now included in the family for family allowance purposes— they have to be earning, as your Lordships know, under £2 a week—will not qualify in the ordinary way for child benefit. We debated this at some length in Committee on the Child Benefit Act—it was raised, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—and I think I can claim that your Lordships were satisfied on the point. But we have made provision in the Child Benefit (General) Regulations for child benefit to be continued at the family allowance rate transitionally where there is already a title.
So in these cases the child counted as the first for child benefit will already be getting £1·50 and we have excluded them from Regulation 2 so to avoid knocking them down to £1. Apprentices are mentioned again in Regulation 2(4)(b), which excludes these families from the one-parent family premium, again because they are already getting £1·50 for the "first" child.
Regulation 2(2) provides for an extra 50p for the only, elder or eldest child in a one-parent family. The purpose of this is to ensure that lone parents will receive the same level of income as they do now by way of child interim benefit. Your Lordships may remember that this benefit was introduced in April under the Child Benefit Act to provide effectively for the first child in one-parent families in advance of the main child benefit scheme. Child interim benefit is at the rate of £1·50 a week, and so the extra 50p is needed to make the £1 child benefit for the first child up to the child interim benefit level. The definition of a one-parent family in paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c) of this regulation—that the claimant must be the child's

75
parent, the child must be living with the parent and the claimant must not be living with his or her spouse or with anyone else as a spouse—is the same as for child interim benefit.
Regulation 2(3) deals with children looked after by voluntary organisations. Normally, only an individual can get child benefit, but we made a special exception in Section 24(5) of the Child Benefit Act so that voluntary organisations could draw the benefit for children in their care not paid for by local authorities. The regulations governing this are in paragraph 17 of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations. A child benefit of £1 will be payable for each such child. Regulation 2, paragraphs (4) and (5), and Regulation 3, all deal with the interaction between child benefit and National Insurance benefits. Before looking at these regulations in detail, it may help if I explain the general principle that lies behind them. Additions for children paid to people getting National Insurance benefits have always been fixed on the basis that, taken with family allowances, they provide the total support required for the child. Thus, child dependency benefits for first children are now £1·50 higher than for others because they do not get family allowances; and persons getting certain long-term benefits were excluded from title to child interim benefit.
The same principle is carried over into Section 17 of the Child Benefit Act, which enables social security benefits to be reduced to take account of child benefit paid. The general effect of these regulations, therefore, is that people with children on social security benefits will not gain from child benefit because their child dependency benefits will be reduced or, in the case of the one-parent family premium, their child dependency benefit will be reduced or they will be excluded from title to the premium. The State support for these families comes, not from child benefit but from the social security benefits they are getting, which are regularly uprated.
In more detail, Regulation 2(4) and (5) deals with the social security beneficiaries who are one-parent families. Regulation 2(4) provides that the 50p increase shall not be payable if the parent is in receipt of certain "specified benefits",
76
and these are listed in Regulation 2(5). This follows the approach adopted for child interim benefit that for long-term benefits, like widowed mother's allowance, it is better not to put the parent to the trouble of claiming a small amount, which would be paid by means of another order book, but which would give her no financial advantage because the child dependency benefit would then be reduced by the same amount.
The same approach was not thought to be appropriate for recipients of short-term social security benefits, such as sickness benefit and unemployment benefit, because such lone parents would need to claim the additional payment for periods when they were not receiving the short-term benefit. There would be problems for the parent if order books had to be withdrawn and reissued every time a short-term benefit was in payment, and we thought that it would be sensible to pay the addition and reduce the child dependency benefit by a similar amount.
Regulation 3 deals with the adjustment of social security benefits to take account of child benefit itself, as distinct from the premium. It provides that all the listed benefits shall be reduced by £1 for the first child and £1·50 for the others. The reason it is necessary to specify the £1·50 reduction, which is just the same as that already made for family allowances, is that the Child Benefit Act amended the Social Security Act 1975 to provide that from April 1977 the weekly rates of benefit and increases of benefit payable under that Act should be at the higher level; that is, the present child first rates.
So from those rates we have to deduct both the £1 for the first child and £1·50 for others. The actual effect will be that the social security benefits for second and subsequent children will be unchanged. For first children they will be £1 lower, that £1 being made up by the child benefit. Regulation 4 is a transitional provision to make sure that a person getting child interim benefit will also get the premium. My Lords, I hope there is no need for me to say anything more, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 28th June, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
6.20p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House has listened with bafflement, certainly, but I think at the same time with gratitude to the extent to which the noble Lord has explained some clearly very complicated regulations, which stem, of course, from the Child Benefit Act, which reached the Statute Book on the 7th August last year. I do not think that at that time any of us anticipated the chain of events which has taken place or, of course, the prominence which these regulations have in the public mind. I will not comment upon the fact of the present inquiry being conducted by the police into alleged Cabinet disclosures. The only point I wish to raise for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is the question of a leaflet. I am wondering whether he will be able to confirm that the Department is preparing a leaflet to explain the intentions behind these regulations which will be necessary for the Department to have in hand by 4th April next year.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for the clarity with which he has explained these somewhat complicated regulations. As he pointed out, the Child Benefit Scheme was intended to replace family taxable allowance and child income tax allowances by a tax-free cash payment to the mother, in this way helping some quarter of a million families earning below the tax threshold who do not benefit from income tax allowances. That principle was clearly agreed with the TUC. Unfortunately, these regulations, as the noble Lord said, do not provide for the full scheme to be introduced next April as planned; and income tax allowances will continue. The only really significant change brought about by these regulations is the introduction of a child benefit of £1 for the first child subject to income tax and claw-back; and the allowances at present paid of £1·50 will continue to be paid for the second and subsequent children.
I welcome the fact that a benefit is at last going to be paid for the fist child. The first Parliamentary Election which 1 ever fought was in 1950 and the Liberal candidates' handbook which I used at that Election, and which I have with me tonight, includes the sentence:
"We will extend family allowances to include the first child"
78
For the 26 years that have elapsed since then. I have been pressing for that to happen; and I am happy to think that it will happen as a result of these regulations. I regret the fact, although I take note about the cost, that the allowance for the first child is to be smaller than that for the second and subsequent children. The first child is the most costly in most cases and other social secutiry benefits acknowledge that fact. I would make one further brief reference to the Liberal candidates' handbook of 1950. It also included the words:
" Instead of children's allowances paid partly by income tax and partly by family allowances, the Liberal Party proposes straight, positive payments, all benefits to be paid in cash …"
which is a neat description of the child Benefit Scheme and was written 26 years ago. But we must wait longer before we see that coming into practice. The Child Benefit Act provides for it, but these regulations do not.
From what the noble Lord has said and from what was said in another place, it seems that the position is that the increase in children's tax allowance in the recent Budget has increased the reduction in take-home pay for the wage earner which will be caused by the withdrawal of these allowances; so that even after the 4½ per cent, increase permitted by the pay policy, there will still be a net decrease in take-home pay. The Government argue, and the noble Lord argues, that even though the net decrease would be more than made up by the increase in the payment to the mother, the reduction in take-home pay will be unacceptable and will undermine the pay policy. I believe that if the switch in payments to the mother was carefully explained, this would not be true. If average earners understood that this switch, leaving their families no worse off, would greatly assist the poorest and help to lift them out of the poverty trap, I believe they would accept it.
By introducing the benefit for the first child before the switch instead of simultaneously with the switch, the Government have made the eventual operation of the switch more difficult. The Government insist that there must be a net gain in take-home pay and that the cost of providing this would be prohibitive in view of the need to control public expenditure. But if we accept that a net gain is not necessary, for the reasons I have

79
suggested, the figures are not so astronomical. We must bear in mind that raising the child income tax allowances in the Budget cost £300 million. Tax reliefs are not regarded as public expenditure, so that did not have to be approved by the Cabinet, according to the right honourable lady, Mrs. Castle, the former Secretary of State, speaking in another place. When we compare that figure of £300 million which the Government were able to find a few months ago with the Government's estimated cost for a break-even scheme of £220 million or the alternative cost put forward by Mrs. Castle of £110 million, and the £95 million which is to be spent in any case on the limited plan that the Government are putting forward, it is seen that the sums involved are not so great.
In conclusion, may I say that we welcome the payment at last of a benefit for the first child. We think that the benefit should be as high as the benefit for the second and subsequent children. We very much regret that this benefit for the first child is not being introduced at a higher figure at the same time as the withdrawal of income tax allowances and the implementation of the full scheme. We regret that the full scheme has been indefinitely postponed for reasons which seem to us inadequate. Finally, we regard the full scheme as the first step on the road to a wider tax credit scheme embracing other benefits and allowances as well. For that reason, we doubly regret its postponement.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am general secretary of a woman's organisation, non-political, non-sectarian, not given to sending angry letters; but occasionally certain issues disturb them, and I am sorry to tell my noble friend that this is one such issue. When the orginal Child Benefit Act was introduced last year there was great rejoicing. It certainly seemed that here was a scheme which was not going to be taxed but was going to be paid to the mother and was a straightforward benefit to all women. But it was not to be. My noble friend explained this evening some of the reasons why the Government had to change their mind. I must say that I found it strange when he said that it was discovered that there was not enough money—I think I heard
80
him aright. I find it strange that any Government or any bureaucracy could introduce a measure without having discovered that they had enough money to put it into operation. I appreciate that the pay policy came after this. Whichever way the Government try to present this, I am afraid that the women are going to see it as the fact that the men will get the benefit of the money and the women will not necessarily do so. This may not be the case in every household and I think a very unfortunate choice has been made.
It is a very complicated order and my noble friend explained it with clarity, as always; but it seemed to me that the subsequent clauses about people in receipt of any kind of benefit add up to the good rule that we all come to learn: the State will never give you too much. If it gives it to you on the one hand, it will make certain, by an elaborate and expensive operation, that it takes it back on the other. I am delighted to note that the first child has been included. I hope that the postponement of some of the other sections of this very imaginative Act are only of a temporary nature, and that money which can be utilised in this sphere could possibly be saved from another source which perhaps we might be discussing on another occasion. Money which is spent for the children must always be spent in the right way.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House, but I must say how deeply I regret the fact that this payment is not going to be made to the wives. Together with my noble friend Lord Banks, I strongly believe that if the payment had been made as planned and there had been a reduction in the pay packets (a small reduction after the 4½ per cent, because of the advantage which was planned to go to their wives), it would have been accepted by the great majority of men once the issue had been made plain. Of course, in a great many cases husbands and wives work together on these matters and it makes very little difference. We know that there are a large number of cases—how many it is impossible to say—where a substantial family allowance paid to the mother is going to make a great difference to the kind of support that is given to the children. This is supposed to be a child

81
benefit regulation; the idea is to benefit the children. In the bad cases, that benefit will be effective only if the fullest possible payment is made to the mother.
6.32 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in what is a short debate. A number of things have been said which are valuable, very clear and to the point. I personally share the views that have been expressed. The Government are disappointed that for a whole variety of reasons—some acceptable and some not acceptable—it has not been found possible to bring in the scheme that we originally visualised.
If I may try to deal with some of the matters that have been raised, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked whether a leaflet would be available. I fact, I can promise him that a series of leaflets will be available soon. There will be a full publicity campaign to explain the scheme. I am glad that we provided the noble Lord, Lord Banks, with an opportunity of putting in a "plug" for the Liberal Party. We do not deny for one moment what he said. Some of us in the Labour Party have felt that many years ago the mantle of Liberalism, and what it stood for, fell on our shoulders.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, today is very good evidence of how ill that mantle fits.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are times in life, as the noble Baroness must know, when we have to buy a suit off the peg because we cannot afford to have it made to measure. I have recently been in that position.
I would not quarrel with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said. He pointed out in very simple language—as one would have expected him to have done—the real problem which faces the Government, even if he feels that the matter could have been dealt with in some other way. I understood him to make the point that it was not only a serious inroad into the 4½ per cent. which had been agreed with the TUC, but that it would have meant some workers losing more than that. Let us be frank about it; with the state of our finances, with the agreement we have with the TUC, this is not the right
82
moment to do anything which might make an inroad or dent into the agreement or undermine it in any way.
The only comment I would make is that what we are doing is a step in the right direction. We are making a reduction —albeit a small one—in take-home pay of 70p and giving £1 to the mother. It will cost £95 million. It at least means that it is £95 million which will not have to be found when we come to implement the scheme in full. In a sense, I have answered my noble friend Lady Phillips because she made much the same point that had been made by others. My noble friend said that she hoped it would be a temporary postponement. We do, too. That is why the Labour Party are meeting the Trades Union Congress, with a view to seeing whether this matter can be expedited in some way. I think I have answered the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I read her letter in The Times. I do not think that there is anything I want to add, other than that if we want to be fair I do not think that this is the right moment, having regard to what we are facing, to introduce a scheme which has such wide implications. Having said that, I hope your Lordships will approve of the regulations before you.

