Lords Sitting of 15 March 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 Salisbury.

KESSOCK ROAD BRIDGE PROPOSAL
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the latest situation regarding the proposed trunk road bridge over the Beauly Firth at Kessock, North of Inverness, which would replace the ferry.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced on 24th July in another place, the original tenders for a steel structure proved to be unacceptable. Since then we have been exploring the possibility of alternative designs and methods of contracting. The current position is that the possibility of shortening the main span to widen the design field is precluded by the views of the Harbour
2
Trust. A concrete design providing the longer span has been suggested and the steel consortium which proposed a shorter span wish to submit alternative proposals for the long span. We are considering how, in these circumstances, to bring the matter to a decision and, as I told the Highland Regional Council in February, I hope that, given a favourable economic climate, this can be done in time to enable a start to be made early in 1978.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful for that full reply, but should not this bridge, under the original plan of 1970, be at an advanced stage of construction by now? It has clearly become a victim of 26 per cent. annual inflation. Since, together with the proposed crossing of the Cromarty Forth, it will reduce the trunk road distance to the North of Scotland by about 14 miles, are the Government giving the highest priority to building a suitably designed bridge?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government are giving the highest priority to designing a suitable bridge. However, it must be kept in mind that the original contract price was approximately £30 million and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was entitled to decline that offer from the consortium. As I indicated in my reply, other alternatives are now being actively pursued and we hope to bring the matter to a decision very quickly.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, as regards the proposed bridge,

3
does the Minister appreciate that the link to the North of Scotland will really be incomplete unless the Cromarty and Dornoch Firths are likewise dealt with by bridges?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, at the moment, the Kessock Bridge has the ultimate priority, particularly as a consequence of the recent decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Nigg Bay refinery.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what is the state of play on the crossing of the Dornoch Firth?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the crossing of the Dornoch Firth forms part of the overall Scottish transport plan, and consultation and thought are being given to the long-term strategy involved.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the crossing of the three firths was announced by the Government in 1970? In response to the last question, can he say how the hydrological survey for the Dornoch Firth crossing has progressed?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, although the survey report has not yet appeared, I can say that I am aware that it is almost complete.

BRAZIL: STATE VISIT OF PRESIDENT
2.44 p.m.
Lord BRADWELL: 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 take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the impending State visit of the President of Brazil to advise His Excellency of the revulsion felt by many people in Britain at the revelations, by Archbishop Helder Camara and other credible witnesses, of the harassment and torture of opponents of the present Brazilian régime.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My
4
Lords, the purpose of the State visit is to strengthen relations between our two countries, whose common interests are growing in importance. The talks between Her Majesty's Government and the President of Brazil will no doubt cover a wide range of issues. However, the precise agenda for the talks has not yet been considered.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but can he do anything to clear up the actual state of affairs in Brazil, bearing in mind the curious discrepancy between the obviously sincere letter in The Times on Friday from our colleague in another place, Mr. Dalyell, and the very thoroughly researched account in yesterday's Sunday Times which cites the case of Brazil as being "the most completely documented example of institutionalised torture" which the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has ever received?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall not comment on the internal affairs of another country except to say that, since President Geisel came to power in March 1974, there has been significant progress by Brazil on the path of democratic reform. This is a very important country in Latin America which enjoys a congressional system and a Press of very high quality which is free to express dissent and criticism. We are confident that closer relations between the two countries, not only in the political and economic fields but also in cultural links, will further encourage this appreciable progress which Brazil has already achieved on the path to democracy.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister of State say whether it would be possible for more encouragement to be given to the inspection of prisons by the International Red Cross Society, which would be far more effective than appealing to the United Nations? If a Head of State refused an inspection, then one would have very good reason for suspecting that all was not well. My experience is that Heads of Government welcome the International Red Cross. Could the noble Lord perhaps do something to encourage this point of view?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will certainly look into that suggestion. As the noble Baroness knows, the British Government's view of the repression of human rights, wherever that occurs, is very well known and repeatedly stated to the countries concerned, with no exception. As to the utility of the International Red Cross, I suggest that this is usually in association with, and at the prompting of, the United Nations. We have been in the lead both in suggesting that the International Red Cross should visit such countries and in pressing such countries to receive that organisation.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with the Sunday Times article, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradwell, referred, that we have a flagrant example of international hypocrisy in that the community of nations in the United Nations is prepared to condemn repression and torture when it occurs in South Africa and Chile, but nowhere else in the world? Does the noble Lord believe at least we have an opportunity in the forthcoming visit of President Geisel, whatever the people of this country may think of it, to make absolutely clear to him that we view with repugnance the use of torture as an instrument of policy in that country, as has been so well documented not only by the Amnesty International Report, but also in the evidence given to the Congressional sub-committee under Congressman Fraser? May I ask the noble Lord whether he has studied that evidence, and whether any further investigations have been made by the British Government to verify the allegation of Amnesty International and the Congressional Sub-committee?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is a very long and comprehensive supplementary question. However, I can assure the noble Lord that this matter is very carefully under consideration by Her Majesty's Government and that we do, I say again, repeatedly make our views about the repression of human rights known to any country which is deemed, or known, to be practising such measures. The case of Brazil is very different from that of Chile, and in many respects is different from that of South Africa. It is a most important country which is gradually treading the
6
path towards democratic freedoms as we know them. Therefore, I believe that to reciprocate the very successful State visit by our Queen to Brazil in 1968 with a welcome to the present President of Brazil this year will help, rather than hinder, the causes which noble Lords have advanced today.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, in view of his very encouraging replies, will my noble friend say that there are now no political opponents, no journalists, no priests in prison in Brazil for opposing the régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not give such a blanket assurance about Brazil, nor about quite a number of other countries in which the noble Lord and I would be interested.

DIESEL ENGINE RESEARCH
2.46 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: 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 enough research effort is being made in Britain to develop small power units that run on diesel fuel for use, for example, in family-sized cars in order to reduce energy costs.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, considerable research and development work is being carried out in this country, with the aim of improving the fuel economy of road vehicles. A proportion of this effort is directly concerned with the further development of the diesel engine for various applications, including use in private cars. My Department keeps both the state of knowledge, and the need for research, in this field under constant review.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful Answer. Is he aware, or will he accept, that the retail price to the private user of diesel fuel is 62p per gallon including VAT, compared with 77p per gallon for four-star petrol, involving a saving of nearly 20 per cent.? Is the noble Lord further aware that the fuel consumption of a

7
two-litre family car is about 26 mpg when run on petrol and about 32 mpg on diesel?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's word for the difference in price of the fuels, the figures for which I have not got in front of me. On fuel consumption, my understanding is that the difference between a diesel engine and a petrol engine can be as much as 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., but only in heavy traffic conditions. At high speeds the difference in fuel consumption is not very great, if, indeed, there is any difference at all.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that every British taxpayer now has a considerable stake in the British motor industry? All over the Continent small diesel-engined cars and vans are being used in a pollution-free and very economical way. Is it not fair to the British taxpayer that the British motor industry should be encouraged to develop these smoother, quieter, small diesel engines, and so avoid a flood of imports in later years?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am aware that the British motor industry is doing considerable research in this area and that it attaches considerable importance to it. But there are considerable disadvantages in the use of diesel engines; in particular, the noise, the weight and vibrations. A considerable amount of development probably needs to be done before a diesel engine can be installed in the family car for the same price as a petrol engine.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, I realise that it is not strictly germane to this Question, but can the noble Lord say whether any advance is being made with regard to electrical propulsion? There would be tremendous advantages to the environment if this method could be pursued more actively than it is.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I cannot answer that point without notice.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that any major transformation in as large an industry as the steel industry entails a fuel-depleting pump-priming operation to erect new equipment, and this matter must be looked at in its entirety?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not aware that that supplementary question arises from the Question on the Order Paper, but if the noble Earl cares to put down a Question, I should be happy to look into it.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, is it not a fact that diesel fuel was relieved of some tax in order to encourage public transport? Would the same comparatively low rate be applied to diesel fuel if it was used by a large number of private motor cars?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not think it is for me to speculate on what future Chancellors of the Exchequer might do in such a hypothetical situation.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the majority of London taxis probably use diesel engines, which are not particularly noisy and do not cause a great deal of vibration? Does he also agree that one of the chief difficulties of a diesel engine—starting from cold—could be avoided if petrol starting could be used, as has been customary with agricultural tractors?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am interested to learn about the advantages of petrol starting, of which I was not aware. It is quite true that the vast majority of taxis in London have diesel engines. I think they vibrate a little more than the engine of the average family car. Of course, diesel engines are particularly useful in taxis because, as I said earlier, in urban conditions, with heavy traffic, there are considerable fuel economies to be made, but not when travelling at high speeds.

HEATING AND INSULATION: AREA STUDIES
2.51 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken on the heating project in a housing action area, designed to ascertain the capital costs and revenue benefits of bringing the dwellings up to current standards of heating and insulation by the most

9
economical means, discussed at a meeting between the Department of Environment and the Child Poverty Action Group on 20th December 1974.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my Department now intend to have early discussions with local authorities about a number of case studies designed to demonstrate the scope for improving heating arrangements in old people's dwellings at low cost.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the meeting to which I refer in the Question occurred more than 15 months ago, and that officials of the Department of the Environment said at that meeting that they were going to arrange to select a suitable area and enter into exploratory talks with the local authority concerned with a view to putting in extra heating capacity which would be cheaper to run for the old people and the disabled, and that they would embark simultaneously on a study of home insulation? The noble Baroness must surely be aware of the controversy over fuel costs which has occurred already this winter, and does she not think that 15 months is an intolerable delay in a project of such great importance to tenants, and particularly to those who are suffering from the enormous fuel bills of this winter?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I agree that the delay is very unfortunate. The trouble has been that the original proposals proved to be too costly in the current economic climate. Also, that particular project would have spread over two winters. We therefore, unfortunately, had to begin again, and have since been working on the more modest case studies which are now proposed. These envisage choosing three local authority areas, selecting old people's houses in those areas, identifying what work should be carried out and carrying out the work in time for monitoring to begin at the onset of winter. We are very conscious of this delay.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, could the noble Baroness please make an announcement of the authorities which she has chosen, and could she ensure
10
that the decision is communicated to the Child Poverty Action Group, which has not heard a single word from the Department in the last 15 months?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there has been informal contact with the Research Institute of Consumer Affairs, in association with whom the CPAG has been working; and the Department will be seeking further meetings as the development of the work progresses. But I will undertake to make sure that the CPAG is aware of this.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether, with her right honourable friend (to whom, through her, I originally addressed the suggestion), she has made any progress whatever with the suggestion that newspapers could conceivably find a useful existence as insulation in the properties described in a previous Question?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, certainly, my Lords. I may tell my noble friend that the changes which will be made will depend on the present arrangements and the properties finally selected for case study, but they will range from the installation of new heating equipment to cheap but effective forms of insulation; for example, the use of newspapers.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if what is stated by Lord Avebury is correct, it constitutes bad administration; that is to say, if her Department carries out a form of investigation, then makes a promise in the name of the Minister and yet does not carry that promise into effect? Does she not think it is time that she went back to see her right honourable friend and carried out an investigation with those who were responsible, and pulled them over the coals if that is what ought to be done?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have in fact already done that. The point is that the promise was made first quite sincerely and meaningfully, but what then happened was that the project, which would have been a wider one and from which we would have got more information, turned out, as I have explained, to be too expensive and too lengthy, and, unfortunately, we had to go back to the drawing board.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, will the Department be very hesitant in recommending newspapers for insulation, bearing in mind that newspapers are rather inflammable and that other efficient forms of insulation are fire-resistant?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. The suggestion really was not just concerned with people wrapping themselves in newspaper, or using it as top cover: it will be used for insulating cavities in walls or under the floor.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that newspapers cease to be highly inflammable when they have been read?

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY GUIDANCE
2.56 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM rose to move. That the draft Civil Aviation Policy Guidance, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before launching into my speech, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, for making it possible for us to discuss the whole question of (what shall I say?) the loading of airlines and the loading of their capacity in a single debate? I am certain this will enable us to have a much more valuable discussion of the problems facing the British civil aviation industry than if we had split the debate into two halves, as was originally discussed.
My Lords, this House has an active record of debate in civil aviation matters. We have in recent weeks debated the Question put down by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the Government's policy regarding British Airways and British Caledonian Airways, which in many ways anticipated our debate this afternoon; and, of course, the House briefly discussed civil aviation policy when I repeated the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade on 11th February, when he published the Government's White Paper Future Civil
12
Aviation Policy. The House will therefore be aware of the broad reasons underlying the Government's policy as embodied in the White Paper, and the proposed new Policy Guidance for which I am seeking the approval of your Lordships this afternoon.
I am sure that I scarcely need remind the House that prior to the oil crisis, which broke towards the end of 1973, the airline industry had enjoyed nearly a quarter of a century of rapid and sustained growth. Of course, some years were better than others; but nothing could have prepared the industry for the changes brought about by the rise by nearly three and a half times in the price of fuel, and the subsequent inflation which hit other costs as well. As a result fares rose sharply, and passenger traffic carried by United Kingdom airlines fell by more than 10 per cent. in 1974. There was some measure of recovery last year—the latest Civil Aviation Authority figures show that in terms of passenger miles international traffic carried by our airlines in 1975 was some 4 per cent. above the 1974 level—but 1976 will need to be a good year simply to restore traffic to the 1973 level; and there is nothing so far to suggest that growth of traffic in the remainder of the decade will approach the rates regarded as usual in the halcyon days before 1973.
Therefore, my Lords, the future facing our airlines remains uncertain for some years to come, and it would be quite wrong to pretend that we can turn back the clock. British airlines will need all their competitive strength to overcome the difficulties which lie ahead, and the framework within which they have to operate should be such as to reinforce their ability to meet these challenges.
A further factor which led my right honourable friend to establish his review of civil aviation policy, of which the White Paper is the result, was a growing awareness that the policy of double designation of British airlines, especially on long-haul routes, might not be the right basis for aviation policy in the light of the changes which I have described. This policy of double designation had its origins in the Edwards Committee's recommendations. Although the Edwards Committee concluded that there were few routes where double designation was likely to prove fruitful—and this, your

13
Lordships will remember, at a time when the market was still growing rapidly—the 1971 Act and the 1972 Policy Guidance presupposed that double designation was desirable, and the Civil Aviation Authority was empowered to license more than one British airline to serve the same route wherever it was satisfied that certain conditions had been met. In the event, British Caledonian were licensed to serve Toronto, Boston and Singapore via Bahrain in addition to the licences they held already to operate to New York and Los Angeles; while Laker Airways was licensed to operate a Skytrain service to New York as well.
My Lords, the House will be familiar with the difficulties experienced by British Caledonian in operating services to New York, and Los Angeles, which culminated in their decision to cease scheduled operations on these routes in 1974. Certainly, these were difficult times to inaugurate a major undertaking of this nature on what always has been a highly competitive route. Nevertheless, British Caledonian's experience demonstrated just how difficult it is to establish a profitable share of a long-haul route in competition not only with other well-established international carriers but also with British Airways; and in the aftermath of the oil crisis it became more than ever difficult to introduce a second British carrier on a major route with any real expectation of achieving profitability for both carriers and an increase in the British share of the market. Furthermore, even where double designation is acceptable in principle—and I must stress this—to the other country concerned (as in marriage it takes two to kiss) this is likely to be only on conditions which fully protect the interests of that country's own carrier. In such circumstances it makes no sense to divide up a predetermined share of the market between two British carriers—it increases costs with little or no prospect of increasing revenues.
The Government have concluded that the policy of double designation on long-haul scheduled routes no longer makes sense in the present economic climate; and that the preference in favour of British Caledonian which accompanied it was unfair to British Airways with no commensurate advantages to British aviation as a whole. It seems clear to us that there will be no place for double
14
designation of British airlines on long-haul services for very many years to come. That being so, the Government decided that it was right to move to a "spheres of interest" solution instead; that is spheres of interest rather than double designation. The general approval with which that conclusion has been greeted suggests that our decision was right.
I should say here that the Civil Aviation Authority would have preferred greater discretion to be left them over the question of dual designation on long-haul routes. Other than on this issue—which also covers the question of Sky-train which I shall come to later—the Authority was in complete accord with the Government over the proposed changes to the Guidance, and indeed were fully consulted over them. For the reasons I have stated, the Government felt that to continue with double designation would have perpetuated uncertainty and harmed British Airways' and British Caledonian's long-term planning. Therefore, double designation on long-haul routes will be permitted only in the very exceptional circumstances described in paragraph 8 of the proposed Guidance. However, the House will see that in the latter part of paragraph 7 the Civil Aviation Authority is given scope to license a new service by another airline in the British Airways or British Caledonian spheres of interest, subject to certain conditions being met. The Government believe that the Civil Aviation Authority should have this power to take action should it feel that the preferred airline is not doing all it should to develop its sphere.
My Lords, I should now like to deal with the specific changes which will arise from our decision to end double designation on long-haul routes. In proposing these changes, four objectives were uppermost in our minds. First, as I have said, was the aim of strengthening the industry so that its energies and resources were channelled away from unnecessary and damaging competition between British airlines towards the challenges posed by foreign carriers on the main international routes. Secondly, and particularly important in current economic circumstances, the Government wished to safeguard employment in the industry. Thirdly, we wished to find a solution fair not only to the private sector airlines but also to

15
British Airways which was treated so arbitrarily by the previous Administration. Finally, we wanted a solution which would make sense in aviation terms, and which would be generally accepted as such, so as to provide the industry with the stability it clearly requires. A number of possible courses of action were considered during the course of the policy review, ranging from nationalising British Caledonian and making it part of British Airways, to allowing the situation to continue much as it was.
In the years since its creation, British Caledonian has made a significant contribution to United Kingdom aviation. It is the major operator of scheduled services from Gatwick, and as such will continue to make an important contribution as services are built up at Gatwick to complement the additional terminal and other facilities which are now being provided at the airport. It is a major employer in the Gatwick area, and it was clear that in any process of rationalisation the jobs of many workers would have been lost. British Caledonian's staff made clear wishes to remain a separate entity. The Secretary of State was also impressed by the views of regular users of British Caledonian's services—and your Lordships will remember the debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on this matter—in both England and Scotland, who could testify not only to the fact that British Caledonian is a well-run and effective airline, but also to the value of having a choice, not only between different types of service, but also between London airports. For all these reasons, therefore, it seemed clear that the eventual solution should not only permit British Caledonian to continue in being as a separate entity, but also that it should provide scope for the airline's continued growth and development. After very careful consideration of the options the Secretary of State decided to establish separate long-haul spheres of interest for British Airways and British Caledonian in place of the policy of dual designation.
The Government believe that the spheres of interest that have been decided upon, supported by the limited exchange of routes envisaged, are fair and are likely to be of benefit to both airlines. Clearly, in trying to find a solution which
16
met his four criteria the Secretary of State could not expect to satisfy everybody completely. But the reactions of the industry to my right honourable friend's statements last July, and in February, seem to indicate that he has achieved a considerable measure of success. I believe, and I am confident that the House will share this belief, that the new Policy Guidance we are debating today will provide a realistic and equitable framework within which our airlines can work and prosper.
It would be idle to pretend that either British Airways or British Caledonian achieved all that they wished from the discussions on their proposed spheres of interest. That is in the nature of negotiations. In the nature of these discussions this was inevitable. Nevertheless, in their public statements on the new policy both have made clear their belief that they can work within the proposed framework; and both have welcomed the end of the uncertainty which has dogged the industry for too long. The Government believe that both airlines will gain considerably from the proposed reorganisation of routes in Africa. This exchange should lead to lower costs and a more profitable use of resources for each of them.
I should now like to turn briefly to the role of the other independent airlines under the proposed new policy. On balance, their position remains broadly unchanged by the provisions in the new Guidance. The Government recognise the major contribution made by the independent operators to British aviation. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 10 of the proposed Guidance, the independents will be free to apply for licences to operate non-scheduled services throughout the world and, within the terms of paragraphs 7 and 9, for scheduled services also. We believe they have the opportunity to flourish in the future as they have done in the past and to continue to make their own varied and valuable contribution to British aviation.
I now come, finally, to the question of the Laker Skytrain service. My Lords, this issue has, I believe, tended to attract a quite disproportionate amount of attention when viewed in the context of the new civil aviation policy as a whole. I believe it is really completely illogical

17
for this House to accept—as I am sure it does—that the policy of ending double designation on long-haul routes is the right policy in present conditions and at the same time to argue that the Government should reverse their decision on Skytrain.
The arguments against double designation are as strong on the London/New York route as on other long-haul routes. Noble Lords should appreciate that Sky-train would amount to double designation on a massive scale. It must be generally agreed that on this route overcapacity has already damaged the profitability of the existing carriers. We have had to take energetic action to hold capacity more closely to demand. It would be foolish now to undo all our achievements in rationalising capacity. Few would argue that Skytrain should begin at once; the only issue which divides us is whether the Skytrain licence and designation should be kept, as it were, on ice. We are trying to arrive at a policy which makes sense in aviation terms for several years to come and which is also fair to all the airlines concerned. It is clear that, at the present very slow rate of growth in traffic to New York, Skytrain could not be allowed to start.
To allow the Laker licence and designation to stand in the hope that conditions would have improved enough at some future date would not be fair. It would be unfair to British Caledonian who, as part of the policy, are being asked to give up their licences to serve New York as well as Los Angeles, Toronto and Singapore; it would be un fair to other British independent airlines who wish to develop charter services to New York; it would be particularly unfair to British Airways, our flag carrier on the North Atlantic, who already have to compete against all the foreign airlines flying scheduled services on the route.
My Lords, the essential argument that we must consider concerns Skytrain capacity. The total number of passengers carried between London and New York—on scheduled as well as charter services—is just over 1 million. The Laker Skytrain would add a further 250,000 seats a year to that number, a quarter of the present whole. It is the Government's assumption that Skytrain would be allowed to start—and I stress that—only if it were matched from the
18
start by a competing American service; the allowance would not come from this Government but from the Civil Aviation Board in the States. The British and American Skytrains together would throw an extra half million seats on to the route—in fact, an additional 50 per cent. As paragraph 6 of the White Paper makes clear, the Government's policy is to maintain capacity agreements between the British and American airlines for the foreseeable future. These agreements have meant that British Airways and their competitors have been discouraged from providing excessive and wasteful capacity while providing a full public service. The introduction of Skytrain would put all these arrangements into jeopardy.
One can spend a great deal of time arguing about the different assumptions used in estimating the effects of Skytrain. The range of assumptions which we think have to be considered are shown in the paper which has been placed in the Library, which I hope noble Lords will have seen. I do not wish to go into these assumptions now, although I will try to deal with any points arising from the debate when I come to wind up. But the facts are clear. If Skytrain services were allowed to operate, the enormous increase in capacity could be filled only by large-scale diversion from existing scheduled and charter services, including those of British Airways. There is no evidence of such an enormous untapped market to fill both the British and American Skytrains, and there is no prospect in the foreseeable future of growth on the North Atlantic market to fill this new capacity without causing damaging diversion from existing carriers, in particular British Airways.
The Government do not believe that there is a large untapped market that will not use these and other promotional fares in order to travel cheaply between London and New York. By these I mean the promotional fares being introduced by British Airways and other flag carriers. This is not to say that there would be no market for another low fare available in the peak summer months without any advanced booking requirements. It is open to British Airways to submit such a proposal which would have to be considered in the usual way on its merits. But it is clear that the Skytrain service designed by Laker Airways, with a low

19
fare year-round—although no lower than ABC fares for most of the year—and no advanced booking requirement, would simply divert passengers from British Airways and the British charter operators. It would of course also divert traffic from foreign carriers, but nobody believes that they would sit back and allow this to happen without acting to protect themselves.
Lastly, what are the prospects for Laker Airways without Skytrain? Mr. Laker has already made his airline one of the leaders in the North Atlantic charter market—making, incidentally, good use of the DC 10s he has bought. There is no reason why Laker Airways should not continue to flourish as a charter operator, especially if all their energies are channelled in that direction. The Government have provided, and will continue to provide, all our charter carriers with assistance in increasing their share of the North Atlantic market.
My Lords, I have outlined the main strands of the Government's thinking behind the future civil aviation policy outlined in the White Paper, and embodied in the proposed Policy Guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority for which I shall be seeking the approval of the House. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade said in another place, what we are proposing is less a completely fresh start, more of a change of emphasis. I believe that we have the emphasis right. And within the framework we have proposed we believe the airline industry will continue to flourish and develop.
Moved, That the draft Civil Aviation Policy Guidance, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL had given Notice of his intention to move, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the instruction to the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke the Laker Airways "Skytrain" licence. The noble Lord said: My Lords, given that we have to be realists and accept with a certain amount of reluctance that airlines operate in a highly artificial international climate with inevitable Government intervention,
20
we from these Benches would not want to oppose the guidelines order. At this point may I join with the noble Lord opposite in explaining the procedural point this afternoon concerning the Motion in my name on the Order Paper. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should speak both to the order and to the other Motion in one debate. At the end, as I have said, it is not our intention to divide the House on the order, as my noble friend Lord Belstead will be explaining. But, for reasons which I will do my best to deal with as briefly as possible—and as noble Lords will undoubtedly be already aware it is rather a complicated situation—we shall invite the House to carry by Division the Motion in my name on the specific question of the Laker Skytrain licence. Judging from the speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, I think it is unlikely that we shall be able to persuade the Government to change their minds.
I think most of us accept that the industry now needs a period of stability. I almost said that we do not want to rock the boat—certainly we do not want to rock the aeroplanes—and in talking about the Skytrain I am in no sense intending to reopen the whole issue of double designation. However, I suggest that there is a very narrow division between stability—by which, I hope, we mean a stable political framework within which the airlines can do their business with a minimum of Government interference—and a situation of stagnation, rigidity and stifled initiative where the national flag carriers are looking for ever-increasing subsidies to meet ever-mounting deficits.
I do not intend to take a dig at British Airways. In my experience, British Airways are surely one of the airlines which give outstanding passenger service on international routes. But having said that, I cannot forbear to point out that in both the speech made in another place by Mr. Peter Shore and that made by the noble Lord this afternoon in which four objectives of these guidelines were mentioned, no mention has been made of service to passengers. Perhaps I might re-echo a question which was mentioned the other day and ask: Are the Government falling into the trap of thinking that passengers exist for airlines rather than that airlines exist for passengers? This omission is highly significant and I

