Lords Sitting of 9 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield).
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Wool-sack.
The Lord Hardinge of Penshurst—Took the Oath.

CAPITAL MOVEMENTS: CONTROLS
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the present balance of payments situation they will instruct the Bank of England to make major relaxations in its present control of capital movements.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the Government keep exchange controls under review, but are not persuaded that major relaxations at this time would be in the best interests of the United Kingdom's economy.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, under the Treaty of Rome, we are obliged to allow free movements of capital to other EEC countries unless we can establish that we are in balance of payments difficulties? In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer assures us that we are not in such difficulties, are not the Government in breach of their obligations?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the United Kingdom has been authorised under the EEC Treaty to maintain our present restrictions. It is true that there will be need for further talks with the Commission before the end of 1978 and what
914
then follows will be in the light of the economic situation at the time. I think I should remind the noble Lord—although I am sure that, with his financial experience, he does not need any reminding—that we are still only emerging from a period of chronic balance of payments difficulty, and we really have to proceed gradually.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, accepting what the noble Baroness said as to the precarious nature of the alleged balance of payments recovery, may I ask her whether the waiver by the EEC is not one granted to us solely on balance of payments grounds? If our balance of payments were really to re-establish itself, would we not be bound then to allow the free movement provided for under the Treaty of Rome?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is taking a look into the future and is a rather "iffy" kind of question. As our position improves obviously we can look at it again, but my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feel that now is the time to extend relaxations. I would remind the noble Lord, as I am sure he knows, that recently there have been some relaxations—in fact, two sets of relaxations.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that her Answer has confirmed that we have lost freedom of action? If the EEC had not authorised this, we could not have applied the restrictions that we as a nation thought ought to be applied.
Baroness BIRK: Well, my Lords, I have never taken the view that negotiation is losing freedom of action. Negotiation is carried on in a variety of areas with the EEC, not only in this field but in every other field of activity. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord does not see it in that light.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not slightly odd that Her Majesty's Government, through the Bank of England, have been buying depreciating dollars as opposed to allowing private citizens to buy possibly appreciating assets?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords.

ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS: INCOME TAX LIABILITY
3.5 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will instruct the Inland Revenue to desist from their attempts to impose demands for income tax in respect of bursaries and grants given by the Arts Council to authors and artists.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord is in an instructive mood today. As the law stands, such payments may be subject to tax according to the particular circumstances of the recipient. This has been questioned by the Arts Council, which is seeking the opinion of leading counsel. In the interim the Inland Revenue will take no action to settle the tax liability on such payments.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for the latter part of that Answer, will she confirm that since 1968 there has been an understanding with the Inland Revenue that these grants would not be treated as taxable? As there has been, so far as this House is aware, no legislation altering the statutory position, can she explain why the Inland Revenue have thought it necessary at this moment to raise this question at all?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Inland Revenue did not raise the question. It was the Arts Council who raised the question. The Inland Revenue agreed to this moratorium, and I think we are all very happy that they have done so. There is no specific legislation dealing with the tax position of these particular payments. The general position is that where a grant or prize arises to someone directly as a result of his exercising a profession, that sum is considered to be taxable. There has been no change in practice. What has happened is that the amount at the disposal of the Arts Council has increased, so the number of grants and bursaries has increased. The way these are assessed depends very much on the individual
916
circumstances of a particular individual, and whether in fact it is part of, or whether it is outside, his profession.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Inland Revenue, though they may not have raised the question, precipitated it by raising assessments contrary to the practice of the last seven or eight years? I was asking the noble Baroness to explain why they have done so.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I understand from the Inland Revenue that there has not been a change of practice. In fact there have been more grants and awards. I would ask the noble Lord to go back to my original Answer, where I explained that there is a moratorium on this matter. The Inland Revenue are as anxious as the Arts Council to get what is really a grey area cleared up. I think the fact that the Arts Council has gone to leading counsel, and that there is this moratorium, means that we should wait and see what emerges.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave a partial elucidation of past practice. Could she inform the House whether Nobel Prize winners have ever been deemed eligible for taxation under that heading?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is a different question, because the Question really referred to the Arts Council. I inquired about this, but I cannot remember whether the answer was yes or no. I had better write to the noble Lord about it. That is a particular award. We are now talking about grants and bursaries; that was the Question.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am anxious to let the noble Baroness off the hook on the question of Nobel Prizes, but is she not aware that she did use the word "prize" in her answer to one of my noble friend's supplementary questions? Is there not a distinction where taxation is concerned between an award or bursary and a prize? The latter could hardly be considered as income.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I used the term "prize"; this is a term which is used when discussing specific legislation. It is difficult to distinguish also between

917
bursaries and grants. The point is whether, whatever one calls it, it arises out of your profession or whether it is something that you are doing which is quite separate from your ordinary work; that is the broad criterion. But again, as I said, it depends on individual circumstances. I would add that the person who feels that he has been taxed unfairly always has the right to go to his local commissioners, and, as I understand it, up to now the Inland Revenue has never then taken the matter any further.
The Earl of COWRIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that answer—this is, as she said, a grey area—may I ask her whether she could make representations to her right honourable friend that we have this grey area cleared up by the next Finance Bill?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will certainly make representations. I cannot give any time limit. I am aware that it is a grey area, and my colleagues in the Government are sympathetic to the whole problem.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to leave the grey area grey?—because the artists have done quite well and I am glad of that. Is it not the fact that many other people receive bursaries which are taxed? I think that it would be better to leave the situation as it is.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, certainly has a point, because there are a great many other grants and subsidies handed out by the Government which are all, in fact, taxed. There is a great deal to be said for leaving "grey", grey.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, should not my noble friend exercise a little caution in this matter? If bursaries and grants associated with the Arts Council are not to be taxed, then what is the situation as regards redundancy payments when people are disemployed? Will those grants be subject to tax?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Question with which I was dealing and to which I am trying to restrict my Answers deals with Arts Council grants and bursaries. If we start wandering into
918
other areas we shall get right outside the Question and into very deep financial waters.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend define a "grey area"?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, a grey area is an area which is neither totally black nor totally white.

RHODESIAN CIVIL SERVANTS: PENSIONS
3.12 p.m.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of their recognising a new Government in Rhodesia, they will ensure the continuance of pensions to ex-Rhodesian civil servants, both black and white.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as was made clear in the White Paper on Proposals for a Settlement (Cmnd. 6919), published on 1st September 1977, the Government envisage that, in accordance with precedent, the Government of Zimbabwe would take over all past and present pensions obligations in the public sector, the rights of the pensioners being guaranteed by the Constitution.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which I think will be received with some satisfaction by many people who feel very insecure at present. However, has this question been raised by the Foreign Secretary during his talks with the Patriotic Front?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think not. It would surprise me if, as regards the talks that are taking place at a highly political level, there were sufficient time to include this particular less political question.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would it not be perhaps more comforting to the people who have served what we are told is an English Colony for many, many years, and whom the

919
British Government at the time of UDI advised to continue in their service, if a guarantee came from Her Majesty's Government rather than from a Government of such very doubtful composition?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, no. It is important that any decision as regards Rhodesia should be in line with pension arrangements in relation to other colonies. I have indicated that that is what the Government intend to bring about.
The EARL of HALSBURY: My Lords, if the Government and the Constitution were subverted, as might easily be the case, would Her Majesty's Government feel no sense of obligation towards these ex-employees, or would they wash their hands?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is important to understand what an expatriate is in terms of colonial pensions. An expatriate is one who was engaged in public service over which the Secretary of State had control and employed on conditions of service entitling him to overseas leave passage arrangements. Those who were working in Rhodesia do not come under that description.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is there not a distinction between a legal Government and an illegal Government? Had we not responsibility in Rhodesia before UDI was proclaimed, but no responsibility after an illegal Government was proclaimed?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the main Question and my main Answer was directed to the future situation—to which we all look forward—of a settlement.

PARLIAMENT: RESTRICTIONS ON VISITORS
3.15 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: 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 the Chairman of Committees whether he can give an assurance that
920
present restrictions on Members taking visitors round the Houses of Parliament (including closure of the robing room and crypt and confinement of visitors behind the Bar of the Parliament Chamber) will not be permanent but will be removed in part or in whole as soon as the Joint Security Committee agree to this step.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): Yes, my Lords, the Joint Committee on Security reviews the present restrictions on the line of route monthly and I am sure that they will consider lifting these restrictions as soon as they feel able to do so.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees two questions arising out of his reply. First, as regards the general position, would he agree that the truly dedicated security expert would really like no one anywhere at any time at all? However, in practice, must not security come to a reasonable compromise with public interest? Secondly, and more particularly while not daring, as one who is quite unqualified, to question the decisions of the Security Committee, would the Chairman of Committees illuminate us a little as to why, in your Lordships' House, all visitors are brought to the Bar, causing heavy congestion during tours of the Palace of Westminster, and are not allowed, as they used to be, through the Chamber? However, in another place, the Chamber is open for visitors as has always been the case. I know that both Chambers have historic and traditional value, but if it came to political vandalism or even political assassination, I think that Members of the other place would have a justifiable priority over your Lordships' House.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, as regards the first point made by the noble Lord, the Joint Committee is made up of Members of this House and another place. I am sure that we can rely on them to make sensible decisions in the light of the advice that they are given by the security experts whom the noble Lord has mentioned. In fact, as he probably well knows, the original restrictions were to allow only parties of 16 at a time round the House. Those restrictions have already been relaxed back to

921
the old number of 32, and I am sure that we can rely on their good sense.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, far be it for me to try to make a contrast between the values of the two Houses. I think that these matters are much better left to the Select Committee. However, as regards the comments made by the noble Lord about congestion, I do not think that his point is very good, because in the case of this House there really is no congestion. The line of route still moves along the "Content corridor" and straight through, whereas in the House of Commons if people were restricted to viewing the Chamber, there would be a flow backwards and forwards in the one area by the Bar.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether, when the Committee is considering the question of relaxing some of these restrictions they should consider that the Moses Room, which contains some very significant paintings including that of Moses, illustrating where we stand or should stand in respect of political and ethical matters, should be open for people to visit and see exactly where the real ethical principles were originally founded and when?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to consider the suggestion of the noble Lord.

DINNER
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I announce that, in view of the length of the list of speakers next Tuesday, dinners will be available.

SOUND BROADCASTING
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting:—

Aberdare, L.

Cathcart, E.

922

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the Quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Commons;
That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any joint meeting.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Jacques.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord Jacques on putting forward this important, although quite short, Bill and on the clear and articulate way in which he has presented it to your Lordships' House. I am extremely grateful to him for adopting the revised limits for deposits suggested by the Government and also to the House for accepting them when introduced as Amendments at Committee stage.
This Bill is welcomed by the Government and I am delighted that it has received support from all sides of the House. Indeed, no one has voiced any opposition to it. I hope that it will now receive similar support in another place.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for the support that they have given to this Bill? I should also like to thank my noble friend the

923
Chief Whip for the facilities which she has given to the Bill and, indeed, the whole House for the very kindly way in which they have allowed the Bill to pass so quickly. It goes to the other place with the approval of the Treasury and the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and with all-Party support from this House. I hope that in these circumstances they will find their way clear to pass it without undue delay.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 11 [Exercise of functions of Lord Chief Justice]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 18, after first ("or") insert ("if").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment, as indeed are almost all, or at least a large number, of the Amendments on the Marshalled List, and it makes no change of substance. Your Lordships will recall that I moved an identical Amendment at Report stage but I withdrew it after there was some discussion in order to be able to reconsider it and other aspects of the wording of the clause.
Having given the matter further consideration, I think that this Amendment—although it is not strictly necessary—makes the clause a little easier to understand and that it would be better if it were made. As I see that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is in his place, perhaps I may refer to the other point which was raised in relation to the words,
"done to or by the Lord Chief Justice"
in line 16 of page 5. I quite agree that those words are not wholly felicitous,
924
but unfortunately it has proved impossible to find any practicable alternative that is certain to cover all the matters in respect of which power is assigned to the Lord Chief Justice. The verb "to do" is the only one which is sufficiently general to be safe. Nor is it possible to dispense with the words "to or" in line 16 because there may be matters—for example the giving of notice—which need to be done to the Lord Chief Justice but do not require any action by him. I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied with that explanation and will be disposed to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, it would not be charitable of me not to acknowledge the great trouble to which the noble and learned Lord has gone to try to meet my point. He has been kind enough to write to me at length on the matter. I can only say that I am entirely convinced by the arguments that he has addressed to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Application for judicial review]:
3.25 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("to which the applicant") and insert ("which the applicant has claimed and to which he").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to correct a drafting error and to ensure that the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 18 do not conflict with those of paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move Amendment No. 4. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment. It is designed to ensure that the provisions of Clause 34 (3)(a) do not have the effect of substituting references to the Court of Appeal for references to the Court of Criminal Appeal in this Bill, where such substitution would be inappropriate.
I am told that I have failed to deal with Amendment No. 3, so with the leave of the House perhaps I could return to that.

925
The pirouetting process occasionally presents difficulties, I am afraid; I apologise.
Clause 29 [Co-ordinating of exercise of jurisdiction in relation to persons under disability]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 10, leave out from ("affecting") to end of line 11 and insert ("such a person arises in a cause or matter so brought;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is purely a drafting Amendment to clarify the use of the word "such" in subsection (1)(b) of this clause. I venture to think that the heavens would not have fallen if I had continued to forget to move this Amendment, but I beg to move nevertheless.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [General jurisdiction of Court of Appeal]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("passed or made") and insert ("in force").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment and I do not think that I need say any more. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Rules of court]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 36, line 23, leave out ("judge or statutory officer") and insert ("or judge").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. These are simply drafting Amendments which will ensure that the provisions of subsection (2)(a) of Clause 55 do not conflict with those of subsection (1)(a) of that clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 36, line 25, after ("of") insert ("statutory officers or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Officers and staff]:
3.28 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 69 and insert the following new clause:
Northern Ireland Court Service.
"69.—(1) There shall be a unified and distinct civil service of the Crown, to be called the Northern Ireland Court Service and hereafter referred to as the Court Service ", the functions of which shall be—

(a) to facilitate the conduct of the business of the following courts, namely—

(i) the Supreme Court;

(ii) county courts;

(iii) magistrates' courts; and

(iv) coroners' courts;

(b) to give effect to judgments to which the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 applies; and

(c) to discharge such other functions in relation to the courts mentioned in paragraph (a) or the enforcement of the judgments mentioned in paragraph (b) as are conferred on, or transferred to, it or any of its officers by or under this Act or any other statutory provision.

(2) The officers and other staff of the Court Service shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, and shall discharge their functions in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor.
(3) The principal civil service pension scheme within the meaning of section 2 of the Superannuation Act 1972 shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply to such officers and staff.
(4) The functions exercisable by the Court Service under subsection (1) shall include the functions heretofore exercisable by—

(a) the officers and other persons employed in the Supreme Court;

(b) the persons employed in the county court service by virtue of section 108 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 or any other officer of a county court;

(c) clerks of petty sessions and persons employed in the offices of clerks of petty sessions;

(d) the Enforcement of Judgments Office; and

(e) the officers of, and other persons employed for the purposes of, coroners' courts, other than those functions which by or under this Act become the functions of statutory officers.