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM (CONTINUATION OF PAYMENT) (WINSFORD) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
6.36 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the draft Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 29th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This draft order amends a similar order which I introduced to the House in July 1975.
Winsford was given a development area incentive from 1966, contingent on its taking two-thirds of its enlarged population from Merseyside. From 1967 the Regional Employment Premium (which was generally to last until 1974) was paid. But in 1972 Winsford was found not to be taking enough people from Merseyside.

83
It was therefore downgraded to an intermediate area which does not qualify for a Regional Employment Premium. Firms already established there, expecting to get these benefits until 1974, were allowed by order to continue to receive them. The Government decided to maintain the original employment premium while considering other possibilities and doubled the rates in August 1974. The Regional Employment Premium remains under review and is being considered in the context of the Government's public expenditure review. We think it right meanwhile to renew the power to make these payments to Winsford for a further period of 12 months but without commitment to their actual duration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 29th June, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are all very grateful for the very detailed way in which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, set out this particular order. We on these Benches are particularly glad that the Government are continuing to pay the Regional Employment Premium on Wins-ford which, as the noble Lord said, envisaged taking two-thirds of the increased population from Merseyside. Things did not work out in this way. Nevertheless, firms have gone to Winsford in the expectation that they will receive the Regional Employment Premium and they will continue to receive it. All of us can be happy that Governments of all shades have kept their promises.
There is one point on which the noble Lord may be able to help me, even at this stage. In our dialogue at this time last year the noble Lord confirmed that the cost was approximately £800,000 per annum. Is he able to confirm tonight that it is in that region or not too much over or under? It is a minor point, and I should like to conclude by saying that we are grateful that this order is being continued.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the present estimate of the cost is £680,000 per annum.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
6.40 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Greater London Council (Money) Bill be now read a second time. Paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963 requires the expenditure of the Greater London Council on capital account or on lending to other persons during each financial year and the immediately following six months to be regulated by annual Money Acts.
The present Bill is promoted by the Greater London Council in pursuance of that duty. The Bill deals with the estimated expenditure to be incurred and loans to be made by the Council during the financial period from 1st April 1976 to 30th September 1977. It includes provisions for the requirements of the Inner London Education Authority, which is a special committee of the Council: and although the Council has no control over the expenditure of the Authority, it must include its expenditure in its budget.
The purposes for which the Council contemplates incurring capital expenditure relate to services and duties which are entrusted to the Council by Parliament. The provision for lending money is largely to cover the anticipated requirements of certain public bodies for authorised purposes and for assistance to housing associations and individuals wishing to buy their own homes. These purposes and the sums to be expended on them, as well as the amounts which may be lent to other authorities or individuals, are set out in the Schedule forming part of the Bill.
Among the more important services for which capital expenditure is proposed to be incurred by the Council under the present Bill are the provision and lay-out of open spaces and contributions towards green belt schemes, provision of refuse disposal plant and depots, the improvement of metropolitan roads, the provision of schools and colleges and the equipment thereof, provision of housing accommodation, flood prevention, including works on the Thames barrier, town planning, acquisition of property, compensation and execution of works, capital grants to London Transport and the British Railways Board.

85
In addition, provision is made for capital expenditure to be incurred in respect of museums, works in connection with concert halls on the South Bank of the River Thames, the Fire Service, judicial services, the acquisition of land and the execution of works under the Community Land Act 1975, accommodation for an art collection, landing-places on the River Thames and other amenity improvements concerning the river and maintenance of a farm centre.
Substantial reductions have been made in the sum proposed for loans by the Council. The total reduction under this Schedule, compared with last year, for the period 1st April 1976 to 30th September 1977 amounts to £75,750,000. Most of the reductions have been made in the amounts proposed to be lent to housing associations and to individual home buyers. The Council's budget has been drawn up against a background of severe restraint, and the Council has accordingly reduced its total 18 months' provision by over £52 million. Your Lordships will agree that that is a significant contribution to the attack on inflation and restriction of expenditure in the public sector.
Estimates of expenditure on capital account amount to £268 million for the year ending 31st March 1977, as compared with £241·1 million for the year 1975–76—an increase of just under £27 million. Inflation has meant that an increase in expenditure has been unavoidable. In spite of this, however, cutbacks in capital expenditure compared with last year have been achieved in no fewer than seven areas: namely, museums, staff offices, roads, education, planning, transport and Thames landing places.
Of the remaining items, there are small increases in expenditure on open spaces, supplies, fire services, judicial services and historic buildings. There is an increase of £1½ million on expenditure concerned with refuse disposal, and £2 million on flood prevention. In education, the 12 months' provision ending on 31st March 1977 is reduced by £3·65 million as compared with last year's provision, with a further £2 million reduction for the supplementary period. There is a reduction of £9·6 million in the provision for roads, and of £3 million in the provisions for planning. Although the provision for housing has the largest increase, it
86
should be noted for the purposes of comparison that the figure originally proposed for last year was reduced by £48 million during the passage of the Money Act for 1975, owing to the worsening financial situation of the country.
The increased costs, compared with last year (which was £38·9 million) are due mainly to the costs of new building, the increase on that being £43·5 million. The sum allocated for 1975/6 by the Money Act of 1975 fell short of the sum required by £22 million and a further £21·5 million increase was necessary, for 1976/77. This reflects the substantial increase in tenderage for contracts let in 1974 and the inflation in wages and material since then. The sum for land acquisition is increased only by £9 million and the amounts for acquisition of private developments and existing dwellings are reduced by £8 million and £5 million respectively. Capital expenditure on housing covers the provision of new dwellings, an extensive programme of improvement of existing dwellings, including area improvements such as general improvement areas, housing action areas and slum clearance, the acquisition of existing dwellings, the acquisition of non-conforming industrial premises under the new and expanded grant towns scheme and provision of hostels.
As I have mentioned before to your Lordships, London still has a terrible housing problem. In order to alleviate or overcome this situation, it is essential that a high rate of new building in Greater London is achieved and more improvement work carried out. Dwellings still within the declining privately-rented sector must not be lost from the total pool of housing available for renting in London, and the Council takes all possible action within its means to prevent that happening. The GLC assists the London borough councils with slum clearance, with improvement areas and stress areas. It also helps to improve the housing situation in London by using vacancies on its own estates and by making arrangements with London borough councils and housing associations to help them out, as the case may be. Although the Council is operating this year in a no-growth situation, it hopes to maintain housing starts in 1976/77 at the same level of 5,000 as in 1975/76. The Council and the London boroughs are in active negotiations on a

87
strategic housing plan for London. These negotiations are at an advanced stage, and I hope it will not be long before we are able to announce an agreed plan.
Home loans are restricted to £55 million, and loans to housing associations to £20 million. The figure for home loans is barely half of what was lent in 1974–75. With building society funds now relatively plentiful, I am very sorry that we are still not able to work out some scheme which would enable building societies to help the less well-off section of the community, and assist the purchase of older properties with some guarantee from the Greater London Council. The amount included for contingency spending and lending power has been kept at last year's level, and I want to point out that this contingency provision cannot be utilised except with the authority of the Treasury.
I hope that I have explained the Bill sufficiently satisfactorily and that your Lordships will feel able to give it a Second Reading and allow it to proceed. The rejection of the Bill, or any delay which causes it to fail to be passed before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess, would mean that after 30th September next the Greater London Council would have no power to meet expenditure on capital account, or on any of the important services for which provision is made in the Bill, or to lend money to the persons and public bodies referred to. I hope your Lordships will bear that in mind in dealing with any matters relating to this Bill.
That brings me straight to the Motion standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, requiring the House to give certain instructions to the Committee. I shall begin by pointing out to your Lordships that the Council already owns the St. Paul's site. Therefore, the only sums included in this Money Bill are £1,300,000 towards the contractual sums due for the building of the West London College of Further Education, and £950,000 towards the contractual sums due for housing on the site; in other words, £2¼ million out of £767 million in this Money Bill.
The case for justifying the expenditure in the interests of the local population and Greater London as a whole is this.
88
In April 1964, the Town Planning Committee of the former London County Council resolved that the St. Paul's site, when vacated, should be used for 10 acres of public open spaces and 4¾ acres of housing. Had the London Government Act not been passed, this is probably what would have happened, because the London County Council would have had the power to carry that out. But the London Government Act gave power to create local parks to the local borough councils, and the Greater London Council could not establish any local parks. As a matter of fact, the law has now been changed, and since 1974 the situation is quite different. But between the time when the London County Council ceased to exist and 1974, it was not possible for the GLC to establish a park in that area, because it would have been a local park and only the local borough council could have established it.
Property was purchased by the Greater London Council on dates in 1965, 1968 and 1969 at a cost of £2·1 million. Interest charges on payments run at £18,000 per month, and at 31st March their total was £1·4 million. Clearly, land of this value must be efficiently utilised and continuing delays are placing an intolerable burden on the public purse. The Hammersmith Borough Council wished to proceed with a part development of the site for public open space in 1969, but was financially unable to do so. I must repeat what I said earlier to your Lordships, that at that time only the Hammersmith Borough Council could have established that place as an open space, because even if the whole site was used it would still have been only a local park. Therefore only the local borough council could have established it.
It was in these circumstances that, in 1970, the Council and the Inner London Education Authority commenced the process of obtaining deemed planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for the West London College, which is presently housed on 11 unsuitable sites, for housing and for some ancillary use as amenity open space with limited public access. It was the Council's declared policy that the planning approval should be subject to consultations with the Hammersmith Borough Council, advertisement, consideration of any objections

89
and the views of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
On 22nd January 1971, the then Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to the Greater London Council's Director-General and Clerk saying that he did not require an application to be made to him under Section 11(2) under the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1969 in this case. The effect of this decision was to permit the Council and the authority to give themselves deemed planning permission for the development. I want to point out that in reaching this decision the Secretary of State had before him 51 objections to the scheme. Extensive discussions—and I am talking about 1971—were then pursued with the borough council, and the scheme was adapted in an effort to meet the council's views. As late as March this year, one housing block was deleted from the scheme in order to meet the borough council's objections to possible over-development.
On 16th March 1976 Councillor Barrie Stead, the leader of the Hammersmith Borough Council, and Joan Chapman, the chairman of the Planning Committee, issued a joint statement in which they indicated that the scheme had been modified to their satisfaction and it was warmly welcomed. The amount of open space was considerably increased as a result of the removal of this central block of 28 housing units and this, plus the open space to the North of the site and the adventure playground in the South-West corner, as well as the use of adjoining tennis courts by the public outside college hours, meant that there would be a certain amount of open space on that site. It is worth noting that the borough council, which is the local planning authority has not at any stage sought to exercise any of its enforcement powers in this case.
The legality of the planning permissions was fully reviewed in the High Court in April when, having listened to five days of evidence and argument, Mr. Justice Goff delivered a 30-page judgment supporting the GLC in all the matters raised; namely, that a valid planning permission had been obtained by the GLC and the correct procedures followed; that the necessary requirements had been fulfilled and relevant regulations complied with by the Council; thus the planning permission
90
was not void for uncertainty. The necessary committee resolutions and approvals had been obtained. Procedurally, the Council had done all that was legally required, including advertisement of the proposals. There was no defect regarding the validity of the outline planning permission. Appeals and other proceedings in the Court have not altered the decision.
The Council therefore contends, and has a right to contend, that it has exhausted every possible avenue of consultation and publicity and that it has obtained clearance for the scheme from three Secretaries of State for the Environment, the agreement of the local borough council and confirmation of the justification of its actions by the High Court. It is difficult to envisage what greater effort could have been made by the Council and what further justification is needed for getting the scheme off the ground. The only financially viable approach to the development of the site is the scheme embarked upon by the Council and the Inner London Education Authority. I want to remind your Lordships that for every month of delay there is an extra £18,000 which the London ratepayers have to pay. Contracts for both housing and education development have now been let. Their total value is £10·3 million. The contractor for the college is already on the site. Were these contracts to be broken, substantial damages would inevitably have to be paid.
Now may I say a few words about the West London College which seems to be the source of all the controversy. The college currently operates on 11 sites. There is no other suitable site available. The saga of a new college for West London has been continuing for over 10 years. The college has developed a special concern for the needs of the younger, less able and less advanced students. If I wanted to be cynical, I would say that that is probably why there is all this opposition to it. It provides courses especially for the low level, less advantaged students, of whom there are many in the West London area. It provides general education courses up to A level. In addition, it provides courses with no examination aim and with a vocational ingredient. Also, it provides courses for students pursuing operative, craft and technician courses leading directly to employment in building construction,