21
believe it is this apparent failure to understand the market which bedevils the whole of Government thinking on the Skytrain, judging from what they say and what they write.
I think most of us agree that cheap transAtlantic air fares are in themselves inherently desirable, and most of us probably that we want air travel with a minimum of fuss, formality and preparatory planning. This is, of course, the sector which the Laker Skytrain is designed to serve. As I understand it, the Government justify their decision to over-ride the Civil Aviation Authority and their instruction to rescind the licence because of an assessment of the damage which it was said would be done to other British scheduled carriers—which in practice means British Airways—and the consequent adverse effect upon the balance of payments. As the noble Lord said, the argument has been set out in a document which I can only describe as "special pleading". It seems to me to be specifically designed to obscure and confuse an admittedly complicated issue, and I feel that I must put to your Lordships some of the counter-arguments.
First, however, I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to the market and its history, because this has a bearing on some of the technical arguments. That there is a demand for cheap fares is surely demonstrated by the growth of the air charter business in the 1970s. Airlines are not in business for their health, so it is reasonable to assume that it is possible for them to carry passengers at a profit. The most important requirement in their operation is a high load factor, and in 1974 there were on offer over half a million charter seats across the North Atlantic.
I think it is common knowledge that charter flights have become something of a racket. No doubt other noble Lords will refer to this point during the course of the debate, but suffice it to say at the moment that the so-called "amenity group rules" about having to belong to an organisation not specifically set up to get the benefit of cheap travel have, in recent years, been honoured in the breach. The extent of this abuse is epitomised by the story of the 158 American priests who took an oath in front of a notary public, thoughtfully made available by the air
22
line, to say that they had been members of the appropriate amenity group, and then proceeded to buy their tickets for that day's flight at the other end of the counter. This is the kind of way in which the regulations have been evaded and the kind of practice which, not unnaturally, IATA and the Civil Aviation Authority have decided to stop. I understand that cheap flights in this country are now available only where mysterious initials, such as ABC and APEX, are attached to them. They are surrounded by formidable restrictions such as booking through tour operators, return flights with a minimum stay of 60 days, or advance booking without a refund for cancellation. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, may take up this point later.
The Skytrain concept was intended to tap this market in an open way and to end a great deal of the hypocrisy. Operating costs are kept down by having no booking through agents. The seats are sold for cash at the airport up to six hours before the flight, and once all the seats are sold the flight is closed. This is where the Skytrain differs from the shuttle concept. Also, meals and in-flight entertainment are paid for as optional extras. This was the type of service for which Laker applied in 1971 and for which they were granted a licence in February 1972. As I understand it, under the so-called Bermuda Agreement, the American authorities were bound to reciprocate within a reasonable time—which I understand normally means about six months—by granting a parallel licence in the United States.
On the strength of this British licence, Laker took an option to buy two VC.10 aircraft which, with the Government's approval, were financed by borowing from the Japanese banks. The Government also gave further help by waiving import duty on these aircraft. The point is that the Government were aware of what was happening and approved it. However, we do not know to what extent the Government were using their best endeavours to urge their opposite numbers in the United States to live up to their obligations, once Laker had surmounted the various hearings and court actions in respect of challenges made as to their fitness to operate this service in the United

23
States. However, we know that, quite suddenly in July of last year, it was announced that Skytrain was not to start. I understand that the announcement was particularly galling to Laker, since they had been trying for months to establish the figures upon which the argument was to be conducted. It was only the day before the announcement was made that Laker obtained the discussions they had been seeking, when clearly the decision had already been taken. I must say that when one reads the White Paper one cannot resist thinking that it was only as an after-thought that the Skytrain issue found its way into that document at all.
From what I have already said, one might assume that the Government had demonstrated an impeccable and pressing case for suddenly going back on a three-year-old decision for a ten-year licence which they had tacitly confirmed by other actions, but no convincing argument has been forthcoming. What in the Commons was called the Little Red Book—produced the day before the debate there, which did not give very much time to check the figures in it—seeks to show the damaging effects of diversion upon British Airways and the adverse effect on our balance of payments. I must be fair to Mr. Shore here. He said of these figures:
"I would not go to the stake on any particular figure—negative or positive—up to £10 million a year either way."
They do not sound to me like the words of a Minister who is conscious that he has a cast-iron case for breaking a Government commitment.
I think other noble Lords will have something to say about the 16 assumptions in this confused and rather misleading paper, which gives me the impression of having been written to justify decisions which had already been taken, other than on grounds of careful calculation. It confirms the rather curious contradictory position of the Government, who seem to be saying, "Well, the venture will be a financial disaster, but it will be so popular with the public that it will divert a high proportion of the passengers from the scheduled services." It seems to me a most extraordinary argument, but I should like to make one or two points on it.
Much play is made about the inevitability of at least one American Skytrain to match Laker. Yet the American Civil Aeronautics Board has recently confirmed that it has no intention of licensing supplemental airlines to run scheduled services, whether conventional or Skytrain. Also, the scheduled airlines are hardly likely to start Skytrains, which necessarily involve direct selling of tickets at airports, thus by-passing the travel agents who sell the tickets for their scheduled services. The airlines know very well that if they did that they would be boycotted by the travel agents who had been by-passed, and therefore they would have difficulty in selling the tickets for their scheduled services. It is hard to imagine an airline running a risk of that kind.
Then, again, there is inconsistency when the document says on page 7:
"…the passengers diverted from British Airways would represent something like one Boeing 747 load of passengers each day."
Then, later on, on page 11, it is agreed that the diversions of passengers which Skytrain caused would be spread across all the carriers—and there are other American scheduled airlines as well as British Airways, and the charter services. So is it not misleading to talk of the extra 250,000 seats when Laker is already carrying 70,000 passengers a year on his existing charter services?
Then, of course, there is the total inconsistency between some of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, produced today and some of the figures in the Laker document. The noble Lord suggested that this represents an enormous increase in capacity across the North Atlantic, and yet Laker Airways' document, headed "A National Scandal?", says on page 19:
"The Skytrain's annual licensed capacity is approximately 1·3 per cent. of the total seats available on the North Atlantic."
I just cannot square those two figures at all. I am sure everybody will admit that some of the Skytrain passengers will be people who would not otherwise travel at all—perhaps 50 per cent. of them—and, furthermore, that something like three-quarters of those passengers will be starting from the United States, a high proportion of whom will presumably have travelled on American airlines or on

25
charter flights. So that they do not represent a diversion from British Airways. I am a Scot and cautious and, so far, I would give the Scottish verdict of "Not proven" on this part of the Government's case.
I hope other noble Lords may refer to the diversion which is represented by Concorde, if we have to go into questions of diversion and double designation. I may say there is a strong suspicion in the industry that some kind of a deal was done with the Americans, whereby permission for Concorde was traded off against the cancellation of Skytrain. If this is so, it has not so far proved a very clever deal and, as matters stand, it looks as though we may get neither.
Therefore, our case is in three parts. First, the Government are behaving immorally, and in a way which can only detract from the wilting credibility of the British Government, by revoking a licence which had a number of years to run. Secondly, the premises and commercial judgments upon which they seek to justify this sordid activity are dubious in the extreme, and they have deliberately attempted to obscure the argument. Thirdly, the effect will unquestionably be to stifle the one initiative which has shown any signs of breaking out of the stultifying strait-jacket in which the air transport industry in this country will otherwise be confined for the next 10 or 20 years.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said, I still believe that it is not too late for the Government to change their minds and either delete one small paragraph—paragraph 15 on page 5—from the White Paper, or at least leave the Laker licence on the table for a period of two years. Otherwise, I suggest that the Government will be laying themselves open to an action for breach of contract and damages by Laker. Laker is not in business to make money out of suing the Government; it is in business to put people into aeroplanes. But Laker would be entitled to compensation for this revocation of licence, and it seems to me that this commits a public body to spend public money in paying damages. When that happened, I should have thought that the only honourable course for the Minister concerned would be resignation.
Those of us who support Laker believe that a good commercial case can be made out for a service which is clearly wanted by the public, which will not involve spending public money, and which indeed can make substantial revenue and earn a great deal of prestige for this country. I also believe that we shall go on having this argument until the concept has been put to the acid test of practical experiment. In doing that, we should be backing a brave and persistent entrepreneur, who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to operate an airline at a profit—and that is rare nowadays. My own family motto is "Perseverence". Perhaps I should have a word with Laker to see whether he should adopt the same one. But, above all, it seems to me that the Government have totally failed to make a convincing case for treating this firm with ill manners and great unfairness, which amounts to thoroughly bad faith, and which can only further undermine international belief in our Government's word.
So at the end of this debate after we have, as I hope, passed the Guidelines without argument, I hope that those noble Lords who agree with me will support the Motion which I now beg to move.
3.40 p.m.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I rise to speak against the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. I listened with attention to what the noble Lord had to say and I thought it was a pity that at the end of his speech he used rather frequently such words as "immorality". He introduced the insinuation of a deal over Concorde, and I do not like unfounded insinuations. I thought that to do that was a pity because I do not believe that this is a political issue at all. It is an economic issue of some importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, began his comments with the statement that he was not seeking to reopen the double designation issue; yet that is precisely what he is doing in suggesting that Laker should get his licence. It would be a double designation of British carriers across the North Atlantic on scheduled flights—and how! Not only that, but the probable later

27
effect would be to produce similar claims from others which would result in a spread of double designation. I do not think I need argue the case against double designation because I take it the noble Lord has accepted that in current circumstances, with the growth of traffic very much less than it was expected to be and in the light of the existence of surplus capacity across the North Atlantic already, the general trend of the proposals by the Government is sound.
I should like to say something about the experience of private enterprise scheduled flights. My noble friend Lord Winterbottom happened to comment in passing that they had flourished as they had done in the past. I question whether that is so. I have noted with interest the collapse of Cambrian Airways, Channel Airways, British Eagle and, last year, Severn Airways—all running scheduled services—and I have noted the withdrawal of British Caledonian from the North Atlantic routes to New York and to California.
My first submission to the House is that if Laker were to get his licence one of two things would probably happen. Either Mr. Laker would get into very serious financial trouble or British Airways and their American counterparts would suffer serious loss. British Airways have estimated about £6 million a year. Who, in current circumstances, is going to pay that, when all these national and international operators are already working at a loss? The British public. So in thinking about the effect on the public we had better take that into account among other matters.
The argument is to some extent based on support of private enterprise. But what we have to realise in this debate is that the support of what one might call "internal competition", that is between British carriers, is often to the detriment of their effectiveness in competing with the real competition which this country suffers; namely, international competition from other operators. To the extent that BA and British Caledonian have had to compete on double designation routes it has done neither of them any good, and that is why I believe the Government policy on single designation to be a very good thing.
28
If we agree that, then the re-introduction of internal competition between Mr. Laker and BA across the Atlantic would be a very bad thing. If we get single designation those airlines which are competing with foreign airlines can exchange information and there might be growth of co-operation over many very expensive services. This would be a way of increasing the efficiency of our airlines and helping them to compete with foreign airlines. So the case against internal competition is, I believe, a very strong one indeed. I was in the Board of Trade for five years and I could see the effect of internal competition between British firms in many fields in attempting to compete with large overseas competitors. It was often disastrous.
The feelings behind the amendment which we are considering I believe stem from this euphoria shared by some Members of the opposite Benches about the maintenance of competition, but I beg of those who have been thinking of voting for this amendment to realise that in these international operations so long as we have one good carrier operating from this country he is subjected to more than enough competition from other national carriers and that the introduction of internal competition will not improve his attempt to serve the public better, but is much more likely to worsen it.
I now turn to some of the details of Skytrain. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, to accept that officials of the Department of Trade are not prone to trying to deceive this House with the figures that they provide, and that in the present circumstances across the North Atlantic the current number of seats available, including both scheduled and charter flights, is 1·2 million per annum. The proposals of Mr. Laker would add a potential of 250,000, although at 80 per cent. capacity it would probably amount to about 200,000; and the view of the officials, after the many discussions which have taken place between them and the civil aviation board in America, is that there will certainly be a claim from the Americans to provide some of their operators with a similar licence to that which Laker wish to hang on to.
Having seen the figures and the facts and having had discussions, I am in no

29
doubt whatever that we are not considering an extension of seatage across the Atlantic of 250,000 potential, but one of 500,000. Does anybody in this House seriously believe that the American airlines will allow a British operator on scheduled services to gain an extra 250,000 passengers a year without asking for a quid pro quo? The idea that this might happen is, frankly, nonsensical.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would that depend on whether or not they proved profitable?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the first attempt would be to run it to see whether it was profitable, because I have no doubt that either they will render the existing scheduled services unprofitable, or, more likely, they will find it is unprofitable to carry on, and will cease the operation, with all the tragedies which ensue in terms of redundancy and lost capital. Mr. Laker is currently offering a two-way trip at £118. It is a fact that this is only cheaper to the travelling public during July and August each year. For the remaining 10 months of the year, the travelling public, through charter services, can fly at a cheaper rate, albeit they will have to give notice of their intention to fly.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not want to indulge in a semantic argument with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, but let us get it absolutely right. Mr. Laker is offering a single fare at £59 each way, and it is an important distinction—or it could be.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, that I accept. I quoted the double figure to make it comparative with the other figures I have. But there is no guarantee whatever that this is the figure he will be allowed to operate at if his licence were renewed, because currently, as noble Lords probably are already aware, the existing national scheduled carriers are subject to the rules of the International Air Traffic Association. Under these rules they are not allowed to cut their fares below the present limit. Mr. Laker is not a member of the International Air Traffic Association, but the rate at which he would be able to fly these scheduled
30
flights would have to be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority.
My Lords, it seems extremely doubtful to me, and to others with whom I have discussed this, that the Civil Aviation Authority would allow one British scheduled carrier to cut its rates when no other British or international carriers who were members of IATA would be allowed to do so. If this happened, there would be an instant demand, I take it, from the other scheduled flight operators to cut their fares, also. I cannot see that they could possibly allow one carrier to cut away the rates in that manner. It would be grossly unfair. Therefore, I would expect that Mr. Laker's figures will have to go up to the more regular figure offered by others.
The assumption that the public will be served is an extremely dubious one. I understand that Mr. Laker sought his licence because he believed he would create a very large volume of additional traffic. On his own "say so", this was to come from what has been referred to as the "foot loose and fancy free" American traveller who did not want to plan his vacation or his visit to Europe, and would be attracted by the fact that he could apply to fly on the same day on which the thought occurred to him. It seems to me a rather fanciful idea that you can get an extra 200,000 passengers on that route without affecting the loading of other carriers. Let us understand quite clearly that Mr. Laker is not offering a shuttle service. He is not offering a certain seat to anybody; he is offering a seat as long as the aircraft is not already full up. Let me say again, he is not offering during 10 months of the year cheaper seats than those already available under various schemes operated by some of the scheduled carriers, and by the solely charter companies. Most of the people—visitors visiting relatives, holidaymakers and others—have very little difficulty in booking forward, because these are not the sort of people who happen to make up their minds that they want to go next day to the United States. For them, this is an expensive holiday, carefully planned well in advance.
My plea is that, if this amendment to the Motion were passed, it reintroduces double designation. If Mr. Laker had his licence renewed, there are no grounds

31
for doubt that the Americans would also apply for similar licences, and that, in the event of the Skytrain service being introduced, either the British public will have to sustain a further £6 million loss on the part of British Airways, or Mr. Laker will go bust with all the troubles that ensue from that, as have so many other private companies operating scheduled flights in the past few years.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for allowing me to interrupt him again. I am very surprised that he has said twice over that this would involve a loss to British Airways of £6 million. What he means, I think, is a loss of revenue, which is a very different thing from a loss.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I accept that. A loss of revenue of £6 million; but in current circumstances, where all the North Atlantic scheduled flights are losing money, there is probably not much difference between a loss of revenue of £6 million, and something of the same order as an addition to the loss they are already making. It would be less than £6 million but, nevertheless, a substantial amount which the British public will have to pay.
Finally, may I stress the point that, if this proposal that Mr. Laker should be allowed to run his Skytrain is based on the usual euphoria which comes from the opposite Benches in support of private competition, private competition on scheduled services has not been very successful. No more competition is needed on international air traffic routes above that which already exists. I hope I have done something to persuade noble Lords opposite that this Motion would bring a period of stability not only to the North Atlantic routes but probably to other routes, and that the Government's policy in withdrawing this licence should be supported.
3.58 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, may I speak first about the resolution concerning civil aviation policy, which I strongly support, and later talk about Skytrain. For far too long our civil aviation has been bedevilled by changes in Government policy. It is badly in need of a period of stability. The proposal which
32
the Government are now putting forward provides such a period, and sets out guidelines mainly for the conduct of our flag carriers on long-haul international routes. There is also reference to short-haul routes. In paragraph 18, the Government are reported as considering that these guidelines should remain substantially unchanged for a number of years. That is a long time. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply could hazard a guess at the answer to the difficult question: how long is long? However, there is now a prospect of stability which should enable both British Airways and British Caledonian Airways to go about their respective businesses without Government let or hindrance.
My Lords, the policy stipulates single designation on the long-haul international routes, and the establishment of spheres of interest. This is a system long adopted by most countries of the world, with the notable exception of the United States. As instances, there are Air France, YTA, Air Canada and Canadian Pacific. As has been stated, we have heard many times the rather plaintive cries about the benefits to be won by competition. Its results are spelled out very clearly in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the White Paper. The underlying principles of most inter-Governmental bilateral air agreements is that each side should have equal opportunity of getting the traffic offering. There still seem to be some people who think that double designation results in one side getting a greater share of the cake. If it did, the reciprocal operator would soon seek a readjustment through its Government by getting a modification of frequencies, which of course means capacity. Emphasising what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has already said, what really happens is that multiple designation merely divides a national opportunity between its two or more designated operators. It is surely a stupidity to compete with oneself. Our flag carriers have all the competition they want or can handle from the foreign reciprocal operators.
Again as the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, has emphasised, the establishment of spheres of interest as between national flag carriers is clearly the sensible way of dealing with the problem. To this end, I understand, the Secretary of State

33
has asked British Airways and British Caledonian Airways to get together to agree as to who should give up what. I gather that this potentially difficult exercise was conducted as reasonably and amicably as possible in the circumstances. Obviously, neither party got all that it wanted, but I think it is generally agreed that the end result represented a reasonable compromise. This is fully set out in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.
I understand that British Caledonian Airways is very optimistic about what it can achieve in the West African sphere. By and large, South America has for some years been pestered by commercial bad behaviour, but given some sort of stability that Continent should provide a vast potential. The company has yet to operate the Houston and Atlanta routes, but both these cities should provide important catchment areas. No doubt British Caledonian will have a very hard struggle, and I think we should wish it good luck. I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply has any information on how the inevitable American reciprocal services from Houston and Atlanta will be operated. Is it intended that they should do so direct to London, or will they be thinking of intermediate stops at, say, Washington DC, New York or Boston, with pick-up and set-down rights as between any of those points and London? If that is so, it will have very serious effects on British Airways as well as British Caledonian.
The short-haul situation presents a different problem, especially as I understand Gatwick is to be developed as London, South, and Heathrow as London, North, with their distinct catchment areas. This is likely to result in bilateral agreements, having two routes from Greater London to the same point on the Continent, and it may well call for double designation. I gather that the whole question of the short-haul routes and double designation will be considered on its merits; this will also apply to the United Kingdom routes.
Paragraph 12 concludes by stating that the two airlines have agreed to continue discussions at management level with the object of exploring ways of co-operation. I believe British Airways has started exploring ways and means of taking care of the locally engaged staff of British Caledonian in East Africa and in the
34
Seychelles who would otherwise become redundant, and, vice versa, British Caledonian is doing the same in West Africa. Can the noble Lord who is to reply tell us whether the Secretary of State has any further plans for such co-operation to suggest to the chairmen of the British Airways Corporation and British Caledonian?
If I understand it correctly, paragraph 13 means that any British operator who can buy or lease a Concorde aircraft, and has plans to operate, will not be restricted by these spheres of interest; but if in doing so he finds himself in competition with British Airways or British Caledonian he will have to seek a commercial agreement with either of those companies. Similarly, if British Airways wants to start a Concorde service, say, to South Africa, with an intermediate stop in British Caledonian's sphere of interest, it would have to seek a commercial agreement with British Caledonian, and vice versa.
Paragraph 26 refers to promotion and build-up of traffic at Gatwick. I understand that by the end of this year a very large sum of money will have been spent in improvements there. Can the noble Lord say, if there is any more such money coming from the Treasury, whether it will be spent on getting rid of some of the present shortcomings at Heathrow? There are still no travelators along the fingers of No. 1 building. The passenger is faced with an appallingly long walk, and if he or she is elderly and carrying anything heavier than a briefcase or a handbag the imposition is really disgracefully severe. I believe when the building was first mooted the then British European Airways asked for these travelators to be installed, but some character in the Ministry turned down that suggestion. I have been told, as an excuse, that the fingers are now too narrow to permit of a travelator being installed. Is this really so? Will passengers using the No. 1 building have to put up with this situation for the foreseeable future? No. 3 building is a good deal better; it has the travelators—that is when they work, which is not always the case. But there is still some very long and tiresome walking to be done.
With the number of trolleys provided by the Authority, of the kind passengers

35
can put their baggage on and push themselves, of which there is ample evidence in the arrival halls, it seems incredible that there is never one to be found at the gate at which one disembarks and where one is faced with that wretched walk to the immigration and customs points. While realising that Heathrow is about bursting at the seams, and that the lack of cubic space for development is chronic, can nothing be done to alleviate the appalling traffic jams that build up at those wretched tunnels? Admittedly, some traffic will be drained off when the extension of the Piccadilly tube is made to the centre of the airport. But this can only deal with passengers with light briefcases and probably people employed at the airport. One has only to imagine a passenger with even one reasonably heavy suitcase negotiating the escalator and a crowded tube train at Piccadilly Circus in the rush hour to realise how impossible the situation will be. I would therefore say to the Minister that this tube does not really cater for the average air passenger.
Most air passengers these days seem to prefer to go to Heathrow in their own cars rather than using the buses from Cromwell Road or Victoria. The tunnels are likely to become even more congested. Is there any plan to widen or duplicate them, or indeed any other scheme? I think these are points which are of great interest to the Consumer Council, and I will wisely leave them in the admirably capable and determined hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who will be speaking later.
I should like now to turn to the Sky-train. I think it is true to say that many people, including his competitors, greatly admire the panache and flair with which Mr. Laker has pursued his Skytrain project. It is perhaps bad luck that he has been overtaken by the present depressed state of air traffic across the North Atlantic. I am told that from April to December 1975 the average load factor carried by existing carriers fell as low as 64 per cent. and to date has not improved. I believe that Pan American and TWA in anticipation of this have filed application with the CAB for licences to operate reciprocal Skytrain services, as have four other major American carriers. In these circumstances, the
36
capacity of these American reciprocal services added to the 250,000 seats Mr. Laker plans to put on annually between London and New York must pose a considerable threat to traffic carried by the existing carriers. I really do not believe that they can be expected to stand idly by and do nothing about it. Probably it will result in a price war in which everyone, including Mr. Laker, will lose a great deal of money.
Mr. Laker's original claim that his Skytrain will largely promote new business is a bold one, and I should have thought would require some proving. I am reliably told that it is calculated that the Skytrain will not generate more than about 25 per cent. of new business, the balance of 75 per cent. will be diverted from existing carriers; BA's share of the diversion being about 40 per cent., which it is calculated would involve our No. 1 flag carrier with an annual loss of revenue of something like £3 million. That, added to the traffic diverted by the Americans, might go up to anything like some £6 million. In these circumstances I think that the plan of Mr. Laker's Skytrain should be left in escrow, awaiting a more favourable traffic climate across the North Atlantic, Mr. Laker being left free to get on with his other activities, with which I am sure we wish him good luck. Therefore, I think that Lord Strathcona's Motion should be defeated.
4.12 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I think that in this international world of civil aviation today single designation is the right policy, and I think that the Government have it about right as between British Airways and British Caledonian. I understand that neither party is entirely satisfied. That usually means that the bargain is fairly good and is fair for both. Great tribute should be paid to British Caledonian for their pioneering work in that we now have a public sector and a private sector, and there is no doubt at all that the comparative results of those two sectors can be seen from the results of each particular sector in relation to other international airlines working on the same routes in international competition. There is no doubt either that we should be able to see a comparison of efficiency between British Caledonian and British Airways

37
in domestic matters. Balance sheets, statistics of manpower per aircraft required, and many other statistics can be produced which will expose inefficiency and at the same time laud efficiency.
There is one point I should like to make on this single designation with the public and private sectors (it is dealt with in paragraph 12) and that is the importance of collaboration. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, asked the Minister if he would say what the Secretary of State was likely to do in that direction. With respect, it is not to the Secretary of State, I think it is to the Civil Aviation Authority that we must look as the responsible body for ensuring that collaboration takes place at every level, and I mean particularly at technical levels, accident investigation and accident procedures. British Airways has an efficient accident investigation department—it used to be a branch when I ran it—and British Caledonian has an efficient branch. But one small incident, hardly worth reporting, can be significant of the beginning of some weakness which may develop and possibly finally end in disaster. Therefore, the smallest incident occurring in either private or public sector should be interchanged so that each can get the benefit of the experience and learn the lessons of the other.
Having said that, I turn briefly to the question of Skytrain. I think that Mr. Laker has been badly treated by the inevitable passage of events, which has brought about the inevitable decision of Her Majesty's Government. Whether he pursues a suit, as one noble Lord suggested, against the Government or whether he does not is not for me to say, but if he does not I feel that he has been so badly treated that he has some moral claim for compensation. I understand that he has spent 76 million dollars on buying three aircraft in prospect of the Skytrain—aircraft which are not today earning their keep. I think that he should have some recompense somehow, but I regret to say that it should not be in the form of a Skytrain licence.
I cannot blame the Government for the decision. Mr. Laker, with great enterprise, pioneered this development in 1971 and obtained a licence in 1972, but since then the passage of time has altered the
38
whole aspect of civil aviation. As the noble Lord who moved the Motion said, oil is three-and-a-half times the price it was, which has made a vast difference to the foundations of passenger carrying and passenger civil aviation operations. We remember the Edwards Committee figures of anticipation. We remember the enthusiasm for Maplin, now dead and buried, I trust. That is the past. Today we have the world not of 1971–72–73; we have the world of 1976 and 1977–78 coming. Therefore, we must look at this Skytrain in relation to today and for the years ahead.
The question to me is what effect will Skytrain have on the designated operators' viability on this particular route. Here we come to contradictory statistics. Like other noble Lords I have been flooded with statistics; statistics from British Airways, statistics from Laker, statistics from several other directions. They are very confusing but I think there is common ground in one or two of them. First, Britain's share on the North Atlantic is 34 per cent. and the American share is 60 per cent. Therefore, what one has to ask oneself is what effect would the Skytrain have on the traffic carried by our 34 per cent. British Airways reckons that if Skytrain operated, 75 per cent. of passengers carried would be a diversion from their existing passenger traffic. They reckon that 25 per cent. will be new traffic initiated. Mr. Laker disagrees with those figures. It is not for me to say which is right. I suggest to your Lordships that it is not for any Member of this House to say which is completely right because we do not know. Nobody knows. I do not think they know themselves. It is speculation.
For what it is worth, British Airways claims that it would lose £3 million in revenue. That would be in respect of one Skytrain, and if there was a reciprocal one, more than likely from America, there would be a loss of £6 million in revenue. That would be a very heavy burden to carry and, in this contradiction of statistics and contradiction as to the extent of the diversion of new traffic, I have no option but to accept the Government's figures. I do not think that our Civil Service administration "fixes" figures, so I accept them.