(5) The offices of clerk of the Crown and peace and county court registrar are hereby abolished.
(6) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—

(a) for the payment by him of compensation to or in respect of persons who suffer loss

927
of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments (including superannuation rights) which is attributable to the provisions of this section;

(b) for the transfer to a statutory officer of all or any of the functions of an office abolished by subsection (5);

(c) for such other incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary matters (including the amendment or repeal of any provision of this Act or of any other statutory provision) as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or proper in connection with the establishment of the Court Service.".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35, which are inter-related.
Despite the number of inches which these Amendments, taken together, occupy in the Marshalled List, none of them effects any fundamental changes, but they are primarily designed to improve the structure and drafting of the Bill. The main Amendment in this group is Amendment No. 7, substituting a new clause for Clause 69. The new clause will dispense with the need for an Order in Council to establish the new Northern Ireland Court Service; instead, the new service would be established by the Bill itself and can be brought into being by an appropriate commencement order. The new clause therefore has the advantage of eliminating an unnecessary formality.
The terms and conditions of service of the new Court Service will be settled in a separate instrument after full consultations with the Staff Associations representing the existing separate courts services which will be superseded by a new unified service. Amendment No. 33 would make provision in the transitional Schedule on a contingency basis to cover any intervening period in case the rest of the Bill needs to be brought into force before we are ready to establish a new unified service. The provision enables the existing courts services to continue in existence and the Lord Chancellor to make new appointments to them until such time as Clause 69 is brought into force. This in part reproduces the effect of Clause 69(1) as it stands at present.
The other Amendments in this group are purely technical and consequential. The only one I need refer to specifically is Amendment No. 23 to Clause 104 which reproduces part of what is in
928
Clause 69(5) as it stands at present. Clause 104, which already deals with under-sheriffs, is the more appropriate place for this power to abolish that office, a power which was inserted in the Bill at the last stage. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I support this Amendment which rewrites Clause 69, which will set up the new unified Court Service for Northern Ireland with responsibility for that service to rest with the Lord Chancellor. I appreciate the need for Amendment No. 33, to which the noble and learned Lord has also spoken, which provides for the transitional arrangements.
I have one question I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord. Subsection (5) of this new clause abolishes the offices of clerk of the Crown and peace and county court registrar, whereas in Clause 69, as drafted at present, there is only an order-making power to abolish these offices. Is the immediate abolition of these two offices a practical proposition in view of the possibility that the Bill may come into force before the Government are ready to establish the unified Court Service? I apologise for not having given the noble and learned Lord notice of my question, and if he prefers to write to me on this matter I shall be quite content.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that customarily generous offer at the end of his question. I think that it is all right, but if there is any difficulty I shall write to the noble Lord as he so helpfully suggests.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Appointment and qualification of statutory officers]:
3.33 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 45, line 20, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and") and insert ("Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and with the concurrence of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 36, which are consequential upon it. This is another

929
group of Amendments which follow indirectly from the changes in ministerial responsibility for the courts in Northern Ireland which are embodied in the Bill, transferring the responsibility from the Secretary of State to myself. Clause 70 provides for the appointment of the statutory officers who are listed in Schedule 3, and it is now appropriate that responsibility for such appointments should rest with the Lord Chancellor. No appointments will be made without full consultation with the Lord Chief Justice who, incidentally, I assure the House, agrees with all the Amendments that I shall be moving today, a fact which gives me great strength and comfort, if I may say so. Provision for this has been made in this clause. As I have just said, this new arrangement has the full support of the Lord Chief Justice.
The Amendment to Clause 71 will transfer responsibility for the removal of statutory officers to the Lord Chancellor while the changes in Clause 74 will ensure that additional and temporary appointments will be made in the same manner as appointments to permanent posts. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melarea)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melarea) moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 14:
Page 45, line 35, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice") and insert ("Lord Chancellor"),
Page 45, line 37, after ("provisions,") insert ("after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice").
Clause 71, page 46, line 25, leave out ("The Lord Chief Justice with the approval of").
Clause 74, page 47, line 3, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Clause 74, page 47, line 5, leave out ("with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor") and insert ("after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice").
Clause 74, page 47, line 9, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor") and insert ("Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 75 [Official Solicitor]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 47, line 21, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice") and insert ("Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, unlike the statutory officers to be
930
appointed under Clause 70 of the Bill, all of whom will be full-time officers, the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court will, as at present, be a part-time officer. It is, however, appropriate that he should be appointed in the same manner as those full-time statutory officers who will serve in the Supreme Court, and accordingly this Amendment provides that the Lord Chancellor, again after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, will appoint the Official Solicitor. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Investment of funds in court]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 49, line 27, leave out ("of court") and insert ("made under section 82(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, which no doubt will give relief to your Lordships, with the knowledge that this technical process will not last very much longer. This group of Amendments would bring the provisions of the Bill concerning rule-making as to funds in court more closely into line with the corresponding provisions of English law. In England and Wales rules as to funds in court are made as Lord Chancellor's rules, and with the transfer of ministerial responsibility it is now appropriate that the corresponding rules for Northern Ireland should also be made by the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 23:
Page 49, line 31, leave out ("of court, or by the Lord Chancellor") and insert ("made under section 82(1)").
Clause 82, page 49, line 35, leave out ("rules of court may regulate") and insert ("the Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, make rules regulating").
Clause 82, page 49, line 40, leave out ("regulate") and insert ("regulating").
Page 50, line 1, leave out ("of court") and insert ("under subsection (1)").
Page 50, line 33, at end insert
("(3) In subsection (2) "prescribed" means precribed by rules made under subsection (1).").
Clause 83, page 51, leave out line 12 and insert ("rules for the time being in force under section 82(1)").
Clause 104, page 61, line 46, at end insert—
("(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order abolish the office of under-sheriff and transfer all or any of the functions of that office to such other person or body as may be specified in the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 17 to 23 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 were discussed with Amendment No. 16, and Amendment No. 23 was discussed with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
Clause 117 [Transfer of certain functions relating to courts to Lord Chancellor]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 69, line 4, leave out ("section 46") and insert ("sections 25(1) and) 46").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to ensure that the power to make certain rules under the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 will continue to be exercisable by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after consultation with the Magistrates' Courts Rules Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Making and control of subordinate legislation]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 69, line 28, leave out ("to make an order or") and insert ("on the Lord Chancellor to make an order or on the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to clarify the fact that all the orders to be made by the Lord Chancellor under the Bill and all the regulations to be made by the Lord Chief Justice will be made as statutory rules for the purposes of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 and will therefore be printed and published as such.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Minor and consequential amendments, transitional provisions and repeals]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 72, line 11, leave out ("respectively").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment to leave out the word "respectively", which is superfluous.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 96, line 31, at end insert:
("In section 1(3) in the definition of "civil service of the Crown" after the words "Northern Ireland" insert the words", the Northern Ireland Court Service".").
Page 96, line 41, at end insert:
("In section 1(2) in the definition of "civil service of the Crown" after the words "Northern Ireland" insert the words", the Northern Ireland Court Service".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments were taken with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 100, line 12, leave out ("may licence") and insert ("on behalf of the Ministry").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. It merely corrects the reference in Section 14 of the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 by which a textual Amendment, which is already in Schedule 5, is to be made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 101, line 38, at end insert:
("In section 3 after the word "shall" insert the words "except where the Lord Chancellor otherwise directs".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would make a textual Amendment to Section 3(1) of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. At present, that subsection provides that county courts are to be held in buildings provided by the Department of the Environment under the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. Although a judge of the court has power to direct that a sitting of the court be held elsewhere if for any reason the accommodation is not suitable, and that provision will be retained, it is desirable for the Lord Chancellor, as the Minister

933
responsible for the administration of the courts, also to have power to direct that other buildings be used on a temporary, or even on a more permanent basis, and that is what the Amendment achieves.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 104, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("for the words") and insert:
("In section 114—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "county court rules" substitute the words "directions given by the Lord Chancellor";

(b) in subsection (2).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment makes another textual Amendment to the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, this time to Section 114. That section deals with the circumstances in which interpreters and shorthand writers may be used in court and provides that the judge can call on the services of an interpreter or shorthand writer where he thinks it necessary or expedient for the doing of justice between the parties for any proceedings before him. At present the power is subject to county court rules, but because of the public expenditure implications it would be more appropriate if this power of the judges were exercised within the overall framework of directions by the Lord Chancellor. The directions will of course be framed so as to leave a reasonable discretion in the hands of the judges to ensure that justice is done between the parties.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 106, line 16, at end insert:
"The Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960
In section 1 for the words from "on attaining the age of seventy years" to the end, substitute the words "at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of seventy; but where the Lord Chancellor considers it desirable in the public interest to retain him in office after that time, the Lord Chancellor may from time to time authorise him to continue in office up to such age, not exceeding seventy-two, as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit".".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on Report the noble and learned Lord
934
agreed to accept the principle of an Amendment which I put forward if I withdrew it at that stage. This Amendment's intention is to allow the Lord Chancellor to authorise resident magistrates in Northern Ireland to continue up to the age of 72, if he thought this to be in the public interest, and I am very grateful indeed to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to move this Amendment today. As was mentioned on Report, this brings into line the practice over stipendiary magistrates in the rest of Great Britain.
With the leave of the House, this gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the resident magistrates in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows they are the very first line of defence of our courts and they are the first to come under attack. Over half of them have been threatened, physically assaulted or murdered, and that is the level at which they have withstood the attacks of terrorism to try to intimidate them from doing their duty. They have with absolute and unswerving loyalty served the State of Northern Ireland, and it gives me great pride and pleasure to pay this tribute and to move the Amendment to allow the noble and learned Lord to exercise his discretion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most happy to accept the Amendment and to echo the words that the noble Viscount so properly and appropriately uttered about these gallant public servants who are administering justice in such very difficult conditions. Their service is something to which we as a House owe a great debt of gratitude.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:
Page 117, line 14, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
("6. Until the coming into force of section 69(1)—

(a) the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, may, subject to section 70, appoint such officers and other staff for the Supreme Court, county courts, magistrates' courts, the Enforcement of Judgments Office and coroners' courts as appear to him to be

935
necessary and such officers and staff shall discharge their functions in accordance with directions given by the Lord Cancellor;

(b) any person heretofore holding office or serving in or in connection with—

(i) a court mentioned in the first column of the Table mentioned in paragraph I shall, except as provided by Part VI of this Act or Part III of this Schedule, continue in corresponding office or service in or in connection with the court specified opposite that court in the second column of that Table as if he had been appointed under subparagraph (a) upon the terms and conditions on which he heretofore held office or served;

(ii) county courts, magistrates' courts, the Enforcement of Judgments Office or coroners' courts shall continue to do so as if he had been appointed under subparagraph (a) upon the terms and conditions on which he heretofore held office;

(iii) county courts shall be deemed to be an officer of the Crown Court.").

Page 117, line 41, leave out paragraph 10.
Page 119, line 5, leave out paragraph 17.
Page 119, line 22, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 were spoken to with Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 36 with Amendment No. 8.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 127, line 47, at end insert—

("1973 c. 36.

The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.

In paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 the words "the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland".")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment consequential on the provisions of Clause 34(3) of the Bill.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sitting here wondering who is responsible for all these Amendments; it must be the Government or the draftsman at the the behest of the Government. What I am wondering is this: On the assumption that the House of Lords is abolished, how
936
will these matters be dealt with by another place?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend has indeed asked a most pertinent question. I take full note of what he has said, and I hope that it will be duly noted in another place. I thought that at some point in time a certain amount of noble impatience would be shown, but I am grateful to the House for its patience so far in allowing me to deal with these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 131, column 3, line 20, at end insert—("Section 137(c).")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment, to add Section 137(c) to the list of provisions of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 which are scheduled for repeal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made.
3.52 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, before the Bill is allowed to pass, I hope that I may have the patience of the House for a little longer so that, as the only Member of the House living in Northern Ireland, I may say how much I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the other place. It is a reform which is very much needed. It is also appropriate at this stage to congratulate the Northern Ireland Office on its handling of that part of the courts which has been under its jurisdiction during these very trying years. If I am convinced that the Government have been right to change and to accept the ministerial responsibility under the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it must not be considered that this change in any way reflects upon the handling in the past of court matters by the Northern

937
Ireland Office, nor indeed in the future until this Bill becomes law.
I should like to take up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, about the Amendments to the Bill. It seems to me that there have been a tremendous number of Amendments of substance due to this particular change, and I consider that the work of the draftsmen, done in a very short time, has been brilliant. It also appears to me that the number of Amendments of a purely drafting variety in a complicated and detailed Bill have been kept to the absolute minimum. This demonstrates, certainly to me, and possibly to this House, the excellence of the service of the Parliamentary draftsmen from Northern Ireland; I understand the Bill was in fact drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen in Stormont.
The noble and learned Lord noticed one discriminatory omission which had to be rectified, that of the omission of the Principality of Wales. I can assure him on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that there was no ulterior motive. We would never leave out any part of the United Kingdom, let alone the Principality of Wales.
The Bill embodies many of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord MacDermott, a Member of this House. He is one of the outstanding lawyers from Ulster—and we have had many of them; he has been most outstanding in his service over very many years, and his courage is second to none. Many noble Lords may not remember that it is only a few months since he was attacked by way of a bomb placed in a room in which he was lecturing in the polytechnic. To me the Bill is a lasting tribute to his work.
The Lord Chancellor, in winding up the Second Reading of the Bill, seemed to imply that the last thing that could be attributed to him was that he was a susceptible Chancellor. The course of the Bill has proved very much the opposite; he has been a most susceptible Chancellor, and it has been my great pleasure to take part in the deliberations on the Bill. I wish it well.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for what he said. I am grateful that he has paid
938
tribute to the courts in Northern Ireland for the way they have functioned up until now, as well as to the officers of the courts and to the judges of the courts who have administered the law with impartiality and efficiency. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount for having referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord MacDermott, and the present Lord Chief Justice, who has had a major part in the whole preparation of the Bill. We are indeed fortunate that he is holding this high and responsible office in Northern Ireland today.
I also wish to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary draftsmen, and to the members of the Civil Service, both in Northern Ireland and here, who have worked very hard indeed to achieve the completion of the Bill and to hasten its passage through the House. I echo the wish that has been expressed that the Bill will receive speedy approval in another place, because the changes in the organisation and structure of the courts which the Bill will bring about are needed, and will, I believe, improve the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 9 [Powers of court to commit children to care of local authority]:
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 10, leave out lines 29 to 31.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we come now on to rather more than a purely technical process. We on this side were sorry that during the passage of the last Bill the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, never got a chance to make one of the speeches; I do not know what