91
housing management, commercial subjects, management courses for hospital personnel and so on.
The college is very anxious to become involved with the local community and has appointed a family liaison officer who works in very close association with the Hammersmith Council for Community Relations. In its new building it intends to open up some of its amenities, such as its halls, gymnasia and library facilities, to the community. A youth club and adventure playground are part of the college building. Hammersmith happens to be an area which is very short of youth clubs. In addition to full-time younger students, the college has a large proportion of part-time and evening students who come from surrounding areas.
It is important that this college, which is trying to do a very important job in that area, should be properly housed to pursue these important aspects of its work for the local community. I hope that, having heard this explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion, and I appeal to her to do so. I commend the Bill to the House and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading and a speedy progress to the Statute Book. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pitt of Hampstead.)
7.4 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, on an occasion such as this, it is easier for me to begin by saying what I do not wish to do by my Instruction rather than what I wish to do. The first point I should like to make quite clear is that I do not wish in any way to make any Party political points. It is not my intention to criticise the Greater London Council, the Hammersmith Borough Council or, indeed, any of the three Secretaries of State who have looked at this matter. Indeed, looking at the history of the St. Paul's School site, as I have done, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the responsibility for the present situation rests on both political Parties.
Secondly, I do not wish to criticise the Greater London Council (Money) Bill. I am fully aware that it is a most unusual, if not unique, circumstance to have a
92
debate upon the Bill. Nevertheless, provision has been made to allow your Lordships to amend the Greater London Council (Money) Bill if you so wish. To argue that, because the Bill has not been either debated or amended before, it ought not to be debated or amended now is, I believe, fundamentally wrong, for in a democracy where democratic procedures are allowed for the expectation must surely be that sooner or later they will be used.
May I also make it clear that there is no argument about the need for housing on the site. Everyone, so far as I know, is agreed upon this. Certainly I agree. The point about which there has been a difference of opinion is over the use of the remaining open space for the building of a college of further education. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, I thought that his remarks on that subject were unworthy of him. Neither I nor, so far as I am aware. anyone to whom have spoken about this matter is opposed in principle to further education, least of all to those whose need for it is the greatest.
Lastly, I have no personal interest in this matter. I have never lived in Hammersmith—nor, indeed, until quite recently have I met or had to work with those who have been so concerned about the future of the school site. However, in the course of the last week I have taken the opportunity, in preparation for the debate today, to visit and walk around this site and the various alternative sites which have been proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has put his case, as I would expect, very fairly and very well, and he and I have already discussed the matter of my Instruction. I fully appreciate the importance of this matter to the Greater London Council and the difficulty in which the Council finds itself. I hope, however, that the noble Lord and the House will appreciate the case I am putting and will recognise that I would not do so if I had not considered the matter very carefully. For whatever may be said—and I am not going to argue about many of the facts of the case—there are a great many people in Hammersmith—at least the 11,500 who signed the petition—who do not believe that there has been fairness in this case and who do not see that justice has been done.

93
The noble Lord has argued that because three Secretaries of State have looked at the matter and have not called in the plan, the case is proved. Secondly, the noble Lord has raised the matter of the judgment in the High Court. On the question of the judgment, I would say only one thing. It is not my intention to argue a matter of planning law with a High Court judge. This, I believe, would be a very foolish undertaking and one that I would almost certainly lose. However, may I draw the attention of the House to page 7 of the judgment in which the judge says at F:
" I shall consider each of these four submissions in turn. Of necessity they raise purely legal questions for my decision. With the merits of the proposed development, involving, as it does, the abandonment of the scheme that the old school playing fields should be preserved as a public amenity space, I am not and cannot be concerned ".
That is, to my way of thinking, the nub of the argument. It is not a dispute as to whether or not the Greater London Council has acted legally. I am prepared to accept that it has. It is a question as to whether or not the Greater London Council has made the right decision and whether it has made a fair decision.
On the question of whether or not the issue has been fairly decided by the Secretary of State, I believe that the matter turns on the decision taken in 1970, and in particular on the question of the advertisement. When there is to be a substantial departure from the development plan, of course it is right that the matter should be advertised—and indeed the matter was advertised. An advertisement appeared in the local newspaper in the middle of August—one advertisement. As a result of that there were 51 objections, but I believe there was not an objection from the Hammersmith Borough Council. As the High Court judgment said, the GLC have acted legally and done what they should have done. But many people feel, and I think nowadays it would be agreed, that it was very little consultation to put one advertisement in one newspaper in the middle of August when it might be presumed that a large number of people might be away as it would be the school holidays. I make this point because I think it adds to the sense of unfairness felt by the Petitioners.
94
As a consequence, these people have not been able to have a public inquiry and this is all that they have been asking for. At the end of the day, all that they can ask for is the opportunity to put their case fairly, for all are agreed, as the judgment makes clear, that the site was originally intended to be used partly as a public open space. My Instruction, which I hope very much that the Government will accept, is so worded only to ask the Opposed Bills Committee to take one last look at the future of this site. All I am asking is whether or not this is a proper use of the House of Lords; for is this not a Chamber whose main purpose is to amend legislation, and one whose main function is to look again at what has happened? It is an opportunity for second thoughts.
I do not want to take up a lot of the time of the House and I only wish to touch on what I believe to be some of the main points of the issue. First, I have already commented on the failure to call in the plan in 1970. What has brought the present situation to a head is what has happened since 1975 when the detailed plans became known. Here again the Secretary of State has refused to hold a public inquiry and I sympathise with the position of the Greater London Council in this matter. I was for a number of years the chairman of a planning committee and I know that one of the most difficult things in planning today is that you consider an application, you take account of what you believe to be the wishes of the people, you reach a decision, and by the time the decision is implemented some years have elapsed, public opinion has changed and the issues on which you took the decision have also suffered change. The result is that people do not believe that you have examined the case properly.
I believe three things have changed very much since 1970; the first is a much greater use of local plans and consultation with local residents. This, after all, is the function of a borough council. I am not absolutely certain whether it is the function of the Greater London Council—it may be or it may not—but at any rate, the principle of local consultation is now accepted by all planning authorities. Secondly, we are very concerned about the destruction of communities. I recognise that if the

95
College of Further Education is built on this site, it could, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has clearly explained, be used by the community. Its tennis courts, its hall, its facilities could be used by the community in the evening.
Nevertheless, the space that exists at the moment is extensively used by the community; it has been part of the landscape that people know and have seen for a very long time—at least, since the school was built, over 100 years ago. It is part of the townscape that they are used to. I would have thought that in this House particularly, where we have discussed so often the needs of the family, the need to keep communities together, and in particular the important debate introduced less than a month ago by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he made an appeal to make town places where families can live, all these are fundamental changes which have come about in planning in the last five years.
Therefore, I think there is a case to be made for keeping land available for family use and for school use in Hammersmith. It is always unhelpful simply to be against something. If one is putting a case, one is naturally asked, What would you do instead? ", and as the debate turns on the site of the College of Further Education, I think it is worth considering whether or not there is an alternative site. Two have been suggested to me, and one is the site of a former premises of the St. Mark and St. John College of Education. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education—and I quote from a letter of his dated 24th March 1976—at least considers that this is a viable possibility. He says in his letter:
" It is true that with some new building and with considerable conversion and modernisation work the total area of accommodation required for the Hammersmith and West London College could probably be provided on the St. Mark and St. John site."
I do not think that a Secretary of State would write in those terms if he did not believe this to be a possibility—not just wishful thinking.
Then there is what has come to be called the Backdale site which I have looked at and which appears to be completely unused and which, so far as I could see from the measurements of it, is almost exactly equal
96
to the requirements of the College. The fact is that if the open space in Hammersmith goes, it is the people of Hammersmith who will suffer a real loss. I understand that the borough is already the third worst for public open space in inner London. According to the Greater London Council's Report Open Space Provisions in Urban Areas: April 1973, it is short of 74·3 acres of open space, and if these 10 acres go it will be that much shorter. The site is at present used by over 30 local schools for physical education and it is used regularly by the residents, and all these amenities would go.
These seem to me to be reasonable grounds for supporting my Instruction to the Committee. I do not profess to be more than a lay person, deeply interested not only in problems of the environment but also particularly interested in the problems of cities. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, who is, after all, an expert and who telephoned me last night to say how very sorry he was that he could not come to support me this evening but that he had unavoidable commitments. I believe that many people who are knowledgeable about the environment, about the future of our cities, about the future of our family life, are concerned when they see opportunities like this being missed. For if it is possible to rehabilitate an old building like the College of St. Mark and St. John, we are helping education and we are helping the town. At the same time, we are keeping the open space.
But, above all, we live in a time when Parliamentary democracy at both national and local levels has regrettably fallen into a great deal of disrepute. I believe that to allow the case to be stated before the Opposed Bills Committee would help to restore the faith of many people, at any rate in Hammersmith, that sooner or later our Constitution provides that justice may be seen to be done.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should like from these Benches very briefly to support the Instruction moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asking for reference to the Committee for investigation. In so doing, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that I, not least because I am a ratepayer in the GLC,

97
fully sympathise with the financial problems involved and the problems with which the GLC has been faced because of the many changes over recent years in local government and shifts in authorities, which have undoubtedly made the handling of this whole case a great deal more difficult.
I should also like to say that I do not for one moment believe that this is anything to do with any kind of opposition to the West London College. I would go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, in recognising how important it is for a college doing the kind of work that the West London College is doing. It is making a most important contribution, second to none in its own field in education.
However, I am not as convinced as he is that it is necessarily to the greatest possible advantage to have one very large college doing the educational work described by the noble Lord; but 11, no doubt, is too many. Many of us have seen the disadvantages that come when a group of small organisations mass together to form one vast educational college. There is loss as well as gain in educational value when the students on one site exceed a certain number. However, that is not really the main point of the debate this evening. It is recognised that some changes have to be made to the West London College. The issue is whether it should be on this open space, or whether a further attempt should be made to find somewhere else in which the West London College can do its undoubtedly very important work.
My Lords, the reason why we on these Benches support this Instruction is a quite simple one: the need to preserve the very sparse open spaces in this part of London. It is possible to make a change to a building once that building is erected, but an open space once lost in an area like Hammersmith or, indeed, in any area, is an open space lost for ever. London, particularly this part of London, cannot afford to part with any of its precious open spaces.
I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, when he suggests that the community by being able to share, in out-of-college time, the amenities that will go with the West London College—I think this was the burden of what the
98
noble Lord told us—would get much the same benefits as it would get from the open space. I do not think that this can possibly be so. An open space of this kind, of this size, in an area like Hammersmith, is a place to which mothers can go, morning and afternoon when they have some spare time, pushing a perambulator; they can sit on the grass and let the children run about on the grass. You cannot do that while the college is in operation. It is a place in which youngsters leaving school at half-past three or four o'clock can go to kick a ball around and get rid of the surplus energy which they have to put somewhere. We know the needs of youngsters; the juvenile delinquency figures are alarming enough.
Surely one factor of this is that in heavily built-up areas, as in Hammersmith, youngsters bursting with vitality, activity and aggression, have nowhere to get rid of it. The opportunity to use college premises after college hours simply does not meet the needs of young adolescents, who want adequate space in which to push about. The same thing applies to elderly people, pensioners, who on a sunny day want to be able to sit out in an open space when they want to do so, not when it suits the college because the college is no longer using that particular area.
So, although we sympathise very much with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, we believe that on balance the importance of salvaging this precious area before it is too late is greater. After all, a very large number of local residents have petitioned; the number is formidable. These are people who could not have easily been coerced into signing a petition in order to have the issue raised. Because of this, we wish to support the Bill.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, may I first declare an interest in this subject, both as a resident of Hammersmith and as the wife of one of the local Members of Parliament. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that unfortunately I have not conducted a Gallop Poll in Hammersmith on this subject, but am reasonably certain that I could find many more than 10,600 signatures in support of the