39
I feel, therefore, that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, would put at risk the viability prospects on the North Atlantic route of our designated operator, which at present is sharing with other operators only a 64 per cent. load factor. I am not prepared to go into the Lobby to vote in favour of increasing a loss and prejudicing the viability of the designated carrier. No carrier is perfect and there is much room for improvement in British Airways, as there is, no doubt, in Caledonian, but at the same time we should look in a year or two, if Skytrain were there, at a large red figure of British Airways and know in our hearts that we had contributed very considerably to that loss. It is therefore with great regret that I cannot support my noble friend in the Lobby. Some noble Lords may support him and others may not, but I felt that I must give my reasons why I cannot.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, I shall be brief and I intend to refer to Skytrain at the end of my remarks. I find myself in considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye; I, too, take the view that Laker has been unfairly, even harshly treated. However, like the noble Lord. I have a "but". I overheard a noble friend say, "Could the Government have done anything else?" I will come to that later, too. First, I want to deal with a particular aspect about which I have informed my noble friend Lord Winterbottom. Being ever hopeful, I thought that, if I gave him the details, I might get a proper answer at the end of the debate, and I have even given him the paragraph numbers to which I intend to refer.
My first reaction on reading the White Paper was to go through it again in search of a missing word. I found it hard to believe that the word, "consumer" nowhere appeared. Perhaps "hard to believe" is not the most descriptive phrase, and I rather agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, in what he implied this afternoon; rather than finding myself unable to believe it, I found myself dismayed. I was dismayed that any White Paper on civil aviation policy did not think it necessary to mention the
40
word, "consumer". When the Statement on Future Civil Aviation Policy was read to the House on 11th February, both the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, commented on the omission.
I am raising this issue today in the hope that we shall get a much more informative answer than Lord Winterbottom gave the two noble Lords opposite, because they were informed:
"On the question of the importance of the consumer, we had a valuable short debate in this House about a month ago and people said some very kind things about British Caledonian…" (Official Report, 11/2/76, col. 112.)
With respect to Lord Winterbottom, that was no answer to the points that had been raised and I am hoping that we will not get a similar answer today. I should have thought that every noble Lord would have agreed that the whole area of consumer affairs is of vital importance in civil aviation and, as I have said, at least merits a mention.
In common with most noble Lords who are taking part in this debate, following the publication of the White Paper I re-read the reports of the debates which we had in this House en the Civil Aviation Act in July and August of 1971 and on the Civil Aviation Policy Guidance in March 1972. On the matter of consumer affairs I was not encouraged. In fact, I agreed with the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge who said that the Minister,
"…has said enough to reassure me that nothing has changed. Year after year we ask for consumer representation and year after year, by Governments of different complexions, we are told that everything is absolutely fine." (Official Report, 29/7/71, col. 726.)
I feel and I daresay that the House will feel that Lord Donaldson always had just the right phrase, inoffensive but deadly. I always enjoyed them whether they were directed at me or anyone else. I felt that what he said on that occasion epitomised what everyone in the House felt. Of course, my noble friend Lord Winterbottom did not say that everything was absolutely fine and I hope I can remove that from the list of possible answers we might get today.
I am returning to this theme today because the recent Report from the Select

41
Committee on Nationalised Industries said at paragraph 60:
"Any material change in the consumer machinery for civil aviation would require legislation and DT"—
being the Department of Trade—
"the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and CAA"—
being the Civil Aviation Authority—
"would all be closely involved".
I want to know why in the White Paper we are discussing today which is presented by the Secretary of State for Trade, the consumer side is not considered worthy of a mention particularly in view of the statement by the Select Committee. I want to know what the Department feels about the necessity of a change or otherwise in the present consumer machinery. We have made some progress since the comments of Lord Donaldson in 1971, but I think the House would agree with me that it remains a grading progress in the sphere of real influence. To return to the Report of the Select Committee at paragraph 58 dealing with consumer affairs it states:
"The AUC"—
that being the Airline Users' Committee of which I am a member—
"is a consultative body with no teeth".
Perhaps I might mention here that I am very conscious of the fact that the chairman of the AUC has to sit here but is not able to speak. I realise that I am a great thorn in his flesh and that I appreciate his fairness. As he cannot reply I should like to make that clear before I proceed. One of the conclusions or recommendations of the Select Committee was, in paragraph 94:
"We think it important that the AUC, or any comparable body, should have teeth of its own".
I have a very short and simple question for the Minister: What does the Department of Trade think about this, or does it not have a view? At Question Time on 20th January the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, was kind enough—this is to be found at column 347 of the Official Report—was kind enough to enter the lists on my behalf. He spoke of the despair felt at my failure to make any impression en Her Majesty's Government on these matters. I was appreciative because it is due to the support given by all quarters of this House that we have got where we have on the matter of air
42
travellers. I hope that one day air travellers will realise that, had it not been for this House and for everybody in it, they would not even have got thet AUC. In July 1973, when a Conservative Government was in power the AUC was set up because of pressure from this House. It was not wanted either by the Civil Aviation Authority or British Airways. However, our persistence made it impossible to ignore any further the fact that air travellers had no such organisation, contrary to other consumers in other areas.
As I said, paragraph 60 of the Select Committee Report said that in any material change in the consumer machinery for civil aviation three bodies would be involved—the Department of Trade, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and the Civil Aviation Authority. I yield to nobody in my admiration for what Mrs. Shirley Williams is trying to do. I have not asked her, but I am sure that she would agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee. Based on my own humble experience, I should imagine that she is having a hard battle, but we need not dwell on that.
I am equally sure that the Civil Aviation Authority would not agree with the recommendation, so that leaves the Department of Trade. Having given notice of this narrow point to the Minister, can we today have a definite reply? Does the Department support the recommendation that the Airline Users' Committee should have teeth of its own? If the answer is, Yes, will the Government support a move for early legislation? Or is the answer to be, "Yes, but not yet," as always seems to be the case?
Before I move on to deal with Skytrain, I should like to tell the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, how glad I was to hear him mention the tube train to Heathrow. It will be in the memory of all your Lordships—though I do not remember how long ago it was—that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I saw London Transport about this service to Heathrow. We gave the House the benefit of our discussions and our views on what would happen, though I do not believe that the then Government were very appreciative. We thought that it would be quite impossible for people with 40 lbs. of luggage to get up the escalators at Piccadilly, Hyde Park or anywhere else and that this service would continue to be most beneficial

43
to those people with no luggage or people who worked at Heathrow.
Turning to the question of Skytrain, I find myself rather regretfully forced to the conclusion that I shall today have to support something which I believe to be unfair because I believe that, economically speaking, nothing else can be done. That is why I am doing this and I am really back at the place where I came in with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. However, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. I have some questions to which am sure I should know the answer but I do not, and it would be the greatest help if he could answer those questions for me. I apologise to the noble Lord who must sit through this, but can the Minister tell me whether the Civil Aviation Authority publicly dissents from the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to cancel the Skytrain and to direct the Authority to revoke the licence? I rather thought from what my noble friend Lord Winterbottom said in opening that that was the position, but I should like to know the answer.
On the question of double designation, we have heard various points from British Airways and from Laker Airways. Some seem to be mutually contradictory and, on the matter of double designation and of reverting to single designation, is it correct to say that, under the new policy, single designation will apply only to the United Kingdom carriers on this route and not to the United States carriers? If so, that would seem voluntarily to restrict the British response. I should be grateful if the noble Lord can give an answer when he replies.
We have heard a good deal today about the fact that if Skytrain were allowed to operate there would be reciprocal Sky-trains, if I may so describe them, from the United States. There seem to have been contradictory statements from British Airways and Laker, because Mr. Laker says that no other airline, United Kingdom or foreign, has applied for a Skytrain-type licence across the North Atlantic since the Laker application in June 1971, whereas British Airways say that both Pan American and TWA testified to the American CAB that they would compete with Skytrain. Can we have that point cleared up because I believe that it is important?
44
Another point which I should like cleared up is whether Mr. Laker was granted a licence by the Civil Aviation Authority for ten years. I believe that he has a right to feel aggrieved if that was the case. Can my noble friend tell us whether it is the case that the licence was originally granted for ten years? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour: I should have said that Mr. Laker was not being unduly unwise in purchasing two DC 10's for use under a licence which he had been granted for ten years. I believe that should be admitted.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Brown was, I felt, a little heavy handed. My noble friend is not here, so I am free to say that. I do not believe that consumers—certainly not while I am about—should be trampled on in this way, and I should say just the same thing if my noble friend were sitting behind me, as indeed I thought he was when I began. When he said that he felt that the public should take notice of the likely effects—and he mentioned the £6 million loss by British Airways which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—I believe that there is another effect. Without saying that we could have Skytrain at the moment, I believe that there is a considerable section of the population—though I could not quantify it—who would like to go to America from this country but who are not in a position to book weeks or months beforehand. My experience on this is not wide, but I understand that if one wishes to get an ABC or Apex fare, though legally one needs to book only two months beforehand, if one does so there will be no places left. One has to book well in advance of that and money has to be put down within seven days of making the application. I want to suggest to my noble friend Lord Brown that it is not only "footloose and fancy free Americans"—I believe that those were the words he used—who want to take advantage of this service. I believe that if Skytrain is not licensed at present, that means that there will be a considerable section of air travellers who will not be able to go.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will give me specific answers to specific questions. I believe that Mr. Laker has been unfairly treated, though, in today's economic situation, I

45
find myself unable to support the Amendment. That I regret.
4.38 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and, curiously, on the same occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. I should like first to make some observations about the performance of the CAA under the previous set of guidelines which we are today to replace. Since its inception four years ago, the Authority has, in my view, performed creditably in extremely difficult circumstances both for itself and for its customers. Ably and enthusiastically led by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it has established an enviable reputation throughout the world, particularly in the realm of technical expertise in relation to airworthiness and air safety. Of course those reputations were largely inherited from the bodies which merged to create the new Authority, but we should not decry its achievement for that. However, I have some criticisms which I should like to mention and I hope that they will not be out of place today.
First, I believe that the Authority has had too little regard for the interests of the smaller operators. I have made a similar point many times in your Lordships' House but I do not appear to have made much progress. Put in another way, I feel that the Authority tends to listen too readily to the views of the big battalions—the corporations—while the views of the less influential seem to carry very little weight with it. For example, the Authority introduced a scheme of flight times limitations a year or so ago. I raised the matter in your Lordships' House at the time, making roughly the same points, but I did not make much progress. Another committee was then set up. It was called the Flight Times Limitations Board and it was set up—no doubt at great cost—to administer the scheme, which appeared to be wanted by only the corporations, which in any event were largely following the recommendations of the Bader Committee which had led to the Authority's action at that time.
Smaller companies, which were much more adversely affected by the proposals were not really consulted. The Flight
46
Times Limitations Board remains unrepresentative of the smaller operators, while British Airways and the pilots' union remain predominant on it. I believe that in that situation the smaller companies can expect little appreciation of their efforts. I hope that the Authority may even now consider this situation to be unsatisfactory, and that it will appoint to the Board one or more persons who will be able to look after the interests of the smaller independent companies, which at present, at least, have some difficulty in getting their views across.
More recently the Authority has substantially raised charges relating to professional air crew licences. I do not criticise the need to raise the charges; that is another matter. But I say that the effect of these increases has been applied unfairly to the various grades of air crew involved. For example, the fee for a professional pilot's licence has been increased to £50, a 2½-fold increase. That increase has been applied equally to, for example, a pilot earning £15,000 a year as a senior British Airways pilot, or to a flying instructor at a flying club who might earn only £1,500 a year. I cannot sec the equity in that. Both are examples of the Authority's failure to listen adequately to the views of the smaller people. I recognise the difficulties in, for instance, the case of the junior pilots, who do not have a very effective professional body, and no doubt it would be very difficult to ascertain their views with accuracy, but presumably not much inquiry was necessary in raising the charges as I have described.
My second criticism involves the area of costs. The Authority is quite rightly required to balance its books in due course. To achieve this it has necessarily had to raise its charges in almost all the fields of its activity. Few other countries require their regulatory authority to finance itself to the same extent, and British companies are thus at a significant disadvantage with their competitors overseas. In America, for instance, a great deal of aviation expenditure is met out of general taxation, both national and local.
In this situation the Authority clearly has a duty to minimise its expenditure. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom—and this is the matter

47
which I raised with him in a starred Question a week or so ago—whether substantial economies could not be effected by doing away with the Civil Aviation Flying Unit at Stansted. While not for a moment decrying the skill and dedication of the people who work there, nor wishing to suggest that the functions they perform are not important, I believe that a great deal could be done by delegating some of those functions. Some other areas of activity, notably the calibration of radio navigation facilities, could be sub-contracted to commercial firms, thus saving, I believe, a substantial sum.
The Flying Unit is also involved in providing transport for Government VIPs and, I believe, Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. I should like to be satisfied that the full cost of those services is repaid either by fares charged to the European delegates or by payments from the Government to the Authority, and that the costs are fully covered—
Lord BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a combination is achieved in providing the VIP services, in that the time used for them is also used for technical purposes, such as the calibration of instruments? If such services were made private this could not be done.
Lord TREFGARNE: I must confess, my Lords, that I was not aware that the flights carrying Ministers and others were also used for the calibration of radio navigation facilities, and I am happy to hear it. But I do not think that alters the fact that a service is being provided to Ministers and others which ought to be paid for. That it is also being used to calibrate radio navigation facilities is a laudable use of resources, but the Government still ought to pay for the transportation of their personnel. I have no idea what is the exact cost of the Flying Unit. I looked through the annual report with as much care as I could, but I could not find the cost; perhaps I missed it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to help me on this. It must run into seven figures.
So much for the criticism. There are many plus factors. For example, I am very pleased that the Authority has recently exempted most single entity charters from licensing. That is a welcome
48
step. I remember a year or so ago introducing a Bill in your Lordships' House to achieve just that, yet receiving a very dusty reception. I must confess that it was in the days of the previous Administration. However, I am happy to see that that step has now been taken.
My Lords, today we are asked to approve the Government's new guidelines to the Authority. The document contains certain major items, plus some detailed provisions. First, we are asked to agree to some further route swopping between British Airways and British Caledonian. I regard route swopping in much the same light as wife swopping: immoral and foolish, but unlikely to cause any real harm in the long run. Secondly, we are asked to agree to the assertion that dual designation on long-haul routes is undesirable and must be stopped. Implicit in this is to be the revocation of Laker's Skytrain licence and the cancellation of his designation on the bilateral agreement. I fail to understand the arguments that dual designation is something evil, to be done away with. The Americans have triple designation on the North Atlantic. There is TWA, Pan-American, and National Airlines, operating from Miami, and, lo and behold!, they have achieved much more of the traffic than we have, with only one airline operating on the North Atlantic. Is it not possible that if we were to designate an additional carrier on the North Atlantic, be it Laker or British Caledonian, we, too, could achieve an improved percentage of the traffic offering—
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will excuse my interrupting again. Is he not overlooking the fact that the American population is four times that of ours? Is not the present percentage earned by British Airways—34 per cent.—a very credible performance indeed, in view of the population discrepancy?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure that population has anything to do with it.
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord TREFGARNE: I certainly agree that the performance of British Airways is creditable. But I believe that we could achieve an even greater percentage of

49
traffic across the North Atlantic if we were to authorise another carrier. Most of the passengers coming from the United States—certainly the ones we are concerned with now—come to the United Kingdom. Why could more of them not travel in United Kingdom airlines?
I shall now return to the points I was dealing with earlier. Thirdly, the new guidance contains a number of detailed provisions. Perhaps the most noteworthy, to my eyes at least, is contained in paragraph 2.11 which requires the Authority to keep itself informed of pooling and other commercial agreements which come into force between airlines on particular routes. I welcome this proposal, especially if it leads to greater control of the pooling agreements which I do believe are always in the public's best interests. Your Lordships will know that such agreements are illegal in some countries, particularly in the United States, and we ought to take a long, hard look at them on our side of the Atlantic.
I now wish to revert to the most important matter; namely, the Government's decision to cancel Laker Airways' designation under the bilateral agreement and to secure the revocation of that firm's licence. While not wishing to pursue the arguments relating to the principle of dual designation—although I say again that I do not believe that it necessarily dilutes the traffic in the way suggested—I believe that Laker's service should, at least, be allowed to continue as a possibility, rather than be cancelled altogether as the Government now propose.
I think there are many arguments in his favour, most of which have already been deployed this afternoon more effecttively than I could myself deploy them, but I do not think the argument of diversion is necessarily valid. First, it is not proved one way or the other, I believe; but I do not think it should necessarily preclude a second operator operating a different type of service. It may be that the customers are entitled to have a service such as the one which Laker proposes, which British Airways certainly have never proposed and are not even now proposing. Secondly, the assumption that an American Skytrain would start as soon as Laker started, or shortly afterwards, is really not proven at all. Under existing American legislation, a
50
scheduled service can be operated only by an existing scheduled carrier, so all the supplemental carriers in America who have applied are for the moment at least under federal legislation, precluded from operating such a service. This leaves only Pan American and TWA, and to launch a service such as this from, say, Newark to Stanstead—because it would have to be a service exactly paralled to that of the Skytrain, otherwise we should be under no obligation to authorise it—would involve them in enormous expense which I believe they would not, at this time anyway, be anxious to incur.
Finally, there is of course the question of the morality of the Government's action in withdrawing the Laker licence, their predecessors having authorised it so recently and Laker, of course, having incurred such a great expenditure in making provision to operate the service. In my view, the Government are exposing themselves to the possibility, at least, of a law suit for compensation; and, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona said, the Government would then find themselves in a most difficult position. Unlike my noble friend, if that happened I should look to the resignation of the Minister. I cannot escape from the conclusion that the Skytrain licence has been cancelled for doctrinaire political reasons, and I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend's Motion and not secure the revocation of Laker's licence.
4.53 p.m.
Lord LYONS of BRIGHTON: My Lords, it is not my intention to comment on the Government's long-term plans for civil aviation. They seem to be based on less competition and the theory that big is good—and I am the last person to dispute that. I should therefore like to deal mainly with the question of Mr. Laker. Along with many noble Lords who have already spoken, I feel that he has been extremely badly treated. I feel he has worked his way through since 1972 fighting the case for Skytrain before various judges and committees in various parts of the world, and each time he has managed to win and yet get further away. He reminds me of a character called "Alfie" that I used to read about in a magazine called The Rover. He was the greatest Olympic runner of all time, and when he entered for the marathon he was asked whether he would deliver a

51
gas stove as its destination happened to be on his route. I feel that the Government's final decision is Laker's gas stove. I think he has borne all that any man can nobly bear, and that this really is the last straw for him.
When the Americans were dragging their heels I felt that the Government were not giving him all the support they could, and now they have taken away his licence although, in fact, he has done nothing wrong. A ten-year licence on which you borrow money and buy planes is a serious matter, and I think that it would throw into question the viability of anybody lending any money to anyone in the future on such a Government pledge. I should imagine it might make a great difference. I think it is also sad that such an imaginative and bold scheme should be killed off, and we will never know whether or not it will work.
I read this little red book which has been referred to hoping that I could find some good reasons set out in it. It is very hard reading indeed. Of course, it has clearly been written by very clever people. It consists of a mass of cleverly-contrived figures and equations based on a series of differing suppositions, and it really is very clever. It is rather like those people who do a Latin crosword puzzle in five minutes: it is absolutely brilliant, but you cannot make a living at it. Although it is hard reading, I would not say that it is without plot. It has sixteen plots in it, all of which, so far as I can see, are designed to squash Mr. Laker. None of them is easy to understand, In fact, as I think many speakers have pointed out, it is curious that if you are against Mr. Laker you seem to base your case on two totally differing arguments. One argument is that there is not the traffic: that there will not be any case for a Skytrain; that poor Mr. Laker will go broke because obviously he has no knowledge of the aviation industry, and that is that. The other argument is that there will be thundering herds of Skytrains—not only 500,000 passengers with two Skytrains, but also, probably, with the Continentals joining in—that the whole sky will be black with them, and that it will be the end of all normal air transport; everybody will be dashing around in Skytrains and, of course, British Airways will then suffer. I think
52
both of these arguments are an exaggeration.
One argument that is difficult to understand is that the many differing fares now are better than Skytrain can offer. If this is really true and what we are supposed to believe, why is anyone worrying about Skytrain? It is only Mr. Laker who has to worry. Mr. Laker's record is fairly good, but he really will be a worried man if this is absolutely true. On the other hand, knowing what a stubborn fellow he is I suppose he will make a start. It is rather sad that then we shall have Skytrain No. 2, this American Skytrain, immediately joining in, miraculously. It has been pointed out that there would be a slight delay, but according to our figures that would not happen. In order to make up the figures to 500,000 passengers and to make a case, the American Skytrain starts at once and, so far as I can see, practically wipes out British Airways' share of tourist-class passengers.
I wonder about these first-time trans-Atlantic travellers. I have two grown sons, with cousins in America. They do not have a lot of money, but they like to go across to America, as do many others. Mr. Laker, I know, carried out research in this country. He did not just do it out of his head; he did not just take off his hat and say, "Think of a figure; there are all these passengers". He carried out research, using an internationally-known firm, and some very interesting figures were produced which showed that there was an enormous demand. I am surprised that the Government have dismissed these figures, because Mr. Laker's research firm is precisely the same as that which the Labour Party have used to help them win four Elections. So I should have thought that at least they had familiarity, let us say; but perhaps it has bred contempt.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Mr. Laker is offering a benefit of £9 on a single flight, and is he assuming that that benefit will increase the number of flying passengers by 200,000 a year?
Lord LYONS of BRIGHTON: My Lords, I do not know; I have never run an airline. But Mr. Laker has run a very successful airline, and if he thinks it will have that result I believe him.