939
went wrong with the rationing. Now we come to something which is really of substance. I am afraid that I must return yet again to the proposition that, although a care order putting a child in the hands of a local authority continues, as Clause 9 (6) says, until the child reaches the age of 18, after a child has reached the age of 17 no such order may be newly made. I have pointed out previously that this no longer fits in with the pattern of the whole of this collection of legislation where all the ages are now assimilated either to 16 or to 18. Nowhere else does the age of 17 years occur, except in relation to this particular provision in this Bill and in similar Acts.
At the Report stage I explored where it may have come from, and I have had since then sonic more interesting correspondence, for which I am grateful to the Government. I think I have at last run down a source of this limitation to 17. I wish to quote from the Official Report of another place of 7th May 1948, col. 1613, where the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office said:
"… under Clause 1 of the Bill, it will be the duty of the local authority to receive into their care, where they consider it necessary in the interests of his welfare, any child under 17 who is orphaned, deserted or lost, or whose parents or guardians are for any reason prevented from looking after him, and to keep him in care until he is 18, if need be. In both these respects the age is raised as against the old Poor Law system".
If that is still the only justification—that it is raised as against the old Poor Law system—I am very glad indeed that we have had an opportunity to reconsider it. I am told by the Government that if Amendment No. 1 were to stand on its own—that is to say, we would allow care orders to be made at any time between the age of 17 and 18 in respect of an individual child—this would cause some resource implications to arise; in other words, public money would have to be spent. The logic of that seems to me to be that the Government accept that, in these circumstances, were the courts able to make these care orders for children between the ages of 17 and 18, they would in fact use those powers and place a burden upon the Probation Service and the social services.
Now that we have Clause 13 in the Bill, which declares that the child's welfare is
940
paramount, that must mean that there are children who ought to be taken into care although they are over 17 and under 18, but because the law is what it is they cannot be. This is a situation which was endorsed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull at an earlier stage of the Bill.
I do not want to be tiresome about this, and I am all in favour of the Government cutting public expenditure to the greatest possible extent, I do not know whether they would cut it in the same places as we would, but if they want to cut it I do not want to prevent them. It occurred to me therefore that if, upon research into the origins and indeed the current applicability of this provision, there was some doubt whether we ought not now to change it, perhaps it would be better to give the Government an opportunity to consider it at another time when it might be more suitable in terms of public finance.
For that reason I have also put down Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Amendment No. 1 can stand by itself and if the House is to pass that then at once when this Bill became law, or upon a commencing order, the courts would have the power to put into the care of local authorities children between the ages of 17 and 18. One could do it by a specific provision in the Bill allowing the Government to bring this change into force at some future date when they thought the resources were right. If one adds Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 that is the effect.
I may say that they do not stand in my own imperfect handwriting; they have kindly been drafted for me by the professionals in the Parliamentary Counsels' Office. I hope that this is a compromise which the Government may see fit to accept. I hope it commends itself to the House as a whole as being a sensible way out of the situation. I beg to move Amendment No. 1 to see what the reaction of the Government would be.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me if I were to give one practical example indicating the real difficulty of this—I was going to say, "limbo" age of 17 to 18. Some years ago a father came to me to say that his daughter, aged 17, had disappeared. Through various

941
methods I discovered that she had run away and was in London in one of the discotheque clubs in Soho. With her father I went to the club late at night and we found her. Her father asked her to return home. She refused and said, "You have no power over me. I am 17". The difficulty here is that the father, as a parent, has responsibility for that girl up to the age of 18, but I, as a then director of Social Services, could take no action in a legal sense to help the father with that girl.
We all know that girls from 16 to 17 when they have just left school are feeling their feet. Statistics show that girls, and indeed boys, from 17 to 18 go through what might be called, a "rough-ride" period, and need help at that stage. Even if it were only two or three months' help it would be of enormous value. Therefore, I bring to the notice of the Government the very real difficulty where parents have no jurisdiction over their children, taking them to court or asking somebody else to take them to court or accept them into care, and yet parents are responsible for them up to the age of 18.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I can take this very briefly, for the simple reason—and your Lordships I am sure will appreciate this—that the Government are able to accept the proposal which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has now put forward. There are three Amendments before your Lordships and I have been invited to speak on the first, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to speak also on the second and third.
As the noble Viscount knows, because we have discussed this matter personally, the only difficulty facing the Government was that of resources—and nobody knows better than the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, what this would mean in terms of manpower so far as the local authority is concerned, and in terms of money when we spend something like £35 a week at least on keeping a person in care. In many respects, therefore, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for putting up these Amendments. I know that they are not exactly what he wanted, but I believe he has done this in the spirit of co-operation and for that reason we are glad to accept them.
942
Before I sit down I should like to take the opportunity of saying how grateful we are to him. A good deal of correspondence has passed between us but it has been worth while. If I may say so, a lesser person might have been more difficult, but it is typical of the noble Viscount to show a great deal of understanding in these matters. We are grateful to him for his co-operation and the Government accept these three Amendments.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is more than generous and I am indeed grateful to him. May I say one thing that follows on the acceptance of these three Amendments. The other day the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced a future programme of consolidation in this field of family and children law. Of course, it is not only in this Bill that the age of 17 appears; it is in two or three other pieces of legislation as well. There is a process whereby when legislation is consolidated minor amendments can be made either upon the recommendation of the Law Commission or under the 1949 Act with a memorandum from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I would respectfully suggest that similar powers to those which appear under Amendment No. 3 might be inserted in all the other legislation so that when the resources are adequate all the law can be brought into line. Meanwhile, I thank the Government for accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.8 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert—
"(6A) The court shall not have power to make an order under this section with respect to a child who has attained the age of seventeen.".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
"(10) The Secretary of State may by order repeal subsection (6A) above, and any such order shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Eligibility for Legal Aid in Scotland for proceedings under Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972]:
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey) moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("and (d)")
Page 54, line 41, leave out ("and (d)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when in the debate on the Report stage of the Bill I introduced a new clause—now Clause 56—enabling some overseas claimants to obtain legal aid without the usual inquiry into the claimant's resources, I indicated, after the short intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that the Government might wish to consider one turther point arising on it. Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause disapply those sections of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 which provide for the assessment of applicant's means and for the taking of contributions towards their expenses with the aim of providing, so far as possible, a free collection service for maintenance for these claiments. The clause as it now stands also disapplies Section 2(6)(d) of the 1967 Act which provides that expenses awarded in favour of a legally-aided person shall be paid into the Legal Aid Fund.
The effect of this would have been that, when a court in Scotland made or registered an order for maintenance in favour of an overseas claimant with an award of expenses against her husband, she, and not the Legal Aid Fund, would have been entitled to receive the expenses, although all the expenses on her side would have been paid for by the Legal Aid Fund. These two Amendments, Nos. 4 and 5, ensure that any expenses recovered shall be paid into the Legal Aid Fund. With leave, I would move en bloc Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 78 [Reports by probation officers on means of parties]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 75, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) in subsection (1) the word "periodical" and the words "or in any proceedings in any matter of bastardy" shall be omitted;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This Amendment makes two small changes in Section 60(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. Section 60 enables a magistrates' court to request a report on the means of the parties:
"In any domestic proceedings in which an order may be made for the periodical payment of money by any person or in any proceedings for the enforcement or variation of any such order or in any proceedings in any matter of bastardy."
During the Report stage the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, suggested that the reference to bastardy proceedings in Section 60 was unnecessary because these proceedings now fall within the scope of the general definition of domestic proceedings. I said that the Government would look at this. We have now done so; we agree with the noble Viscount, and I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I think this is an improvement; and unless I am greatly mistaken, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential, so he will not have to explain those.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Short title and extent]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 78, line 39, after ("and (3),") insert ("81,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects a small drafting omission. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 88, line 26, column 3, leave out ("Sections 59 and 62") and insert ("Section 59").
Page 88, line 26, column 3 at end insert:
("In section 60, in subsection (1) the word "periodical" and the words "or in any proceedings in any matter of bastardy" and in subsection (2)(a) the words from "which shall be read aloud" to "at the hearing".
In section 61, the words "or in proceedings in any matter of bastardy"
Section 62.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc. As the noble Viscount said, these are consequential on the earlier Amendment.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved the following Privilege Amendment:
Clause 84, page 79, line 10, at end insert:
"( ) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I would say, at the outset, that I am extremely grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House who have contributed to the debates that we have had on this Bill. I think this is an important measure which will transform the lives of quite a number of people once it is on the Statute Book; and I should like to take this opportunity to thank, not only noble Lords generally for their help and support on this measure but, in particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who has made a number of substantial points on the I think his efforts have led to a very substantial improvement of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do, with some modesty, think that we have improved the Bill in the course of its passage through this House. I can mention that fact because, of course, it is really a collection of points which were given to me by those who practise in the field which have impressed themselves upon the Government and led to the Amendments being made. But I, too, think it is an important measure, and I wish it well on its way through another place. There are one or two undertakings still to implement, and we shall look forward to seeing the fruits of those when the Bill comes back with Commons Amendments.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
4.13 p.m.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS) BILL
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Payments to redundant workers in the shipbuilding industry]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, after ("Shipbuilders") insert ("or any other body corporate which has its principal place of business in Great Britain and which, between 1st January 1976and 31st December 1977, has in Great Britain—

(i) completed a metal-hulled ship with a length of not less than eighty feet; or

(ii) repaired, refitted or maintained such ship in a dry-dock or graving dock in which that body corporate has had during that period an interest in possession or a licence to occupy that dry-dock, graving dock for a period of not less than one hundred and fifty days").

The noble Lord said: I suggest that, if the Committee considers it convenient, Amendment No. 2, which is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and myself, be discussed with Amendment No. 1. I should explain that, today, Amendment No. 1 bears a star against it because some very small changes in wording have been made to improve it, but it is in fact aiming at the same purpose now as when it was previously on the Marshalled List. I should also point out that, unfortunately, overnight the printer has omitted a word, so that, in the fourth line of sub-paragraph (ii), after "dry-dock" there should be the word "or". It makes no difference to the sense, but, of course, it makes it read correctly. I saw this at half-past nine this morning, and I have endeavoured to make sure, through the Clerks of the House, who agreed that a printing error had occurred, that the Government and others should, if possible, be told.
With this Amendment and all the others on the Marshalled List—because the subsequent Amendments are consequential—we on these Benches are dealing with a single point. We had a wide-ranging debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, during which I and my noble friends drew attention to what we described as a serious defect in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pointed out that the Government's position was as it had been publicly stated, without repeating it all in detail; and we quite understood that that was not necessary. We hoped that, between then and now, he would be able to elicit a change of attitude on the part of the Government after the very strong case for fairness which had been made in your Lordships' House, and in particular by my noble friends. That fairness is between men working in the shipbuilding industry doing precisely similar work and being made redundant for exactly the same reasons. As the Bill is at present drafted, it is unfair between man and man doing the same kind of job in the same industry if they are made redundant for the reasons which have caused this Bill to be brought before this House.
I will explain this again, briefly. First, the process of nationalisation seldom, if ever, encompasses 100 per cent. of an industry. For example, take the steel industry. The British Steel Corporation is not the whole of the steel industry; there are several private companies as well, at least one of which is a very well known company. Even with the coal industry all the mines were not nationalised; some remained in private ownership. Indeed, there was one near my home in the North of Scotland, at Brora, which remained in private ownership for many years. So, also, in shipbuilding. This has happened in only the last year; but the Government's Bill which was before your Lordships' House a year and a half ago did not seek to place every shipbuilding company in public ownership. For reasons best known to the Government, some were deliberately left out. A small private sector was contemplated and planned by the Government, and it now exists. What is strange is that this Bill provides for special redundancy schemes, additional to the statutory redundancy schemes, in shipbuilding and
948
ship repairing, but as now drafted they are restricted entirely to the public sector.
There is a private sector, and it employs about 10 per cent of the labour force. That private sector and that 10 per cent. are just as vulnerable to the world recession in shipbuilding as the public sector. Men belonging to the same unions—for example, the Boilermakers' Union—and who are carrying out similar work, will be similarly affected. Why should the Bill, and why should your Lordships, discriminate against 10 per cent. of them? I use the word "discriminate" because that was the word used by the noble and learned Lord during the Second Reading debate. He said at column 104:
"I acknowledge that that is a serious point. I acknowledge that there is discrimination".—(Official Report, 21/2/78.)
In the short period of a few months which has passed since the shipbuilding industry was nationalised, the Government have not discriminated in such a way against the private sector. Far from it: the action which they took to introduce the intervention fund—that was the £65 million which was specially contributed by the Government to the industry for last year because of the difficult situation they were in—was not confined to the public sector; it was for the whole industry. A further amount for the intervention fund has recently been announced for the current year, and again it is for both the public and the private sectors of the industry. So, in the eight months that the shipbuilding industry has been nationalised, there had not been discrimination until this Bill appeared.
Then, if we return to special redundancy schemes in another nationalised industry, in the steel industry, there is a scheme under which payments are made in addition to the statutory redundancy scheme in the Redundancy Payments Act for the steel industry. Cash sums are paid and also there are make-up-of-earnings payments when men have to move to lower paid jobs. These are not restricted to the public sector and those employed by BSC. That system applies to the private sector in the steel industry; and it does so under the aegis of the European Coal and Steel Community and, therefore, has the blessing of the EEC. So that there is equality of treatment being practised now in a special redundancy

949
scheme of the kind we are discussing in another nationalised industry; namely, the steel industry. I would emphasise that this is an enabling Bill, as the noble and learned Lord said when he introduced it on Second Reading. What we are doing is giving the Government virtually a blank cheque to bring forward schemes and those schemes must come to both Houses of Parliament in orders attached to Affirmative Resolutions.
The Government can formulate any scheme they like depending upon future developments and the circumstances in shipbuilding areas. But if, as they now propose, intentionally or unintentionally, the Government were to restrict the scope of the schemes to the public sector, they would be confining their own flexibility; they would be removing their flexibility in relation to the whole of the industry. The orders which would come forward with the schemes, I would remind your Lordships, can only be accepted or rejected by this House; they cannot be amended. By the time such orders come forward—and the Bill provides for the extension of its duration for up to four years; so that these orders could be coming before us in a period of four years ahead—the unions concerned may be inundated with complaints from members in the private sector of the industry. They then may be making strong representations to the Government of the day as to why men were being left outside the scheme just because they happen to work for companies which, under the Government's own arrangement, were left in the private sector. We are foreseeing a situation in which we in this House (and our colleagues in another place) may find that we are persuaded to vote against an order and to reject what would otherwise be a sensible scheme for redundancy payments, simply because it was being grossly unfair by excluding men doing similar work who are being made redundant for the same reasons of worldwide shortage of shipping orders.
The Government should give themselves the elbow room, the wider scope, within which schemes can be fair to all at present employed in the industry. To make the situation as it is today Gilbertian as well as, apparently, callous, under the Bill as it stands, men in those subsidiaries of British Shipbuilders, the nationalised body, who are not engaged in activities remotely
950
connected with shipbuilding, activities like house building and motor cycles, are eligible under this Bill. That makes the anomaly even worse.
Our Amendment does not presume to add to the total expenditure. I must make this clear. We in this House are not proposing that extra money should be produced by the Government. The Government are unable to make any estimate of the total amount which may arise under this Bill. I can understand their difficulty because they do not know at present how many redundancies there may be—from 200 to 20,000. What they have done in the Financial Memorandum is to give an estimate per 1,000 men; but even that is very vague because when the Bill appeared in another place three months ago the estimate was £0·9 million per thousand and, when it came to us, it had gone up to £.1·5 million. If there can be that degree of vagueness in a period of three months, one can see how difficult it is at the moment for the Government to make an estimate of what will be the total amount—far less for 1,000 men who are made redundant.
Our claim is that, whatever amount of money is set aside for this purpose or whatever limit may be imposed, we are not trying to add to it by this Amendment. We are simply trying to arrange that in the schemes which the Government bring forward, the money shall be fairly distrbuted among all the men in this industry who are in similar situations. The individual payments would vary according to the length of service and other criteria, as foreshadowed in the Bill.
We have tried also in these Amendments to meet points of objection which have been raised by Ministers. First, in this Amendment that I am moving, we have restricted the ships that are being built in the shipbuilding firms by a length of 80 feet and to metal hulls; and we have tried to use the technical terms to describe that. This is to exclude the builders of small craft and pleasure boats who might otherwise, according to the Ministers have appeared to qualify. Also, we have included a qualifying period during which companies in the private sector have had to be building ships. This is to make sure that they are genuine companies and not what were described in the other place as