99
plans of the Greater London Council for the St. Paul's site.
It seems to me that the problem relating to this site is primarily one of the assessment of priorities. To what extent should the housing and educational needs of those living in Inner London be given priority over their recreational needs? When considering this problem, we must bear in mind that before the GLC adopted the St. Paul's site, the general public did not have access to it as a recreational facility. Its advantage to the local residents was that it provided peace and quiet and an attractive view.
I do not underrate the importance of open space to Londoners and particularly, of course, those living in areas such as Hammersmith. Nevertheless, I am convinced that at present, housing and education should be given the highest priority. There is still a desperate shortage of adequate housing accommodation in Inner London. The London boroughs have over 200,000 names on their housing lists, and Hammersmith's needs are greater than those of some of its nearest neighbours. These needs cannot possibly be met by a suggestion made, although not, I think, in this House, that the different councils should open up their empty houses which are awaiting repair and modernisation. Progressive local authorities must always keep some of their houses empty for this purpose.
My Lords, in a modern world, it is as important to provide educational opportunities for all members of the community as it is to provide for their housing needs. I think the decision of the Greater London Council to rebuild the Hammersmith West London College on the St. Paul's site is both a wise and a courageous one. The college, which has 16,000 students, provides a very wide range of courses, which include land studies, local government, Civil Service courses, courses in connection with the building trade unions and so on, in addition to those mentioned by my noble friend—for example, help to newly arrived immigrants, and special classes for young people with physical and mental handicap. The work of the college at the moment, as my noble friend said, is spread over 11 different buildings. New premises are urgently needed and, when provided, it is
100
hoped that the new college will become a neighbourhood community college, concerned with many aspects of both local and London life. When this occurs—and clearly it will not happen for some time—I shall not be at all surprised if some of the Hammersmith residents who at present are wholly opposed to the plan relating to the college, change their minds about it, and offer their services to the college for the benefit of the community.
My Lords, may I say in conclusion that if the plan of the Greater London Council for the development of the St. Paul's area were interfered with now, many families in desperate need of housing would suffer unnecessarily. I most sincerely hope that your Lordships will not take any action which could lead to this result.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should also like to declare an interest. I think I am the only person in this House who was actually born in Fulham before it was merged into Hammersmith—very much Johnny-come-lately! Fulham was mentioned in the Domesday Book. I live very near to this site, I suspect nearer than any other Member of this House. I am chairman of the governors of a small school which has been using, with great delight, the open space during the time they have been able to do so. I am speaking this evening to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, so that it will remove the idea that this has any particular Party connotation. I speak entirely as a resident of Hammersmith.
I would not care again to go over the splendid arguments she has advanced, other than to repeat that I am astonished that this is the only site that can be found for a college. My own son, who was a scholar at St. Paul's, when we first discussed this said that in historical retrospect it seemed very strange that St. Paul's School and the High Master's House should have been pulled down in order to build another college. Those of your Lordships who know St. Paul's School could hardly question that it would have been eminently suitable for a college, which at that time apparently was already envisaged.
I was interested in the letter from the Minister of State which the noble

101
Baroness mentioned, of which I also have a copy, in which he suggested that it was almost as costly to recondition old buildings as to build new ones. Surely, this cannot be true; it seems patently nonsensical if you already have a building such as the college of St. Mark and St. John, which I know very well. This is a borough—indeed I understand it is true in London generally—of falling school rolls. More and more buildings are beginning to stand empty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, mentioned priorities. I am bound to say this makes me feel a little bitter, since I have had to fight desperately hard to get new lavatories in a small primary school in Fulham, which certainly would not have cost anything like £2¼ million. Of course, it would be far more attractive to any project to be a completely new one, but is this the moment, when we have been told that public expenditure must be looked at carefully and held back?
One argument which I find extraordinarily difficult to follow has been advanced before, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned it again, that it appears to be more expensive to leave the field without anything on it than actually to build on it. I must confess I find this argument financially very confusing. Since you have to repay the debt, why is it more costly if you are not spending money building on the site. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will explain this when he replies.
I, too, have been in the field with my grandchildren. It is marvellous to have an open space like this, and I would certainly greatly regret seeing it disappear. I noticed the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred to a library. Our local council has recently pulled down a library building in Dawes Road which seemed in excellent condition. The youth club on the other side of Hammersmith Road is appealing for that not to be pulled down; they have a large sign up saying "Save our club". Again, these are perfectly adequate buildings. Often the policies of local authorities defeat those of us who have to pay the rates for these various new schemes. Can I appeal to your Lordships to give one more chance to look at the possibility of retaining some more open space for my borough of Hammersmith.
7.34 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, may I rise for one moment to appeal to your Lordships to support the words which have been spoken with so much feeling and, I believe, sincerity in favour of retaining this important open space in London. Of course, it can be argued that there is a need for more educational facilities and for more housing. There always will be. I cannot remember any time in the whole of my life when there has not been a housing shortage. But surely that cannot be regarded as an argument, or as sufficient argument in itself, to build over important open spaces. If we accept that argument, we accept that all open spaces are in danger. Hyde Park would be an admirable place for large housing development; I can think of no better place looked at purely from the point of view of housing. Why not build on Battersea Park. I really do not think we can accept at all that that is an argument.
The question is, is this an open space which is worth preserving or is it not? I believe it is a very important open space in that part of London. I believe it would be a tragedy if it were lost. I think the people in the locality should be listened to. This is a period when we talk about public participation in planning, all sorts of pompous expressions like that. But this is an occasion when we should really apply some of those ideas and some of those principles. You can see as you go around the protests that are being made. I have no doubt whatsoever that the people of the locality would feel that they had suffered a grave loss if this important open space were lost and built over, for whatever good cause. I should like to support the appeal which has been made in favour of the retention of this open space in West London.
7.36 p.m.
Lord CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may I be allowed to rise for a minute to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am going to tell your Lordships a little story for which Greater London Council ought to be grateful. Many years ago I found myself chairman of an education committee. I had a most delightful and very wise little school inspector, and all he said to me was, "Do not build schools; buy sites,

103
buy sites". I bought them. I think eleven schools have been built in Bexley on those sites. They would not have had any sites if they had not been bought. Now we have seen the loss of St. Paul's, and you now want to build on that wonderful open space. Since those days I have started playing fields, and out of small funds. There are hundreds and thousands of acres of playing fields in my own county as a result of that. If you throw away this open space in Hammersmith, you are mad; that is all I can say. It would be very much better and more useful to any society, any locality, as an open space where health and happiness can be gained, rather than sitting in a school. There are plenty of places you can go inside to get your education. There are very few places where you can learn a great deal more outside. That is all I want to say, that is all I want to warn. I have been in education all my life. I, therefore, do hope that everyone will support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her Motion and in the retention of this site as an open space.
7.38 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I think your Lordships might expect me to say something about the procedural aspect of the Instruction which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will move if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading. There are five Petitions deposited against the Bill, of which four are directly concerned to oppose the development for building purposes of St. Paul's playing fields, the matter, of course, referred to by the noble Baroness in her Instruction.
Consequently the Bill will in any event be referred to a Select Committee, and if these Petitions are considered that matter will, of course, be dealt with. I should point out, however, that, as is the usual practice, it will be open to the Promoters to challenge before the Committee the locus standi of any of the Petitioners against the Bill, and this may well be done. If the challenge is sustained, then the Committee will not be able to consider the Petition concerned. But even if all four Petitions regarding the playing fields were to fail, the Instruction could still be considered by the Committee, with the authority of the House, of course, on
104
another Motion to have evidence heard before the Committee other than that tendered by the parties. As the House will have heard, the Bill is a usual Money Bill of the Greater London Council promoted in accordance with the London Government Act 1963 which, among other things, regulates the expenditure on capital account by the Greater London Council during the financial period from 1st April 1976 to 30th September 1977.
But this, of course, is not a Money Bill in the technical sense of this expression. There is no constitutional reason why this House, or any one of its Committees, should not amend any Money Bill promoted by the Greater London Council if it wishes to do so. Should the House agree the Instruction and pass the Bill on Second Reading, or if the Petitions fall to be considered by the Committee, the Select Committee in either event will be in a position, by a suitable amendment, both to limit or reduce the expenditure on any item set out in the Schedules to the Bill and also to amend the purpose for which the expenditure is allocated. There will be nothing procedurally improper in this course, though of course it would be unusual in the case of the annual GLC Money Bill which, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, is usually passed by your Lordships without debate. I think that that is all the advice on procedural matters which I can offer the House.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late stage, but I misunderstood that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was going to wind up with this analysis on what the position might be. I feel very strongly in supporting my noble friend Lady Young in her Instruction. All we are asking is that another look should be taken at this. I would willingly support all noble Lords who have emphasised so strongly the paucity of open space in that area for the very dense population of Barons Court. I was privileged to be born in East Sheen. I was a mile from Barnes Common, a mile from Palewell Common, barely a mile from Richmond Park and from Sheen Common, and those were my playgrounds. I would only hope that we ask the Committee to look again at this, and indeed I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.