53
The Government agree that viability depends on the number of new passengers. I do not know, your Lordships do not know and it may be that Mr. Laker does not know. We shall have to "suck it and see". I believe that there are probably many new first-time passengers who could be persuaded on to these routes.
My Lords, I shall not go through all the different scenarios that appear in this little red book. The point, however, about competing Skytrains taking all the passengers from British Airways seems to me to overlook the point that was made by one noble Lord on the opposite Benches, and that is that the Americans run three to one to us on that route. Therefore it seems to me that the Americans, at least, will be affected three to one in the number of passengers lost; they cannot all come from British Airways.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I correct my noble friend? It is one to two.
Lord LYONS of BRIGHTON: I beg your Lordships' pardon; it is one to two. The important point is that Mr. Laker was given a licence and the go-ahead to import the three planes that he needed and borrowed the money necessary to complete the transaction. Now, under this policy, he has three planes purchased for a use now forbidden to him, millions of dollars plus interest to repay, and no chance to do so out of the services in which he believes. The Government do not feel responsible for it. On the other hand, I believe they have a responsibility in so far as if a man has a licence for 10 years and loses it through no fault of his own there should be some system whereby either he has a chance to start in the future or some form of compensation is provided for him.
There is one more point that has not yet been raised by anybody, and perhaps it comes rather strangely from these Benches. I believe that we have all heard too much of failures and people moaning and groaning and saying that it is the Government's fault, or the trade unions' fault, or the price of commodities, or the weather, or something. These losers are not going to help us out of our
54
present problem. They are not the people who will make this country as great as we all want it to be. We need to encourage more people to stand on their two flat feet and do things better than the opposition; or to go on trying until they can. I believe that Mr. Laker is one of those people. He deserves our support for that alone. He, after all, has not gone around with a begging bowl and has never yet asked to be nationalised. I think that his achievements stand out in a world of "Identikit" airlines and fixed fares, where the customer's greatest choice can be made only from the trays of plastic airline food. Even at this late stage I ask the Government—and it is my Government—not to slam the door on the Skytrain before it has taken off but to leave open the possibility for it to fly at some time in the future when world conditions have changed sufficiently for the Government to be able to take a chance.
5.1 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of KENWOOD: My Lords, I rise with some reluctance to intervene briefly in this debate on the subject of the Skytrain. I say "reluctance", because I am one of those who happen to earn their living in the retail travel trade and it could be levelled against me that I am biased against the Skytrain because the nature of its operation precludes the travel agent. In fact, my particular type of business is such that the advent of the Skytrain would affect it, if at all, only marginally; so I hope that I can speak dispassionately on the subject. It may be said that Mr. Laker invested a considerable sum of money in aircraft, relying on the assurances given by progressive Governments; but these investments were made without the ultimate licence from the US authorities and therefore must have been done with an element of speculation.
Skytrain has never been able to commence services and the conditions which prevailed when the project was first put forward and when the Edwards Committee reported have changed radically. The expected traffic increase has not matured; indeed the forecast is for only very slow growth on the London-New York route. Massive increases in the cost of fuel, causing substantial fare increases, together with a downturn in the economic climate, have resulted in a significant

55
decline in demand. Co-incidentally, and to a large extent as a result of the original licensing of Skytrain and also due to the gross abuses experienced in connection with affinity charters, there has arisen a new series of cheap fares both on scheduled services and particularly with the advent of the advanced booking charter. It is the latter version which competes most favourably with the charges proposed for Skytrain, and at certain times of the year their fares are lower than the Skytrain fares.
My Lords, it is contended by the supporters of Skytrain that one of its main advantages is that the fare is for a one-way journey and there is no restriction on the length of time one may stay in the United States. This is perfectly true. Indeed, it is only matched by the youth fare which has the same advantage although the cost is greater. However, in practical terms, how many existing and potential travellers would be able to spare the time and the money to stay away for more than the 45 days, which is the maximum permitted on the APEX fares and on most of the ABCs? My noble friend Lady Burton suggested that there would be some. I would not contest this, but I should not have thought that the numbers would be substantial.
So, my Lords, we come to the crux of the matter. What would be the effect of allowing Skytrain to operate? It is contended that there is little new demand for a service of this type and that, accordingly, the business which Skytrain would generate must be diverted from the existing schedule service operators and from the ABC operators. There is no dispute about this. What is disputed is the percentage of the business which would be diverted and the losses of revenue which British Airways would sustain as a result of it. As has already been mentioned several times, the airline calculates that its loss of revenue would be of the order of £3 million per annum, with a further £3 million should a reciprocal American service be introduced.
On this point, it is stated that the American CAB will not permit any of the US supplemental carriers to operate a scheduled service from America; and Mr. Laker has suggested that neither TWA nor Pan American Airways would operate a Skytrain service in parallel with
56
their own scheduled services. This belief does not accord with that held by the Board of Trade. I cannot believe that the Americans, who are not exactly noted for their willingness to permit undue advantage to be gained by other countries to the detriment of their own operators, would allow a Skytrain service to operate into the United States without insisting upon a reciprocal arrangement.
That being so, were TWA or PAA to compete with Skytrain it would be inevitable that British Airways would feel obligated to enter the battle; and the consequential effect of such a price war would be heavy losses for all carriers, including Skytrain. The Department of Trade has produced a fairly comprehensive document showing how it arrived at the figures of £3 million and £6 million and extracts from that document have already been given this afternoon. I do not propose to repeat them. Inevitably, the conclusions it reached have been based on certain presumptions which may be open to challenge; but there is no doubt that there would be a substantial loss to the Exchequer should Skytrain be permitted to operate and, particularly in the present economic circumstances, I do not believe that this loss would be acceptable.
5.7 p.m.
Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I think it is heartening to see the interest that this House has given to the approval of the new guidelines of the civil aviation policy. I am sure that the silent chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority is also grateful. I do not recall such an interest when the last guidelines were approved by this House. I am sure we should thank my noble friend Lord Strathcona for stimulating that interest and spotlighting the deeply contentious issue of the Skytrain. The purpose of the guidelines which we are considering this afternoon was stated by the Government in another place and again by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, as being to achieve four objectives against the background of a sorely depressed industry. I must say that on the matter of "a sorely depressed industry", I find that talking now to those in the industry it seems that the industry was certainly sorely depressed at the time the review was set up but that the present situation is getting more and more hopeful.

57
The four objectives of the Secretary of State when calling for this review were: to stimulate international competitiveness in the British industry; to encourage stability and particularly long-term investment; not to damage employment—this particularly with British Caledonian in mind; lastly, to be fairer to British Airways. I think that the first three objectives of the Government are identical to those of the Edwards Committee and of the last Government when they set up the first guidelines. In regard to the fourth objective: "to be fairer to British Airways", I suppose that, in fairness to British Airways, it is possible that at the time of the setting up of guidelines, the objective was to establish a second carrier, British Caledonian; and possibly at the present time, the guidelines to the Civil Aviation Authority could be amended to that point. Nevertheless, one has to recall that the Minister was saddled when he came to look at this policy by his own Party's policy towards British Caledonian in 1972. It was with that background that I commend him for his responsibility and political bravery in publicly stating in the past year or so that he wanted British Caledonian to continue and develop. With immense skill he has undoubtedly produced a formula of the new "carve-up" of the long haul routes. I say "skill" because he has managed to win the grudging, unenthusiastic approval of both British Airways and British Caledonian. Of course one could have seen the Minister doing something much worse: nationalisation of British Caledonian, or even ruination. I earnestly hope that the new route patterns which have been granted to British Caledonian—the "Pigmy" in this argument only 10 per cent. of the routes are available to them—will prove as viable as the Minister judges; and his judgment holds a very heavy responsibility.
The Government have failed on these two guidelines in one important feature The Secretary of State expressed, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, the hope that the guidelines would be left untouched for many years, and that the politicians would keep away. I do not think anyone would disagree with that; hut, despite paragraphs 7 and 8 of the new guidelines and against a background of the depressed industry, the
58
Government have tied the hands and the flexibility of the Civil Aviation Authority needlessly and restrictingly. They have tied their hands particularly on the question of double designation. It may not be a good point now to have double designation, but what will happen in three or five years' time if suddenly there is a boom? Are we to have yet another review?
So far as the British Caledonian position is concerned, I welcome their attitude, as I have said, for their continuing prosperity. They have proved undoubtedly their benefit to the consumer. This is a most important argument. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, does not travel with British Caledonian to Edinburgh or Glasgow, but if he did so he would see the undoubted benefit to the consumer. They have shown immense skill in winning international business for this country. I hope that the Government will give an undertaking that the change of routes which have been specified in the White Paper attached to the guidelines will be carried out as quickly as possible, particularly the difficult procedure of designation. I hope, in the interests of all parties, both British Airways and British Caledonian, on the long-haul scheduled routes that the noble Lord will be able to say that the Government will make an earnest effort in getting a quick and sensible changeover. I have particularly in mind the service to Houston and Atlanta for British Caledonian.
I should like to raise three brief points on the guidelines. The first is to do with the fares. In paragraph 16 of the guidelines the Government urge the Civil Aviation Authority to work for a more rational, simple and enforceable tariff arrangement for air fares. This is a splendid thought; I do not think anyone would disagree with the Government on this issue. I should like to ask how will the Civil Aviation Authority achieve this? What steps can they take at the moment with IATA, and what is the future of IATA in the eyes of the Government?
The second point is concerned with regional air services. In paragraph 15, the Government urge the Civil Aviation Authority to assist the development of the regional air services. I am sure they have in mind that the one point of growth

59
in air transport at the moment, particularly in the United States, is the intercity development. The French Government are supporting certain of their airlines to develop and expand the transport between secondary cities between France and Britain. I hope the Government will also bear this in mind. Perhaps the noble Lord can comment on that when he comes to reply.
The third point concerns the Civil Aviation charges. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne (who has a lot of experience in this matter) has already commented on that. The Government expect the Civil Aviation Authority to balance its books by 1977–78. But how does the Civil Aviation Authority intend to do this? I say this in the presence of their silent chairman, for which I apologise, but are their charges to continue to go up for such services as certification and licences, which have already increased by over 200 per cent. in the past few years? Can the operators stand further increases?
The last item on which I should like to comment briefly is Skytrain. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal decided to put down his Motion today and to speak with such excellent force. The Government's decision on the future of Skytrain is both disgraceful and shabby. It is disgraceful because it is clearly against the interests of consumers; I do not think there is much argument about that. It is shabby because it is against the Civil Aviation Authority's advice. The decision looks horribly political, either domestic or American-orientated.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt? Is the noble Earl sure that the decision about Skytrain is against the Civil Aviation Authority's advice? Might it not he a case that the Government are getting the Authority off the hook?
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has already been asked to state what is the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on this issue. If the noble Lord, Lord Brown, had looked at what had already been said, he would see that the Civil Aviation Authority indicated through the Secretary of State that it disagreed with the Sky-
60
train decision; and what it favoured was a delay on the decision.
My Lords, what can one add to what has already been movingly said by other speakers regarding this issue? The history, as we know, is most extraordinary because Skytrain started in 1972, so far as its licence was concerned, and over three years have gone by and the American permit has yet to be decided. It has taken three years. I say, "taken three years" because the Americans have dilly-dallied, fobbed off and delayed. They have incurred the wrath of the Civil Aviation Authority because they were acting in clear breach of the Bermuda Agreement. Then on the point of the American Government saying that they would be prepared to issue the licence, the designation, the Government arbitrarily and against the advice—although I stand corrected if I am wrong—of their own experts, the Civil Aviation Authority, and against any proper consultation with Laker, decided to withdraw the licence. Was this panic measure really necessary? I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that the problem of this issue is shrouded in a cloud of figures, and all are different. Probably the central problem of this issue is the present capacity over the North Atlantic. My noble friend quoted that the present capacity for British Airways across the Atlantic was 34 per cent.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, the present average load factor of all the operators on the Atlantic, including British Airways, is 64 per cent. for the nine months ending December.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I did not mean the load factor; I meant they had 34 per cent. of the market going across the Atlantic. I assume that relates to scheduled and not charter services. This is probably the key point in this issue. What are we talking about with Skytrain? We know it is a non-IATA scheduled service. But where is the market coming from? Is it indeed the charter market, or the scheduled services? I believe very strongly that it is much more orientated to the charter market because from the consumers' point of view, which is the basis of my first objection to the decision, this service adds greatly to the charter services even subject to the restrictions of APEX and ABC, as

61
mentioned by my noble friend, on would-be customers. I also feel—and this is a judgment which my noble friend Lord Balfour very fairly referred to—that the damage to British Airways is over-stated. I do not criticise their Chairman for circulating before this debate his views and further figures: in fact, it was his duty to do that and we are grateful. But this question of the £6 million loss of revenue represents only an estimate and not a firm figure and it refers only to their scheduled services and not to their charter services, which is surely an important point.
Finally, I object strongly to a licence being taken away, having been properly applied for and won after careful consideration by the Civil Aviation Authority. This licence could have been of great benefit to the consumer. It was a licence which was granted a certain ratio of the price of the fare, with £59 single and £118 return. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, indicated that the price structure of Skytrain would have to be reviewed, but I think I am right in saying that the Civil Aviation Authority approved the present quoted figures only nine months ago.
Regarding the American "bogey" Skytrain, one has heard time and time again that this is one of the main arguments in favour of the Government's decision. Not only would there be the capacity of the British Skytrain but also that of the American Skytrain. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could answer two questions later this afternoon because I think some clarification is needed. The first point is this. Is it possible for the scheduled American carriers—Pan American, TWA, and so on—to introduce Skytrain without infringing their IATA agreements? If they could not introduce the service, could the American supplementary carriers operate the Skytrain immediately or, as I suspect, would it require a change in the American law? If the latter is the case, one can envisage this taking a great deal of time. I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether Laker Airways have offered to delay their introduction of the Skytrain services in order to meet the worries expressed not only by the Government but by the Civil Aviation Authority.
62
Personally, it seems to me that the worst aspect of the Government's action in this shabby affair has been the almost puerile consultation which has taken place between Laker and the Government. Originally Skytrain was not included in the review, I understand. Then through a private Question the Government announced that it was, and on 29th July last when the Secretary of State made his Statement, he summoned Mr. Laker to a meeting only an hour before announcing to another place his decision to scrap Skytrain. Naturally Laker Airways pressed for meetings about the matter and the first one took place some five months later, on 12th December, when they met a top official. That official received the evidence they had got together, with their counter-arguments to try to balance up the position. He took the documents away and said that the matter obviously needed careful scrutiny and that he would deal with it. The second meeting was on 15th January, when the Minister received a delegation from Laker Airways. At that time he said that of course his officials would have discussed the case and would have examined the details of it. Of course they had not: and it was not until a third meeting took place on 9th February that Laker Airways were able to spend four hours with officials at the Department of Trade. Of course, my Lords, one has to remember that on 11th February—two days later—the White Paper was published. So one can probably assume—
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the noble Earl has such complete detail of the case that he must also be aware that there was one occasion when Lakers refused to attend a meeting to which they were invited by the Department of Trade. I cannot give the precise date at the moment, but I can supply it later. The noble Earl has such an immense amount of detail about this: surely he could have mentioned this point alongside that already given.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord. I was not aware that there had been a meeting which Laker Airways refused to attend, although I am

63
extremely surprised to hear about it in view of their constant pressure to get this matter looked at carefully by the Secretary of State. However, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that information. Nevertheless, I come now to the third meeting, which was an important one. Laker Airways had four hours with the officials and then two days later the White Paper was published. Some may say that the White Paper had already been printed.
That is the scope of the Government's consultation and now the Civil Aviation Authority have been instructed to withdraw the licence. It is a unique situation so far as the Civil Aviation Authority are concerned. They are now to withdraw a licence issued in 1972 and they pressed hard for the American permit for the licence to be able to go into operation. They are now to withdraw this licence on instructions from the Government against their own advice. As to the amount of the resulting loss to Laker—who knows what that will be? I suspect the compensation will be nil, because the CAA can hardly be to blame and very few people, wisely, sue the Government. That is the disgraceful decision which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, wishes us to support. I hope that this House will not accept the noble Lord's advice but will accept the Motion put by my noble friend and demonstrate that this House deplores the Government's handling of Skytrain.
5.27 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the real issue today is not the abstract one of whether official discouragement of innovation and enterprise will further accentuate Britain's economic decline vis-à-vis other industrialised nations—although it will accentuate our relative decline—or whether the abrogation of Skytrain's licence would be unfair to Mr. Laker—although it would be unfair to him—but the more concrete issue of whether Sky-train has come to pose such a threat to the revenues of British Airways since 1972 (for let us not forget that in 1972 BOAC, as it then was, made no objection whatever to the granting of a licence for Sky-train) that the Government are entitled, and indeed obliged, for the sake of the taxpayers—and we are all taxpayers—to take the unprecedented step of revoking
64
this licence. This was a licence which had been granted after long, careful and scrupulous deliberation by the Civil Aviation Authority.
There are only two assumptions, it seems to me, on which the Secretary of State could justify his case. The first is that the volume of transatlantic air traffic will remain static over the next few years. But the United States is already emerging strongly from economic recession, dragging the rest of the world on its coat-tails, albeit some way behind; and indeed British Airways' own Planning Co-ordinator visualised a growth of 66½ per cent. per anum on the North Atlantic route over the next five years. Another forecast which has been made is to the effect that there will be a growth of 12 to 18 per cent. in 1977 alone.
The second assumption is that Skytrain would syphon off habitual travellers in large numbers from scheduled airlines, and more specifically from British Airways alone as opposed to Pan American, TWA and other carriers. But no convincing reasons at all have been given for this assumption. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, estimated that 50 per cent. of Skytrain traffic would be newly generated, but I feel that that is an under estimate. Let us consider the categories of people who would be attracted to Skytrain. The first category would corn, prise students and they can be sub-divided into two groups. There would be relatively few British students who may wish to seek summer jobs on the North American Continent but do not want to commit themselves to a fixed return date; and I suggest that such initiative ought to be encouraged rather than otherwise. Then, in the other direction, there would be a very much larger number of American students—larger both because America has a greater population, and because, as your Lordships know, American students are, on the whole, much more affluent than British students. This tendency will benefit Britain's invisible earnings from tourism.
The second category—and I concede that it is a small one—would comprise small businessmen who have not previously exported to North America and want to dip a tentative toe in the water but feel that the payment of a full fare cannot be justified at this initial stage.

65
To the extent that their efforts are successful, the visible balance of payments will benefit; as indeed will British Airways, because once they start making profits they will not want to continue travelling by Skytrain, but will want to travel in relatively greater comfort from Heathrow.
The third and probably the largest category would comprise people of modest means with relatives on the other side of the Atlantic, who simply could not afford to travel at all at short notice other than on Skytrain. Consider, my Lords, the case of a family whose daughter married a GI in 1944. She falls ill and asks for her relations to go to her bedside, or, sadly, let us suppose that she dies and they have to go to the funeral. It is clearly impossible to book for a funeral two months in advance, and not many people going to one will want to stay for 22 days. So unless people like that can travel by Skytrain, they will not be able to afford to travel at all. Nearly all businessmen, most tourists and most families who can plan their trips well in advance will continue to travel by scheduled or charter services out of convenient airports such as Heathrow or Gatwick. After all, provided one can plan one's trip well in advance, the cost of doing so will be much the same as Skytrain, except in the peak months in the case of scheduled airlines, or the months of July and August in the case of charter airlines.
Furthermore, there is the difficulty of getting to Stansted, which is a long and arduous journey by car, as noble Lords who have done the journey will testify, and it will be impossible to buy a ticket at any London office. It will be necessary to go to Stansted and wait about before one knows whether or not one will get on the 'plane. Then, a lot of people find travelling by air an uncomfortable and nerve-racking experience, but scheduled airlines and most charter airlines are able to provide duty-free drink, free food and a general cosseting, which gives considerable psychological reassurance to such people. For obvious reasons, Laker Airways will not be able to follow suit to nearly the same extent. Even if Skytrain were to cut into British Airways' share of the North Atlantic traffic by more than the miniscule 5·4 per cent. which Laker estimates, I do not
66
believe that this would justify taking the unprecedented step of revoking a valid licence, in a situation where the operator in question is totally without blame, thus depriving the consumer of the right given by the 1971 Civil Aviation Act to have provided for him or her
"air services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand…at the lowest charges consistent with a high standard of safety."
This is not a doctrinal or Party political matter. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Lyons, on the Government Benches, I happen to know that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here today, is a strong supporter of Skytrain, in contrast, for instance, to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour on the other side of the House, who is dubious about its merits. Therefore, I call upon all noble Lords in all sections of the House, who believe that the consumer ought to be given a chance for a trial period of two years—because that is all that is being asked for—to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, into the Division Lobby.
5.35 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. First, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Kinnoull in the tribute he paid to the Civil Aviation Authority for the work it has done since it was set up. It is remarkable how few changes have had to be made in the guidance, and this is something which the House should note. I know how very difficult is the business of licensing air travel organisers, and I take it that the reason why paragraph 19 appears is to exonerate the Authority completely from any responsibility for what happens when the carrier carries people—I was going to say "cargo"—to their destination, so long as he gets them safely back again. However, I am tempted to ask; who is to be responsible for what happens in between at the other end? The least that is required is that, in some way or another, the customer, the consumer, the passenger or whatever he is called, should be enabled to know how much of what he is paying is for the charter of the flight, and how much is for food, bed and so on for his holiday at the other end.
The second tribute which I should like to pay is to British Caledonian. The

67
acceptance of the Edwards Report was not an easy decision to make, and of course it inevitably meant that some adjustments had to be made in what was then a virtual monopoly of external services by BOAC. But British Caledonian has done very well, and one regrets that economic circumstances caused them to withdraw from North America. One can only speculate as to what would have been in the guidance had British Caledonian succeeded in North America. I should like to know at this stage what was the total revenue earned by British carriers for North Atlantic traffic.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, can the noble Lord repeat the question? I should like to answer it, and I believe that I can. But when he talked about "carriers", did he mean British Airways, British Caledonian and charters, or just British Caledonian?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was talking of the North Atlantic traffic, so it is mainly British Airways. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us the three figures: the figure for British Airways, the figure for the charter operators and the figure for the rest. On the subject of double designation, it is inevitable, in the circumstances which I have just mentioned, that it should cease. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred to stability, and I should like to echo what he said. The situation may very well change. I hope that none of us accepts that we shall be in our present economic trough forever, and I am sure that things will go ahead again. When that happens, it may well be that there should be double designation and, of course, the guidance does not completely exclude that. But it does exclude it without the consent of the party already designated. I think this goes a little further than the normal kind of provision.
I shall read the complete passage in paragraph 8, which states:
"Nothing in paragraph 7 should, however, prevent the licensing of:
(b) British Caledonian Airways or another British airline to provide a scheduled service within British Airways' sphere of interest as defined by paragraph 7, provided British Airways has given its consent; or "—
and the kind of words one normally finds are, "has not withheld its consent unreasonably." This would be a good
68
amendment to make. Of course, exactly the same applies in the areas where Bitish Caledonian Airways are designated. They also should not unreasonably withhold their consent.
I turn briefly to the Laker question. I am sure that in principle we would all welcome innovation and experiment in this area of civil aviation. I think most of us feel that we have been cribbed, cabined and confined by the existing rules for far too long. We know the reasons: the safety factors, the need for international negotiation, bilateral agreements and all the rest of it, but here was an occasion for innovation and experiment. I join in what has been said by many of my noble friends about the cancellation of the licence. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I think this is a matter of principle. It seems to me that it is wrong in principle that a licence to operate a service should be cancelled without fault on the part of the licensee, and if it is cancelled in the public interest then the licensee should be indemnified.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord—
Lord DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I am not going to allow the noble Lord to interrupt because I think I know what he is going to say and I am coming to it.
Lord BROWN: Right, we shall see.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me. We do not know what loss is actually involved in this cancellation, but I think some independent person should find out. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was about to say that the last Government revoked licences for BOAC.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I—
Lord DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I wish to finish this point.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quoting me.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot quote what the noble Lord was going to say; I was saying that in my judgment he was going to say this.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord must allow me the right to deny it.
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note that the noble Lord wishes to deny it and I shall be glad to give way to him in a moment, but first I wish to make my point. The noble Lord may say—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, did say the other day—that the previous Government took away a licence from BOAC. The point there was that the Government had proposed and Parliament had accepted a policy: the policy, broadly speaking, of the Edwards Committee. That could not be implemented at all without some transfer of licences—a transfer obviously in the public interest. If any loss were to be incurred ultimately as a result of this, it would fall on the taxpayer and therefore the public interest was being sustained in this case by the Exchequer. It seems to me that the same principle should apply here.
I am not absolutely certain that I would really wish to support my noble friend's Motion as it stands, because I think this is a matter where one has to judge where the public interest lies. But I am absolutely certain that if the licence is cancelled there should be an indemnity paid since the cancellation is said to be in the public interest. I think one can rightly quote planning permission procedure here. If a planning permission is granted and it is subsequently revoked on grounds of public interest, then in those circumstances compensation is payable; I think the same principle should apply here. It may be, however, that Mr. Laker himself would prefer, rather than to have compensation at the present time, for the licence to be put in cold storage; if that is the better solution, think it should be adopted. For that reason I feel it right to support my noble friend. Before I sit down I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brown, wishes to say something.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, it really is quite improper for this House to try to call me to order because I rise to reject what the noble Lord has said he knows I was going to say when in fact I was going to say nothing of the kind. For those calls of "order" to be made to me is really unforgivable, because noble Lords in this House know perfectly well that when a Member is seriously misquoted—in hypothesis—he is entitled to rise and disclaim the hypothesis which
70
is projected on to him by another Member of the House.
What I was going to say originally I will now say. It is not as necessary as it was, but it was this: how can the noble Lord, with a first-class degree in philosophy, at one and the same time support the principle of abolishing double designation and another argument in favour of Laker which produces a massive degree of double designation? They seem to be quite inconsistent arguments but apparently the noble Lord holds them both in his mind.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first may I say that it was the noble Lord himself who was out of order in trying to rise to his feet when I was not ready to give way. I recognise that these things happen, and if I anticipated him wrongly it was simply that I wanted to conclude my argument at the time, and I feel certain that it was the right way to proceed. Having said that, I do not think there is any contradiction here at all. Double designation might be quite possible for an entirely new type of service. This is exactly what happened when charter services were originally introduced.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: And Concorde, my Lords.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, and Concorde. It was a way of avoiding the very strict IATA rules, or letting them develop and evolve. I think it would be reasonable to do so in this case, and there does not seem to me to be any fundamental objection to this, except at the present time from Her Majesty's Government.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we have had an interesting and intriguing debate this afternoon and I should like to start by saying that, probably like several other noble Lords, I am not terribly happy about all the forecasts for expansion that we have had, and in particular on the North Atlantic run. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, we can all sometimes be blinded by figures. I am given to understand that the coordinator for British Airways has forecast that there will be a 6½ per cent. increase in travel over the North Atlantic in the next few years. At the same time