951
"fly-by-night" companies who came in in order to collect the redundancy money—though that seems a strange thing to do.
Then it was suggested in the other place that it might be difficult for the Government to identify the companies in the private sector concerned. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there is no difficulty. There are only about 20 companies and it will be up to them, under our Amendments, to apply if they consider that what is happening to them and their workforce is similar to what is happening to other sectors of the shipbuilding industry and that they are eligible for the additional payments under this Bill. There is a precedent for this; I can give one at once. That was for the scheme of construction grants under the 1972 Industry Act. That was far more difficult because there were a great many firms all over the country which might have been eligible for that; but that was administered on the basis that the companies themselves applied. So there is no difficulty about that.
Also, it has been argued by Ministers that some private companies might make men redundant after making less than all-out efforts to obtain business. But there is a safeguard against that; because under the statutory redundancy scheme, the employer must pay 59 per cent. and, therefore, the employer, with the additional scheme as well, is having to produce a high proportion of the total redundancy payments and is most unlikely to be making men redundant without first trying to compete as hard as he can for such business as is available in the world.
The second Amendment which is being discussed with Amendment No. 1 contains a definition of the length of ship such as has been already used in legislation. The aim is to include shipbuilders as understood for the purpose of this Bill and not to include boat builders whom the Government are not proposing to cover in the Bill.
There arises the question of the privilege of another place because we are dealing with a financial scheme; although, as I have indicated, we are not proposing from these Benches that additional money should be spent. We are considering how it should be distributed. Through
952
this enabling Bill, the Government will be left to bring forward whatever schemes they think fitting. The other place can waive a privilege if they decide to accept these Amendments or similar Amendments so that there is no technical difficulty about improving the Bill by Lords' Amendments concerning a financial scheme of this kind. There is also the technical question of the Money Resolution which is dealt with in another place. It is likely that new wording would be required for that Money Resolution with these Amendments; but, again, there is no difficulty. My experience of the other place is that there is no difficulty at all for a Government bringing forward overnight a newly-worded Money Resolution if an Amendment like this is adopted.
To sum up, the purpose of these Amendments is to be fair to everyone working in this industry; to be fair to those who are engaged in the same activities and not to cater for part of the industry alone, albeit the largest part. Unfortunately, in this industry there are many men who are facing the same imminent hazard of redundancies. We believe that they should all be treated in the same way in order to be fair to them.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should like to support the point of view so adequately put forward by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. For very many years when I was in another place I had a great deal to do with shipbuilders, both in my first constituency of Wallsend-on-Tyne and because at that time I had a certain amount of industrial knowledge of shipbuilding in the whole of the North-East. It will not be surprising to the noble Lord who is to reply if I say that I am against nationalisation of any kind. But it is even worse when the Government which brings forth these schemes do not seem to understand how to be just. I like to speak my mind very clearly and to be very straight. I need not add anything to the adequate way in which my noble friend moved the Amendment.
Having enjoyed representing my former constituency, and having been retained for quite a long time in that area for my Party—which was not necessarily accept-

953
able to many people in the part of the world that I represented—I wonder how the Government, who do not seem to understand the situation and who put forward proposals which we and many shipbuilders do not like, dare to put forward a scheme which contains so many injustices. I always think that the Government are mad anyhow, and I think that they will go on being mad. I only hope that before long we will get rid of the whole lot of them. I shall then say "Three cheers!" from the seat I am now occupying. I beg to support my noble friend in his Amendment.
4.32 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Baroness has put her case forward with that moderation to which we are accustomed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in the course of his Second Reading speech, used slightly different words from the words he used today. In particular, he drew attention to what he described as
"… the serious defect in the Bill".
That is at column 84 of Hansard for 21st February. He did not say "a serious defect". What he said was:
"The Bill does not apply to all shipbuilding firms",
and pointed out that there were a number of independent shipbuilding firms which the Government never set out to nationalise and which were not nationalised. He asked—and he repeated the same kind of question today—
"Why on earth have they been omitted from the Bill?"
These observations and others he made in support of them then and today foreshadowed an Amendment to bring the "independent" shipbuilding corn-panics into the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord asked the Government to think again about this matter and spoke of an Amendment to put this matter right. The Amendment which he now moves is somewhat surprising. Perhaps the most striking thing about it is that it applies to ship repairers as well. That is both striking and surprising because in the course of the Second Reading debate the noble Lord was at pains not only to restrict his remarks to shipbuilding companies but to relate his argument to the fact that it was the Government which selected certain companies for nationalisation
954
and said that others were not to be nationalised, and he said in terms when my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton raised the question of repair yards (at col. 99 of Hansard):
"My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I did not mention the words 'ship repair' in the whole of my speech".
He certainly gave me and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Lee the impression that he was seeking to draw attention to an injustice done to shipbuilding firms which, through no fault of their own, had not been nationalised, and that he was not prepared to do battle on behalf of the ship repairing companies, some of which at least, with the support of the noble Lord and his friends, fought against being nationalised and succeeded in their aim.
The other feature of the Amendment to which I would draw attention is that in paragraph (i) words are chosen—as the noble Lord made clear—in order to restrict the scheme to companies which have completed a ship which has a metal hull and a length of at least 80 feet. What is noticeable there is that the wording both as to the character and as to the length of the ship has changed from the corresponding Amendment which was moved by the Opposition in Committee and at Report in another place. I shall comment on the significance of that later.
These are not technical criticisms of the Amendment. These are observations upon matters of substance. May I throw back at the noble Lord the question that he asked at Second Reading:
"Why on earth have they been omitted from the Bill?"
and ask him in relation to ship repairers: "Why on earth were they omitted from his speech at Second Reading?".
The noble Lord was kind enough to give me ample notice of the terms of his Amendments as originally drafted, and that allowed Ministers to consider the whole matter again. I am obliged to him for helping me in that regard. In particular, it allowed me to draw the attention of the immediately responsible Ministers in the Department to what was said by the noble Lord and others in the course of the debate on Second Reading. Thus the matters at issue were carefully reconsidered. The Government remain convinced after that reconsideration and after the full exchange of views that

955
took place between the Minister of State and the SSIA last week and in the light also of the prolonged exchange of argument on the Bill in another place that their decision on this matter is correct. I hope that I can explain it.
The origins and character of the world market crisis facing the shipbuilding industry were discussed fully on Second Reading and there is no doubt that the Bill is, in principle, acceptable in this House. But if there is agreement on that, then I would suggest that the logic of the policy enshrined in the Bill is inescapable.
This Bill has its origins in a unique crisis of world shipping and world shipbuilding. The oil crisis led to millions of tons of tankers being laid up throughout the world. At that time, tankers made up some 60 per cent. of the gross tonnage on order or under construction throughout the world. Almost overnight, no one wanted them; and, given the huge surplus oil carrying capacity, no one is likely to want them again in significant quantities before at least the early 1980s.
This market collapse coincided with an extensive and, I believe, ill-judged expansion of facilities for building the very ships that no one now wants. The result has been that competition for other types of ocean-going ships to meet the insatiable appetites of the huge yards has been intensified to a frightening degree.
In this country, these yards are in public ownership. They belong to two undertakings which alone will have to face the direct consequences of this world crisis for British shipbuilding. The problems they will encounter are of the worst possible kind; they will be struggling on the one hand to win orders against fierce world-wide competition from other ship builders who are also fighting to survive, while they will on the other hand be trying to cope with the effects on manpower and productivity of an insufficient work load. Moreover this is a situation which, as I have said, is likely to continue for some years.
It was this situation and this situation alone which the Bill was designed to meet: it is intended to soften the blow for those engaged on building ocean-going ships
956
who will be forced out of employment by this state of affairs. They will not be the only ones to suffer, however. Our shipbuilding industry is located in areas where unemployment is already a problem. In many of these areas, as the noble Baroness knows, shipbuilding accounts for a very substantial proportion of the workforce in the area. The closure of a shipyard in such an area would have a devastating effect on the entire community, not just those engaged in the shipyard. It would affect many small businesses. A reduction in the activity of British Shipbuilders will affect the suppliers of marine equipment, too, and they can claim to be far more directly affected by the world crisis than the builders of the small ships or the repairers whom the noble Lord would seek to bring in by this series of Amendments.
It was argued at Second Reading that the Government's proposals were unfair. It has been said today that they are unjust because the Bill was confined to the public sector. I have never sought to conceal that the Bill is discriminatory. Any special-sector scheme is bound to be discriminatory in that it favours those within its ambit and not those who are not within its ambit. In this respect, the Amendment also proposes a similar discrimination. It would take some com-panics into the Bill but leave others out. It extends the boundary, of course, but only some way. It would do nothing for any company in the shipbuilding business which had not, within the two-year period, completed a metal-hulled ship with a length of not less than 80 feet. It is impossible to see the logic of drawing the line in that particular place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will acknowledge, when similar Amendments were discussed in another place, the length chosen was 60 feet and I believe there was no reference to metal hulls. These changes merely serve to indicate that there is no particular logic in drawing the line with regard to the length of the ship. The Amendment would also bring in some, but not all, ship repairers but would leave out persons in the private sector who are wholly dependent upon the shipbuilding industry as subcontractors, whether in marine engineering, ship joinery or the like. I would repeat and seek to emphasise that the Bill is related to the world crisis. That crisis

957
may force major shipyard closures in this country and the Bill is designed to help those who are most directly affected by the crisis. The problems of those who build or repair small ships in the private sector are relatively quite remote from the crisis with which the Bill is concerned.
I accept that this Bill will plainly not benefit every worker in this country who may suffer indirectly and at some remove from the consequences of the world shipbuilding crisis. That would indeed be an impossibility. It does no more than the practicable minimum in the circumstances, and I. am sure that the Committee will appreciate that it would not be practicable to cover the many small businesses I have mentioned which are directly dependent upon shipbuilding and upon the major yards, and which are much more closely affected by the crisis than those who build small ships. The Amendment does not seek to do that either.
The point was also made in another place at Second Reading that the Bill would give British Shipbuilders some competitive advantage. There is no such intention and, indeed, I would suggest that it would be absurd to suppose that British Shipbuilders can enjoy any competitive edge over the smaller companies at a time when the company is going to be fighting for its very life as a result of the prospective loss of a huge section of its major product. It may well be true that some small shipbuilders are feeling competitive pressures at present and that to some unquantifiable, but small, degree that may be due, however remotely, to the side-effects of the world crisis; but in the main that can only represent the effects of a cyclical downturn in the demand for small ships. That, as I have sought to make clear, is not what this Bill is about.
As I have pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, did not seek at Second Reading to make out a case in respect of the private sector ship repair companies which fought bitterly, successfully and perfectly properly against being brought into the public sector. No doubt he had good reason for that omission and I have no doubt that he will explain his change of mind in relation to that. I hope I shall be forgiven for going back to
958
the important point. I do not think anyone can deny that, in a scheme of this kind, a clear boundary has to be drawn, and the boundary we have drawn is very clear indeed and will create no legal problems in implementation. Where a boundary line has to be drawn, there will always be those just outside who feel that they have been unfairly treated. That will happen regardless of whether the boundary is drawn where the Bill says or where the Amendment would draw it. Given the underlying purpose of the Bill, we believe we have drawn this boundary line fairly, reasonably and in an administratively practical way.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested that the situation was somewhat Gilbertian because persons not remotely connected with shipbuilding who happened to come within the ambit of the Bill would receive redundancy payments. I would say in connection with that that we can and shall discriminate between those employees of British Shipbuilders who are engaged, on the one hand, in shipbuilding, ship repair, marine engine building and associated activities and those, on the other hand, whose work has no connection with shipbuilding. That can be done, of course, under the provisions of the Bill but, beyond that, discrimination inside British Shipbuilders would present insuperable problems of demarcation.
To conclude, I suggest that this Amendment is not justified. It would simply shift the line of discrimination. The further away from the epicentre of the world shipbuilding crisis we extend the boundaries of the scheme, the less easy does it become to defend the exclusion of those who can claim to be indirectly affected by that crisis. As I have said, in the Government's view, the logic of this argument is inescapable and though they have given the matter the most careful consideration and, within the last fortnight, reconsideration, they do not propose to retreat from their position. For those reasons, I ask your Lordships to reject the first Amendment.
There is one matter I should like to add in view of what the noble Lord said about the matter of privilege and the Money Resolution. What he said is entirely correct as to what is possible; but the Government do not intend to ask another place to waive its privilege or to alter the

959
wording of the Money Resolution. I suggest that if this Amendment were carried it could only cause delay in the bringing into effect of a scheme which everyone accepts ought to be brought into effect—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McCLUSKEY: That delay would be utterly pointless because there is no prospect whatever that the Amendment, if carried in this Chamber, would be accepted by the Government in another place. If this Amendment is moved into the Bill, this House will simply risk causing delay for the sake of a gesture which noble Lords opposite wish to make. I do urge noble Lords to reconsider this particular matter before they press this Amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point? He said that people who were not involved in shipbuilding would be able to be excluded from getting the redundancy payments within the provisions of the Bill. Could he point out to us where within the Bill that discrimination can be exercised?
Lord McCLUSKEY: It occurs in Clause 2, and I will read the first two lines:
"(1) A scheme under this Act shall provide for the making of payments to or in respect of employees of any prescribed class".
Subsection (2) reads as follows:
"In subsection (1) above, 'prescribed' means prescribed by the scheme in question.".
I believe that answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERFARD: I feel I must rise to support this Amendment. I was very surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord say that this Bill did not discriminate against private shipbuilders, or the few that are now left—
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I, with permission, just intervene to say that I have acknowledged from the start, and I repeat it now, that there is discrimination. I am merely making the point that there always has to be discrimination. I can see that others may differ on where the line is to be drawn, but I do not seek to conceal the fact that the Bill does discriminate.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his clarification, but may I say that if in future British Shipbuilders are to get orders, as they have just done, by using the taxpayers' money to give the customer money to buy the ships, the few private shipbuilders who are left will, of course, be faced with dismissing a great number of their workers. It therefore seems extremely unfair that those few private shipbuilders who are still left cannot share in this redundancy scheme for their workers. I once had cause to be very interested in the building of a 10,000-ton tramp ship in Sunderland, so that I have some slight knowledge of this subject. I shall not delay the Committee, but I should like to make the point that, if the nationalised British shipbuilding industry is to get orders by using taxpayers' money, as it appears to be doing, it will be extremely discriminatory and very unfair to the few private shipbuilders left.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will allow me to reply to that point before he makes his intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, very clearly acknowledged that the shipbuilding intervention fund, which is taxpayers' money, was made available to the private sector as to the public sector. So I am sure—I think that the noble Viscount is now agreeing with me—that the general thrust of the argument is unsound. In that respect, there is no discrimination. Of course, it is a double-edged point. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said "There is none there. Why is there some here?"
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I, also, do not want to delay the Committee. I had not intended to take part in this debate, because I thought that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy had demonstrated with the utmost clarity the unfair discrimination of the Bill as it stands, and I feel that such discrimination is something that one must resist by vote, if not by word. But I was moved to make a brief intervention by the concluding sentences of the noble and learned Lord on the Government Bench. I understood him to say that, whatever this House does, the Government in another place—and he no doubt said this deliberately—would not move for privilege to be waived, and that, therefore, the effect of carrying, this