105
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said that we had 11 sites. Surely that could be reduced to three, as I know that some of them are under-occupied. Surely we could specialise in all the building crafts in one of them, because if you have a specialty centre which takes electricity, brick building, plumbing, and gets a reputation as a specialty, then it is all the more important as a centre than making an enormous kaleidoscope of goodness knows how many varieties of advanced education in one great centre. There are many sites. The noble Lord said 11. There are others that are independent, and some of them will shortly become available on the market. Do we have to destroy this air lung that is so important to the young families and young people in West London? I believe that we should ask the Committee to consider all the evidence very closely again.
7.45 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am a little disturbed about all that I have heard so far, because from the debate one would think that that particular area was a public open space which we were in the process of closing, but of course it was not. It was an open space: it was the playing fields of a particular school. And during the period when it was the playing fields of that particular school the people of the area were not able to use it at all. So what we are now giving them is some additional open space which they did not have before. That is basically what the change is.
It is not as if it was an open space, for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, said, and you would next talk about closing Hyde Park. There is no comparison. Here is a school with playing fields. We bought the area, and in effect, had the London County Council still been in existence, there would have been housing and playing fields. I concede that. But the London Government Act changed it. The borough council which was responsible for doing that found it could not afford it, and that is where the GLC came in. It was the GLC from that moment, in consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the borough council inspite of its various colours—all three of them—and these decisions have been arrived at.
106
The first point I want to underline is that this is not a question of open space being taken away. In effect, what we are doing is adding additional open space which was not available until St. Paul's School was moved. There will be some open space. Again, the debate seemed to suggest that we are completely liquidating open space from the area. We are not. There will be open space. There will be two acres of open space in the North. There will be open space in the middle, because of the removal of this particular block of houses. Then there will be an adventure playground on the South-West. Then the people will have available to them access to the tennis courts when the college is not open. As I indicated, the college intends also to allow them to use some of the facilities that will have been made available for the college.
There seems to be a wrong degree of thinking going on somewhere in your Lordships' House. Of course your Lordships have a right to amend any Bill, and of course your Lordships have a right to force us to think again; but again I ask your Lordships to think about the consequences of what you are doing. Every month's delay means an extra £18,000 for the London ratepayers. If you think that delaying it that long is worth that price, all right, but know what you are all doing. I again must point out to your Lordships that contracts have been entered into for building both the college and the houses, and that in actual fact the contractor for the college is on the site. That means that damages would have to be paid if we cancelled the contract for the college. Again that must be borne in mind by your Lordships when you decide whether or not you want to delay this particular matter. In other words, you have to take into account the present £18,000 we are paying, and the amount we would have to pay contractors if we cancel the present arrangement.
Lord BROUGHAM and VAUX: My Lords, the noble Lord said that contracts had been entered into with building contractors—I may have misunderstood him. But surely the Bill should have been presented before contracts were entered into.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I do not want to go on making the same speech that I made earlier. We went through all the procedures we needed to, including facing a court case. At the end of the court case we were entitled to feel that at that stage we must get a move on, and we got a move on. We entered into contracts for building both the houses and the college. As a matter of fact, the college contractor was quicker than the housing contractor and he is actually on the site.
Lord BROUGHAM and VAUX: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but in my business I charter small coasters. I do not charter them until I have actually got the contracts for the buying and selling. Otherwise I would be landed with a vessel and not having anything to do with it.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, again may I point out that we own the land. As a matter of fact we own the money that is involved in this Bill; this £2¼ million of continual cost. In other words, all that was necessary to do this particular job had been done before this money Bill, and the Council did not expect that the Bill would be opposed in the way that it is. It has never been opposed in this way before and I should have thought, with respect to noble Lords, that the Council was entitled to expect that your Lordships would behave in the way you normally behave towards Greater London Council (Money) Bills. It is necessary for noble Lords to take these facts into account when making their decision.
Great play has been made about alternative sites. I am told that the Becton site was looked at and was found not suitable. I have also been given some notes on the College of St. Mark and St. John, and before I enter into other points about that I should point out that, if that was accepted as the alternative site, we should have to take away some open space. It could not be done in any other way. However, there are other objections to that site, apart from the fact that one would have to liquidate some open space. The first is that the site would require at least £1 million to be spent on it to make it safe in terms of the fire regulations and some essential repairs. It was a
108
residential college for 600; we are talking about 4,500 and therefore it is not suitable. Again, many of the buildings on that site are listed, with all the difficulties that that means—and the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, will know what I am talking about. The GLC have learned that adapting old buildings in such a way can be very expensive. We learnt it to our cost when we used the old buildings for the new Central London Polytechnic. That cost us a lot of money. So I must tell the House that as an alternative site the College of St. Mark and St. John does not stand up to close examination.
We are, therefore, back to where we started. If we are to have this college, the real place for it is where we propose. Moreover, we have found what we regard as an equitable division; that is. there will be some housing, some open space available to the community and a college which the community needs, a college with a community attitude about it. In terms of the community, we believe that there is a terrific gain in doing it in the way we propose. I hope that your Lordships will bear all these factors in mind when reaching a decision.
There is a final point which I think I should make, but which I did not make in my opening remarks because I did not want to bring in the Party situation. These agreements began under Conservative control. In 1969, Hammersmith Borough Council was Conservative, the GLC was Conservative and the Inner London Education Authority was under Conservative control. In 1970, they were all Conservative controlled. In 1971, when the Minister gave his first ruling, the GLC was Conservative controlled, the Minister was a Conservative and the noble Baroness was in his Department. Now the balance has shifted: the GLC is Labour, the ILEA is Labour and the borough council in Hammersmith is Labour. Nevertheless, the policy, except for the modifications which provide for more rather than less open space, was originally initiated under Conservative control. In other words, the arguments which we are hearing from noble Lords opposite today should have been made then. The arguments which we are hearing now are really in favour of us for the simple reason that the only modifications that have been made to the scheme are to provide for

109
more rather than less open space. We see, therefore, that the scheme as originally conceived under Conservative control had less open space than the scheme which we have agreed upon. It is really art agreed modified scheme, agreed between the GLC, the ILEA and the local borough council.
Hammersmith has more than 11,500 people; it has 250,000 and Hammersmith Borough Council represents those 250,000 people, and that Council agrees with this scheme. I am sorry to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart of Alvechurch, that it was quite possible for a canvassing opposition to have produced an equally large petition in favour, because I am advised—I did not make this point earlier because I did not think it was all that important—that Hammersmith Borough Council does not regard it as the best place for an open space. There are other areas in the borough where the Council is more anxious to get an open space, and for that reason it has not been as enthusiastic as some of our friends in this House and other people to keep this particular open space. It does not regard this area as the area in the Hammersmith borough which is most in need of open space.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
I hope that, with this reply, noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom it is committed that they shall inquire whether any of the amounts authorised for expenditure in the Schedule to the Bill will be allocated to the acquisition and development for building purposes of St. Paul's Playing Field and, if so, whether any such expenditure is desirable, having regard to the interests of the inhabitants of West Kensington in particular and of Greater London in general, in the preservation of this valuable open space.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Faithfull, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bethell, L.

Sandys, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seear, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Cathcart, E.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathspey, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Long, V.

Thurlow, L.

de Freyne, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Westbury, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Segal, L.

Brimelow, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burton of Coventry, B.

Melchett, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Northfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

IATA: TRAVEL AGENCY LICENCES
8.7 p.m.
Earl AMHERST Earl AMHERST rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Agency Investigating Panel of IATA are circularising some of the smaller travel agencies to the effect that as they do not produce air ticket sales to a figure prescribed by the Panel their licences are being currently withdrawn and whether this is not a restrictive practice. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I ask this Question as it seems to me that the situation arising as between the IATA Agency Investigating Panel and some smaller travel agents has now reached a position where some sort of official inquiry is needed. Not long ago, I tried at some length to explain to your Lordships how, without IATA—an organisation supported by most if not all the international air lines of the Western World—the whole structure of fares and rates and also the general practice of commercial relations between air-lines would collapse into total chaos, possibly accompanied by a fall in standards that might also involve safety. That was perfectly true when IATA was first set up and it is true today. Consequently, I am a firm supporter of IATA.
IATA saw fit to set up an appendage called the Agency Investigating Panel, whose function it is to check the many hundreds of travel agents to make sure that they adhere to the rules of the club—in other words, that, in the opinion of the Panel, they are worthy to continue to hold IATA approval and so to sell airline tickets. There is a considerable variety in the size and scope of our travel agents and there must be a considerable difference between the service requirements of a small travel agent with modest premises and a small staff but who has, over the years, assiduously built up a large clientele who require a wide variety of travel facilities, and the really big agents who have commanding premises and huge staffs. One assumes that the Agency Investigating Panel take these differentials into full account in scrutinising agents, but have they and do they?
It must be recognised that, very understandably, the airlines are anxious to make sure that the cost of servicing their agents should not over-run revenue bene
112
fits. However, there now comes a circular letter addressed to many smaller agents virtually demanding that they increase their air ticket sales to a figure determined by the Panel or lose their IATA approval. In one case that I know of, the target figure demanded by the Panel is nearly double the agency's previous sales. An agent of more than 40 years' standing tells me that this is the first time that the agency has been so threatened or, indeed, approached by IATA at all, although it has frequently been visited by airline representatives to aid and abet its activities and to express satisfaction. I am informed that already 25 small agents have recently had their licences withdrawn—and at five weeks' notice. So far as I can ascertain, IATA has remained stubbornly dumb as to who these agents are. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to tell us who they are.
The IATA passenger sales agency book of rules published in English, but in Paris, in April 1961 states that when an agent is notified that his licence is to be cancelled he shall have not more than 30 days to make known his wish to go to arbitration, and that if in this period he wishes to name an arbitrator he is required to put up, by a certified cheque, a deposit of 500 United States dollars or its equivalent to ensure satisfaction for any costs payable by him. There does not appear to be any such requirement demanded by IATA. I have not heard that this rule book has been subsequently amended or withdrawn.
In any case, arbitration is an expensive business and is likely to be well out of the financial reach of many small agents, but well within the financial reach of IATA and its owners. No such demands seem to have been made to agents in the United States, Canada or Australia. Indeed, in the United States I believe there is a drive to increase agencies, even to the small shops. So it looks as if this action by the Panel is restricted to Europe. I am told that recently a small agent in Italy took IATA to court on this issue and won its case.
Besides selling air tickets, many small agents—in fact most—also sell rail, road and boat transportations as well as hotel accommodation. But the main business

113
of most of them is the sale of airline tickets. If they lose their licence they are debarred from selling these airline tickets and must close down, with the loss of all their other business, and so a very widespread and considerable travel facility will be denied to the general public. The consumer will then likely be forced to deal only with a few big agents whose sales offices may not conveniently be in many consumers' localities, or indeed even in the same town.
In all this the IATA Investigating Panel seems to be acting as judge, jury and prosecutor, which I submit is not in the public interest. It is difficult to escape the uncharitable thought that such a creeping elimination of the small travel agents would not at all be unwelcome to two or three of the big agents who could then scoop the pool and be in a strong position to establish a monopoly, which I should have thought would amount to a restriction of trade. The sitution seems to be one of, "heads I win, tails you lose", with the small agents on the losing end. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will be able to tell us what steps are to be taken to monitor this whole position—if not by the Monoplies Commission, then by whom?
8.14 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support all that has been said on this subject by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst. I, too, have been told that IATA policy on the other side of the Channel—namely, that organised from Canada and the United States—has not pursued this action of trying to cut off the heads of small agencies; in fact it has not discouraged small agencies at all. It seems to me most extraordinary that the IATA Panel should have settled on the United Kingdom and some European countries, while no one in the United States or Canada has been treated in this way. The situation as described by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, is, I believe, absolutely monstrous. That people in the small agencies should be singled out for this treatment in a very arbitrary manner seems to be quite unjust. We should look at the position very carefully to try to see what can be done to change it.
Travel agents cater for a very wide spectrum of the population. Many people
114
like to travel in very large groups. They take package holidays, which are catered for largely by the big travel agencies—and there is no harm in that, except that some of the big agencies are successful, but others, as we know, are not successful at all, as I understand my noble friend Lord Onslow is to point out in his speech.
I want to concentrate on the personal service which is given by the small agencies to their clients. It is this personal service which is so extremely valuable and which brings clients over, particularly from the United States of America and other dollar countries, and which is the backbone of our tourist trade and of the airlines. The agency which caters for small groups and individuals is the type of agency which I believe is important, and there are small agencies in America which are linked to individual agencies here. Groups with special interests come over from the United States and from other parts of the world, too. These may involve, for instance, special trips organised by the National Art-Collections Fund, to see art exhibitions, or trips to see gardens or historic buildings. There are also special small groups which leave this country to see other museums and similar attractions on the Continent. Such groups are organised —I believe successfully—by the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Art-Collections Fund. There have also been trips organised for the Venice in Peril Fund. These are specialised services which are particularly suited to be handled by small, specialised agencies.
When the noble Lord, Lord Oram, replied to a Question on Monday he referred to the 760 agencies in this country which are operating with IATA licences. These agencies are giving personal service on an excellent scale to people coming into this country and they are doing valuable and important work here. The fact that companies do not want to become very big and lose their personal touch is a very good thing indeed. Why should people be told that they must become larger when in fact they are running excellent services which are much valued by their clients? They are bringing substantial foreign currency, particularly dollars, to this country. To withdraw the licences of these companies and to close them down would be very serious from the point of view of the air travel population