71
a survey carried out in America by American Express said that if fares were reduced by 30 per cent. travel would increase by 49 per cent. These figures seem to be a little conflicting.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, both said—I think quite rightly and it has been mentioned by one or two other noble Lords—that the airlines exist for the passengers and not vice versa. In that connection I should like to refer to what my noble friend Lord Amherst said about the amenities for travellers at London Airport, which still leave a lot to be desired.
Turning to the civil aviation guidance paper, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, wrote to me the other day about British Caledonian and their route to Atlanta and Houston. I wonder whether he has any more definite views as at today's date. I should also like to ask the noble Lord, whether he can give some up-to-date information on British Airways' landing rights in New York for Concorde, bearing in mind that not only is this terribly important if the aircraft is to prove itself commercially viable, but particularly in view of the fact that I have been informed that Iran Air are getting more and more keen on buying aircraft 14 and 16 and wish to operate them from Teheran via London and Paris to New York.
Can the noble Lord please also tell the House how negotiations are going with the Indian Government so that the Australian route may be started, because I feel it is very important that if Concorde is to be a viable commercial success we should take advantage of it while we have it. In the not-too-distant future, towards the end of the 1980s, the Americans will probably have an advanced supersonic transport. Should Concorde prove itself commercially successful on the North Atlantic run—which I think is the hope of most noble Lords—would the Government consider letting British Caledonian maybe lease the Concorde for their South American run? For the benefit of anyone who does not know, there are wet leasings and dry leasings; a wet lease is the lease of an aircraft with its crew. On the subject of leasing, has any progress been made with the four airlines, SIA of Singapore, VIASA, Braniff and United
72
who, I gather, have indicated a growing interest and a lot of enthusiasm about leasing Concordes?
My Lords, before I get to what must be the controversial part of this debate this evening, may I briefly speak on some figures of British Airways. Alas! British Airways suffers from that well-known illness, British disease. The company is as well-equipped as, and probably better equipped than, most of its rivals, but it needs nine men to make 1,000-ton kilometers available, as opposed to the eight men of Air France, and the six and a half of most other airlines. In spite of this extra manpower, it is also alleged—although I do not necessarily agree with this—that it makes poorer use of its aircraft. Whether this is due to inefficient management, restrictive practices, the airline's widespread route network, or its recent evolution from BEA and BOAC, I do not know. But I do know that British Airways earns a lower value per employee than most other airlines.
So I come to Skytrain. Until such time as it actually is "hatched from the egg", what we have said this afternoon must remain hypothetical. As I listened to the arguments for and against it, I felt like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry—torn in two. I am in great sympathy with her feeling. With regard to civil aviation guidelines policy, we on these Benches have nothing against it at all. But as far as the Skytrain is concerned, it should not be a matter of Party, but of conscience, or one's own morality, for want of a better word.
In spite of the market researches that have been carried out, figures can be obtained which satisfy whichever side of the fence you want to sit on. I honestly think that most noble Lords who sit in this House and who are fair-minded must, somewhere deep down, agree that if Mr. Laker's licence is revoked, he will have had a very raw deal. The noble Lord, Lord Lyons of Brighton, put it far better than I can, at greater length and in more detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and others this afternoon, I also believe that it is amoral to revoke a licence from an airline carrier who has not committed a misdemeanour—and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Laker has not done that. The attitude of British Airways to Skytrain on 11th March was that because of little

73
new demand, it will cause damage to British Airways. Again, such figures cannot be proved.
As was said by the noble Baroness. Lady Burton of Coventry, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, there seems to be two completely different and conflicting ideas about the Americans and Skytrain. Mr. Laker says they cannot operate; British Airways says they can. Will the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, please let us have the right answer? Mr. Laker also assures us that he will terminate or withdraw the Skytrain business, if he were granted it, if, through diversions, it became damaging to British Airways. That seems to be fair. If the Government are worried about this aspect, and the licence is not revoked, could not something be written into the terms of the licence which will guarantee this happening? I understand too that Mr. Laker is happy with the two-year trial period.
My Lords, I now want to quote one short passage from the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Trade on 11th February and repeated in this House. The right honourable Gentleman said:
"I have given further consideration to the proposed Laker Skytrain service but I remain convinced that in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for the foreseeable future Skytrain will develop relatively little new traffic. It would however add excess capacity and would do substantial damage to British Airways' existing services…. I am confident that the airline"
—Laker Airways—
"will continue to build up their already extensive charter business, particularly with North America, and my Department will continue to support them in this."—[Official Report; 11/2/76; Col. 105.]
Perhaps I am a simpleton, but these sentences seem to be entirely contradictory.
To my mind, one or two noble Lords this afternoon seemed to be much too worried about Mr. Laker going broke, and putting this up as an argument against Skytrain. That could well be left for Mr. Laker. In all sincerity, I think that the licence should not be revoked, and that it should be given the light of day before it is buried. Therefore, I ask the Government earnestly to reconsider their decision, or to postpone it, and to repeat that the airlines are here for the consumer. This amendment should not
74
be a Party decision, but one of conscience, and I shall vote accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this debate has been separated into two parts. First, we have the Motion of the Government for approval of the new policy Guidance set out in the White Paper (Cmnd. 6400) and I would like to say immediately that I support the Government in this, although I would like to draw attention to just one or two points contained in the Guidance. Then we have the separate Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, which calls on the Government to reverse their decision to instruct the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke the licence for the Laker Skytrain.
My Lords, we have had a debate in which different views have been put forward by noble Lords, some of whom have a long and deep interest and experience of this industry. But I think it is fair to claim that on this issue, my noble friend has made a formidable case. He has been supported by other noble Lords in different parts of the House. I trust that before the end of the debate, we shall hear that the injustice towards the enterprise of Mr. Laker at the very least in being reconsidered.
But first, may I welcome the Secretary of State's Guidance—not totally, but in this sense. Like the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, I believe the Guidance ends the long period of uncertainty, and that there is little doubt that British Airways and British Caledonian are thankful for this. In particular, the decision about spheres of influence will, I expect, now enable both airlines to develop, having only one-tenth of the revenue of British Airways. This is obviously a vital factor for British Caledonian which now will be able to begin to introduce the use of wide-bodied jets; and thirdly the petition in paragraph 6 of the Guidance that British Caledonian is the national second force airline now clears the air on that particular issue.
Therefore, there is no need to repeat the case for British Caledonian, which so effectively was deployed by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on 22nd January. May I just say one thing on that matter? If one looks at Chapter II of the Edwards Report, one reads what the Committee,

75
seven years ago, called the possible objectives for British civil aviation. The 10 objectives which they listed included satisfying the customer, achieving profits through efficiency, air safety, helping the balance of payments, providing opportunities for both employment and enterprise, and improving communications. I would contend that on these, indeed on all the 10 grounds which were listed in that chapter, British Caledonian have borne out the recommendation of the Edwards Committee to establish a second force airline and have borne out the decision of the Government of the day to support the setting up of British Caledonian.
Only the Government have the full facts from which the Secretary of State was able to reach his very difficult decisions and produce the new Guidance. It is true that paragraphs 10 and 11 of the White Paper give some information, but it is only in very broad terms. I should like, therefore, to ask one or two questions about the reallocation of the routes. First, clearly the Secretary of State has tried to balance the allocation of routes as fairly as possible. But civil aviation is a hazardous commercial operation and success must depend on developing profitable services. The White Paper says that the British Caledonian route to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru should be capable of being extended to Ecuador. The White Paper also includes the welcome recognition of British Caledonian's right to the Atlanta and Houston services. Will the Government give an assurance that whenever licences are granted everything possible will be done to try to secure the authority of the foreign Government concerned so that flying operations can begin? I am bound to point out that of the North Atlantic routes for which British Caledonian had been licensed only New York and Los Angeles were actually fully designated.
I think it can reasonably be claimed, therefore, as the airline has done, that those routes represent a considerable proportion of their potential future growth which they had not been able to test. That reminds one that Atlanta/Houston, a route which belonged to British Caledonian by the right of being licensed, is now also waiting for the proper international agreement to be forthcoming. Really the very slow process of turning
76
a licence into a full right to fly must be radically improved, and I do not ask that on behalf of a particular airline but in the national interest.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, drew attention to paragraph 12 of the White Paper, which refers to future discussions between the two airlines on co-operation. May I just say that I think this must be right. For instance, there must be compelling reasons to co-operate in the provision and use of various technical services, and my noble friend Lord Balfour, with his long experience, mentioned another reason as well. But I doubt whether this co-operation is actually going to ensue unless some other help is forth-coming—I think my noble friend said, from the Civil Aviation Authority—possibly from the Government. And, of course, co-operation will not be achieved unless criticism of the new Guidance as being unfair to one airline or the other ceases—and may I quickly say that it is not coming from either airline. Some real sacrifices are being required, not least from staff who are having to be moved from one route to serve another. Within the context of the Secretary of State's policy, I believe that the decisions he has reached on this matter give a fair chance for British civil aviation to develop.
My last question about the Guidance is this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, I am not entirely clear from reading the text whether the Government's prohibition of dual designation is something which is going to be reconsidered by the Government as a matter of policy according to the state of British civil aviation. After all, Concorde is a form of dual designation; so in a sense are the charter services, because they are a different type of service, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne put it. Paragraph 12 of the Guidance appears to indicate that the Secretary of State would not be obsolutely dogmatic on the dual designation issue, and I very much hope that this is the case. After all, no one can tell what the future holds for air travel. What is certain is that just as Concorde has become a reality because it is not in human nature to deny innovation, so the reality is that as time goes on more and more people will want to travel. Already there are some signs, so my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said, of a recovery from

77
the severe recession of 1974. And no-where is this more likely to become apparent than across the North Atlantic. The United States economy is recovering, and the present disparity of exchange rates is, I should have thought, bound to attract United States citizens to this country in large numbers. Although I know he did not get absolute acceptance of his point, I thought my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made a valid point in saying that if the United States can have what is really triple designation perhaps under certain circumstances we could have dual designation.
I am not in any way contradicting my noble friend Lord Balfour, who said that in present circumstances single designation is about right; but I would ask that, if a revival in passenger air traffic begins and is sustained, the wish of the Civil Aviation Authority—so it was recorded by the Secretary of State in another place—to be given greater freedom to allow some dual designations not be wholly denied. After all, civil aviation is at the mercy of events, political, military, monetary and social, and it must make sense for an airline to be able to seize the chance to develop profitably when those opportunities occur. It may just be that before long the North Atlantic will provide such an opportunity. All am asking is for the Government to recognise that this may in the future be the case.
The issue of Skytrain, which has been raised by my noble friend, is, I think, entirely separate, and I emphasise this because, whereas the Secretary of State has reached difficult decisions with regard to British Airways and British Caledonian by imposing a degree of give and take in order to reach a solution, the Secretary of State has elected to kill Mr. Laker's Sky-train project stone dead. My noble friend and other noble Lords have argued this case at some length, and I think to great effect. I would only put some questions, if I may, to the Government.
First, when everyone—not least the Government, and quite rightly so—wants certainty in order to plan for the future, is it wise to cast doubt upon the judgment of the Civil Aviation Authority in this way? After all, when all is said and done, Skytrain is licensed. It is true that the Authority has recognised that it could not recommend a suitable date for
78
launching the new service. But, as I understand it, Laker Airways recognise this, do not propose to start until next year, and could not do so anyway until agreement is forthcoming from the United States. The Laker Skytrain licence runs for 10 years from 1973, and it strikes me—I hesitate to put this forward when the chairman sits listening silently—that the Civil Aviation Authority might reasonably take the view that it has made it clear that the present moment might not be opportune, that in principle Mr. Laker has made his case and his day will come.
My noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, mentioned the valid point that neither the White Paper nor Government statements have mentioned the customer. If one glances at Page 9 of the Edwards Report, one finds these words written:
"One of the odd things about statements on civil air transport is that they very rarely talk about the customer in simple language. So let us say that in our view the primary long-term objective of a national policy towards commercial flying should be to see that each customer, be it for personal travel or for freight, gets what he wants, not what somebody else thinks he ought to want, at the minimum economic price that can be contrived."
What will happen if the Civil Aviation Authority, bearing those words in mind, feels that it cannot accept the Secretary of State's guidance and simply takes no action to revoke the Skytrain licence?
Secondly, why do the Government—it was done in another place and it has been done by the noble Lord again today—make the mutually contradictory assertions that, on the one hand, Skytrain would damage British Airways and, on the other, the Skytrain concept is not an improvement on the existing structure of services? Both assertions cannot be correct. Either Mr. Laker has hit on a new service which would be preferred to other services, or he has not. Or is there perhaps a third option? Would Sky-train attract new travellers? The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I sometimes wonder whether Ministers have any idea of the appalling cost of travel today. Simply to get to an airport costs a fortune, and there must be many people—and I say this seriously to the noble Lord—who would welcome the level of

79
the fare of Skytrain without the conditions which have to be imposed by charter and tour flights. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that he was quoting a Laker return fare because it would be comparable with other services. The whole point of this debate is that the Laker Skytrain and the other services are not comparable: they are, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said, an experiment and an innovation.
Thirdly, on the question of diversion, the Department of Trade Red Book estimates 25 per cent. of newly generated traffic. Mr. Laker does not agree. My only conclusion is that no one really knows how much traffic would be diverted because all the statistics refer to the past. But what we do know is that the Government statistics are not really very reliable. First, because, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull pointed out, they make an assumption that diversions would he greater from scheduled than from charter services, and I should have thought that that was questionable. Secondly, the Government statistics have been taken between the years 1973 and 1975 when air travel was in decline, a situation which everyone in this House agrees would not be a suitable situation in which to introduce the Skytrain service.
In those respects, therefore, I believe that the Secretary of State has taken his decision to kill Skytrain on a false premise, and that the mistake is compounded by the false assumption that a competing United States Skytrain would start simultaneously. Having listened to the whole debate, I should have thought that there are rather tenuous grounds for such an assumption, and no grounds for the way in which the Department of Trade, with vivid imagination in its Red Book, has allocated what the noble Lord, Lord Lyons of Brighton, called, "thundering herds of Skytrains" to be operated from different parts of Europe by apparently all the airlines of the world. If, however, there is anything in the Department of Trade's contention, should it not lead the Government to consider whether Skytrain is perhaps a most attractive proposition commercially which should be encouraged so that Britain would get in at the van? Let me ask the noble Lord a last question. What would the Government do if the civil
80
aeronautics board in the United States licensed a United States Skytrain in a context of sharply improving air travel? Would the Government refuse designation until our scheduled national flag carrier on the route, British Airways, could start one, also? That would be a monstrous injustice to the man who pioneered the whole idea.
The Government have a serious case to answer over their conduct towards Laker Airways. Under the existing guidance Mr. Laker succeeded in making his case before the CAA. He has raised considerable finance and he has purchased aircraft, but now the Government step in and reverse the CAA's decision. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said here was a chance for innovation. Surely there is a compelling case to allow Skytrain at least a trial period. It is going to be very little use Ministers exhorting industry to invest if this is going to be the reward for enterprise and hard work. I think that the Government have taken a rather shabby decision based on incomplete evidence, and I trust that the decision can be reconsidered before it is too late.
6.14 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the way in which he has welcomed the document relating to the directive and the general terms in which it has been written. Like him I should like to split our discussion into two halves: the first relating to the Guidance document itself, and the second relating to the Government's attitude in relation to Laker Airways and the Skytrain. The two hang together and are closely interrelated, but noble Lords are in fact discussing two separate issues and I should like to try to separate the two strands as best I can.
May I first turn to various points made on the guidance document. I think it is true to say that the general sense of today's debate is that in general double designation is damaging in the world economic climate in which we find ourselves. The case was made most strongly by my noble friend Lord Brown, with his previous deep experience of the situation of the aviation industry in the days when he held a most responsible position in the Board of Trade. Another point

81
made very clearly early on in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was that the reason why we have a new set of guidance rules for the aviation industry was that out of an apparently sunny sky we were struck by the use of the oil weapon by the Arab countries which has led to the various economic difficulties facing all the Western nations of the world, one of which (and only one of which) is the problem which it imposed on world aviation. Everybody seems to forget, when arguing about our present economic discontents, this sudden blow that all Western economies received. It is the problems following upon that blow which my noble friend the Secretary of State has tried to resolve by this new set of rules of guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority. That is the first point I want to make.
I think that the most important point made by various noble Lords in the House was on the question of the position of the customer within the terms of guidance given to the industry. My noble friend Lady Burton was very strong on this point. However, the customer is not forgotten. The new Guidance in fact starts with the same words as before:
"Civil air transport exists by serving the public. The Authority should inform itself of the public's needs and take full account of them."
That is a good statement of intent. In fact, the realities of the economic situation are even stronger than the statement of intent itself. The hard fact of economic life is that airlines prosper or do not prosper according to whether or not they serve the public who are their customers. If an airline is slovenly, late, and considered unsafe, then the various customers will travel by another airline. So the real discipline upon airlines is not so much directives in a White Paper but the service that these airlines can give to the consumer himself.
One point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is important. British Caledonian has won a very warm position in the heart of the travelling public because of the high quality of service it provides over a large number of routes on the short run and the long run. Having said that, may I say that I hope my noble friend will recognise that there can be no customers unless airlines exist. Airlines
82
can exist only if, taking one year with another, they can run on a reasonably profitable basis. That is why the Government have been forced to lay down certain guidelines, reached after very careful thought and long discussion—in fact, the Government have been criticised for the delay in producing these guidelines—in the hope that the best solution of the economic problems of all the flying interests in this country can be resolved by taking these economic considerations into careful study and laying down a policy which will prevent wasteful competition between airlines in this country which should be uniting to fight the very powerful foreign competition which they have to face.
I wish to make an important point in reply to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry. She asked a question which I cannot answer in this debate, and a similar question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. That question is about the interrelationship of the Civil Aviation Authority and this House and another place. The CAA is a State corporation but with as much independence of judgment given to it as is considered possible. As I understand it, my noble friend is anxious that the Airline Users' Committee should be freed from its relationship with the CAA and presumably given the power to question Ministers directly on various points of policy relating to the consumer, the air traveller. This is an interesting point but I do not think it is one that should be discussed today.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I wrote to my noble friend last week and I gave him specific paragraph numbers today. I asked him if the Department of Trade had an opinion on the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in regard to the Airline Users' Committee being given teeth of its own. As the document we are discussing was presented by the Secretary of State for Trade, I asked if that Department had or did not have an opinion.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have not had the benefit of being able to discuss the letter which my noble friend sent to me with the Department. In any case, I believe that this is a subject which could best be discussed not when we are discussing the guidance which is being

83
given to the CAA but on another occasion; for example, perhaps when the annual report of the CAA is being debated in this House. This might act as a reply to the question asked by Lord Trefgarne. His search for facts is important and praiseworthy, but I think it is not a subject for today. The conditions under which such a debate might take place might be a debate raised on the annual report of the CAA. I think that that could be a most interesting debate because in its short life the CAA has been able to give very valuable service to the flying side of the aviation industry. What we are discussing today, however, is commercial guidance to the industry as a whole.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, do not the guidelines go in some detail into the finances of the CAA and was not the burden of my question the cost of a particular aspect of the Authority's activities, which, after all, have some bearing on the guidelines?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has a certain amount of right on his side, my Lords, but answering a question such as that in detail would come in much better perspective within a debate on the activities of the CAA as a whole and within the framework of its annual statement of accounts. I have, in fact, received two pieces of advice on the point raised by the noble Lord but they are not quite the same, so I would be grateful if he would not press me too hard to deal with the subject now.
The next point of major importance raised by several noble Lords, particularly by Lord Belstead, was on the question of co-operation between British Caledonian and British Airways immediately after the coming into effect of this guidance document. I think it true to say that no Government can impose collaboration on two commercial organisations; they can only encourage it. However, noble Lords will be interested to know that a joint airlines team comprised of representatives of British Caledonian and British Airways is currently visiting South America to make arrangements for the smooth transition from British Airways to British Caledonian. Both airlines have indicated then intention to examine the scope for increased
84
co-operation in the commercial and technical fields and I am sure that we would all welcome such progress as is possible in these areas. Lord Balfour of Inchrye mentioned another area where collaboration might occur—in air safety and accident inspection—and might bring about major economies. The points which noble Lords have made will, of course, be carefully studied by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope I have answered the various points relating to the guidance and if noble Lords have other points they would like answered they will doubtless draw my attention to them.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will write to noble Lords who made points which he has not answered? I made half a dozen which he has not dealt with.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: That is my usual desire, my Lords. If I cannot answer from this Box a question asked by a noble Lord, I try to answer in writing; some matters are complex and are better dealt with in that way.
I come to the difficult affair of Skytrain. I have great sympathy with noble Lords who claim that we are lost or, to put it bluntly, are being blinded with science and statistics; according to the set of hypotheses one takes up, one can reach almost any conclusion. Having had time to study the matter, I believe that the case for the Government's withdrawal of this licence is strong. It is based on the arguments made strongly by my noble friend about the illogicality of supporting the concept of double designation and then promptly proposing an even larger dose of double designation to follow on the guidance. Most noble Lords are basing their arguments on the actual public pronouncements of Mr. Laker and I wish to deal with one of them; that is, whether the introduction of Skytrain by Mr. Laker would lead to damaging competition across the North Atlantic, and I will give the view of Her Majesty's Government on that point.
In August 1975, following upon pressure from this Government, the United States authorities gave an assurance that if in future we decided that Skytrain should start, they would give prompt attention to the issuance of a foreign air carrier permit at that time. Although

85
they gave that undertaking, they did not give any undertakings about the terms and conditions of the permit, which might well be very restrictive. For example, although the figure of £59 has been quoted throughout this debate, that figure has been plucked out of the air. That figure was approved by the Civil Aviation Authority last year but the Authority itself said that the figure would have to be reviewed before the service started. So £59 is not a firm figure. The licence, when granted, could reduce the amount of capacity below the 250,00 seats per year licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and the United States authorities could specify different airports. If we entered into negotiations when there is no American agreement to the proposed licence we could run into trouble over fares, seats permitted and airports used. The United States authorities have always emphasised their concern about the proposed Skytrain fare because they regard it as uneconomic and diversionary, and they have described the proposed increase in capacity as "massive".
In the face of such competition from Laker, we have to expect the United States airlines to insist that they should be allowed to offer a matching service. The scheduled carriers—Pan American and TWA—both opposed Laker's application to the United States Civil Aeronautics Board, but they have made it clear that, if Skytrain were to start, they would expect to be able to offer a matching facility. Noble Lords will appreciate that their permits currently allow them to operate all their scheduled services into Heathrow. It would require difficult negotiations to limit a "United States Skytrain" to only one of those airlines and to force it to operate to Stansted like Laker Skytrain, given that their existing services are based on Heathrow. I believe that most damning of all is the view expressed by the Civil Aeronautics Board that, if Skytrain goes through, there would be an end to the capacity agreements which now exist between ourselves and the United States. It is those capacity agreements which brought a measure of sanity to the situation which ruled over the Atlantic immediately after the imposition of the oil weapon and the rise of three and a half times in oil prices.
86
So we are arguing this evening not about a fact but about a hypothesis. I suppose that I could bore your Lordships at some length with other statistics, but I do not propose to do so. We are arguing about a hypothetical project which more than probably would be killed dead by the United States Government. For that reason, this fact must be borne in mind by all noble Lords when they come to consider whether something precious has been killed or whether a rather attractive idea has died. I should, however, like to answer one point and I feel that it must be answered fairly firmly. A great deal has been said about the shabby treatment meted out to Mr. Laker in the course of the various negotiations. May I put on the Record the exact time scale of the negotiations? This review was announced in November 1974 and Mr. Laker was invited to give evidence. His original submission did not, oddly enough, include Skytrain. Following the Civil Aviation Authority's review and report in February 1975, Skytrain was expressly included and Mr. Laker was invited to give evidence. He did so both in writing and orally.
I come now to the point which, in my view, counters the statement that Mr. Laker was told about the Government's decision only at the last moment. He was clearly told on 29th July, when the Secretary of State made a Statement in another place and said:
"I have accordingly told Laker Airways that in these circumstances the Skytrain service cannot be allowed to start."—[Official Report, Commons, 29/7/75; col. 1504.]
That is the situation. Nearly nine months have passed since the time when Mr. Laker was told that Skytrain could not start. All noble Lords who have spoken in today's debate have agreed that, even if the licence continued in existence. Skytrain could not start now. Time would have to pass until traffic over the Atlantic reached a level at least equal to that of 1972.
We come now to the rather more important question of the morality of the action. The Government are said to have acted immorally and to have treated Mr. Laker shabbily. We have a precedent which has been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Brown and by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Active licences

87
were withdrawn from British Airways and transferred without compensation to British Caledonian. I feel sensitive not so much on the point of withdrawal of the licences from British Airways—because it is an organisation which is underwritten by the Government and the situation is, in that sense, different—but because I am concerned about whether something of value has been taken from Mr. Laker, although it is of future rather than present value. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that damages might be costed and to the idea of the withdrawal of licences as a loss of something of value. This is almost certainly not the last time that a licence will be withdrawn and I believe that it is worth thinking about this question in the context of what might happen in the future.
Again, thinking in the context of the future, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who asked me if it were not possible that, if conditions improved, double designation in certain areas might again be considered. I am sure that this is true and that the guidelines are not rigid. If the Civil Aviation Authority considered at some time in the future that double designation was advisable on some routes, they would no doubt give advise to that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out that the original guidelines have lasted pretty well when it is considered that this is their first revision. The original guidelines lasted for five years and the present ones may also do so. One noble Lord mentioned 20 years, but I believe that it is most improbable that they will last so long as that. The guidelines are a flexible document, negotiated in such a way that it is hoped that they will last for a considerable period and will give continuity to the industry as a whole.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that we are arguing about a hypothesis. The real problem is that Mr. Laker may or may not have suffered damage, but no one can really prove it. I believe that it is worth carrying out the study suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but may I draw your
88
Lordships' attention to the situation if, after the second Question is put, the Government are defeated on the issue of Laker? I appreciate that a number of noble Lords have expressed their support for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, which appeals to the Government to reconsider their decision in respect of Skytrain. Naturally I shall convey the views expressed in the House this afternoon to my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and I know that he will give them careful consideration. However, I would remind the House that general support has been expressed in this debate—and I thank noble Lords for it—for the draft policy guidance for which I am seeking approval. Of course, it has already been approved in another place. If this House also gives its approval, the way will be clear for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority in the terms of the draft. He is, I know, anxious that new guidance should be given at the earliest possible moment so that the Authority and the industry shall not be left in uncertainty. Subject to that, my right honourable friend will take careful note of the views expressed in this House, and I shall ensure that they are drawn to his attention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will be relieved to know that I am not about to make a speech. I ended my speech during the debate on the earlier Motion by moving the Motion which stands in my name. In doing that I hoped to be helpful and wished to avoid confusion, but I now learn that I was, strictly speaking, out of order and so I apologise to the House. I now beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the instruction to the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke the Laker Airways "Skytrain" licence.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83;Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ferrers, E.