961
Amendment would be to delay the coming into operation of the Bill and the schemes under it. I understood that to be his contention. I can only say that I think that was—I believe I am using the right word—a somewhat improper argument to use.
If this House decides that the Bill should be amended as my noble friend has suggested, then it is plainly the duty of this House to do that. We are a revising Chamber, we have here a perfectly clear-cut issue which was very fully debated on Second Reading and I do not think that we should be deterred because subsequent action, lying within the Government's discretion, might make the Amendment a further and indirect cause of delay. If the Government see fit to act as the noble and learned Lord suggested, responsibility for delay will lie solely with the Government. The Government can perfectly well, under the Rules of Procedure of another place, with which I am, perhaps, as familiar as the noble and learned Lord, move to waive that privilege. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that if they do not do so there will be delay, but the responsibility will be solely the Government's. If I had needed any incentive to urge my noble friend to press this matter, it would be that I thought it a most unfortunate argument of the Minister on the Government Bench.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether I may be allowed to reply to that. I am sorry that the noble Lord should characterise the argument with that adjective, but I felt that it was my proper duty to make the intention of the Government clear. I have sought to do so, and the words that I used were:
"The Government do not intend to ask another place to waive the privilege Amendment."
I have made the Government's intention clear, and the Government are not going to change that intention. It is, therefore, a matter for consideration whether, that being the Government's intention, and this being a matter of ways and means and a Money Resolution, this House, acknowledging the history of constitutional privilege in these matters, feels it right to insert into the Bill this Amendment which, necessarily, may cause some delay.
Lord MOTTISTONE: How far removed would the noble and learned Lord say that was from straightforward blackmail?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Is the noble Lord saying that it is, before I answer his question?
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am putting it in the form of a question, in order to elicit from the Government whether this is a threat or a practical move. Or what is it? Why is the noble and learned Lord saying that the Government have made this decision and will adhere to it?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have sought to give the reasons lying behind the decision. I have sought to be frank by saying that the decision has been taken. May I counter the noble Lord and say this? He asks whether it is far removed from blackmail. What kind of pressure is being put upon the Government by his noble friends, who have brought large numbers of their huge, built-in majority here today to vote for this Amendment? What is that, if it is not something akin to blackmail, and what right do noble Lords think they have to move such an Amendment, standing the constitutional position about privilege, in the face of a clear statement of the Government's intention?
Lord KINNAIRD: May I ask this question? We are always being accused of having a built-in majority, but why are the opposite Benches so empty? They can be called just the same.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will at least reflect for a moment. The description of a possible decision of one House of Parliament as blackmail would be serious from any Minister, but coming from a Law Officer of the Crown it sounds quite extraordinary. Secondly, when the noble and learned Lord said that delay will be a necessary consequence of such an Amendment being carried, I was not sure whether, on reflection, he was withdrawing the word "necessary". Perhaps he would make it clear whether he was doing so.
Viscount SIMON: I wonder whether we can move back to the merits of this Amendment. I did not express a view earlier, because I wanted to hear what the

963
noble and learned Lord would say in reply to the very able presentation of this Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. As your Lordships know, on Second Reading, on behalf of my noble friends, I supported the idea which is now embodied in this series of Amendments, that it was wrong for employees in the private sector of the shipbuilding industry not to have the same benefits as employees in the public sector. I want to emphasise, particularly, that we were looking at the matter from the point of view of the employees. The noble and learned Lord, in replying to the Amendment in the first place, kept talking about the firms. I do not want to say that I do not care about the firms, but it is not the interests of the firms that I am concerned with; it is the interests of their employees.
It seems to me wrong, in spite of all that the noble and learned Lord has said, that employees in these, admittedly, smaller firms should not have the same benefits under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, as employees in larger firms that are included in British Shipbuilders. If it is true that smaller firms are not subjected to the same competition as the larger firms, arising from the crisis in shipbuilding, that is a very good thing, and perhaps they will not have to make anybody redundant, so that the question will not then be a matter of any importance at all. But we ought to put employees in small firms in the same position as those in larger firms in the public sector. So if, unfortunately, they are rendered redundant during a crisis which goes very wide—much wider than just the building of very large ocean-going ships—they will have the same opportunities of securing redundancy pay.
I do not think that there is very much else I want to say, because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, expressed the feelings so very clearly. I certainly will not enter into an argument as to whether his Amendment differs from what he suggested on Second Reading; that is for him to explain, if he has to do so. But on the question of the privilege Amendment, I wonder whether I may say this, which I think was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said.
The Bill itself does not establish any specific claim upon the Exchequer. The
964
result of including what we understand is about 10 per cent. more people among the beneficiaries of the Bill—but 10 per cent., as the noble and learned Lord has said, who are probably less likely to be redundant so that the claim might be much less than 10 per cent.—could surely be met, even if a figure had already been established, which it has not, by very slightly reducing the amounts of the compensation paid to everybody. One could still accommodate that number of people within whatever figure had been agreed. As has been pointed out, no figure has as yet been agreed.
Regarding the question of delay, quite often we hear this argument from the Government—and probably from Governments of any Party, including a Liberal Government when we have one—but I do not think that it is a very substantial point. If your Lordships' Committee decides to pass this Amendment, it will go back to another place. I should have thought that the whole matter could be put right by the other place either accepting the Amendment or rejecting it, the Amendment then having to come back to this House. How long would that procedure take? It would take one or two days after the Bill had been passed.
I realise that the Easter Recess is coming, but even that will be a matter of only a week or 10 days. I cannot believe that this procedure will delay the bringing into force of these orders by any appreciable amount of time. Furthermore, the orders will be effective retrospectively from July of last year. If the orders were delayed for three or four days or even for three or four weeks, I should not have thought that it would make very much difference. I shall advise my noble friends to support this Amendment.
5.2 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Points have been put to me by the noble and learned Lord and I should like briefly to reply to them. Both at Second Reading and again today the noble and learned Lord was frank with us in stating that he considers that there is discrimination in this Bill against the workforces in the private sector of the industry. As a good advocate, I can say that he has made the best he can of what must be a very difficult brief.

965
The noble and learned Lord asked why my Amendment did not match completely a point which I had raised at Second Reading. When I spoke then, I made no reference to any Amendments. I left myself free to table any Amendments or none at Committee stage and, as I did, to concentrate on this one point. However, the noble and learned Lord referred to an exchange between me and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, who I see is not in his place. However, the noble and learned Lord did not refer to the whole of the exchange. I do not wish to read out the complete column of Hansard, but what the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, had done was to fall into the trap which I was trying to help your Lordships to avoid.
In general discussions about this Bill and the schemes, both inside your Lordships' House and outside, I had found that Members on all sides of this House did not realise that a private sector was left in the shipbuilding industry. Their impression was that the only people who were outside the public sector were the ship repairers, and they, after all, were the people who had made a fuss and who wanted to stay outside. Therefore, particularly at Second Reading I surprised a number of noble Lords by saying that of their own accord and of their own choice the Government had left a private sector in the shipbuilding industry.
That was quite apart from the arguments which we had in this House, about whether or not the ship repairers should have a choice. I cannot remember whether the noble and learned Lord was a Member of this House at the end of 1976 when we had those arguments. I quite understand that he may not have taken part in them or have followed them very closely. However, the point I was making was that there was a private sector element left in the shipbuilding industry by the Government's own Bill as it was originally drafted.
During the course of the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill we eventually arranged, through some Amendments which were first moved in this House, for the ship repairers to be given a choice. They were in effect given a choice either to remain private or, if they wished, to come into British Shipbuilders. The result has been that some
966
ship repairers are within British Shipbuilders, while others are still in the private sector.
Therefore in order to produce a single series of Amendments which will be fair within the industry to all the kinds of people to whom the Government schemes will refer, my Amendment not only deals with the private sector in the shipbuilding industry—to which I referred in particular in my Second Reading speech, simply because I found that so many people, both inside this House and outside, did not realise that there was one—but also refers to workforces in the ship repairing industries which are similar to those in the public sector. The object is to achieve fairness so that men in the same unions and engaged on the same work in the private sector will be treated in the same way as men who are doing the same work and who are faced with the same kind of redundancies in the public sector.
The noble and learned Lord also said that these Amendments are different from those which were moved in another place. I regard that as a compliment; I do not see anything wrong with it. Certainly we looked at what had been said in another place. In drafting these Amendments I tried to take account of the objections which the Government had raised to those Amendments. The Government of course have access to technical expertise. Therefore they were able to say, "If you make it 60 feet under the definitions which are used for measuring ships you will include boatbuilders, whom you do not intend to include because they are not doing work which is similar to that which is done by the men working for British Shipbuilders".
For the same reason, we put in metal hulls. The Minister himself had indicated that one would bring in the kind of boatbuilding which neither side intended should be included in the Bill, because they are not similar activities to those engaged in by the men who are covered by this Bill if they are made redundant. Therefore the changes were improvements that attempted to meet the points which the Government had made. I believe that we have been successful in drawing a line now which accords with the comments and objections which the Government made regarding the original proposals.

967
The noble and learned Lord still used the argument, which has been used before, that small companies building smaller ships will not be subjected to the same pressures and difficulties, due to the worldwide crisis in shipbuilding, as the larger units in British Shipbuilders. But that is certainly not so. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the Japanese in particular and other countries are now building small ships. They are having to build whatever ships they can and to obtain whatever orders they can get. Therefore, the companies which were building large ships in the past are now building small ships. We are aiming to cover those companies which are building ships within the definition which the Government themselves indicated covers ships and shipbuilders. We are not aiming to cover those companies which build rowing boats or other small boats.
It is not simply small companies building small ships which are going to be less subject to the pressures which the world situation is creating. Shipbuilding companies, whether small or big, which are building the kinds of ship covered by this Bill, are going to be in the same difficulties. If the smaller companies are not allowed to come into this scheme, and if they are to be fair to their workforces, they will have to produce the extra money from their working capital in order to pay the additional redundancy payments which are made to the men employed in other workforces in the public sector. That could be crippling to some of those companies.
Therefore I hope that since the Second Reading the noble and learned Lord has, as I suggested, referred all of these points to the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Harold Lever, who is supposed to be specially designated to look after the interests of small companies. Here are small companies which, as the noble and learned Lord himself indicated in his speech just now, are likely to be discriminated against. It is not so much a question of competition with British Shipbuilders as a burden that will be placed upon them if they try to be fair, as I am sure many of them will, and produce the extra money to match the schemes which the Bill will produce for the public sector.
The noble and learned Lord said that, as regards the subsidiaries of British
968
Shipbuilders which have nothing to do with shipbuilding, the Government when they bring forward their schemes will be able to distinguish between men who have been working in shipbuilding and are made redundant and men who have been manufacturing motor cycles and should not really be under the same scheme. Well, in the same way, provided the scope of the Bill is wide enough to cover the whole industry the noble and learned Lord can deal with any of the other difficulties which he has indicated in the schemes that come forward. Within the schemes that come forward the Government are free to use their discretion to be as fair as they possibly can.
The last argument the noble and learned Lord had to use I would have thought he might have dropped from his brief. He talked about the question of the constitutional irregularity of something affecting financial matters being amended here and the Amendment sent to another place. But he talked about it in terms of delay. Of course, he could not argue it any other way because it is perfecly possible for privilege to be waived by another place and for the Government to change the wording of the Money Resolution were that to be necessary. The noble and learned Lord simply argued that it would cause delay. As my noble friend pointed out in Second Reading, an Amendment from this place can be dealt with in another place overnight; it can be dealt with the next day if it can be fitted into the business.
I publicly offered at this Box at Second Reading to bring forward the stages of the Bill in this House, subject to the Rules of the House and to the Government and the Opposition agreeing to a Motion to shorten the normal time between stages. I say now that if the noble and learned Lord wants to bring forward the Report stage, which is down for a week's time, and have it on Monday, so far as I am concerned I would be delighted. This is the only point that we have under this Bill and we certainly would not wish to cause any delay. So will the noble and learned Lord please take out of his mind the idea that this is going to cause delay. We have offered publicly to bring the stages of the Bill forward, earlier than the programme the Government themselves have in mind, if this will help.

969
If this Amendment and the consequential Amendments are passed it will enable the other place to have second thoughts about this very important question, and it will also allow the Government to reconsider it. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will support me in pressing this Amendment.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 2:
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Onslow, E.

Ailsa, M.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Porritt, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amherst, E.

Foot, L.

Redesdale, L.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

Arran, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rochdale, V.

Auckland, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gray, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Banks, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Bessborough, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Simon, V.

Birdwood, L.

Ilchester, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Spens, L.

Caccia, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Cairns, E.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Clancarty, E.

McFadzean, L.

Sudeley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Croft, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tenby, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Terrington, L.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Teynham, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monck, V.

Torphichen, L.

De Freyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Denbigh, E.

Morris, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Northchurch, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Wardington, L.

Elton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Segal, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L,

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hale, L.