115
here. Furthermore, it would hurt the agencies, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said, because the rest of their business, which may well be concerned with other types of travel—by sea or rail, or organising bus tours—is tiny compared with the enormous amount of air travel in the world today. By adopting this kind of policy IATA is cutting off the hands that feed it with tickets.
Furthermore, it was suggested by the noble Lord that the agencies which are being so treated by IATA should appeal against this treatment and this letter; but, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has said, appealing to the law is a very expensive operation, and while it might be quite possible for perhaps a dozen or so agencies, all of whom have been treated in this way by IATA, to get together, how can they do so when no one knows who are the other agencies which have been treated in this way? To take a case to court in this matter would mean that you would have to get certainly a dozen companies which would come in with this scheme and would co-operate in a court case. There are 25 companies, we are told—there may now be more, because more of these letters have gone out—and we do not know any of them except those that are known to those of us who happen to have a personal interest in any particular company and who therefore have been told what is happening.
I think this is an extraordinary way to treat people. I also understand that the targets which are in fact set vary. One company has been suddenly told that it must sell another 100,000 tickets, while another company, which sells far less, is being left alone. I do not know whether or not this information is correct, but, anyway, it is some of the information which is coming through which shows that there is quite a varied manner in which IATA is operating. Why they should cut off the heads of some small companies and not others is also a mystery.
The company in which I am particularly interested has been running since 1932. Its first licence was from Imperial Airways—and that was not yesterday, my Lords: in 1934. It has been operating successfully for 42 years. It has run up no debts, and there has been no failure of business or finance. It has asked for
116
no subsidies, or help from anyone at all, and has relied on nothing except its own skill. It has a valuable clientele, particularly from the United States of America. Then, all of a sudden, it is told that it cannot continue. I think this is monstrous interference with the liberty of the subject.
In all these years the air companies—BOAC, Air France, TWA and all the others—have been perfectly satisfied with the work of this particular business (and I am sure there are others very much like it) and with the service it gives to the public. No complaint has ever been received or suggestion made that enough business was not being done. Then comes a letter saying that its licence will he taken away because this company is a small company. It is not that it has failed its clients, the airlines or the business; it is just that it is too small. There is no justification for taking away someone's livelihood for those reasons, and I trust the Government will stop IATA from taking such high-handed action.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I hope we shall succeed in getting something done about this most monstrous practice, which some of us have a chance to talk about tonight. First of all, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for giving us the opportunity to do so, because it seems to me that a great many people had no idea that this sort of thing was going on. I also very much hope that the Minister who is to reply will do his best—I am sure he will—to answer the questions that are put to him. I have some simple ones that I shall put during my remarks; and it really is not the slightest use writing to me afterwards to tell me the answers. What I am anxious about is to have the answers, if possible, in Hansard, so that we can see where we are going.
First of all, if I may, I should like to deal with the more general aspect and to take some of the points made by the Minister in his reply to the original Question on Monday last. The fact that there are at present, as he told us, about 4,500 travel agents in the United Kingdom, of whom 760 are approved by IATA and who operate from over 1,500 locations, seems to me to have nothing to do with the point of principle with which the

117
House is concerned. But, as the Minister has brought this in, may we be told whether the approximate 3,500 agents not approved by IATA sell airline tickets; and, if so, on whose authority, and on behalf of which airlines? I have given the Minister notice of that question. Secondly, on his reply concerning the 760 agencies approved by IATA, what on earth has the number given to do with the withdrawal of licences from efficient and profit-making agencies? I would repeat, in effect, what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has said: Is it a crime to be small?
The other main point I would make on the Minister's comments concerns something of which I think many people inside and outside Parliament have become completely weary. I wish we could do away with it once and for all, or certainly stress it a great deal less in this House. My noble friend Lord Oram told us that the present version of the IATA resolution was approved by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1972, and included a provision for arbitration machinery. Here, I am not implying criticism of my noble friend—the answer was in reply to an intervention—but my noble friend the Leader of the House rather stressed this aspect in his remarks, and I have no desire to look a gift horse in the mouth, because even though we are late it is due to my noble friend Lord Shepherd that we are having this debate at an early date. But my noble friend is a fair man, and I am quite convinced that he will agree that what matters is not who set up what. The people who are now losing their livelihoods are not concerned with such distinctions: what they are concerned with, and what they hope for, is fairness and equity, and I hope very much that by our speeches in this House tonight we can help to bring it about.
Now, my Lords, to the issue. I told the House on Monday last that recently 25 small travel agencies have had their licences withdrawn by the Agency Investigation Panel of IATA. Why, my Lords? Let me give the House actual details of two firms. One, which apart from the war years has been operating since 1932, has virtually been closed down at five weeks' notice. It has always been a small business, giving the best personal and efficient service to clients. It has never advertised, building up by personal recommendations.
118
In 1974 they had a letter from IATA advising them that their figures for 1973 were not up to what IATA considered they should be. This was the first time that any minimum figure had ever been suggested. They were told that unless their figures improved considerably their licence would be taken away. In 1976 they had another letter asking for a breakdown of figures for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975, and for the first two months of 1976. This they provided, showing an improvement of X thousand pounds in 1975 over their 1973 figures. The figures for January and February of 1976 showed an even better improvement, and so did those for the first five months of this year.
In spite of this improvement, on the 24th May they had a letter from IATA in Geneva telling them that from the 30th June they could no longer do business with any IATA carrier. On receipt of this letter they at once made an appointment to see the IATA representative in London, asking that they be given a few months' extension so that they could deal with the business they already had in hand, and to give them a chance of amalgamation with some other, similar business. At intervals through the month of June they could get no decision on this, and only on the 1st July did a letter arrive from IATA advising them that no extra time could be given them.
The firm take exception, very strongly, to the fact that after 44 years they have virtually been closed down at five weeks' notice. They stressed to me that they have obeyed every IATA regulation and there has never been any delay in paying the various airlines by the correct date. In conclusion, my informants say that it would appear, so far as they are concerned, that nothing can be done to alter the situation. But they believe that the matter should be questioned at the very highest level so that other unfortunate travel firms do not have to face this kind of experience in the future.
If I may summarise briefly from another firm, I am told, as I have already said, that 25 small travel agencies have had their licences withdrawn. Names have not been disclosed so that it is impossible for each of them to find out who the other victims are; so that they cannot fight the decision together by taking what would be

119
expensive legal advice. One of these agencies who appealed to IATA was told that he could take the matter to arbitration, but that it would not be worth while as solicitors would have to be employed and this he could not afford to do on his own. I am told that the 25 who have had their licences cancelled were warned a year ago that this would happen if they did not increase their turnover; and that in the case of at least three—and, for all I know, others—the target given was quite an impossible figure. Such figures mean that many travel companies in this country engaged in giving a personal service to their customers will be forced to close down merely because they are small—at least, they believe so.
This firm has always concentrated on being a small business offering a personal service to a varied clientele, 50 per cent. of whom are Americans, and over the years it has contributed a great deal in dollar earnings. I am informed by these agencies that the airlines have always been delighted with the amount of business produced by companies of their size; but now, it seems, it is unacceptable to be small. It was in November 1975 that this prosperous firm received a letter from IATA threatening to close the firm, for no reason except that it is small, and giving an impossible target for air ticket sales. The agencies conclude —and I agree with them—that such action seems to be quite wrong since their service to their customers and to the travel industry in the United Kingdom has always been appreciated, and that by remaining small they have been able to give a special type of service.
I am hoping that the Minister will say why these 25—and I think he gave the figure of 26—agencies have had their licences withdrawn. At the same time, could he tell us how many more have been approved and the conditions for such approval? These examples, and the facts accompanying them, are the background to the point of principle that we are discussing today. For all I know, similar facts may apply to other agencies affected. But it is always wiser to deal with what one knows, and these are my main examples. Arising from them, there are four points which I should like to put to the Minister in addition to the query at the beginning about the 4,500 travel agents
120
in the United Kingdom. I imagine that the answer can be passed along to him before he comes to reply.
The first question is this: has this Agency Investigating Panel of IATA the right to close down agencies in the United Kingdom? If the answer is: "Yes, under existing regulations", then I would hope that these would be changed after today's debate. The second question—and separately from that—is whether it is not contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome on fair competition to close down agencies in this way. Can firms be closed down because they are small? Thirdly, I find it difficult to believe that the present Government would condone the withdrawal of licences from efficient and prosperous agencies offering a personal service greatly valued by their clients.
Have we really reached a stage when business from small firms making a profit is to be stamped on by bureaucracy and crushed out of existence? This is how it looks to the two firms who talked to me. Fourthly, if we have reached that stage, I want to know why this is being done. Is should like to know how this Panel of IATA arrives at its figures—figures which have been described as quite impossible by small prosperous firms. Is this present programme of removing what is small done at the behest of IATA, at the behest of the Panel or at the behest of the large airlines themselves? Somebody must be responsible. Could we be told whom?
Having asked that question, I now seem to he in a position to answer it. I do not know whether the Minister could comment on this in his reply, but in the BBC radio programme "Checkpoint" on Friday this affair was discussed. The IATA spokesman in Geneva was asked why these agencies had had their licences withdrawn. He said that it was not because of any malpractice and not because of any administrative costs for IATA, as these were negligible. The fact was that the large airlines had so ruled.
Many of us in this House and certainly I, myself, have been fighting this battle for a long time: the battle against the ever-increasing power of bureaucracy, of what is "big". My experience here, without taking account of that in another place, has been with gas, electricity, the

121
Post Office, British Airways. The list is long and continues to grow. I regard the growth as ominous. I am not saying that size is wrong or should be avoidable; but what alarms me, and others, is the inexorable growth of bureaucracy.
Those of us who stand in the way, or who try to stand in the way, seem to face a never-ending policy of rule by size and weight—by the large organisation plus Government Department against the individual. And we seem to face this which-ever political Party is in power. At times, and after many years, it seems wearying; and one becomes tired of being regarded as a nuisance. But if we give up, who is left?—just the bureaucracy. And so those of us who are persistent enough, and tough enough, to bear displeasure will have to refuse to be trodden on. It may be that one day we shall succeed; and perhaps we could start today.
8.38 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for having put down this Unstarred Question and having succeeded in doing so remarkably quickly after the Starred Question of last week. I think that everyone would agree that the replies which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, gave to the supplementary questions on that occasion were entirely unconvincing and give cause for great concern. By that I do not mean to be offensive in any way. I do not think it was the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Oram. It was the nature of the subject and the replies which were appropriate to the subject which caused concern. I hope therefore that the Unstarred Question this evening will be an opportunity for the noble Lord to clear the air.
I would say at the outset that I am not blaming the Government for this situation. I know that the first thing that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will say is that the International Air Transport Association has nothing to do with the Government, it has its own rules and procedures and that this is not a Government responsibility. Perhaps it is not a Government responsibility, but the facts that have been brought to. light this evening indicate that there is a very real concern with which I think the Government should involve themselves.
122
I was glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, taking such a keen interest, as always, when consumer and aviation interests interlock. My advice to the noble Lord, Lord Oram—if I may be permitted modestly to give it—is simply this: Watch out! The noble Baroness's speech had all the indications of the danger signals flashing. I can recall answering questions from the Despatch Box a short while ago, and before the noble Lord, Lord Oram, was here, frequently, constantly, endlessly and without let up—and I may also say without recrimination—from the noble Baroness whose particular item of excitement then was the West London Air Terminal. I can assure the noble Lord she will not be fobbed off with any rotten or evasive Answers. I like to think in my day that she did not get any rotten or evasive Answers; and, for that reason, I cannot understand why she continued to put the same Question down regularly week after week for nine months.
As I understand the situation, any travel agency who wishes to sell an airline ticket for an airline which is a member of IATA has to have a licence from IATA to do so and, therefore, the agency has to be approved by IATA. I cannot help thinking from the replies which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, gave the other day that if there are 4,500 agencies and only 760 are approved by IATA, what do the other 3,700 seat, because I have never found a travel agency from which I could not buy a ticket. Possibly I have been lucky. However that may be, it is perfectly fair for IATA to approve the agencies. There is nothing wrong in that. Airline tickets are expensive and are valuable documents. A wrong booking, incompetent documentation or suspect financial viability of the firm could cause chaos.
It is reasonable that IATA should approve those agents who are to traffic in their goods. Maybe they should be sparing in their allocation of new licences; maybe they should make the hurdles high for a prospective new applicant who wishes to begin to trade in their tickets. It is a very different thing to remove from people who are already in business their licence to trade. Very often travel agencies deal in a number of commodities other than airline tickets, but the sale of airline tickets may make a substantial contribution to the