Redesdale, L.

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

Aldenham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Allerton, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Amory, V.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Auckland, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Hanworth, V.

Salisbury, Bp.

Banks, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seear, B.

Bessborough, E.

Kimberley, E.

Selborne, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Shannon, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lothian, M.

Shuttleworth, L.

Carrington, L.

Loudoun, C.

Somers, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cross, V.

Lytton, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monck, V.

Daventry, V.

Monson, L.

Terrington, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thorncycroft, L.

Denham, L.

Newall, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Onslow, E.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Faithfull, B.

Phillips, B.

Westbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Amherst, E.

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

Northfield, L.

Aylestone, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, B.

Feather, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Balogh, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Parry, V.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Boothby, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Platt, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brown, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacobson, L.

Slater, L.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF PERISHABLE FOODSTUFFS BILL [H.L.]
6.48 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have
90
been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore unless any noble Lord objects I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
6.49 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved. You will remember, my Lords, that two years ago in this House you approved legislation on solicitors which was designed to consolidate and bring up to date the law regulating the profession of solicitors. The order now before you corresponds to a large degree to that legislation, and is, in fact, based on the proposed Solicitors measure in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
However, it contains some provisions which the Assembly had not considered up to the time it was prorogued. The general purpose of the order is to facilitate improvements in legal education and training; to revise the law relating to admission to the profession and conduct within it; to provide for the setting up of a compensation fund, financed by the profession, to relieve hardship resulting from dishonesty by solicitors or their employees; to authorise regulations to be made requiring solicitors to take out insurance against claims for negligence; and to make new provisions about costs for legal work outside the courts. My Lords, this is a most comprehensive measure which provides new safeguards for the public and meets the requirements of the profession. I will now deal with the order in more detail.
Part I, containing Articles 1, 2 and 3, is introductory and deals with the title, commencement and interpretation. Part II (Articles 4 to 25) deals with the qualification of solicitors, their admission to the profession and their conduct or discipline. Article 4 simply restates the qualifications which a person must possess in order to practise as a solicitor. Article 5 defines the requirements for admission of a solicitor, as to which the Law Society is empowered to make regulations under Article 6. In effect, the applicant must satisfy the Society that he has complied with these regulations, and also that he is fit to be a solicitor. Under Article 6 the Law Society of Northern
92
Ireland is given more flexible powers, exercisable by regulations subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, for regulating the education, training, qualifications, conduct, experience and control of persons seeking admission as solicitors. Articles 7 to 13 deal with the appointment and duties of a registrar of solicitors and with applications for practising certificates, and contain provisions regarding the issue, the refusal and duration of these certificates. Article 14 confers upon a solicitor a right of appeal to the Council of the Society against the refusal of a practising certificate by the registrar. A further appeal lies from a decision of the Council to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
Articles 15, 16 and 17 deal with the suspension of practising certificates; Article 18 contains provisions in respect of evidence of the holding of a practising certificate; and Article 19 prohibits an unqualified person from acting as a solicitor. Article 20 imposes specific penalties on solicitors who practise as such without having a practising certificate in force, and Article 21 prohibits a solicitor from practising while he is an undischarged bankrupt or, if his suspension from practise has been terminated subject to terms and conditions, without complying with those terms and conditions. In Article 22 any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be qualified to act as a solicitor is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200. Article 23 recognises that an unqualified person may prepare a will, an agreement under hand only, a power of attorney or a transfer of stock without committing an offence, but if he carries out certain other specified duties in connection with the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 or dealing with personal or real estate, he may be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200. Article 24 prohibits an unqualified person from acting in connection with the preparation of papers for probate, et cetera, and Article 25 provides that no costs shall he recoverable where an unqualified person acts as a solicitor.
I now come, my Lords, to Part III of this order, which deals with the professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors, and which covers Articles 26 to 54. Much of this Part substantially re-enacts existing law, but Article 42, which makes provision for lay observers

93
of the Society's complaints procedure, is new. The Northern Ireland Assembly did not have an opportunity to discuss this article, which goes rather further than the equivalent English provision. In the Northern Ireland order the lay observer's role will not be confined to the examination of complaints specifically referred to him. This extension of the observer's role is made possible by the smaller nature of the problem in Northern Ireland. Article 26 allows the Law Society to make regulations relating to the professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors. Restrictions on the conduct of practice of solicitors are contained in Articles 27 to 32, and the keeping of accounts by solicitors in Articles 33, 34 and 35. A point of note in this section is that Article 28(2)(e) is a new provision to allow solicitors to be employed by non-profit-making legal advice centres. I should indicate that when considering applications for directions under Article 28, or any waivers of the Society's practice rules or regulations and the terms on which they should be granted, the Law Society has agreed to work in close consultation with the Secretary of State, who in turn may consult with the Lord Chief Justice.
Article 31 would allow the Law Society to debar untrustworthy persons from employment in solicitors' offices. Articles 33 and 34 would allow the Law Society to require the accounts of solicitors to be kept in a standard form. Article 36 would allow the Law Society to intervene in the control of property by a solicitor, and Articles 37 to 41 deal with other details of this matter. I have already referred to Article 42, my Lords and Articles 43 to 54 deal in detail with disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. These provisions will have the effect of strengthening the machinery for investigating complaints and extend the power of the Disciplinary Committee, and solicitors will have a right of appeal to the High Court against the committee's decisions.
Part IV, my Lords, consisting of Articles 55 to 63, deals with the setting up of a compensation fund, and professional indemnity. The compensation fund would pay compensation to people who had sustained loss or hardship through the dishonesty of a solicitor or member of his staff, and could also provide a grant for a solicitor who suffers (or is likely to suffer)
94
hardship by reason of his liability to his clients because of an act or default of his partner or member of staff. The fund would be constituted by annual contributions from all established solicitors—those who have been in practice for more than two years. Schedule 2 sets out details of the fund. Article 63 is new, and would empower the Council of the Law Society to make regulations requiring solicitors to take out insurance against being sued for negligence, so that anyone who suffers loss I through the negligence of a solicitor and who sues him successfully will be sure of getting the compensation fixed by the court. Part V contains Articles dealing with the costs in non-contentious business; that is, business not connected with court proceedings. Article 64, which is a new provision, is the main Article here, and it could set up a committee to prescribe and regulate by order such remuneration. The remaining Articles in this Part deal with matters supplementary to this.
Part VI of this Order, my Lords, and the final one, deals with miscellaneous and general matters. Article 72 gives a solicitor some protection against a litigant who wants to proceed with frivolous or vexatious litigation. Generally speaking, once a solicitor agrees to act in a ease he must continue to act until the case is concluded, and cannot withdraw except with the permission of the court, to obtain which he must show good cause. This Article establishes that the refusal of a request for payment of a reasonable sum on account is a good cause. Articles 73, 74 and 75 deal with the Law Society; and Article 76 provides a time limit for the bringing of proceedings under Articles 22, 23, 24, 28, 30 or 31(4). Article 77 makes provision to relieve banks from any liability in respect of accounts of solicitors. I should like to draw your Lordships' particular attention to Article 78, which is an addition since the Assembly measure. This Article would give practising solicitors the powers of commissioners of oaths, as is the case in England.
Finally, my Lords, I should refer to the announcement made in this House on Thursday, 12th February, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a Royal Commission has been established to inquire into the legal profession. The Prime Minister has since indicated

95
that the terms of reference given to the Commission will be amended to enable the scope of its inquiry to include the legal profession in Northern Ireland, and accordingly any further amendment of the law relating to solicitors may be considered in the light of recommendations made by the Commission. The provisions of the present order, however, represent a major and long-awaited reform of that field of the law in Northern Ireland, and I commend it to noble Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 25th February, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.0 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the Northern Ireland Office has reminded me (and I am grateful for it) that this order represents what was originally a Northern Ireland Bill of the Stormont Parliament. Amended, it became a measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1974 and went progressively through three of the five stages of the Assembly when the Executive came to an end. I mention that because, as is clear from the noble Lord's introduction, this really is a substantial order and we have to remind ourselves that in normal circumstances under the direct rule, orders reaching Parliament have received no scrutiny in Northern Ireland except within the relative Government Department. In this case this order has had considerable scrutiny for the reasons which the noble Lord and I have given. But I hope that the Government are considering this problem of substantial measures receiving perhaps some sort of scrutiny in Northern Ireland before they come to Westminster to see whether any solution can be found. I have mentioned this matter previously to the noble Lord but I take this opportunity of doing it again since, self-evidently, this is a time when I might do so.
My Lords, I am not a lawyer and therefore I confine myself to two questions with regard to the order. The first is that under paragraph 6, which the noble Lord has mentioned, the Law Society of Northern Ireland may make regulations as to the education and training of solici-
96
tors. I remember that some three years ago the Government received the Armitage Report, and we are grateful to Professor Armitage for it. Are any of the recommendations of the Armitage Report now to be put into effect as a result of this order? If the answer is, Yes, will that be bringing the training and education of solicitors in Northern Ireland more into line with the training and education of solicitors in Great Britain, or is that an entirely separate matter?
The other point is on Article 28(2)(e) which the noble Lord also mentioned which, in effect, legalises the establishment of law centres. I realise that this is a live issue at the moment. I understand that this facility has not been granted hitherto so far as Great Britain is concerned. The noble Lord in his remarks explained that in putting the provisions of Article 28 into effect the Northern Ireland Law Society would keep in close touch with the Lord Chief Justice and the Secretary of State. The question I should like to ask is this. Before Article 28(2)(e) was drafted, was the Northern Ireland Law Society in agreement with the drafting of the article? With those two questions I would support the passage of this order.
7.4 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I add two questions to those addressed to the noble Lord, the first of a general nature and the other specific. Unfortunately—and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I missed the opening sentences of his remarks. He may therefore have already answered my general question. It is this: speaking in general terms, does this order, as it relates to solicitors and the disciplining of solicitors, follow the pattern of the existing law in England and Wales in that regard? The noble Lord may have answered it when he was making his opening comments. It struck me as he was speaking that there was one way in which, apparently, the provisions introduced by this order differ from the provisions which prevail, so far as solicitors are concerned, in this country. It is in regard to the right of a solicitor to withdraw half-way through the course of proceedings. My recollection of the matter is that, according to our law, the circumstances in which a solicitor in this country can properly

97
withdraw from a case when it is halfway through is governed by case law. It is not a matter of any statutory enactment. The noble Lord indicated that this order contains a statutory enactment on this matter. He may not be able, without notice, to answer that question of detail: but perhaps he can give an answer to the more general inquiry.
7.6 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their acceptance of this order. May I first answer the two points of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. If he will do me the honour of reading Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I have referred to every case in which the order before us differs from the Solicitors Act passed in Parliament a short time ago. I shall have to consult about withdrawal. My impression was that this operates exactly the same as in England under the new arrangements here; but from what the noble Lord says I may be wrong about that and I will write to him. What is to happen in Ireland is made clear: you can withdraw only by giving good cause before the judge, except that now, under this order, if your client cannot afford to pay, that is a good reason to stop vexatious litigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked his usual question about scrutiny. I shall give my usual answer, which is that at the moment there are no firm proposals of this kind. That does mean there will never be. The Armitage Report has been very largely acted upon in Northern Ireland. The paragraphs under Article 6 are written with that in mind. There is no conflict of any kind. The system of training is, as I understand it, more or less the same as here. As regards the right of solicitors to be employed in a non-profit-making organisation providing legal advice, that, from my point of view, is the most interesting development in the whole order. Noble Lords will remember that two years ago when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opened the Home Affairs debate on the gracious Speech, he promised that this would happen in England. We have got one going in Belfast now, and I think we are a pip ahead there of what goes on here; but it is a parallel development and is very important.
98
There had to be legislation because the Law Societies in both countries are very strongly against advertising and that sort of thing. I think that I have answered both noble Lords' questions.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, was this introduced with the agreement of the Law Society?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: After at least a year's intense discussion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FAT SHEEP (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER 1976
7.8 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Fat Sheep (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1976, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fat Sheep (Protection of Guarantees) Order made on 16th February 1976, a copy of which was laid before the House on 26th February be approved. I suggest that your Lordships will find it convenient to consider this and the following order standing in my name together since they are complementary. If your Lordships agree, I shall then move the second order formally. These two orders replace similar orders which have been overtaken by changes in the livestock guarantee arrangements and the opportunity is also taken to provide for the introduction of metric measures into the scheme and to permit some simplification of the procedures during periods when no guarantee payments are necessary.
The first of these orders, the Guaranteed Payment Order, provides authority to make deficiency payments, describes how they are to be calculated and the requirements to be fulfilled to receive them. As your Lordships are probably aware, animals must be certified if they are to qualify for a deficiency payment. Certification involves the examination of live animals at auction markets and carcases at slaughterhouses to ensure they are satisfactory for the meat market and to record the correct age and weight. The certificates authorising deficiency payments are completed by auctioneers at

99
auction markets, and, at slaughterhouses, by officers of the Meat and Livestock Commission, as agents for the Ministry. The main purpose of the Protection of Guarantees Order is to guard against double payments on the same animal and, in particular, requires the ears of animals certified live to be punched before they leave the auction market. These broad principles are the same as in earlier Orders governing fatstock guarantee payments but, within them, there are some changes to which I should draw your Lordship's attention.
As your Lordships know, there is an EEC régime for pigs and the Treaty of Accession provided that United Kingdom production subsidies could only be retained until transition to the Common Agricultural Policy resulted in pig prices equalling or exceeding those obtained under our guaranteed payments system. This position was reached on 1st August last year and this is why these Orders before the House today, unlike those they replace, exclude any reference to pigs. Your Lordships will remember we reached a similar position on fat cattle some two years earlier.
The second change updates the legislation on two minor simplifications of the mechanics of the scheme. During the 1974 Agricultural Review, agreement was reached with the Farmers' Unions to simplify procedures by eliminating the small topping up end-of-year payments made when the average price for the year multiplied by the guaranteed price exceeded the total subsidies paid. At the same time, limitations which had been imposed on deficiency payments by means of an estimated price mechanism when prices fell well below the guarantee level were also dropped from the scheme. The opportunity is taken in the present Orders to regularise the situation. I have already mentioned the provision relating to metrication. This has no effect on the determination of the guarantee but simply enables prices and average returns to producers to be expressed in pence per kilogramme instead of pence per pound with effect from 3rd January 1977.
Finally, the Orders before the House would permit the suspension of certification procedures during periods when no guarantee is payable. I should like to
100
assure the House there are no policy implications behind this change. There is no Community sheepmeat regulation at the moment and, as has been made clear on a number of occasions, Her Majestys' Government's position is that any EEC régime would need to provide for the continuation of satisfactory support arrangements for our producers. The difficulty has been that the wording of the previous Orders have left no discretion to drop certification, although there have been long periods when the seasonal movement of average market prices has taken them well above the guaranteed level. Ear punching has continued during these periods on all sheep presented for certification and animals are thereby being caused pain and suffering unnecessarily. This has been criticised from time to time by animal welfare interests and others. Also the suspension of certification should lead to some reduction in the associated documentation work and therefore some saving in the costs of this process which are borne by the Exchequer although this will be limited by the need to retain staff against the need to resume payments when market prices fall. I commend these two Orders to your Lordships. I beg to move the first Order.
Moved, That the Fat Sheep (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1976, laid before the the House on 26th February, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
7.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining both these Orders. They are relatively familiar one permits the payment to be made and the other protects the payment. We accept these entirely as they are. Sheep is still one area in which we have guaranteed payments. When you see the Orders coming through it is rather like meeting old friends again. The noble Lord said that there is an EEC régime for pigs and he referred to the fact that there may possibly be one for that dreadful word "sheepmeat". I know that he and the Government are concerned to see that, if a régime is entered into, it will be for the benefit of the country as a whole. Indeed, the noble Lord referred to that.
I hope that he and the Minister will not forget that in the whole of the European Community we in this country are responsible for the consumption of about

101
80 per cent. of sheepmeat that is produced, and we produce about 50 per cent. of it. Therefore if there is to be a sheepmeat régime, which would of course replace this, I hope that the Minister will make sure in all the negotiations that he is calling the tune. One of the effects of such a régime would be to curtail the imports from New Zealand, a country which suffered a lot as a result of our entry into the EEC. It accepted a great deal of what it had to put up with because we were joining the EEC. It is extremely important that New Zealand is not hurt any more than is necessary by any possible EEC régime for sheepmeat. I hope that the Government will keep that strongly in mind during these negotiations.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the welcome he has given to this Order. I was taking careful note of what he said about the forthcoming EEC régime, particularly in regard to New Zealand. Of course, mutton and lamb, or sheepmeat as he called them, is one of the few remaining, commodities for which the EEC have not yet adopted a Common Market regulation. Until they do this, Member States are free to regulate their domestic market as they feel appropriate within certain limitations. Last September the Commission published draft proposals, as your Lordships know, which are at present being considered. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made clear and stated publicly in the other place that the Government could only accept a régime which did not lead to significant and unnecessary increases in prices, as this would not be in the consumers' interests; secondly, that it safeguarded the United Kingdom's producers' returns; and thirdly—and just as important—that it allowed continuing access to the United Kingdom markets for New Zealand lamb exports. I am sorry to say that the Commission's present proposals do not adequately meet these criteria; but discussions are at present continuing in Brussels and I can assure the House that the British and New Zealand interests will be very strongly taken up. I hope that this has answered the point raised by the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FAT SHEEP (GUARANTEE OF PAYMENTS) ORDER 1976
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fat Sheep (Guarantee of Payments) Order 1976 be approved.
Moved, That the Fat Sheep (Guarantee of Payments) Order 1976, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1972 (COMMENCEMENT NO. 4) ORDER 1976
7.20 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL rose to move, That the draft Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1976, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1972 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1976, be approved. This Order brings into operation Schedule 7 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. The effect is that certain planning appeals may be decided by persons appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, instead of the decisions being given by the Secretary of State himself. Schedule 7 is the only part of the 1972 Act not already in effect. It re-enacted identical provisions made in the Town and Country Planning

103
(Scotland) Act 1969 (but never brought into operation) and is identical with provisions made in Section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and subsequent Statutes for England and Wales which have been operated successfully since 1969.
The wish to bring Schedule 7 into operation arises from the fact that the number of appeals lodged each year has been growing considerably. In 1969 the number of appeals lodged was running at about 200 a year. The level has now risen to around 700 a year and currently the number of cases at some stage in the decision process is just over 1,000. The purpose of Schedule 7 is to simplify and shorten the process of disposal of planning appeals in certain classes prescribed in regulations. The Scottish Office Inquiry Reporters Unit would have responsibility for deciding the delegated cases. The Reporter who conducts the inquiry, or deals with the written submissions, would decide whether or not the appeal should be allowed. He would dispose of the case by means of a reasoned decision letter: this would eliminate the process of drafting a detailed report and recommendations for submission to the Secretary of State, and the subsequent issue by the Scottish Development Department, after consideration of the Report, of a decision letter on behalf of the Secretary of State.
A Statutory Instrument, the Town and Country Planning (Determination of Appeals by Appointed Persons) (Prescribed Classes) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, prescribing the classes of appeals to be delegated, was laid concurrently with the present Order and is subject to Negative Resolution. The categories of appeals proposed to be covered by delegated decision-making powers rarely raise issues of major policy. Generally speaking, they relate to developments involving not more than 10 houses or the residential development of two acres of land. The classes prescribed initially will cover about a third of all Scottish appeals. Since they will normaly be dealt with by full-time officers of the Scottish Office Inquiry Reporters Unit, who are well aware of relevant policies and precedents, there is no danger of unfairness through inconsistent or capricious decisions. I commend this Order as a useful contribution
104
to the simplifying and speeding up of procedures for dealing with straight-forward planning appeals.
Moved, That the draft Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1976, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
7.23 p.m.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As a Welshman, it is a pleasure for me to speak in support of the Coity Wallia Commons Bill. These commons are situated in the delightful Vale of Ogmore and are within the confines of the Ogwr Borough Council. That is the reason why the Bill is promoted by the Ogwr Borough Council as such. The Ogwr Borough Council took this initiative because the Conservators of the Commons have no powers to promote a Private Bill. It should, however, be carefully noted that the Ogwr Council took this step after consulting the Welsh Office. Furthermore, the Welsh Office were duly consulted during the whole preparation of the Bill. I have no doubt that this action by the Council was noted with satisfaction by the members of the Committee to whom the Bill was committed. In this connection, it is well to note that if Clause 14 of the Bill is carried into effect, the Conservators as such will be able in future to promote Private Bills if the occasion arises.
I find that the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society has laid a Petition, and I believe it is true to say that the chairman of that society is the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who will be speaking in support of the Petition. I know that the noble Lord is as broad-minded as the rest of his illustrious family, including his late famous father, Isaac, and I hope that he will, therefore, pay heed when I come to deal with some of the Petitioners' objections and when I shall feel bound to point out that the Petitioners have not always been quite fair about what has been actually proposed by the Promoters. Such criticisms will also