Northfield, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
""length", in relation to a ship, has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines)(Length of Ship) Regulations 1968;"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This Amendment

971
was discussed with Amendment No. 1 and is simply the definition that is associated with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: After the Second Reading debate, I looked at some words that I used in column 106 where, in relation to the 1965 Act, I said:
"There is support from the taxpayer and some contribution from the employer".
That was an attempt, in response to an intervention from, and exchange that I had with, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to précis a rather complicated situation; on reflection it did not seem to me to be entirely successful. Therefore, I wrote to all noble Lords who had taken part in the debate and I received a kind acknowledgement from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, it is only proper that I should correct the record in this respect, and perhaps the simplest way to do so is to repeat now what I wrote to the noble Lords.
The true position is as follows. Employers are required to meet the full cost of redundancy payments in the first instance, but they may recover part of the cost, at present 41 per cent., by way of rebate from the redundancy fund. That fund is financed by an allocation from the Department of Health and Social Security equivalent to ·2 per cent. of the total earnings on which the National Insurance contribution is payable by employers in respect of employed earners—that is, the secondary Class 1 contribution. In other words, given a contribution rate of 10·75 per cent. of earnings, within specified limits, the Department of Health and Social Security effectively transfers ·2 per cent. to the redundancy fund, leaving 10·55 per cent. for other purposes.
Thus, benefits under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 are financed wholly by employers, with part of the cost being met by the individual employer concerned, and the remainder by employers collectively through the medium of the redundancy fund. However, this fund is, by accepted definition, public money and is, for example, taken into account in the public expenditure forecasts. If the fund is in
972
deficit it may borrow from the National Loans Fund. Sums paid out of the redundancy fund are, therefore, not direct from the taxpayer or direct from the industry concerned, but they do come not too indirectly from the generality of employers.
I should like to add, on a personal note, that having re-read the exchange between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I felt that in the course of it I treated the noble Lord with less than the courtesy which he unfailingly shows to me, and I hope he will accept my apology for that.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the statement he has made and also for the very agreeable personal reference that he made at the conclusion of his remarks. I am very much indebted to him for the full letter that he sent to me on the point arising at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I hope he will allow me to say on the Floor of the House what I have already said in a letter to him; namely, that I do not think that his summary answer at the Dispatch Box was at all misleading. In the past, I have had some experience of the problems of answering off-the-cuff quite complex questions that were asked by tiresome Members of the other side, and I know how difficult it is. From comparing the full and detailed analysis which the noble and learned Lord has just read out, and which he sent to me in writing, with his short and summary observation at the time, if he will allow me to say so, I think he did very well at the time. It is typical of his care and caution that he has very properly tidied up the record in this way and I am extremely grateful to him.
I, too, should like to add an apology. On one or two occasions in the past few days I have not given him the prefix "learned". I did so, not out of ill manners, but because I was advised by an extremely senior Member of this House, that that epithet was not attributable formally—although it would be undoubtedly true in fact—to Law Officers of the Crown. That advice has now been revised so may I tender to the noble and learned Lord my gratitude for the explanation that he has just given.
On Question, Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Supplementary provisions relating to schemes]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6:
Page 3, leave out line 9 and insert—
("(a) in the case of a person employed by, or by a relevant company of, British Shipbuilders, by British Shipbuilders; and
(b) in the case of a person employed by any other relevant company, by that relevant company.")
Page 3, line 16, at beginning insert ("(i)")
Page 3, line 18, after ("company") insert ("of British Shipbuilders")
Page 3, line 20, after ("Shipbuilders") insert—
("or (ii) any other relevant company to authorise any of its officers or employees to determine on its behalf any such question which falls to be determined by it").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 en bloc. When I was speaking on Amendment No. 1, I indicated that Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 were consequential changes which would need to be made to the Bill if Amendment No. 1 was passed. These are perfectly clear drafting Amendments, and as Amendment No. 1 has been passed I do not think that they need further explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like to make a few comments in relation to this clause. During Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy raised the question of the basis for estimating the 30 or 40 computer staff and I said it was really just a guess. As the noble Lord will not be surprised to know, that caused hackles to rise in certain quarters. I want to assure the House that the figure was not simply plucked out of the air. The Coal Board's Computer Agency already handles the iron and steel and the miners' redundancy payments schemes—each of which provides work for a number of people—on which we could base an estimate for the scheme. So, perhaps that is a sufficient explanation of the basis.
Viscount SIMON: As the noble and learned Lord has mentioned the computer staff, can he tell us whether, in fact, the cost of computer staff will be recovered from British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I understand the answer to that to be, No. If I am wrong, of course I shall make it clear, but I think that I am right.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Perhaps I can acknowledge the noble and learned Lord's revision of his earlier explanation, on Second Reading of the computer staff. I would still say that, in a situation where the Government literally do not know whether the number of redundancies under the Bill is to be 200 or 20,000, it seemed rather strange that they could say that a definite number—and as many as 40—might be needed for the schemes, whatever they are. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has been able to give us a little more information today.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Financial provisions]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert ("or to any other relevant company not being a relevant company of British Shipbuilders, as the case may be")
Page 3, line 40, at end insert ("or the other relevant company in question")
Page 4, line 2, at end insert ("or the other relevant company in question, as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: As I indicated, Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are consequential. They simply produce the drafting changes resulting from Amendment No. 1 having been agreed to. Again, if the Committee finds it convenient, I propose to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that this is the appropriate moment for me to comment upon the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on Second Reading, that the schemes might be financed by a loan to British Shipbuilders and to Harland and Wolff. It would, indeed, as the noble Viscount suggested on Second Reading, be too late to begin to consider financing these schemes by way of loans to the two undertakings concerned. It would, as, again, he suggested, be hanging an impossible burden around their necks. These

975
companies have enough difficulties to face without this extra burden.
However, that apart, taking British Shipbuilders, it must be remembered, first, that they came into existence only eight months ago with no past profits or accumulated capital to their name, and facing an immense slump in demand, which as I have said, is likely to last for some years yet. In the Government's view, it would be both wrong and pointless to ask British Shipbuilders to repay this money to the Government. It needs to be remembered that, in any case, they will have to bear the employers' share of the payments made under the 1965 Act.
Furthermore, we should not overlook the fact that, although these additional payments will be of help to the undertakings in the industrial sense in easing their contraction, they are really designed to help the unfortunate workpeople concerned and the local communities whose prosperity depends upon their employment. In these circumstances, I would judge it inappropriate to require the undertakings concerned to shoulder the full burden of payments, even by means of a long-term interest-free loan.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
5.35 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Civil Aviation Bill has three major provisions. It provides for the transfer of the burden of aviation security expenditure from the taxpayer to the industry; for the more effective control of aircraft noise and for increases in the borrowing limits of the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airways. The Bill also makes several minor changes to previous civil aviation legislation.
Since Parliament last debated a Civil Aviation Bill in 1971 there have been many important developments, both domestic and foreign, in the aviation field. The Civil Aviation Authority has been
976
successfully established; Concorde has been launched into commercial service; British airlines have widened their air services; a new Air Service Agreement for the sharing of traffic between Britain and the United States of America has been negotiated on more equal terms than the last; and there has been a welcome move towards lower fares in general.
A less happy development in recent years has been the growth of terrorism against civil aviation. The Government decided in November 1976, as part of the public expenditure cuts, that the burden of aviation security expenditure should be transferred from the taxpayer to the industry from 1st April, 1978. This decision was not expected to be popular with the industry but the Government believe that it is right that the aviation industry should bear its own costs without being subsidised by the taxpayer.
The cost of aviation security has risen from about £5 million in 1972–1973 to an estimated £15 million in 1977–1978. Next year, it is estimated that the likely cost will approach £19 million. The increase in costs has been due to the gradual improvement of security measures over the years as well, of course, as to inflation. The security measures are costly, but they are necessary to meet the current threat, which is as high as it ever was.
I know well that it has been suggested that, in taking this action, the Government are in breach of their international obligations, but that is far from the case. Indeed, I venture to suggest that if all countries in the world attended to their obligations on security as the British Government do, the incidence of acts of violence against civil aviation would be very considerably reduced. There have been many suggestions made as to how such incidents could be prevented, including sanctions against countries which harbour terrorists. But it is the Government's view that sanctions are not at present a practicable way to deal with the problem of hijacking and that the most effective way is to take adequate preventive measures, including the searching of all passengers boarding aircraft.
The British Government have been at the forefront of international discussions on acts of violence against civil aviation for many years now. Our security is highly regarded and it is equal to any

977
other country's and better than most. It would thus be wrong of us to run the risk of gradual erosion of the excellent measures which we take simply because of lack of adequate finance. When the legislation before the House is enacted, it is the Government's intention that the rate of the levy during the next financial year should be 80p per arriving passenger. That, I suggest, is a small price to pay for protection. Full account has been taken of the industry's views on methods of administering this charge. Of course changes can be made in the light of experience and my colleagues have given firm undertakings to airlines, aerodrome authorities, the air travel industry and representatives of consumer associations that there will be full consultation before any changes are made.
When this Bill was discussed in another place a number of Amendments were carried against the Government. The effect of these Amendments was to restrict the Secretary of State's flexibility to make regulations. The spirit of these Amendments was accepted by the Government and the Opposition generously agreed that at the Report stage the Bill should be put back into its original form with certain minor changes. They did this because we consulted them about the proposed content of the regulations. The industry itself has been widely consulted on this and, I understand, are reasonably content with the proposals.
The Government have made provisions in the draft regulations for a free allowance of 2,000 passengers each month on which airport authorities will not be required to pay contributions to the Secretary of State. This concession, which is worth £19,200 per annum to each aerodrome will enable them to meet the small additional administration cost of recovering the levy from their users and will also enable them to make some small provision against bad debts. The allowance, together with other concessions such as not charging for children under three or for passengers on small aircraft, will enable some aerodrome authorities to alleviate to an extent the disproportionate effect of the levy on shorthaul fares. One excellent example of this is the Civil Aviation Authority's intention not to charge the levy to its full extent on shorhaul journeys at Inverness, Kirkwall and Sumburgh.
978
I move now to the second major element of the Bill. The Government are deeply concerned about the problem of aircraft noise and recognise the genuine anxieties that exist about it. We are confident, however, that over the next 15 years there will be a marked decline in the degree and extent of disturbance from aircraft noise at all airports as a result of the growing use of quieter and larger aircraft. The Government are playing a leading role in international discussions on tightening noise standards and in the White Paper on Airports Policy published on 1st February this year, announced their intention of banning the use from 1st January 1986 of all non-noise certificated subsonic jet aircraft on the United Kingdom register. In the meanwhile, until the predicted benefits of the quieter aircraft can be realised in full, the Government, airline operators and airport authorities will continue to implement a wide range of measures such as noise limits, special take-off and landing procedures, and restrictions on night flights to mitigate the disturbance caused by the aircraft now in service. The main noise provisions of this Bill are intended to enhance and clarify the powers of aerodrome authorities to act to mitigate aircraft noise at their aiports.
Clause 8 extends the by-law making powers of airport authorities to enable them to make by—laws to limit or mitigate the effects of noise, vibration or atmospheric pollution caused by aircraft using the aerodrome. Certain local authorities already have similar powers under private legislation and Clause 8 will ensure that all licensed airport authorities have these powers.
Clause 9 removes any possible doubts there may be about airport authorities' abilities to take aircraft noise into account in structuring their airport charges. Such charges can take a number of forms and can be designed to achieve a variety of object yes. They will not necessarily raise any extra revenue and can even, like the experimental scheme in operation at Manchester International Airport since 1975, take the form of rebates for quieter aircraft rather than higher charges for noisier ones. The Government believe that noise-related charges can provide a useful incentive for airlines to operate and manufacturers to design quieter aircraft.

979
It is envisaged that they would be introduced gradually and would be supplementary to regulations on aircraft noise standards, giving an added inducement to airlines and manufacturers to do better than the regulations. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to direct airport authorities to relate their charges to aircraft noise and to say how they should do so. This will complement the Secretary of State's present power, under Section 8(2)(o) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, to regulate airport charges.
Schedule 1 contains several minor provisions concerned with improving the working of the powers in Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 for the control of aircraft noise at designated aerodromes. It also makes clear that the powers in Section 29 to limit aircraft movements at designated airports during certain periods include the power to ban aircraft movements. This power is needed to implement the Government's policy of phasing out noisier aircraft movements at night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
After the security and noise provisions of the Bill the next most significant measure is the increase of the borrowing limits of the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airways. The CAA has recently started work on a project for replacement of existing radar installations with new equipment at a reduced number of sites in East and South-East England which will eventually produce savings. In addition the Authority has recently expanded facilities at Sumburgh Airport in the Shetlands, which it owns, in order to accommodate oil-related traffic. As a result the Authority is approaching its borrowing limit of £75 million and Clause 5 provides for an increase to £125 million which has, as normal, been set at a level to provide for its needs for the next five years. Similarly the opportunity is being taken to enable the Secretary of State to increase British Airways borrowing limits by order.
The Bill makes a number of other provisions, including that in Clause 10 to enable the Secretary of State to give the Civil Aviation Authority general directions on the performance of its functions in the interests of national security; and that in Clause 11 to amend the 1971 Act by altering the elements of the offence of
980
contravening a term of an air transport licence with a view to ensuring that the licensing system remains enforceable. These, the remaining clauses and the substantial Schedule of minor and consequential Amendments can, I suggest, be more appropriately discussed in Committee. With this explanation, I hope the House can agree to give this measure a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Oram.)
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the Minister for taking us through the Bill and for explaining it so clearly. The Bill seems to be a general tidying up of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 and we support its Second Reading, although there are a few questions I wish to ask for clarification. I wish to refer to four major points of which I have given the Minister prior notice. They concern the security fund, the standing of the security personnel, the noise prevention proposals and the possible inclusion of provisions to extend the powers of the Airports Authority to permit it to participate in the commercial development of airports overseas.
In regard to security, we support the proposal to levy a tax on passengers to meet the cost of providing security, as opposed to making a charge on the general taxpayer, as it is the passengers who are at risk in this matter whereas many of the general taxpayers are never involved in such a risk. I understand the intention of the proposal is to place the provision and implementation of security under the direction and control of the Airports Authority in the interest of standardisation of both technique and performance, which we think is a good idea. I wonder whether it is appropriate for me now to ask what is the status of the security personnel. As the House knows, these security officers can search both baggage and people; do they have the same rights of search as the police or customs officers, both on and off duty?
We note that it is proposed to tax incoming passengers 80p. The estimated total cost of security next year is about £19 million as the Minister said. I gather that the figure of 80p per incoming passenger has been arrived at through a very complicated formula; perhaps the Minister would enlarge on that. However,

981
what puzzles me is why it is to be levied on incoming passengers. Surely the incoming passenger has completed his flight, no incident has taken place and his risk is over. On the other hand, it is the outgoing passenger who is embarking on such risks. I am told that this is but an accounting device and follows established practices. Is that a good reason why it should be followed in this instance? Perhaps the tax should be levied on both incoming and outgoing passengers, which might change the 80p figure.
I should also like to know how the money for this tax is to be collected. Is it to come from the passenger or from the airline by charging it on the air ticket? If it is to be collected from passengers at the airport by some official, what will happen to an incoming passenger, perhaps a foreigner, who arrives with no English money and who, until he has gone through the Customs and immigration checks, cannot get to an exchange bank to obtain some money?
From the point of view of noise, as I understand it, the Bill is to provide a rebate in landing fees for less noisy aircraft as an inducement to both manufacturers and airlines to seek ever quieter aircraft, and this is an excellent thing. The determination of noise levels for each type of aircraft would incur an enormous calculation of a formula or formulae for fixing this particular rebate, so I understand that a list has been, or is about to be, drawn up showing roughly the present aircraft in use with respect to which the noise is now acceptable and those in respect of which the noise is not. I have been told that the TriStars which BA has on order are, luckily, in the acceptable category, so we might congratulate both the manufacturers and British Airways on that score. It might be useful to know by way of comparison whether similar regulations are to be, or have been, implemented by other nations, notably those in the EEC.
I wish to draw attention to the proposal that the Airports Authority be given wider powers to enable it to participate in the profitable business of consultation and supervision of the construction of new airports overseas. Briefly, under Clause 2(5) of the Airport Authority Act 1971 the Authority is restricted generally to airports in Great Britain and so is prevented from participation in airport
982
construction abroad. Specifically, the Authority is precluded from engaging as a full signatory to contract for the development, or for the undertaking of the management under contract, of an airport to be built overseas. This means that it can work only for consulting fees and is unable to participate in any profits that may arise.
I understand that the Authority would not necessarily be acting alone as the main contractor but could lead or be a member of a consortium bidding for such work, rather in the way that the Aeroport de Paris now does. I am told that the Authority is contemplating, in conjunction with International Air Radio, the formation of a company through which it would work to ensure the proper segregation of accounts; I think it is to be called the International Airport Company. I believe that these proposals have the blessing of the Board of Trade and possibly of the Government too, so perhaps the Minister will say whether he is proposing to table a suitable Amendment to be considered by a Committee of the Whole House next Monday. If he does, he will have the support of these Benches. Meanwhile, we support the Second Reading of the Bill.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of his speech; I was listening to the debate in another place and, contrary to what invariably happens, communications failed, though I got here as quickly as I could. My Lords, this is a wide-ranging Bill and I intend to concentrate on one major aspect, the Aviation Security Fund, which is Clauses 1 to 4. As I understand the position, the Government on 27th May last announced in another place that they has decided to introduce aviation security charges, that these would be levied on aerodrome owners at the rate of 80p per arriving passenger, and that it was contemplated that airports would pass the charge on to the airlines and the latter to the travelling public. In fact, of course, it was more than contemplated; even as long ago as 27th May it was decided by the Government before the matter had been referred to Parliament.