123
viability of their enterprise. The removal of this right to trade in this commodity could seriously embarrass them financially and, almost worse, even if it did not, it could cast an innuendo on their efficiency and integrity as a firm.
Therefore, I suggest the sanction of removing the right to trade is infinitely greater than the authority to grant a new licence to trade. It is a powerful and, in this case, monopolistic weapon to use. On occasions, we all know the right to trade has to be removed. What we want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, this evening is, in these circumstances, what is the reason for it? What are the criteria for it? Small firms have been told that if they do not increase their sales by a certain amount or to a certain figure at a certain time, their licence will be removed. Indeed, we heard from the noble Baroness and others this evening that some 25 cases have fallen within this category. So I ask: What are the criteria?
As I understand it, the target given in each case is different, depending on the firm and the location of the firm. Does the target relate to sales or airline sales as a proportion of the agency's whole sales, or what? Indeed, one queries what is the justification for IATA requiring a certain level of sales, as they do, in, if I may say so, a perfunctory and bureaucratic fashion. I venture to quote from a letter from IATA in which your Lordships can see the way in which IATA consider this situation. They wrote to a firm and said:
"In examining your productivity for the year 1973 the Agency Investigation Panel in comparing your achievements with other approved passenger agents in similar environments find that your sales performance is below that expected of an agency of your standing. The Panel considered that the minimum productivity expected of your agency was £112,000."
The interesting part is that the figure of £112,000 was put in in different type to the remainder of the letter. Therefore, it looked as if the letter itself was cyclo-styled and sent out to a number of different companies with the appropriate figure being put in. The letter continued:
"This letter therefore serves to notify you that the Agency Investigation Panel will consider recommending withdrawal of your IATA approval after twelve months from the date of this letter, unless the situation has shown considerable improvement.
"When examining your position after twelve months from now, the Agency Investigation
124
Panel will compare your current year's performance against the minimum level expected of an agency of your standing in an area comparable to your area. The minimum expected level cannot of course be known until the close of the current year, and for this reason I cannot be more specific than to indicate to you your present weakness relative to other approved Agents."
I should have thought that was a pretty offensive letter, not only in the threat and I the financial implication. but the tone of the letter which was cold, unyielding and to many would seem frightening. It is slightly humourous that the address at the top of this letter (this will ring a bell in Lady Burton's heart) was Room 619 of the West London Terminal.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said, in answer to one of the supplementary questions the other day, that it was reasonable that the Association should require a minimum size of operation by appointed agencies. Why, my Lords? I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us. He, answering for the Government, said that it was reasonable to require this and I should like to know why. What possible difference does the size of operation of an independent agent make to IATA? It is not a rhetorical question. I hope the noble Lord will answer it. Surely the viability of the enterprise and the success in dealing with customers, and the personal and public relations of the firm should be of more importance, even if that means the firm remaining small. I refer to the remark of my noble friend Lady Elliot which was endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. What is wrong with being small?
If size is so important, why has it suddenly become so important, and why does it need such sudden action? For instance, as in the case of two of the companies to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, referred, if they have been in business for 42 years and 44 years respectively, why should this have been entirely acceptable in 1960, 1970 and 1975, but has become so unacceptable in 1976 that the right to trade is removed within five weeks? Again, I should like to quote from an IATA letter so that your Lordships can see the tone of it:
"I refer to our letter of 16 January, 1976, advising you that Member Airlines do not consider the results of your efforts to promote the sale of International Air Passenger transportation as satisfactory."
It goes on to say:
"I am now directed to inform you, with regret, that the Board decided to withdraw the approval

125
granted the above location to sell international air passenger transportation on behalf of appointing Member Airlines as an IATA agent."
It continues:
"The effective date of the withdrawal of this approval is 30 June 1976".
The letter was written on 21st May 1976.
The letter continues:
"Arising from the above, I regret being compelled to request you to return to this office, at your earliest opportunity, the IATA Passenger Sales Agency Agreement and also, under registered cover, all validation dies, plates or stamps incorporating the assigned IATA Code Number 91–2 4488 (not the entire validator imprinter), this Code Number being no longer valid after that date. You are also requested to remove the IATA crest from the entrance door or display window of your Agency, and to delete any reference to the IATA crest or insignia on your stationery."
Again, that is a cold, unyielding letter written in a frightening bureaucratic form. I use the word "frightening" advisedly, because not many people like to get that kind of letter from people whom they know have authority over them. It is bad enough to have that authority over you: it is worse when the authority is displayed in such a manner as that. Even accepting that this is necessary, who is going to benefit from it—the small business man? No; he cannot possibly benefit. The consumer?—obviously not, because if the consumer had not been satisfied with the service he was getting he would not have gone to that agent in the first place. What about IATA? I am bound to say that I cannot see how they will benefit. The large business?—of course they will benefit because they will be able to scoop up the crumbs which fall from the small businesses as they are closed down. Will this benefit individual airlines, who are the members of IATA? I have a horrible feeling that it is the individual airlines, the members of IATA, who will benefit. If that is so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will tell us how. I do not want to put him on the spot, but I am seeking information.
This, as the noble Baroness said, is another example of a bureaucratic regimen being introduced for reasons which are wholly obscure. It will kill off the small man and can only lead to the long-term disadvantage of the consumer. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Oram, can remove some of the obscurity this evening.
126
I think that this sanction to remove the right to trade is a desperately powerful sanction to put in the hands of a body like IATA. The power to remove from businesses the ability to trade would be quite intolerable, if it were in the hands of an individual. It would be hated, even if it were acceptable, if it were in the hands of a Government Department. But being used, as it is, by a body which is no more than a consortium of airline operators—the majority of whom run their businesses at a loss—does not in my judgment make it any more acceptable or justifiable. I think it is unreasonable.
The noble Lord may say, as he did the other day, "You can go to arbitration". With respect, I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer. The fact of going to arbitration, as the noble Baroness said, is expensive and frightening to most small businesses. This Government, and indeed all Governments, I think, use the fact of arbitration far too readily as a means, as it were, of whitewashing bad legislation and disagreeable practices. There is no Party political point of view whatsoever in this, so far as I am concerned, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will not say, as he did before, for some reason which I did not really understand, that it was the fault of a Conservative Government for setting up something or agreeing to certain practices when they were in government. I am the first to admit that not all we did when in government was right. Of course it was not; but the point is that this is happening now. Does the noble Lord, Lord Oram, think it is right? If so, why? If he does not think it is right, are there any steps which the Government can take to improve the situation? And if there are, what steps will the Government take?
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, is sincerely to be thanked by all of us in your Lordships' House for his efforts on behalf of these small companies, one of whom my family have used since the war and have never had anything but cheerful and helpful service to what at times has been a difficult client. The two companies of which I have knowledge have two different sales target figures. One is 45 per cent. of the other. What is the explanation of this? Incidentally, the smaller one has reached 55 per cent. of its set figure in the first five months of this

127
year. This has had no effect on IATA, however, and the licence was withdrawn last week. I am informed by a gentleman in IATA that they have recently issued 20 new licences. Will the noble Lord, Lord Oram, please inform your Lordships of the criteria on which these licences were issued?
My last point is this. When Mr. Gordon Ruddock of IATA spoke on the BBC programme "Checkpoint", one of the reasons he gave was that it was done for the benefit of the protection of the public. I do not have his exact words, but I checked this when I heard the tape replayed to me. I must admit that I gave a hollow laugh. What action did IATA take to protect the public when the Court Line and other travel agencies failed two years ago? The same London spokesman for IATA admitted to me on the telephone under, I would hasten to add, considerable pressure, that it was done at the request of the airlines. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said, these airlines are not renowned for their profit-making or efficient running.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also spoke of the high-handed tone of the IATA letters. They seem to me to be the ukases of a weaker czar, issuing rockets to bad chessmen-makers in Siberia. Magna Carta, my Lords, among other things said:
"No free man shall be disseised of his freeholds or liberties."
That was repeated in a Petition of Rights 300 years later. Neither of these, to the best of my knowledge, has been repealed. It now seems that IATA is bent on disseising the freeholds of these small companies, which is arbitrarily removing 80 per cent. of a man's business and so putting him out of business. That, to my mind, is disseising you of your freehold.
8.58 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure we can all agree that we have had a worth-while debate and that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for having taken this early opportunity to put an Unstarred Question.
In one sense, of course, this debate began, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminded us, a week ago at Question
128
Time, I am grateful to him for the way in which he referred to the exchanges on that occasion and, in a sense, to my personal position. I am sure the noble Earl is right in saying that on the occasion of last Monday's Question Time the House was clearly impressed by the points which the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, and my noble friend Lady Burton were able to marshall in their Supplementary Questions. I make no secret of the fact that this evening I have myself been very impressed by many of the points that have been brought forward, the illustrations that have been read from correspondence and so on.
May I first take up points which have been made by quite a number of noble Lords and Ladies regarding smallness? The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, linked personal service with smallness and the question has been asked: what is wrong with smallness? Let me assure those who have made this point that they have me with them. Indeed, until I came to occupy the position which I now hold in your Lordships' House I was working closely with a certain Dr. Schumacher who wrote the famous book Small is Beautiful, and I very much share his philosophy. So in that sense there is very little difference between us on that point.
But I want to say—reverting to last Monday—that I was very grateful, as I am sure were others who have interested themselves in this matter, to my noble friend the Leader of the House for his suggestion that this matter could best be taken further forward, as we have been doing tonight, through the medium of an Unstarred Question. For a variety of reasons, it was not satisfactory to pursue it last Monday. I suggest that my noble friend's advice has had three beneficial effects. First, as this evening is showing, an Unstarred Question gives us greater freedom and greater time to deal with a complex matter of this kind and to deploy the many facts and arguments on both sides of the case.
Secondly, I notice that it has given the noble Earl an opportunity of rephrasing his Question somewhat. Last Monday's Question suggested that the problem was one for the Monopolies Commission, and figures I gave in my reply indicated that

129
this was far from being the case. I am glad to see that this week our attention is, in my view quite rightly, now being called to the possibility that we are dealing not with a monopoly situation but with a restrictive practice. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, I have welcomed the opportunity during the past week to give the matter further and quite deep consideration within the two Departments for which I speak, in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority whose chairman is with us; and I again acknowledge how much we appreciate his attendance when these matters are being discussed.
Later I shall seek to explain the procedures and something of the legal position, but I believe it would be helpful at the outset if I summarised the outcome of that further consideration which it has been possible to give in this intervening week. There are two aspects of the problem. The first concerns the legality of the action taken by IATA, and my noble friend Lady Burton gave me notice that she would ask this question for which I am grateful to her. What is the legal position? Is the IATA agreement a restrictive practice which should be registered with the Office of Fair Trading and investigated by them? In my view, following the consideration of the last week, it is a borderline case and the answer to that question can be given only by the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading and ultimately, if necessary, by the Restrictive Practices Court. But I can say that the Government intend to consider this whole matter afresh, in the light of any views which are put forward by the Office of Fair Trading as to the status of the agreement under the Fair Trading Act. I know that the Director-General is aware of this problem and he will no doubt be giving it due consideration.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord expand a little on that, because what he has just said is extremely important. Am I to understand him to say that it is up to the Office of Fair Trading to say whether or not this is fair, and that if it says it is unfair the Government will take action? I was not quite certain what part the Government would play.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, what I was saying was that it is up to the Office of Fair Trading to take note of the problem,
130
to indicate whether, in its view, it is a registrable agreement, and to investigate the nature of that agreement. What I was further saying was that the Government will review the whole problem that has been raised last Monday and this evening, in the light of any views which the Director-General may bring forward.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I just ask the Minister—it is so wonderful to get a favourable response; we are nearly all stunned, but we thank him—this question? While this consideration is being given, is there the slightest chance—he may be coming on to this—that these firms, which, as we think, have lost their livelihoods because they are small, may be able to continue in business until the Government have looked at the matter, or will they have to suffer as at present?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I was coming on to deal with a second point—not the question of the legality, but the question of the practical application of the criteria of IATA in establishing agents. If my noble friend will await that, I think she may be stunned still further. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for warning me about the thunderbolts that can come from behind me. But let me assure him that I knew my noble friend Lady Burton in another place long before the noble Earl knew her, and I recognise her dedication and persistence in any of the causes that she takes up. But whatever the situation regarding the legality of IATA's action, there is, secondly, the question—and it is to this that most noble Lords have directed the attention of the House—of whether the way in which the criteria have been applied in withdrawing approval from certain agents is satisfactory from the point of view of the public.
If my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry will take a deep breath, in this connection I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Civil Aviation Authority have assured my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade that they have already taken steps to inform IATA that the Authority's approval of Resolution 810A no longer extends to the criterion of turnover and, moreover, that the Authority will be further studying the agreement which is embodied in that