105
apply to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who will be moving an Instruction later.
Let me deal as briefly as I can with the proposals of the Bill. The Bill proposes to alter the constitution of the Conservators, as well as conferring additional powers of management and regulation for the commons, which extend to about 2,800 acres. This area is noted for its high scenic quality. The present constitution of 1919 affords two representatives each for the Ogwr Borough Council, together with four parish or community councils in which the commons lie, and also the Lords of the Manor. It is now felt, and the Bill provides for this, that there should be six more representatives on the Committee. These additional six persons should represent the farming and the commoner's interests. For this purpose, two each will be appointed by the Farmers' Union of Wales and the National Farmers' Union and also two by election of the registered Commoners themselves.
It will be clearly seen that the new body will not only be a most democratic institution but also a fully representative body which would safeguard the interests of the commons. These alterations of the constitution are intended to give statutory effect to informal arrangements operated by the Council in recent years, whereby representatives of the farming and commoners' interests have participated fully in discussions at meetings of the Conservators. This aspect of the Bill has been the subject of detailed consultation over a considerable period with the interests concerned. This is why I suggested earlier that I do not think the supporters of the Petition have been quite fair to what is proposed by the Promoters, for they do not even refer to this precious consultation which has taken place. It is also rather surprising that issues which are raised in the Petition were not once mentioned in the course of these detailed consultations. Let me also emphasise that the Borough Council contributes, under the order of 1919, almost the whole of the income for maintenance of the commons, but by this Bill it is desired to afford substantial representation to the users of the commons in discharging the function of management and regulation. The borough council has, I believe, proved itself to be most magnanimous.
106
The other proposals in the Bill include, in Clause 6, the regularisation of the status of three small areas of land on the commons, which have been used for some 40 years for the carrying on of local garage and bus service undertakings, and to enable the Conservators to derive an economic rent while this use continues. Clause 7 relates to the provision of car parks on the commons, and Clause 8 is also directed to preventing the indiscriminate driving of vehicles on the commons, causing injury to the turf and affecting general amenity. The clause would enable vehicle access ways and garages to be provided for certain dwellings on the commons which have no access to a highway.
At the risk of repetition, I feel obliged to emphasise that during its preparation copies of the proposed Bill were supplied to the approximately 300 members of the Coity Wallia Commoners Association, with the obvious purpose of allowing those members to think of any suitable amendments to the Bill. Indeed, meetings were subsequently held with the Association in order to consider their views, and amendments were made to meet certain of their points. That is why the Promoters of the Bill feel so satisfied with all its contents.
Lastly, I come to the main criticism of the supporters of the Petition. They criticise the use of the Private Bill procedure, rather than the provisional order procedure under the Inclosures Acts, as incorporated in the Commons Act 1876. Knowing both the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as I do, I cannot believe that they can do this with their hands on their hearts! I would respectfully remind them that only 35 schemes of regulation under the procedure of the Commons Act 1876 were ever made, and the very last was the provisional order of 1919 regulating Coity Wallia Commons. A procedure which has never been used for 57 years has manifestly been found wanting.
In the interim period, numerous Private Acts relating to commons have been passed by Parliament. Between the years 1958 and 1974, no less than 13 Private Acts relating to commons were passed by Parliament, and in the last of them—namely, the Ashdown Forest Act 1974—the provisional order of 1885 and the

107
award of 1887 relating to that common were severely truncated, and a variety of powers were granted by Parliament to the Conservators of Ashdown Forest under their Private Act. Noble Lords will readily see that the provisional order procedure is now as dead as the dodo. I may mention in addition that the cumbrousness of the procedure is illustrated by the fact that although the Coity Wallia Commons Order was made in 1919, the award of the valuer appointed was not made until 1936; that is, 17 years later. Can one think of anything more archaic? Again, the requirement of "benefit of the neighbourhood" in the Commons Act 1876 has been acknowledged, by all the authorities who have considered it, to constitute, in practice, an artificial bar to many improvements of commons management, rather than a safeguard against their misuse.
Finally, I would remind your Lordships that in their Report of 1958 the Royal Commission on Common Land acknowledged the inadequacies of the available procedures under that legislation, and proposed its repeal and replacement. It is high time for that Report by the Commission to be put into effect. I hope that I have said enough to justify the presentation of this Bill, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Maelor.)
7.36 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, for having introduced this Bill so clearly, carefully and persuasively, with his usual Celtic charm. I hope I shall find that I have not offended the noble Lord by putting down an Instruction to the Committee, or even by virtue of being an Englishman poking his nose into Welsh affairs! I shall certainly do my best to avoid falling into the obvious trap whereby I will pain the noble Lord; that is, by attempting to give a rendition of the various commons which are affected by this Bill, and which appear in the first paragraph.
One thing I know is that the law relating to common land is extremely complex and sometimes very ancient, and anyone attempting to bring some regularity
108
into it is entering a veritable minefield. This can often work to the disadvantage of common land, to the disadvantage of commoners and, indeed, to the disadvantage of those who enjoy no rights of common at all, but merely happen to live near a common which they enjoy. Therefore, one automatically starts with an inbuilt sympathy for someone trying to modernise, or update, the law relating to a common, so I am not unsympathetic to the motives which prompted the noble Lord to introduce this Bill. But I fear that by so doing he may, inadvertently, have over-ridden the views and, worse still, the very ancient rights which the commoners of Coity Wallia possess. The noble Lord quite rightly said that there have been consultations, but what really matters is what is in an Act of Parliament, and that is why it is appropriate to consider this Bill carefully.
To start with, I think it is right to explain that the "rights" of common over this land are not just an historical and inconvenient anachronism which can impede modern progress and legislation. They are vital to the economic viability of the farms in that area. For every one and a half acres of in-bye land which a holding has, goes with it the right to graze on the common a cow, or a horse, or five sheep. This enables the fields on the farm to be closed for making hay. Without these rights, many of these farms—some of which are very small, and between only 30 and 60 acres—would quite simply he unviable. The rights, and the agricultural value of the common, are therefore vital economic assets to the farmers in that area, and to those who hold the rights of common, and they are the means by which farmers there sustain their livelihood.
In the 19th century, Parliament saw fit to introduce legislation to give protection to common land and to the rights of commoners, as well as to the rights of the public in common land. One of these Acts was the Commons Act 1876 which allowed schemes of management to be introduced on common land, and if the owners of the soil and one-third of the commoners approved of the idea of having a scheme, then they had the right to apply to Parliament for a provisional order. The Secretary of State would then draw up an order which contained regulations for the management of the

109
common and he would have to satisfy himself on two counts: first, that the suggested regulations were for the benefit of the neighbourhood generally, and, secondly, that the suggested regulations met with the approval of two-thirds of the commoners. When the Secretary of State had so satisfied himself then the proposals would be submitted to Parliament as a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.
That is of course exactly what happened to Coity Wallia in 1919, when there was passed by Parliament the Commons Regulations (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, referred. This vested the general management of Coity Wallia Commons in twelve Conservators, who were nominated or appointed, as the noble Lord has said, by various bodies, most of whom were local councils. The commons have been managed by those Conservators ever since then within the powers of that Act. If the Conservators wished for greater powers than the Act allowed they could, with the approval of one-third of the commoners, apply for a further provisional order and if that, in turn, was shown to be in the interests of the neighbourhood generally and if the proposed new regulations received the approval of two-thirds of the commoners, another Provisional Order Confirmation Bill could be brought before Parliament.
That is the procedure which Parliament has laid down to be carried out, and there are good reasons for it—to protect the interests of the commoners, whose livelihood is vitally affected by what happens on the common. There may well be good reasons why the Conservators wish for extra powers. I would not argue with that. But the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, disregards the existing arrangements and has some very far-reaching proposals in it.
Clause 3 of the Bill repeals entirely the Coity Wallia Act of 1919 under which the commons are at present managed. It has what may be considered an objectionable effect, which is to circumvent the safeguards which the commoners have had over any new proposals for dealing with the commons by removing the obligation of the Secretary of State to ensure that any new proposals meet with the approval of two-thirds of the commoners. Parliament gave those commoners special protection
110
for good reason. That is removed. The Bill goes further. As the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, says, it alters the constitution of the Conservators and it increases their powers. Their numbers go up from 12 to 18 and, as the noble Lord rightly said, the last six have an agricultural interest but only four need be commoners and the existing 12 Conservators continue as previously, mostly nominated by local authorities. At first sight all this may seem reasonable, but the 12 may prove to be what one might describe as "urban orientated". They could therefore always outvote the commoners.
On top of this the Bill makes the Conservators a body corporate with powers under Clause 14 to promote their own Private Bills. So it could well be that in the future the more urban-minded Conservators could get their own way among their colleagues and could introduce a Bill into Parliament altering for ever the use to which the commons should be put, and altering or removing totally the rights which farmers at present enjoy over the common and which thereby could affect or even remove totally their livelihood. The commoners would have no redress against that.
The sting in the tail comes because this Bill, as the noble Lord has said, is not promoted by the Conservators. As at the moment constituted they have no powers to promote Bills. It is promoted by the Ogrw borough council who will pay all the expenses of this Bill through Parliament, but they have popped in a clause—the last clause, Clause 17—which enables the council to claim back from the Conservators all the expenses which they have incurred. I frankly think that is a bit hot. Here is a Bill by which the Conservators may disregard the rights of commoners, which the Conservators themselves are not entitled to promote. So the local authority promote it, pay for it and put in a clause which says, "Yes, but once it is law you, the Conservators, can pay us back"—incidentally, with money that should have been used on the commons. Of course, as I understand it, the Conservators have some £24,000 as compensation from open-cast coal mining.
But, my Lords, that is not all. The justification for this procedure appears in a statement which has been issued on behalf of the Promoters. Right at the

111
beginning, in paragraph 1, they say that that procedure is being adopted "at the suggestion of the Welsh Office". I find the suggestion—and the reasons—curious, and it seems to me that it could well be another example of bureaucracy riding roughshod over the rights of individuals. I hope that the Select Committee will address their minds to that point.
I reckon that the commoners have been "bounced" over the Bill. If the provisional order procedure had been adopted, the commoners' case would have been heard in the locality by the Department, with the Department meeting the costs; but under this procedure the commoners have to see their rights at risk, they have to see their Parliamentary rights by-passed and they have to go to the huge expense of petitioning Parliament—and unlike the Promoters they cannot get their money back from anyone else. They are mostly small farmers—some 200 of them—and so strongly do they feel that, within a period of six weeks, 120 of them signed the Petition.
It is true that there have been other commons—the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, referred to Ashdown Forest—which have been altered by Acts of Parliament and by a Private Bill. But as the noble Lord will know, the Ashdown Forest is 90 per cent. recreational and I think only two commoners were involved in using the rights which they had over the commons. Therefore, I do not think that is an accurate precedent in this case.
I am fully aware that the regulation of the commons is a difficult matter. It may well be that the methods of regulating them ought to be altered and doubtless the Government are considering this. My information is that the Government are likely to introduce legislation, but perhaps not as soon as some people might wish. I am merely expressing the opinion that I think it can be dangerous to proceed piecemeal. It can set a bad precedent because if this Bill is passed other local authorities will see the green light and may follow suit. This would be a pity if it pre-empted national legislation. It might also put the rights of commoners, and the nature of commons as they are at present used, at risk. After all, the procedure for dealing with this typo of case is there and it is still law.
112
I venture to suggest with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, that it is really not much of an argument to say, "Well it has not been used for several years so let us pretend that it does not exist". The fact is that the Promoters and the Conservators know that if the existing procedures for which Parliament had made provision had been adopted they would not have got the necessary two-thirds agreement from the commoners. That may of course be a very good argument for using this procedure. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, would agree, it could be a very bad argument.
One thing is clear; that is, that if this Bill does go through as it is, the rights which the commoners have enjoyed and which Parliament has intended they should enjoy will, without doubt, be curtailed. I very much hope that the Committee will satisfy themselves that the curtailment of the rights of the commoners is justified and that the procedure which is being adopted, and which is resulting in these rights being affected, is the correct procedure to use and that it is right that it should be used in preference to the provisional order procedure. That is the reason why I tabled my Instruction, which I intend formally to move at a later date.
7.50 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has so adequately covered the arguments in favour of the Petition against this Bill that there is little left for me to say. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, that when he invokes the name of my father in the hope that I may show myself to be a fairminded person, he disarms me at once, and I hope I will be able to respond to that appeal. May I say to him that it seemed to me that he moved the Second Reading of the Bill with the utmost fairness and, indeed, with excellent clarity.
The issues arising in this debate are now moderately clear. I do not want to refer in detail to what is proposed to be done under the powers of the Bill. I shall address myself entirely to the general question of principle, which was the matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, ended his speech; that is to say, whether it is right to try to deal with

113
the future management and regulation of the common by means of a Private Bill of this kind, in preference to the procedure of the provisional order. I want to address myself to that, because I believe that a matter of considerable principle is involved. It is not a local matter at all. It is a matter which affects the way in which we legislate. It is a matter which concerns the way in which we conduct our affairs in this House and in Parliament generally, and it is an interesting example of the difficulties of Private Bills, about which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was speaking only last week when talking about the practices of this House and the difficulties presented by Private Bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, says, and says quite rightly and properly, that the provisional order procedure has not been invoked. The provisional order procedure has not been used for a long period of time. As I understand it—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord is correct about this—the last time it was used was in connection with this particular common, back in 1919. The situation is this. The law of the land is the law of the 1876 Commons Act, an Act of Parliament designed to establish a procedure whereby, if anybody wanted to make regulations for the management of a common, the procedures and rules with which they were to comply were prescribed. That Act of Parliament remains upon the Statute Book today in its full force; it has never been repealed.
Therefore, the first question which arises is a question which, I suggest, one is entitled to address to the Promoters of the Bill: Why is it that you have not adopted the existing, extant Act of Parliament, laid down as the appropriate procedure if you want to introduce a new scheme of management and regulation for a common? I have studied the Bill itself and can find nothing in it to indicate why there has been this departure from the procedures which, 100 years ago, Parliament said were the proper procedures to be adopted for this purpose. There is nothing in the Bill or any explanation as to why this procedure has been adopted. Therefore. I suggest that the onus is upon the Promoters of the Bill to say why they have adopted this procedure of a Private Bill in place of the procedures which Parliament
114
has prescribed. We are still waiting for an answer to that question. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give it to us in a moment.
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, we know why this procedure has been adopted: it is because it enables the Promoters to circumvent the protections which Parliament intended the commoners to have. The two protections were those referred to by the noble Earl. First, under the 1876 Act—which has been amended, because now we have to substitute the Secretary of State for the Environment for the In-closure Commissioners, as they were called in that Act—it is laid down that persons wanting to set up a scheme for the management and regulation of a common have to make an application to the Secretary of State. Before the Secretary of State can make a provisional order, he has to be satisfied upon those two things to which the noble Earl referred. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied, first, that two-thirds of the commoners in number are consenting to it being done. Secondly, he has to be satisfied that what is proposed is for the benefit of the neighbourhood.
Because they have adopted the procedure of the Private Bill, the Promoters are circumventing those rules. They are preventing the commoners from setting up defences which Parliament intended them to have. That is the whole object of the Bill. That is the reason why it is being done by way of a Bill instead of by way of a provisional order. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, that I agree with him—and I hope that that will satisfy him that I am, indeed, being as fair-minded as I can be. I was reading just now in Halsbury's Laws of England that because these procedures under the provisional order system have not been used for so long a time, it might be thought that they are obsolete. That may well be so. It is perfectly true that they have not been used. It is also perfectly true that procedures under the provisional order procedure are, indeed, cumbrous, difficult and awkward. But nothing overcomes the fact, and there is no escaping from it, that unless one adopts those procedures the commoners are denied the protection which Parliament intended them to have.
The second objection to the use of the Private Bill in place of the provisional

115
order procedure is that referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers: that if you go by way of the provisional order procedure, then at the very outset the Promoters or the applicants for an order must satisfy the Secretary of State that two-thirds of the commoners are consenting before you can go any further. If two-thirds of the commoners do not consent, then it is a "dead duck", and cannot get any further.
What is the consequence of that in money terms? The consequence in terms of public and private money is that if it appears from the outset that the order has no chance of becoming a substantive order, becoming confirmed and becoming an Act of Parliament, and it is obvious that it cannot become an order because two-thirds of the commoners are opposed to it, then the Promoters, the applicants—call them what you will—and the objectors are not to be put to all the expense to which they are put in producing a Bill in this House and petitioning against it. It is "killed" from the outset. What is happening now is because the Promoters of this Bill have used this device instead of the provisional order procedure. They have been able to promote this Bill at the expense of the public, although who is going to pay in the end, I do not know.
A Noble Lord: The Conservators.
Lord FOOT: Yes, my Lords. If they have their way, of course it will be the Conservators, but who is going to pay the Bill of the objectors? Having been told by Parliament 100 years ago that if two-thirds of them objected to a measure it would not see the light of day, why should the commoners be put to all the expense of coming to this House and appearing before a Select Committee in order to oppose a measure which would never have seen the light of day if the law of the land had been observed? That is the basic and fundamental objection.
Lastly, I come to this, perhaps the most important aspect of the whole matter. When the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was making that remarkable speech which he made the other day when we were talking about the procedures of Parliament, he drew attention to the fact that in this matter of Private Bills and
116
Public Bills and so on we have got ourselves into a terrible mess; he drew attention to the fact that during the next seven or eight years, because of the consequences of the Local Government Act 1971, we are going to have an avalanche of Private Bills coming from local authorities. The noble Earl made the point, a vitally important constitutional point, that if only from time to time we passed General Public Acts dealing with matters which are of concern to local authorities we could avoid a great deal of this vast number of Private Bills with which we are confronted and with which we are going to be confronted over the next seven or eight years.
Now, my Lords, what is this Bill in that context? Everybody knows, and it has been declared by the Government quite clearly, that they are intending—and it is already in the womb of the Department of the Environment—to produce a general measure about common land. It will, I suppose, be the first general measure about common land which has been passed in this country since the Act of 1876, 100 years ago. This major proposal for general legislation about commons is going to be produced, and it may not be very long before it appears. When that Bill appears it may well be that it will wholly supersede this particular Private Bill. It may be that some of the clauses and the provisions of the Bill will be in conflict with the general legislation and will have to be scrapped.
If the noble Lord gets his way, and if the Promoters get their way, on this occasion that will, as the noble Earl said, be likely to instigate other authorities to promote their own Private Bills for their commons, and we are perhaps going to have a multiplicity of Private Bills, all in different forms, relating to commons, and then eventually we are going to get the General Public Act which is going to supersede all those Private Bills which have gone through this House at vast expense to everybody. I suggest that on this ground alone there is everything to be said for putting this Bill on one side, and saying to this council, and saying to any like-minded councils who may want to introduce provisions of their own for their own commons, "Wait until you get the general legislation and then you can see whether

117
it is necessary at all to produce a Bill of your own. It may be that the general legislation will cover the point you have in mind."
May I conclude by adding two comments. The first is this. This, in my view, is a very important matter. What you are doing here is taking away rights and protections provided by a General Public Act of Parliament by means of a private Bill promoted by a local authority. In my submission, it is always wrong that we should take away rights granted by Parliament in a Public Act of Parliament, and take them away by the method and means of a Private Bill. The way in which I would conclude what I have to say is to quote, if I may, the words used by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, towards the end of the speech that he made to us the other day. He spoke about the paper mountain of local Acts with which we are likely to be confronted during the next seven or eight years, and he went on to say this:
"It is therefore vitaly important, if we are to avoid ill-considered legislation and inordinate delay, that means other than the promotion of Private Bills he found to alter the general law where it is shown to be defective in meeting the legitimate needs of local authorities. This alternative is the regular passing of Public General Bills, each such Bill averting a multiplicity of local Bills."—[Official Report, 11/3/76; col. 1433.]
Then, a little later on (col. 1434):
"What I am suggesting is that both Houses of Parliament and the Government should now be seeking ways of reducing the bulk of private legislation and of devising more appropriate procedures to satisfy the legitimate needs of local authorities."
My Lords, I welcome that; I entirely endorse it. It seems to me that those words are indeed the condemnation in principle of what is being done under this Bill.
May I add that I would have been minded—I was at one time minded—to oppose this Second Reading altogether because I think this is wrong. But I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, that he will be prepared, if the Second Reading is granted, to accept the direction which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is to move, and that being so perhaps it is proper and fair that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. But if it were not for that direction I think this is a Bill which this House ought to reject. I am quite prepared to accept that it
118
shall go to the Select Committee with the clear direction contained in the Motion the noble Earl proposes to move.
8.7 p.m.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest: I am treasurer of the Commons Preservation Society. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Ferrers a careful, and I think a most damaging, examination of the provisions of this Bill. He has pointed out that the reason that the Promoters of this Bill have chosen to proceed by Private Bill is that they would probably be quite unable to secure these powers and make these changes in the constitution if they were required to satisfy by Provisional Order the requirements laid down by Parliament for dealing with commoners' rights in 1876.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, in a speech which was equally damaging to the Bill, concentrated rather upon the constitutional position which arises from the fact that the Promoters of this Bill have chosen to proceed by means of a Private Bill. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has pointed out that they would probably have failed if they had proceeded by Provisional Order, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has pointed out how objectionable it is, from a constitutional point of view, that they should be able to do this. He has also emphasised what we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, speaking with all his authority as Chairman of Committees, that this House is likely to involve itself in very great difficulty in the near future if nothing is done to prevent Private Bills from dealing with rights locally before general provision has been made for the rights of the country as a whole. I emphasise the point to which I think there can be no answer, that it is in principle objectionable that the rights conferred by Parliament upon all and sundry of Her Majesty's subjects should be taken away by Private Bills promoted by particular bodies in particular parts of the country.
In view of those two most damaging criticisms it might be thought that there is no need for me to speak. I should, however, like to take this opportunity quite briefly to raise on the Floor of this House the whole question of the overlapping of the different powers that exist. I put in a submission to the Brooke Committee and they were good enough

119
to recommend to the Government that the proposals I had made for dealing with this matter were worthy of consideration by a new committee. They reported in October 1973, and, so far as I know, none of the recommendations they made in their Second Report has yet been considered by the Government. I naturally take a particular interest in their recommendation that my proposals for dealing with this matter should be further examined.
I pointed out to the Brooke Committee that in the old days any powers of these kinds had to be obtained by Private Bill in Parliament. In 1845 Provisional Order Procedure was introduced in order that there should be cheaper and speedier procedure. In 1945 Special Parliamentary Procedure was introduced, and, in the words of Mr. Herbert Morrison, who was responsible for that Bill, it was introduced because Provisional Order Procedure was slow, costly, and cumbrous. The same has been found to be the case with Special Parliamentary Procedure, and I mentioned to them that Parliamentary agents find Private Bill procedure the quickest of all, and therefore usually recommend it in cases of urgency. In this case it may not have been urged on the grounds of urgency but because they did not think they would get a Provisional Order through.
It is, I think, open to very serious objection, especially in view of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that it should in many cases be possible for the Promoters of a Private Bill to choose which of three procedures they are going to adopt and to choose the one which is likely to suit their purpose best. The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said that the Private Bill procedure is "as dead as the dodo". That of course is not really the case. It only may be the case because, under the procedures of the Commons Act 1876, it has not been convenient for people wanting to effect changes to apply it.
My Lords, I take this opportunity of asking again, as I proposed to the Brooke Committee and as they recommended,
120
that there should be an attempt to rationalise and modernise all these three procedures. The Brooke Committee said that their terms of reference precluded them from examining such a wide-ranging proposal, but that they were of the opinion that the need had been established for a review of procedure for objecting to legislation and delegated legislation of a Private Bill nature. This strikes me as being a particular instance which serves to illustrate the importance of having this whole matter reviewed, and I hope that it will be one of those matters which will be considered by the Procedure Committee which is likely to be set up under the Motion carried by your Lordships' House on Thursday last.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, may I thank the three speakers on the opposite Benches for the fair manner in which they have delivered their views. I am not going to answer one of the objections raised. I see that the Member of Parliament for Ogmore is listening to the whole debate, and I have no doubt that when the Bill goes to the other place he will deal very strictly with all the objections that have been raised. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for not dividing the House on the issue and allowing it to go now to the Select Committee. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that when that Committee have given all consideration to what has been said regarding the Bill they will come down in favour of the Promoters. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom it is committed that they should satisfy themselves that procedure by Private Bill, rather than by provisional order under the Inclosure Acts 1845 to 1899 and the Commons Act 1876, is justified, having regard to the curtailment of the rights of the commoners which Parliament has granted to them.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Fill committed to a Select Committee.