983
Originally I had intended to raise a specific matter at the outset of my remarks, and, although it has already been raised by the noble Earl—I shall call him my noble friend—Lord Amherst, I intend to do so. Apart from the merit or justice of the Bill, it seems extraordinary that the charge is to be levied at the point of arrival; surely any cost for search and security arises at the point of departure. I said I still wished to make this point. I do so because I noted that on Third Reading in another place the Minister said:
"The Amendments include one that I accepted in principle in Committee, Amendment No. 2, which gives the added flexibility of being able to relate the levy to departing as well as to arriving passengers. But I stress that it is unlikely that this would represent the yardstick applied by airport authorities in the foreseeable future, since landing charges, with which I am informed the levy will be bracketed, have always been related to arriving passengers".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/78; col. 398.]
Can the Minister, when he winds up, hazard a guess as to what is meant by the "foreseeable future", and say whether it means that it will be a very long time before charges can be made on passengers before they arrive here. Perhaps he can answer that.
The gracious Speech of 3rd November last stated that:
"A Bill will be laid before you to increase the borrowing powers of the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airways, to provide for a levy to finance aviation security and to amend the civil aviation Acts".
This is what we are discussing today. I should like to make one obvious remark. Everyone, and certainly every air traveller, would ask for, and expect, the best possible security checks. But similar expectations apply to the community as a whole. They apply to people in Northern Ireland. They apply on our streets, in our trains, on our underground, in our shops. They apply everywhere in these troubled times.
Who should pay for this security? It is always difficult when one can see both sides of a question, and probably many noble Lords were similarly placed to myself when this problem first reared its head. Finding myself in such a position, and without indicating any attitude at all on my part, I took the matter to three organisations connected with air travel and asked for their reactions. The three organisations were the Airline Users' Committee, of which I have been a member
984
since its establishment in July 1973; the Institute of Travel Managers in Industry and Commerce, in which I succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as president last May; and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) with which I have had many battles in the past seven years, commencing in February 1971 with the structure of international air fares and the high cost of fares in Europe. I also took issue with IATA on its unanimity rule which I believe produces, always and inevitably and anywhere, the lowest common denominator.
Having implied these criticisms, I should like to put on record a much happier relationship. During the past year I have greatly appreciated the patience and the understanding of the Director-General of IATA, Mr. Knut Hammarskjold. We have discoveredjointly—that there are matters on which we agree, and on which I am glad that we can work together.
All these three organisations were against the proposal that air travellers should be charged for their own security in this way. The Airline Users' Committee considered it unreasonable that one section of the community should be asked to pay extra for their own protection from an external threat. The committee accepted the view put to it by the Air Safety Group (of which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is vice-president) that it is totally wrong, and a potentially dangerous practice, and a potentially dangerous departure, for any Government to select any single group of people and demand that they pay a levy for their own protection against crime.
The Institute of Travel Managers in Industry and Commerce, established in 1956, currently lists the names of 260 United Kingdom-based companies for whom its members carry the responsibility of organising business travel activities. Furthermore, all the major airlines, hotel groups and car hire companies are associated with the institute through a special class of corporate membership. In the context of what we are discussing today, and the possible outcome, I think it relevant to state that during the past five years similar associations have been established in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, and an international co-ordinating body has been created.

985
During the past few weeks the Government proposal to finance the cost of airport security by levying a charge on incoming airline passengers has been discussed with a cross-section of members and corporate members. The general consensus of opinion made three points. First, airport security is an aspect of national security which is the responsibility of Government, both financially and physically. The cost thereof, which is relatively insignificant when measured against overall Government expenditure, should therefore be a burden on the community in general and not be recovered exclusively from the users of airline services. The proposed levy is accordingly regarded as being discriminatory against air travellers.
Secondly, there is a fear that, if the proposal is instituted, it will trigger a chain reaction of similar measures in other countries, which in the long run will significantly increase the already high cost of air fares. Among other things, this will increase the cost of business travel generally, and have an adverse effect on the export sales drive which is so vital to the economy of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, it is considered that the monies presently expended on airport security would be better used if more sophisticated machinery and fewer people were employed to carry out security checks.
IATA held the view that safe and secure travel by air is as much a human right as safe travel by any other means of transport. What disturbed me particularly about the points made by IATA was its statement that the Government proposal is in conflict with Article 10 of the Montreal Convention 1971, under which contracting States shall, in accordance with international and national law, endeavour to take all practicable measures for the purpose of preventing the offences against civil aviation described in Article 1 of the Convention. Detailed obligations have been accepted by the United Kingdom under Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention.
Furthermore, my information is that the Government proposal is also in conflict with ECAC (the European Civil Aviation Conference) Recommendation No. 15 of 1976 relative to the responsibility of States in security matters. The latter was adamant that States, without
986
exception, bear the entire cost of security measures adopted in accordance with its instructions. The Government's present decision, therefore, constitutes a complete voile face.
I know that the Secretary of State has said that the Government are not in breach of their international obligations, but would the Minister, in his reply, comment on what I have said about the Montreal Convention and the ECAC recommendation of 1976? I gave him adequate notice of both points. They were told in another place about Australia, Japan, Canada, and the United States, but I want to ask the Minister whether it is true that no EEC country deals with its security in such a way. Is it not correct that our partners in the Community were somewhat surprised at this proposed action?
I have here a confidential letter from one of our EEC partners, and obviously do not wish to give a name. It was sent to IATA and I should like to quote two paragraphs:
"The nature of the security operations taken into account in calculating the amounts to be charged to the users was not indicated; obviously what is involved is not merely the screening and searching of passengers and their baggage, the cost of which is far less expensive. It would appear that the British Government intends to recuperate at least part of the ordinary airport police costs. The levying of such a tax is unacceptable: the States have the obligation of ensuring personal security on their territories and more generally of making certain their laws are observed. Their expenses in doing so are properly included in the overall budget of the nation and/or the local communities, and it is abnormal for persons living in, working in or passing through problem points to be subject to a special tax".
If my noble friend could answer this point arising out of that, and I think out of Clause 2, could be tell me whether there will be a breakdown of security costs by category and amount? If so, to whom will these details be made available—to Parliament, to the airlines or to the airline users?
One could continue indefinitely, but I have no wish to weary the House. I see that the time machine is now working again. I informed the Minister that I should be raising these technical points in the hope that I need not inflict lengthy details upon your Lordships. The Minister will know whether or not what I have said is correct, and we shall await his comments with interest. Having started

987
on all this with an open mind way back in May, I have now arrived at a definite conclusion. I believe that the proposal to impose security charges on civil aviation is not only wrong in principle but it is discriminatory against civil aviation interests, unless similar recovery action is to be taken against the other interests that have become targets of terrorist attack.
I believe that it is true to say that the United Kingdom is widely regarded as one of the few States whose aviation policies are trend-setting. That, I think, is a cheering thing to realise. In the past, these policies in the United Kingdom have been largely instrumental in curbing the inclination of some States to impose aviation security charges in breach of their international obligations. Any reversal of United Kingdom policy in this field, such as is now contemplated, is certain to be widely followed. Inevitably, this would result in British Airways, British Caledonian and/or airline passengers of British nationality being subjected to corresponding charges elsewhere. I hope that the Government may feel it is possible to look at this again. Surely it is unanswerable that neither the airlines nor their passengers are responsible for creating the security risk at airports and that they are merely the victims of terrorist attack.
In these circumstances, what special justification exists for discriminating against this particular section of the public by requiring them to pay for their protection to which they are entitled and which is provided without charge to other members of the public, including members of the public working at or visiting airports? The aim of hijackers and terrorists is to bring pressure on Governments. Surely that is undeniable. Passengers do not create the need for this service. The threat is directed against the community at large and against governments in general, shipping, railways, buses, hotels—in addition to those I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. It is a function of government to provide such protection. It is not something that has to be bought by individuals and I do pray, on a matter of principle, that the Government will look at this dangerous procedure again.
6.15 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, at the commencement of her most
988
interesting speech the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, said that this was a wide-ranging Bill. Indeed, I think it is more than that because every aspect of this Bill ties civil aviation up ever tighter in the straitjacket of ministerial control—control either directly by the Minister or through his statutory agencies over which, in most directions, he can still exercise the final power. We have travelled an awful long way since Bleriot flew the Channel 69 years ago and landed on the cliffs of Dover. Since then the wings of civil aviation have spread with great benefits to human progress. At the same time those wings have lifted ever greater political, social, economic and technical problems, many of which we face in this Bill tonight.
I cannot dispute the need for much of this Bill, but at the same time the Bill centralises in the Secretary of State almost complete power over every field of civil aviation, and if any party or concern feels aggrieved at the exercise of these powers by the Minister that aggrieved party has no redress except to go to the person who himself has made the regulation for reconsideration. It is a case of prosecutor and judge rolled into one. In every direction of civil aviation activity the Secretary of State becomes really like a Great Mogul in Whitehall, for, by a stroke of his pen, he can close down British civil aviation. I use the word "mogul" advisedly. I took the trouble to go to the dictionary to see its definition:
"Great Mogul: the title by which Europeans know their rulers".
Today we are all Europeans and we certainly know who are our rulers. The only concession which this Bill gives to Parliamentary control is what was announced in another place—that the first set of regulations dealing with the levy shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. That has been promised, but the point I want to ask the Minister is this: As noble Lords know, the Affirmative Resolution procedure means that the powers announced in such regulations cannot be exercised until Parliament has given an Affirmative Resolution. Will that Affirmative Resolution procedure be continued, or is it proposed that once the initial regulations have been laid other regulations, including those affecting noise, will revert to the Negative Resolution procedure, which

989
again your Lordships know means that directly the Minister makes his order it comes into force. As we all know only too well, the Negative Resolution procedure is really a Parliamentary farce.
Look for a moment at the effect of the result of this centralisation of power on to this Great Mogul. I think everyone who travels ought to make a slight obeisance to the Minister, the mogul, before he gets on the aeroplane, because he knows that his fare has been sanctioned by the all-powerful; he knows his route has been approved by the all-powerful; he knows that his timetable has been accepted by the all-powerful; and he knows that his airport fees, including security costs—so far as I can gather, even those of the little toddler who is beside him and whose hand he is holding—must be paid over to the airport authority on a scale which the mogul decides. So much for the passenger.
Look for a moment at the flight deck. As the captain opens up his four jets for take-off, he knows that the engine power he is allowed to use is limited because of noise limitations imposed on the particular airport from which he is operating, which have been sanctioned by the decree of, once more, the Great Mogul. Next, take the airport operator, either the British Airports Authority or a local authority. Under Clause 8, the authority can make by-laws and regulations; but they ought not to be very happy at that, because the Great Mogul has taken powers to revoke or vary those by-laws on noise if they are not consistent either with his ideas on safety or with some international obligation.
So we see that the control of passengers, the control of air crews and the control of airport authorities all comes finally to this all-powerful individual, the Great Mogul. I have cited but some of his powers over the functioning of an essential part of our national life. If this has to be, then, in the interests of freedom of liberty, surely we can ask for some protection from the Great Mogul and his many minions. Parliamentary power can to some extent be retained if the Minister concedes, as I have been asking him to announce tonight, that the Affirmative Resolution procedure will be used, not only for the first set of regulations but for all other regulations of major importance
990
which come forward as a result of this Bill.
Then, finally, I would suggest this thought to the Minister. The Secretary of State might consider setting up an advisory panel of qualified experts to whom the Secretary of State could refer cases in which a party claims damage from the unfair use of these powers or from bias by the Government in their exercise of them. I am not suggesting that it should in any way abrogate the authority of decision of the Secretary of State, where it must finally lie; but, in the exercise of these immense powers it would give some comfort to outside interests, who would feel that there was a voice, other than the voice of the Great Mogul and his minions, which would be listened to, and that notice would possibly be taken of its advice. As I say, my Lords, most of this Bill is necessary, but I object strongly to the untrammelled powers which are given to the Executive—the Great Mogul, as I have called it—under this Bill, and I hope we shall get the concessions which I have outlined.
6.25 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, not for the first time, has put up a powerful and documented case, and I wish to add something to what she has said. There is a principle involved at this stage of the Bill which I think is of importance, as indeed the noble Baroness developed in her speech. Presumably, a purpose, or the purpose, is national economy. At the moment, the Exchequer pays £19 million for the security at airports to which we are referring. Basically, I suppose, this proposal is to secure this £19 million by charges on the airport authorities; those authorities are expected subsequently to pass those charges on to airlines; and then the airlines—by adding about 20 per cent., I understand—propose to pass it on to individual passengers.
The first question which the noble Baroness raised was: Is that a sound principle, or is it a matter of national responsibility to meet the costs involved in securing in the best way the safety of people travelling in planes when they leave and arrive in this country? I am bound to say that it seems to me that this is an issue of law and order. The noble