131
resolution in the light of the anxieties which were expressed a week ago and which have been very much reinforced this evening.
I hope that what I have said on both counts will he seen by your Lordships as a welcome indication that action is already being taken and that all relevant aspects of this question will be further examined. I have no doubt that we shall return to the subject from time to time. Therefore it will, I believe, be helpful if I explain first in a little more detail than has hitherto been possible the system and the criteria—it was this that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked about—which IATA uses in approving its agents and the advantages of the system as seen by the Civil Aviation Authority. Secondly, I should like to say something about the arbitration system which has been a little unduly criticised in one or two quarters. Finally—although I do not think that I need to pursue it very much further—I should like to deal with the question of whether IATA's agreement is a restrictive practice that is registrable under the restrictive practice legislation. If I deal with those questions I think that it will help us in any future consideration of these matters. I hope also that your Lordships will concede that in view of the two rather helpful statements which I have been able to make I shall not need to deal in full detail with the previous situation which has now been changed as a result of what I have said.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can the noble Lord tell us how the effect of the withdrawal on 13th June of the licence to sell air tickets is or is not to be altered by what he has just said? The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, made this point and the noble Lord did not quite answer it. Is that company now going to be able to sell air tickets again?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I shall come later to the effect of the action taken by the Civil Aviation Authority and if what I say does not entirely meet the noble Earl's point perhaps he will intervene. The information which the Government have about the arrangements of IATA for the approval of agents is provided to them by the Civil Aviation Authority. They examine and approve on our behalf agreements entered into by member airlines on
132
fares and conditions of carriage. The procedure which I shall describe has received their approval, just as it had the approval, in much the same form, of the Government themselves before the Authority was set up in 1972.
If I may reply to a point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Monday last I was not seeking to make a Party point. I merely quoted a date. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, with a little of a guilty conscience, perhaps, about 1972, who, I thought, reacted unnecessarily forcefully. I was not then, nor am I this evening, seeking to make a Party point. I was then making purely an historical analysis.
IATA has set up an agency administration board for the purpose of appointing and retaining the Association's agent. The hoard is advised by a local investigation panel for each country. Any travel agent may apply to be entered on the IATA agency list and it is for the agent to decide whether or not it is in his interest to become an approved agent, having regard to the benefits and obligations which this entails.
The House will appreciate from the figures I quoted last week that with 4,500 travel agencies and only some 1,500 locations approved by IATA it is by no means essential to hold an IATA approval in order to be able to carry on the business of a travel agent. It was here that my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry asked about those which are not approved. She asked whether they could sell air tickets and whether they did sell them. The answer is that they do, but of course they do so without commission. My noble friend will then no doubt go on to say: "But a good many sales go on through agents who are not approved under the IATA system of approval", and I recognise that there has grown up a market in discounted air tickets and that this is unsatisfactory. However, we are tackling that problem and trying to remove the unsatisfactory features, and some progress in this matter has taken place.
There are highly successful agencies that concentrate on forms of travel other than the scheduled services of IATA airlines, including, of course, package holidays by air. Once a sales agency agreement has

133
been concluded with the agent, the Board reviews regularly the agent's performance in selling tickets on international scheduled services of member airlines. If for any reason at all the Panel considers the performance of the agent to be unsatisfactory he is, I understand, first told informally.
Both last Monday and this evening your Lordships have focused attention on the question of the level of sales, although of course that is only one of the other criteria that the Panel keeps in mind; and it was this point of what are the criteria that I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was asking about. The procedures seek to ensure that agents are reputable folk; that they are financially sound; that they have adequate accommodation and that they are capable of providing a satisfactory and comprehensive service, both to passengers and to the airlines, and if an agent is regarded as having failed to match up to the IATA standards that agent is later given a formal warning.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but is he aware that in the case of the two companies of which I and other members of your Lordships' House have knowledge, not one single factor other than the level of sales tickets was being questioned by IATA? I am very pleased that the noble Lord is producing the other factors, but in these two particular cases no factor other than the level of sales was queried.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, if that is so—and I do not at all dispute that piece of information—it will be all the more satisfactory to the noble Earl to know that the CAA has withdrawn its approval of that particular part of the agreement, certainly for future cases, and I shall come to further points in that connection in a moment.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I should like to interrupt also. Do I understand from what he has said that the criteria by which one is accepted as an IATA approved agency are the ones which he has given and that level of sales is not a criterion?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords; I was saying that the level of sales was only one of the criteria.
Earl FERRERS: That was mentioned, was it, my Lords?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, whether or not I said it I am not sure, but I intended it to be understood that although the level of sales was one criteria, there are others. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, then intervened to suggest that in those particular cases it was only the one criterion that had been operated. I do not dispute that, and I suggest that if that is the case it is all the more satisfactory that the CAA is dealing with that aspect of the matter.
My understanding is that the agent is given the opportunity to put a case if he considers the target to he unrealistic, and it is only at the conclusion of this period that the Board may give an agent final notice that in 30 days his name is to be removed from the list. There have been one or two references to harsh treatment in terms of rather sudden warnings or decisions, but I think it will be found that they occur only after a considerable period of more informal warnings and that the 30 days is the actual formal period.
As I said last Monday, the agent is given the opportunity to take the matter to arbitration. I want to say a few words about arbitration in a moment. In the meantime, may I deal with the question of disclosure of the names. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, referred to this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on Monday. All referred to what they considered to be an unsatisfactory situation about disclosure of names.
If I may here express a personal opinion, in my view such refusal can be justified only if the agent himself has reasons for his name not to be published. In my view, IATA should make inquiries of each agent to see whether he objects to his name being disclosed. If there is no such objection, then I think it should become public knowledge. In the particular cases referred to last Monday, the CAA is seeking the consent of the disapproved agents to disclose their names to other disapproved agents. Having said what I have as my personal view about the need for more openness in this matter, nevertheless, I should point out that there is an early indication that some of the

135
agents concerned certainly have reservations about their names being disclosed. So it is not just a case of getting a list and letting the whole world know, because there may be consideration in the minds of individual agents which would argue against disclosure. I am sure that this will be recognised.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sorry again to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Oram, but would it not be possible to have a half-way house, where the agents could be informed among themselves, without it being published to the whole world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as I indicated, this is the approach being made by the CAA. This is why they are making approaches to the individual agents. I have set out the procedure at some length, largely because I wanted to dispel any impression that the 26 agency locations which have recently received a final notice have only been aware of the possibility of having their approvals withdrawn in the past few weeks, or that those agents are necessarily the smallest. The mere fact that agents may sometimes fail to meet the sales target does not mean that they are therefore unsound. This is a point made by others in the debate. In some cases, quite the contrary might apply. It could be that an agency decides to concentrate on selling travel by charter flights because it finds it to its own advantage to specialise in that business.
I suggest that it would be understandable if IATA members viewed the policy of such an agent with disfavour because, after all, charter airlines are in direct competition with the scheduled services of IATA carriers. However, I am not necessarily saying that the pursuit of such a policy by the agent would in itself justify the withdrawal of IATA approval. I am just pointing to the fact that it would be understandable that IATA would not look with favour upon agents who boosted the trade of their competitors.
My Lords, may I now say a word about the advantages which the Civil Aviation Authority sees in the IATA approval system. I have already indicated, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow,
136
that the procedures seek to ensure that agents are reputable, financially sound, have adequate accommodation, and are capable of providing a satisfactory and comprehensive service both to passengers and to the airlines. The servicing of agents by airlines, which includes the supply of documentation and tickets, which are accountable and negotiable, is expensive to airlines. It is in the interests of keeping fares down that not too many agents are appointed in any particular area. However, as I have already said, the CAA has taken action on the turnover criterion for settling how many agencies there should be.
As I indicated, may I deal with the question of arbitration, because there were one or two rather critical references to that in this debate. I think it is worth spelling out what is involved in arbitration, since any judgment on the reasonableness of the system itself as a whole must surely depend on the view that is taken of this. If the agent and the Panel cannot agree on a single arbitrator, each party appoints one, and then the two appoint a third to act as chairman. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, quite rightly told the House that there is a deposit then required of 500 dollars or, indeed in some cases 750 dollars, depending on whether one or three arbitrators are involved. The cost of the arbitration may work out at more or less than this, and the sum is forfeited if the agent loses his case. I agree that this sum is by no means trivial, particularly for a small business; but I suggest that your Lordships should remember that an agent can earn up to £100 in commission from the sale of a single long-distance air ticket. So that, to some extent, puts the deposit in proportion, although I agree again that it is a burden perhaps on a very small man.
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, referred to a case in Italy, and I should like to follow him in that, because it is, I suggest, an interesting example of arbitration in practice, and one which shows that it is a mistake to underestimate the value of the arbitration procedure. I have seen a Press report about this case. It involved a leading Italian agent, and the arbitrators found in the agent's favour. The Panel came up with some interesting findings on the methods which IATA ought to use.

137
It said that the productivity target should be only a rough guide and that it should reflect market potential and economic conditions. Investigating Panels should tell agents how their targets are calculated, and targets should be communicated in good time to allow results to be improved. Finally, in the case of multiple outlet organisations—and some of the 26 to which we have been referring are in fact locations of a multiple outlet organisation—the results of the company as a whole should he taken into account. These strike me as eminently sensible findings by that arbitration tribunal, and if IATA acts on them, as I would hope, it may help to dispel doubts about the fairness of its procedures.
I have already perhaps sufficiently dealt with the question of a restrictive practice, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, intervened to give me a further opportunity of explaining the position, and unless I am asked further I propose to leave that as sufficient. There was a question, I think from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the effect of what I was able to announce earlier about the CAA withdrawing its approval of an important aspect of the agreement. Perhaps I should say that the effect of the withdrawal of the Authority's approval is that IATA members in the United Kingdom will be free to make other arrangements with travel agents if they wish, and can do so without infringing the Association's rules. That will be the effect of the action that the CAA has taken. But they will not be compelled to deal with any particular agent. It is not the case that withdrawal of approval of the agreement will render the practice as a whole illegal. But I believe that the action that the CAA has taken is an important step in meeting the central point of the question that the noble Earl asked.
I hope that this evening I have been able to do three things which can be helpful to those who have taken such a keen interest in this matter. First, I have indicated that the Civil Aviation Authority has already taken action since last Monday, and that it has stated it is prepared to study further the working of Resolution 810A in the light of the anxieties expressed in this House. Secondly, I have said that the Government will consider the matter afresh when they
138
receive the Authority's views and when the position under the Fair Trading Act has been clarified. Thirdly, I ventured to spell out, perhaps unduly at length but I hope not, some information which will be helpful to your Lordships on future occasions when we consider these matters. I am sure there will be such future occasions because, as we have been reminded, in this matter we have certain protagonists—one behind me—who are very vigorous, very incisive, and very persistent in their examination of these things. I have no doubt that if these duties remain to me I shall be confronting the same team on future occasions. Let me say that I look forward to those occasions with equanimity, and I hope I may say with confidence that between us we shall seek to see that justice in these matters can be done. I believe that we have taken a number of steps in that direction this evening.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further question before he sits down? I appreciate that he has come a long way, but he has not said anything about the agencies who have been cut off now. Is there no possibility of a moratorium for them pending the inquiry and the procedure which the noble Lord has so kindly given to the House? It is very important. I acknowledge the moratorium; that is, that they will not be cut off until the decision is made. But 30th June is only 10 days ago.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I agree that it is a most important question: but I would urge the noble Baroness to appreciate that it was only in recent hours that this particular decision was reached so that I should be able to convey it to your Lordships' House. There are certain consequences that I should prefer, if she will excuse me, not necessarily to follow through. If I may speak off the cuff, I think that they would possibly be covered by what I said about IATA member airlines being free to make their own arrangements with travel agents without infringing the rules of the Association. This does not mean that the 26 will necessarily be desirable agents to any particular airline, because the circumstances will need to be examined. But I think that door at least is opened up. Whether the airlines will go through it is for them to decide upon.