SCOTLAND: TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
8.17 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on transport and communications in Scotland, with particular reference to road and rail links with the North of Scotland. The noble Lord said: My Lords, from the terms of my Question your Lordships will see that it is links with the North of Scotland by road and rail with which I am mainly concerned this evening. In the last six years or so, there has been greatly increased activity in the North of Scotland, and many developments. These developments have not been related only to oil. However, those of my noble friends and others in this House who are familiar with Scotland will know that there are geographical obstacles in the centre of Scotland which make difficult communication with the North. There are the irregular coast and long inlets on the West Coast, and there is the central massif of the Grampian Mountains. Of course there is a way round by Aberdeen which does not necessitate going over high ground or winding through valleys, but it is a long way round, if I may say so with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whose home city it is. Therefore, the main trunk road to the North, to Inverness, is the A9, which winds through the mountains up the middle of Scotland, and the railway route follows the same line.
I should like to consider them in turn. First, the road, the A9. When the Conservative Government came into office in 1970 I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, immediately commissioned a feasibility study into a new route for the A9 trunk road North of Inverness. The Labour Government had announced that they would retain the long route round the firths, but I proposed bridging the firths and reducing by several miles the distance by road North to Invergordon, Sutherland and Caithness. I had, when in Opposition, asked Mr. Ross, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now again Secretary of State, whether he would hold his hand on the decision he had announced. Indeed, nothing was done, because of
122
cuts in the road programme at that time, which is reminiscent of today. Thus, when I came to office, I was able to put that feasibility study into action; and within four months I was able to announce that the route across the firths was being adopted. Even the Treasury was pleased because the immediate plan to cross the Beauly and Cromarty Firths would, in the long run, be cheaper than maintaining 14 extra miles of trunk road on the long route round.
What we ask today is: where is the Kessock Bridge, the crossing of the firth immediately North of Inverness? It should by now have been well under construction across the Beauly Firth. While inflation has clearly caused the cost to soar, are there other reasons as well? The new road is being built on each side and there is likely to be a period when it will simply lead into the water. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, answered my oral Question on this matter today and told me that the Secretary of State did not accept the tender which had been submitted, and this was many months ago. That clearly was confirmation that this scheme has been a victim of the very high rate of inflation over the last two years. But the noble Lord also said that, if all went well, it would be two years before a start could be made with the building of that bridge. I must tell your Lordships that there is great concern, and not only in the North of Scotland, at the delay which is being caused to this new route, and doubt as to whether there is to be a bridge at all.
Bridging the firths North of Inverness was part of the reconstruction of the 137 miles of trunk road between Perth and Invergordon, started in 1973 as the new A9. Most of it was to be on new routes eliminating the bad bends and steep gradients. The whole length was to be renewed in an immediate programme of five years. Provision was made for dual carriageway throughout and about one-third of this was to be built during this first five years. About half of the five years has now elapsed and this is an appropriate time to ask what is the present position. Besides the delay to the Kessock Bridge, has inflation caused any other erosion or delay in the programme? If one looks down on the A9 from the air, as I often do as I fly North and South, one can see why the old A9 has been so unpopular

123
and dangerous; although the traffic does not appear to be very thick, one sees very long processions, in some places for miles, because one large lorry or two or three caravans make it impossible for faster moving vehicles to pass. This is because it is so winding. I recognise that there are planning objections. In some cases there have been objections to where the new line of the road is to be and, indeed, when I was still Secretary of State, the Dunkeld by-pass was objected to by amenity bodies and not simply by the owners and farmers whose land was affected on the way. I must point out that because this road goes over very high ground, such as the Pass of Drumochter, conditions can be exceedingly difficult, with ice and snow in the winter.
I come to the question of rail. Ten days ago a Scottish Office Minister announced the go-ahead for restoring the second track and crossing loops to part of the railway line between Perth and Inverness. This will reverse the action in taking up the second track and the loops which was carried out between 1966 and late 1969, action during the previous Labour Government which I was vigorously opposing at the time. In a letter to me of 10th March last year, just over a year ago, British Rail informed me that the estimated cost at that time, the late 1960s, of "singling", of the reduction of the number of passing loops and of resignalling was £75,100. It was announced last week that the cost of reversing that is now estimated at no less than £3·7 million, almost five times as much. With inflation, it will probably, in the event, be considerably more.
In reporting the Minister's Press conference, the BBC's Scottish Television News and some of the Press the next day attributed the removal of the second track to the Beeching cuts. This was totally incorrect, as they later realised. It is most unusual for a BBC news item to be completely wrong and I was surprised when, on that Friday evening in the North, I heard the announcer saying that this was a track that had been taken up by Beeching more than 10 years ago. I must report that the BBC immediately agreed, when I took the matter up, that they were wrong, and apologised. But the newspapers also got it wrong and I have heard from one of the correspondents that the reason was that a question
124
was put at the Press conference and it appears that the Minister in reply made an elementary error. The singling was carried out long after Lord Beeching had ceased to be chairman of British Rail, and the Perth to Inverness line, being a main line, was not mentioned in his closure report. Indeed, that report recommended improving and speeding up such main lines, the opposite of what the Labour Government later allowed to happen.
I say immediately that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is not himself in any way responsible, having not been concerned with this Press conference and having not been in the Government or concerned with these events in the past, but I know that he has the duty of replying on behalf of the Scottish Office tonight. Has the Scottish Office issued a correction to all the Press who attended that Press conference? If not, the Minister at the Press conference has been responsible for falsifying history and, no doubt unintentionally, for providing the Labour Government with a bogus alibi for action which took place in the late 1960s despite the increase in traffic arising from tourist development at Aviemore and the new smelter at Invergordon. These developments were happening long before the oil developments. Unless there is a public correction, the episode will suggest that Orwell's 1984 is no longer fantasy but is arriving before time. Clearly, if my information from the correspondent is right, it was an impromptu reply to a question; it was a guess, a bad one, and it had the effect of turning the facts on their head.
Having been involved in that piece of recent history in the late 1960s, taking up these matters with Ministers at the Ministry of Transport and with British Rail, and having my files of correspondence and Parliamentary replies with me still, I am astonished that this could have happened. For instance, I was corresponding with the responsible Minister, the Minister of Transport at that time, about this railway line from 1967 onwards and there have been some strange happenings in connection with the line. For example, in March 1967 there was a Government suggestion that the whole line might be closed, contrary to every assurance that had been given up to that moment, and that a reprieve was being exercised. It

125
did not stop the singling of the line being carried out later and up to the end of 1969, and I will quote from a letter which I sent to the Minister of Transport, who was then Mrs. Castle, on 22nd March 1967. I wrote:
"Following your statement on railways in the House last week, I have been trying to trace the origin of the statements which appeared the following day, on 16th March, in most of the national Press to the effect that the Perth-Inverness line had been 'reprieved' or saved from the axe. For example, this appeared in The Times on page 14, although there was no mention of this line or similar lines in the official statements by you and your Ministry. To see this in the Press caused considerable surprise to me and others concerned with it because during the past year and a half you and other Ministers have informed me, by Parliamentary replies and letters, that this line has not been under any threat or proposal for closure.
The Perth-Inverness line was not in the proposals for closure in the Beeching Plan, The Reshaping of British Railways, and according to your Ministry the position has not changed since then. It therefore looks…as though you were making a claim last week to reprieve a line which was not due to be closed anyway."
I had to wait for three weeks to get a reply and I then received a reply from the junior Minister, Mr. John Morris, now Secretary of State for Wales. In it, he said:
"The Chairman quoted the Perth-Inverness line in his opening words as one that would have been liable to closure under the previous policy. It was included with the other lines in various parts of the country in a Press handout listing all those lines which 'would in all probability have been proposed for closure, but which are now shown as part of the stabilised network.'
It is true…that the Perth-Inverness line has never been formally proposed for closure. Nevertheless, in the view of the Railways Board, it is one of those which, under normal commercial practice, they would have very probably had to put forward, bearing in mind its length and the limited amount of traffic it carries."
That kind of episode does not instil great confidence in the public in Scotland. The Chairman of British Railways referred to in that letter from Mr. Morris was not the noble Lord, Lord Beeching. It was two years after the noble Lord had given up the chairmanship. That was an extraordinary incident. I described it in a debate soon afterwards in another place as a "mystery thriller—The Case of the Phantom Axe". The House will understand why members of the public in the North of Scotland still find it difficult to be reassured that proposals of the kind
126
announced last week will be carried out. They are suspicious that sudden changes will occur, especially when the railway unions are warning that large cuts in the network are being considered. There is a report in today's Glasgow Herald that, at a meeting of the Scottish Council of the railway union ASLEF, strike action was considered by 3,000 Scottish railwaymen if further cuts in freight and passenger services are carried out. The unions are clearly worried. We know that from Press reports. As for the public, they want to know the facts.
There is another cause of concern arising from the Statement last week: will this restoration work mean delays to trains while it is being carried out? Can the Minister give any assurance that when work is taking place during the coming months beside the existing track which is in use, it will not hold up the trains? Of course I welcome the restoration, having opposed the singling at the time and having pointed out that it was short-sighted. It should never have been done. Now, it will cost at least five times to put back what it cost to take up. I must point out to your Lordships that the effect of singling is that trains can only pass in opposite directions at certain points. If there is a breakdown or a delay with one train, it can cause several other trains to be late. There have been delays to trains to Inverness of two or three hours. That has been regarded as normal. Then there was a case on 28th-29th December 1974 when an overnight train from London was nearly eight hours late. I was meeting someone off that train and was very well aware of what happened. When I took it up with British Rail, they had to admit that, in addition to vandalism near Motherwell—and, on that, I certainly sympathised—there had been breakdowns including at least one locomotive.
Naturally, I dealt with that and other similar matters directly with British Rail because the Government cannot be responsible for the day-to-day management of the railways. No one expects them to be. But this question principle concerning this particular line has been accepted as a matter of concern to the Government because it was the subject of a Press conference and Press release in the name of the Minister of State at the Scottish Office.
In a leading article on 6th March, the Scotsman spoke of the state of the locomotives and rolling stock and said:
"With one or two exceptions, British Rail's lack of money to invest in reliable locomotives and modern rolling stock in Scotland is often painfully obvious."
That is voicing an impression which is widely held in Scotland, whether or not it is correct. I hope that the noble Lord will do something to reassure those who hold that impression. Perhaps the number of breakdowns North of the Border is no higher on average than elsewhere in Britain. I do not know, but, where there are single lines for long stretches, the situation is accentuated as I have described because one breakdown can cause delay to a whole section of the timetable.
In view of that comment in a leading article this month in a Scottish newspaper and of the general concern about plans for road and rail links with the North of Scotland. I am glad to give the Government this opportunity to make a statement today.
8.37 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, following my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in a most erudite speech I find a rather dramatic experience, as it is to follow a former Secretary of State for Scotland. That is particularly so as I am now something of an exile from Scotland, but I still have close relations in Scotland and hope to go there later this year. I am certainly acquainted with much of the country which my noble friend has described.
Anybody who, over the years, has travelled on the A9 trunk road will know the problems. As my noble friend has said, there are geographical problems which make certain improvements very difficult; but I wonder, for example, what is now the position as regards the town of Pitlochry, which is a very important tourist centre. Last time I was in that area there was the difficulty of acquiring land around the Ballanluig area. I do not know whether that difficulty has been resolved. I have been trying to find out, but without much success. This is clearly an example of a town which badly needs a by-pass.
128
Then there is Perth itself. It is the county with which I am best acquainted, since my mother and grandparents all came from that part of Scotland. Driving through Perth is still a devilish problem and, bearing in mind the efforts which the Scottish Tourist Board have made over the years, it is frustrating for those who are trying to take advantage of the amenities offered to find these problems.
Turning for a moment to the air service, a friend of mine is a prospective candidate for Caithness and Sutherland. My understanding is that the air service to Wick is to be cut in the near future. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, can confirm or deny that point. At the moment, I understand that there is a service from Dalcross to Wick but I believe that it is likely to be terminated. That is now a vital part of Scotland. Quite apart from the large atomic plant at Dounreay, there are various small industries, such as those involving glass, cheese and so on, much of which I believe goes for export.
According to my calculations the fastest train journey to Wick appears to be approximately 17 hours. Even bearing in mind a distance of about 768 miles and all the problems of gradients, that seems an interminably long time. As my noble friend says, the Government have no direct responsibility for the operations of the British Railways Board, but surely the railways could consider this matter. In the interests of both tourism and the increasing business now being experienced in the North of Scotland, some speed-up, or improvement, in rail services could surely be countenanced. Of course there is the problem of finance. But bearing in mind both the inevitable cutback to which, presumably, the roads will now be subject, and the climatic conditions which often affect roads in that part of the country—where often the railways are not affected quite so much—there is surely a case here for improvements.
I finally turn to the Motorail service, which my family and I have used on a number of occasions. We travelled on the first Motorail service to Perth, when the cost was approximately threequarters of what it now is. I have been trying to compare the costs. A night journey from London to Perth now costs £75 return

129
second class for car and driver, and £28 return for each additional passenger. If one travels by day it is, admittedly, somewhat cheaper. But a great many people cannot travel by day; they must do a night journey. Surely there is a case here for the railway authorities to look into the matter of cost. Here, again, the Government themselves probably cannot answer this question, because Brtish Railways run their own commercial affairs.
However, I hope, and the people of Scotland certainly hope, as do those who take their holidays there, that when the increased fares conic into effect the Motorail service will not be charged out of all existence. Costs are high enough as it is, and most users of the Motorail service are families: mother, father and children. Generally, they are not wealthy people, and this service provides a means of getting not only to Scotland but to other parts of the country in a way which prevents our roads from becoming clogged up. On the one hand we are told to try to keep trunk roads clear of traffic, yet on the other hand the cost of public transport is pricing so many people out of existence.
My Lords, that is all I have to say specifically on this problem. But bearing in mind that Scotland is, rightly, becoming more and more an attraction as a tourist centre—I have in mind such places as Aviemore—and more and more a centre of business, too, with much emphasis upon exports, I believe that within the limitations of the present financial burdens everything should be done to make it possible for those living there, as well as those travelling to and from Scotland, to suffer the minimum inconvenience.
8.45 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, it is not for me to rebuke or to protest, but I complain somewhat bitterly about the very short notice which your Lordships received of this Question. Admittedly, the railway strike probably contributed to the delay in the post, but it was only late on Thursday that I received notice of this debate. In any case, I think it fair to say that Monday is a terribly difficult day for Peers who live in Scotland, especially at a time when the sleeper services have been interrupted. Therefore, I must apologise if my contribution to the debate
130
is somewhat sketchy, though I make no apology at all for taking part, because after all an Unstarred Question is by definition one,
"which may give rise to discussion."
To many Back-Benchers it is a welcome vehicle for intervention.
I will be brief, and indeed had the Question been worded differently I might not have been taking up your Lordships' time at all. But—and I emphasise this point—the pressure of the growth of oil traffic, to which previous speakers have referred and which is known to all of us, is pressing Southwards. As one of my correspondents has it:
"The impact of North Sea oil lends added urgency to the need for an outer by-pass for Edinburgh."
It is my case that ultimately the A1 road will be designated as a trunk route. One can now drive from the Forth Road Bridge to London by the Al or the M18 motorway, or the M1, without passing through any city or town, except Edinburgh and Berwick. My information is that the Berwick by-pass is to be taken in hand in 1979, leaving Edinburgh alone without a by-pass.
I base my contention as to the urgency of this matter on the Public Expenditure White Paper. On pages 61 and 62 the White Paper says:
"The main objectives of the trunk road programme in Scotland are twofold. First the improvement of the trunk roads providing access to oil-related developments…Second, the improvement of the trunk roads serving the industrialised central belt, notably through the completion of the motorway and dual carriageway network. While the improvement of the oil-related roads remains of first priority, the reductions in planned expenditure mean that development of other parts of the programme will be slowed down."
I emphasise the words, "improvement of the oil-related roads", and in this respect I make a claim that the by-passing of Edinburgh is related thereto.
I heard that the calculated cost of the Edinburgh by-pass today is between £35 million and £40 million, and in turning back some old papers I saw that on 4th November 1959, at col. 373 of the Official Report, in reply to a Question raised by me, the estimated cost of the Edinburgh by-pass was put at £2 million. Expenditure on roads per capita in Scotland is only £18 annually, compared with £56 in Norway, £35 in Sweden, £30 in Denmark,

131
and £36 in the Federal Republic of Germany. These figures are taken from a reply given in the other place on 2nd March, reported at col. 552.
Quite apart from the economic angle, so far as Edinburgh is concerned the amenity angle has to be considered, if only in passing. I suggest this is perhaps not the time to lay that much weight on the point, though I turn to the extraordinary proposals which seem to be taking shape in regard to another historic city—and, of course, I refer to Winchester. In terms of financial stringency, obviously massive expenditure within the City of Edinburgh must wait. So far as Edinburgh is concerned, that is no bad thing when one considers that until a by-pass is completed internal traffic estimates can only be conjecture.
My Lords, there is another element of urgency. I am the first, I would emphasise, to welcome the substantial allocation of funds provided by the Lothian region for the detailed planning of the by-pass so that time may be saved and it can be put in hand as soon as funds are available. This I welcome; but the urgent matter is that a final decision as to the Eastern end of the by-pass should be made with the minimum of delay, because until that is determined the pressing problems of by-passing Musselburgh and the Southern approach roads to Leith Docks cannot be settled, and they are of great urgency based on the traffic which is building up. I have been assured unofficially that in pressing for an Edinburgh by-pass I am in a measure pushing at an open door. It is only the matter of timing which is at stake, and which I raise tonight.
My plea, then, is that an Edinburgh by-pass be accepted as a necessary,
"…improvement of the trunk roads serving the industrial central belt".
That comes from the paragraph in the White Paper to which I have already referred:
"…an improvement of the oil-related roads".
It is a link between the North-East of England and the North Sea oil developments. In passing, it is worth bearing in mind that although it may be some time before the Al can be upgraded, or need be upgraded, as a trunk route, a by-pass would ease the traffic between
132
North and South by feeding into the A7 and the A68; and I look forward to hearing the Government's Statement on the matter.
8.53 p.m.
Lord RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to intervene at this moment for just a second. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy may have raised this subject just before I came in, but in case he has not I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether the Highland rumour that the Glasgow-to-Fort William railway is to be closed in the foreseeable future—say, five years—is true; because even the new A9 would not be a suitable alternative, especially in snow conditions, quite apart from the fact that people from Fort William and the West Highlands have to travel many miles on a twisty and hilly "B" route before they even reach the new A9 at Dalwhinnie.
8.54 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for providing me with an opportunity to speak about this subject today. First, as to the general question of transport in Scotland, I would ask that noble Lords await the publication of the Government's consultative document on transport policy, which of course will cover the whole country. This document, which it is hoped to publish within the next few weeks, will provide an opportunity for all those concerned with transport problems to submit constructive views to the Government, and the Government will of course welcome the submission of views of that kind.
As to the Government's policy for communications to and in the Highland Region, the Government consider that the road and rail links to the Grampian Region and Inverness from Perth, in particular, play a vital part in the development of those very important areas. That is why the Government have, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Millan, announced on 5th March, decided to authorise the British Railways Board to proceed with their scheme of improvements to the Highland railway line at a cost of approximately £3·7 million: this—and I have to emphasise the point—despite the current restrictions on public expenditure. The Government

133
continue to give the reconstruction of the A9 road high priority; indeed, as they do to other road improvements intended to serve North Sea oil developments. This programme is not subject to the same expenditure cuts as have had to be imposed on the rest of the roads programme in Scotland in what are extremely stringent times, which shows in itself the importance attached by the Government to this particular area of the country.
My Lords, I have already dealt in some detail with the situation as regards the Kessock Bridge, in reply to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, earlier this afternoon, and I do not think I can add very much to what I said then. But the noble Lord has raised the matter of the Kessock Bridge yet again, and specifically mentioned it in his earlier remarks, and I have to rest on the point that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland felt quite unable, at this time, to accept the consortium tender of approximately £30 million—and I think his declinature was fully justified. From that decision there has of course flowed further consultation, and the consortium, together with other companies, are in process of retendering and resubmitting to us. That is the present situation. I can again give the assurance that, subject to a favourable economic climate, it is certainly the Government's intention to authorise the start of the Kessock Bridge very early in 1978, and I would repudiate the suggestion that there is any thought that there will not be a proposed construction of the bridge at about that date.
In addition, of course, elsewhere on the A9 a great deal of rebuilding is already in progress. The first scheme of the planned 137 miles of reconstruction—the new Almond Bridge and its approaches, just North of Perth—is open to traffic. Work is progressing satisfactorily on six schemes for modernising another 29½ miles of this route, including a by-pass of Dunkeld. Recently, three more schemes, covering the 10 miles between Almond Bridge and Dunkeld, have been started, and a further scheme in Perthshire will be put to tender shortly. The necessary procedural and technical preparatory work is being undertaken to maintain a steady flow of future schemes to the constructional stage. In the central belt we
134
envisage the completion of the planned motorway and dual carriageway network, with the important links Northwards towards Perth and Dundee.
Plans for the provision of a fast through route linking Perth, Aberdeen and Inverness are under consideration, as are those to make the inland route from Dundee to Stonehaven via Forfar (A929–A94) the trunk road instead of the coastal route via Arbroath (A92), and the Tayside and Grampian Regional Councils have been asked for their comments on this suggestion. Meanwhile improvements to this route are being undertaken at Government expense. Schemes between Aberdeen and Inverness (A96) are also being undertaken or planned and among the schemes in operation are those at Huntly, where it is hoped that work will start soon, Inverurie, Elgin and Forres.
Air and sea links are important also in the North of Scotland, and I include the Islands in that geographical area. Substantial funds, of approximately £27·4 million in all, have and are being provided by the Government for major runway improvements and a new terminal building at Sumburgh Airport, runway improvements to Inverness Airport, for a new terminal building at Aberdeen, and for a new runway and terminal building at Edinburgh. The Government now have powers to support uneconomic air services to the Highlands and Islands and subsidy is being paid for the Loganair services to Tiree, Barra and Skye. In shipping the programme of conversion to vehicle ferry operation continues, with Government assistance for the necessary terminals currently running at £2·5 million a year; in addition revenue grants are over £3·5 million a year. All this is evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that the Highlands and Islands area has good modern communications to support its development needs.
If I might, I will now turn to specific points which noble Lords have made in the course of their remarks and will reply to those as far as I can. I turn first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I can say to him that as regards the Motorail services and their related prices, the pricing of particular services within British Rail is a matter for the Board. The Government do not

135
have a locus. I should also mention that so far as his query relating to the Pitlochry by-pass is concerned, objections to the draft orders are still under consideration. That is the present position. The noble Lord also mentioned the position at the moment of the Perth by-pass. I am able to tell him that a contract is about to be let for the final part of the Perth Southern by-pass at the Craigend sector of the by-pass.
I should also tell the noble Lord that he is correct in his assumption regarding the probable change which will take place in the air-link to Wick. British Airways propose to remove their Inverness-Wick arm of service and propose to remove their Aberdeen-Wick arm of service, flying direct from Inverness to Kirkwall and direct from Aberdeen to Kirkwall. They propose a radial service, Aberdeen-Wick, Wick-Aberdeen and consultations are still taking place between those who are very interested in the substantial changes being proposed by British Airways. One must keep in mind that British Airways are under an obligation to match operating costs. If, in the end, the Wick service is discontinued by British Airways, there is a proposal that Loganair may step in on receipt of subsidy from the Highlands Regional Councils. These are matters still under discussion between the interested parties.
I turn now to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and in particular his question of a by-pass road for Edinburgh. Other noble Lords will know—as I do from my short time here—that he has been a champion of this particular proposal for a long time. I have taken careful note of his remarks today; but I must emphasise that the primary responsibility for decisions about the by-pass, which is not a trunk road, rests with the Lothian Regional Council as local roads and transport authority for the area. Under the arrangements for local transport planning, the Government have left regional councils with the maximum responsibility for determining their own local roads and transport priorities within very general financial guidelines.
In the exercise of these responsibilities each regional authority prepares a document called a transport policy and programme, the programme covering a
136
period of five years ahead. Lothian regional council's first transport policy and programme, necessarily very provisional in nature, suggested that a start on the Colinton section of the by-pass might be made in a later part of the five-year period. This will become clearer as the regional council further develop their programme in the second transport policy and programme this year and in subsequent programmes. No doubt the noble Lord will ensure that the council are aware of his views on the priority which they should accord this scheme.
I can confirm on the further point which the noble Earl made that Government policy is to continue to improve the A1 in the Lothian region as an international route and as a strategic all-weather route serving the East Coast and the Borders region. I could not say at this time that the Government would conceive of the Al as being principally involved in terms of the infra-structure as related to onshore oil development. The principal emphasis at this time must be in that regard much further North. I have taken note of the particular point which the noble Earl raised.
I should like to turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I admit to him right away that I am not able to reply to him at this time on three questions; namely, whether or not I could give an assurance that trains will not be held up; whether I could tell him the situation as regards the locomative stock, and also whether his assertion was accurate that the stock does not seem to be of sufficient calibre in the Scottish regions as against other areas of the country.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it was not an assertion by me. I was reading from a leading article in the Scotsman and saying that this was an impression that I think and hope that the Government will be able to dispel.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in attempting to follow closely the noble Lord's argument, I did not make that distinction between his quotation from a leading article in the Scotsman and the impression in his own mind; but I undertake to write to him specifically on these two points.

137
On the particular point raised by the noble Lord—which, by the way, I do not consider to be of Orwellian dimension, although he made mention of the man of 1984—and the noble Lord's concern regarding the alterations to the Perth-Inverness line in the 1960s, the facts as I understand them are that the second line between Blair Atholl and Dalwhinnie was removed in 1966 as part of an operational rationalisation, and formed part of cost-saving measures being undertaken by the Board at that time. Of course because no railway station was closed, Government affirmation was not required. It lay within the management decision-making area of responsibility so far as the British Rail Board was concerned whether or not they took this action post-Beeching.
The noble Lord is right in saying the removal of the second line is not directly attributable to the Beeching Report of 1963. The noble Lord, Lord Beeching, himself left British Rail in 1965. The decision to make these alterations to the line was made against the background of the Report and its objectives which were to develop, modify and employ railway assets, and to remodel the system, to meet current needs. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister of State did not intend to mislead anyone about this matter, which he mentioned in passing during a Press conference following his announcement to the Oil Development Council. I should add in passing that his response was to a question and not part of his substantive statement after the Oil Development Council meeting. That has been made clear by the Scottish Office to the Scottish Press.
I submit that this particular statement should not be a major point of difference between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The major point is that the Government, in view of the development of the North Sea, and oil related industry, are prepared to provide the necessary finance now to improve the line to meet the needs of the 1970s. Of course these are matters which have now, other than the new decision by the Government, long since passed. I suggest what we must now do is to look not at certain of the decisions of the 1960s but at the grand design of the 1970s and 1980s, and consider what sort of a transport and communications system we want to see in Scotland, and
138
indeed in Great Britain as a whole, during the years ahead. The Government's Consultative Document, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, will provide just such an opportunity.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL
Order of the 9th of March referring the Special Report from the Examiners to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.