991
Baroness referred, I think correctly, to the parallel of Northern Ireland. Surely the action of hijackers, of terrorists in planes, is not against the individual passengers—although, Heaven knows!, they are the potential victims. It is an action against nations. It is an international action. The passengers are the unfortunate go-betweens in this usually politically-inspired action. Surely it falls within the scope of a country's responsibility for law and order, rather than that it should be ued as an occasion for adding to the charges borne by those who use aircraft as passengers.
It seems to me that this principle is of substantial importance. After all, £19 million, it is agreed, is a sum of size; but the principle of the national Government assuming and continuing to assume responsibility for law and order for protecting their citizens remains. It seems to me that this selectiveness, that this type of citizen has to pay for his security, is a movement on a slippery slope, and an unfair and unwise principle to adopt. So I do not believe it makes sense to pass the charge on to airport owners, including local authorities. Incidentally, there is nothing in this Bill which empowers the local authorities to collect the money from the airlines. It may be said that there is a general power so to do. One airport I know well suffered from the bankruptcy of an airline. That is a rare event, no doubt, but if that were to happen after this Bill has been passed I doubt their capacity, or indeed their power, to sue successfully for the money due from the airline.
There will be no real saving, of course, if the cost is switched, as the Bill proposes, to the individual airport authority or to the local authority. In fact, I have no doubt there will be an increase. In the case of Luton, it costs 28p (shortly, it is believed, to rise to 30p or 32p) to provide this service to the satisfaction of the Minister. Now, of course, Luton must collect 80p, and those who arrive at Luton Airport are going to be charged an additional £1. It hardly makes sense, though I can appreciate the point that if you adopt this system there is a case for averaging out the cost of providing the service at all airports.
However, I think there is another aspect to this. The charge is to be a
992
uniform charge: 80p in the first instance but more than 80p—£1—when it arrives at the airline. For the passenger from Rio, the £1 is an insignificant addition to his fare; but for the passenger from Jersey it is an appreciable addition to the fare. One can give examples. It will be £1 whether the plane comes from Sydney or Le Touquet and, what is more, if you travel from London to Newcastle on business, you will pay this £1 on arrival in Newcastle and, if you come back later the same day, you will pay another £1. It does not seem fair. If you come from Ostend to Southend Airport and the fare is £10, it is a 10 per cent. increase in your fare.
I think that this search for uniformity will, in this area as in so many others, result in very considerable inequity between traveller and traveller. So I would add this point. At the moment the Government control what is done, approve the security provisions at individual airports and pay the cost. Under this proposal, the Government will continue to lay down what should be done and continue to approve it; but somebody else will pay the cost. I suggest that that is not a very happy principle to adopt. I think it as well that the responsibility for what is provided should rest with the authority or person who is providing it. Otherwise, I suggest, the danger is that you will slip into extravagance and inefficiency as a result of separating the two functions of approving and of paying.
Undoubtedly, the most important point in this matter is the principle. It has been said, and said tonight, that it does not make sense to tax the passenger on arrival. I can understand that the ease of collection and the ease of charging airlines may be a dominant argument for suggesting that method; but, on the basic question, it is not right for the Government to seek to separate themselves, to choose between one kind of citizen and another, to assume a national responsibility against a great danger and to assume it not as a national obligation but on the basis of an individual charge to those passengers who are not the object of the terrorist but who stand between the terrorist and the nation or the group which the terrorist is seeking to attack. I hope that the principle will be looked at very carefully, for it seems to me to be dangerous and wrong and to result in a great deal of inequity between passenger and passenger.
6.34 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I say a couple of words? I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for an extremely impressive speech. I believe that the whole House enjoyed the points that she made. Putting it simply, hijacking is directed against governments and we are simply held as elements in blackmail against governments. If governments will not face what is clearly their obligation, hijacking can take place in motorcars, railway trains, conferences—almost anywhere. If governments do not face that, I think they are letting down their people. This is a major issue and I am grateful that it has been brought out so clearly this evening.
6.35 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for introducing this Bill this evening and for helping us through its various provisions. I think that I should say at the outset that, as I see it, the Bill is not intended as a general overhaul of the 1971 Act but is to bring up to date certain points with particular reference to the security measures to which almost all noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, have referred tonight. I must confess that the speech of the noble Baroness has caused me to think again on the question of the security payments proposed in the Bill; but I would say that, at the moment my view is—or, at least, it was before I listened to the noble Baroness—that the principle laid down in the 1971 Act that the aviation industry should be self-supporting and should not in any way be a charge on public funds—not in the long term, in any event—is the right principle. The CAA itself, has, throughout its life, been moving towards self-sufficiency and, apart from navigation services, it has now virtually reached that point.
I remember when my noble friend Lord Belstead was sitting here on this side of the House, as he is tonight, dealing with the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act, which was another measure along the same road. I am, for the moment, persuaded that the general principle of arranging for the security costs at airports to be recovered from the users of the services is the right one. However, as I said, I am very impressed by the arguments of the noble
994
Baroness, Lady Burton, and I for one will certainly think again, although, primarily, that is a matter for the Government, and the arguments and thoughts of the noble Baroness were certainly directed to them.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye was complaining about the moguls. I must confess that he strikes a sympathetic note with me; but I should perhaps remind my noble friend that nowadays the great power in the civil aviation world is not the Secretary of State but the Civil Aviation Authority. It is true that they are responsible to the Minister but only in a very general way; and if one has a complaint—and I do not necessarily, and certainly not tonight, have such a complaint—against too much control and too much power being exercised over operators, then it is to the CAA that one should turn and not to the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, was also concerned with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. Perhaps it would be right to remind the noble Lord that the charges or the levy which it is proposed to take under this Bill will apply not only to United Kingdom citizens, who are, indeed, entitled to the protection of the Government, but also to foreigners who may not have quite the same entitlement and to foreign airlines which may be using our airports simply for a convenience. I do not think that they themselves should necessarily be exempt from all the costs of providing the services that they use. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, reminded us, the cost or levy is to be a standard one, more or less, for all passengers; but at some airports the cost of providing the service is more than the 80p which is to be charged. But the charge will remain the same even at those aerodromes. In any event, there is I think to be a rebate on certain short-haul services so the passengers travelling for example, between London and Newcastle—to which the noble Lord referred—may not be quite so severely hit as he may fear.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, may I interrupt? This matter should be cleared up. The noble Lord is wrong: for that journey—London to Liverpool—there will be a charge on arrival and a charge on return.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is right. I am not querying that; I am querying the rate of the charge. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, reminded us that certain Amendments were carried during the Committee stage in the other place. Although those Amendments were subsequently reversed on the Report stage, I understand that certain undertakings have been given by the Secretary of State that the regulations, when they are introduced, will make provision for these short-haul services; and although it may well be charged in both directions—and this is what the noble Lord is complaining about—it will be at a lower rate than the 80p which the Bill provides.
The other point in relation to the security charges which we ought to consider—and to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will reply—is the one made by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst: whether or not it would be more desirable to make this charge on outgoing passengers rather than incoming ones. I recognise the point that, if the money is to be collected from the airline, it is more convenient to do it along with the landing fee when the aircraft arrives. On the other hand, it may be more convenient for the airlines to collect the levy from the passengers on the way out. One recalls that in years past a passenger service charge was levied at London Airport. That was certainly collected on departure.
Clause 5 of this Bill provides for an increase in the borrowing powers of the CAA and British Airways. The noble Lord explained very carefully why this increase was required, particularly with regard to the CAA; but it seems to me that the £50 million increase which they require—which is, he said, to last for only five years—is necessary for all the improvements foreshadowed in air traffic services. I hope that the noble Lord can assure us that it is not proposed that these increased borrowing facilities will be used for current account purposes to meet any deficit which the authority may be incurring now or in the future. In parenthesis, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has any information on the disposal of the fleet of aeroplanes operated by the Civil Aviation Authority which has been foreshadowed? That presumably, if it
996
came to pass, would enable the authority to reduce their borrowing requirements rather than increase them.
British Airways are also to be allowed an increase in their borrowing arrangements of £150 million. I presume that this is for the acquisition of additional aircraft. We know that they are currently looking for a replacement for the Trident I and Trident II aircraft. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some information on how their search for a replacement is going. The matter has been raised in this House before by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. It will be interesting to know whether the noble Lord has any more information on that.
Clause 6, which I think the noble Lord did not mention, empowers the Civil Aviation Authority to lease certain equipment, if they so desire. It imposes certain restrictions on the way they should do that. It will be interesting to know what they propose to lease and whether it will have any effect on the borrowing requirement increased under a previous clause.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 7. It provides for the Authority to enter into certain agreements with respect to navigation service charges. Your Lordships may know that, in general, navigation service charges are levied upon airlines at a standard rate laid down in regulations. But now it seems the Authority are to have power to negotiate these fees and will, for example, enter into agreement, perhaps with major airlines like British Airways, to give them a contract rate of some sort at Heathrow or elsewhere. That is fine and desirable and I support that proposal. But I wonder why the requirement is made retrospective. The clause gives power for the Authority to make what appear to be retrospective contracts in this way, and that seems curious.
Clauses 8 and 9 refer to the noise requirements which the Government are proposing to bring in. Your Lordships will recall that, under the White Paper which the Government published a little while ago on airport policy, they announced that noisy aircraft were to be progressively prohibited, starting in October, I think, of this year and the prohibition becoming complete by 1st January 1986. Although I am involved in the aircraft operating

997
industry, I welcome this move. Civil aviation can no longer expect to inconvenience and discomfort the community with impunity. Frankly, they have rather tended to do that over the years. In the 1960s, when the problem reached its peak, the environment for people living near Heathrow and other major airports was becoming intolerable. The progressive improvement that occurred first with the introduction of night curfews and then more recently with the introduction of quieter aircraft is greatly to be welcomed. The Government's line is generally the right one: rather than wholesale restrictions, they are encouraging the use of quieter aircraft. I generally support this.
However, the noble Lord rang a small bell with me when he talked about night restrictions at Stansted. He mentioned Heathrow and Gatwick which we know about. But there are at the moment no restrictions at Stansted. I was not aware that there were any in prospect. The noble Lord may be able to help us on that. One other point in this connection which has been brought to my attention is the problem of small aerodromes operating, for the most part, light aircraft; and, in particular, Ford aerodrome has been brought to my attention. That particular airfield was originally used by the Royal Navy. It was abandoned by them in the late 1940s or early 1950s and has recently come into use once more, without a licence or planning permission—neither of which is required—for small and light aircraft for training and recreational purposes. This is causing something of a discomfort for local residents. It seems they have no protection from it. I am persuaded and convinced that present operations there are entirely lawful, but it seems there is a gap in the regulations if places like that can continue to operate with impunity and without any reference to anyone.
Clause 11 was briefly referred to by the noble Lord and causes me the greatest concern of all in this Bill. There is a long saga attached to that into which I will not go now—it is a matter for the Committee stage. I warn the noble Lord that I intend to raise that in Committee and see exactly what the Government have in mind in their proposals to increase their powers—if that is the right phrase—to police the operation of air transport
998
licences. There are some points of concern which I will take up later in the progress of the Bill.
As I have said, we generally welcome this Bill. We think that there are some points that need careful consideration and all of us have been given considerable food for thought by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry; but, having said that, I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.50 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like straight away to thank all noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Burton for their contributions to this debate. Even though some were vigorous and critical of certain aspects of the Bill, I feel we have had a very helpful debate. What has been said by a number of speakers about the well-informed speech of my noble friend certainly finds an echo with me.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, and to my noble friend Lady Burton for having given me notice of a number of points that they intended to raise. Other contributors to the debate, I am sure, will feel it is only right that I should start off by giving a fairly detailed response to those points of which I was given notice. Dealing first with the points raised by the noble Earl, I may say that the contributions of the Aviation Security Fund are to be levied on airport authorities and not on passengers. The amount will be calculated with reference to the number of arriving passengers, though Clause 2(2)(a) now gives a power to the Secretary of State to levy the contributions by reference to departing passengers, if that should ever prove to be more convenient. That was an amendment to which my noble friend Lady Burton called attention, and she also asked me about the foreseeable future. I do not think she would expect me actually to put a term of months or years on that, because when introducing a scheme of this kind we must to a large extent be pragmatic in our approach.
It is traditional for airport authorities to make landing charges by reference to the weight of the aircraft and the number of passengers carried, and not to make taking-off charges. It is therefore administratively convenient for airport authorities, if

999
they wish to finance the contribution which they have to make to the Fund, to make an appropriate increase in the landing charges which relate to the numbers of passengers. Since the number of passengers arriving at each airport is, in practice, approximately equal to the number of passengers departing from that airport, it seemed best to follow the existing administrative practice rather than to set up new machinery relating to departing passengers, in spite of the fact that it is the departing passengers and not the arriving ones who are searched.
However, the security levy covers many other costs of airport security and policing, and not merely the costs of searching. I agree that the costs of searching apply to departing passengers, but there are other costs as well. The levy is to be collected by the Department of Trade from airport authorities by requiring them to notify, within 90 days of the end of each month, a return of the number of passengers, as defined in the regulations, who arrived in that month, together with a remittance calculated in accordance with the regulations.
The Bill is not concerned with how the airport authorities may pass on the charge to the airlines, with how the airlines increase their fares, nor, indeed, with how tour operators fix the price of their package tours. The Bill does not affect the present arrangements for searching passengers and their hand-baggage. The searchers do not have any statutory powers to search—the noble Earl asked about their status—but airlines are advised to require their passengers to be searched and, if a passenger refuses, the pilot is entitled to refuse to carry him.
The noble Earl asked about the foreign reaction to our proposals and my noble friend Lady Burton also commented about that in the European context. There are several countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia and, to some extent, Japan, where the Government do not bear the cost of searching. In some European countries the costs of airport security are borne by the airport authorities and are presumably included in the landing charges; but since our change of policy was announced last May no other countries within or outside the
1000
European Community have, so far as we are aware, introduced an aviation security levy on these lines. However, it was put to us by the representatives of the international airlines that other countries might well follow our example, and that possibility was taken into account in reaching the decision.
The noble Earl then asked about an official listing of aircraft as regards noise on which the increase in landing fees will rest. Work is still continuing both at home and in international bodies on the best way of building into landing charges an incentive towards quietness. A simple differential between one group of aircraft and another, such as between a noise-certificated aircraft and another aircraft, would only produce a very crude incentive and indeed might have no incentive effect at all. We are studying a variety of possible schemes with sliding charges and rebates according to the noise made by the aircraft, compared with some specified standard. For instance, we are examining the effects of a charging scheme based on the amount by which an aircraft's noise deviates from an absolute noise level, and comparing this with the effects of a scheme based on deviations from the standards of ICAO for the aircraft in question. The economic work involved is complex and it is too early yet to say what its results will be.
I hope I have covered at least most of the points of which the noble Earl gave me notice. He did also raise the question of the possibility, which has been explored, of giving the Airports Authority wider powers to engage in work, other than through consultancy fees, in overseas countries. That has been closely examined. The noble Earl is quite right in saying that there is a strong view in favour of it but, having examined it, we have concluded that this is a comparatively late stage of the Bill and it would not be suitable to move an Amendment to this Bill to achieve that point.
My noble friend Lady Burton, to whom, as I said earlier, I am grateful for having given me notice of the points she was going to raise, started off by recalling—though I am sure your Lordships do not need reminding of it—that she has been particularly diligent over many years in these matters of civil aviation. When she started by saying that someone had

1001
exercised great patience in relation to her activities, I wondered whether I was the fortunate person to whom the compliment was directed.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I interrupt to say that I would certainly include my noble friend.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am glad to hear that, because I was getting a little jealous of Mr. Hammarskjold. But she gave us a very well documented critique of the principle behind the security aspect of the Bill, and related it to the Montreal Convention and to a recommendation from ECAC. She referred, in particular, to Article 10.1 of the Montreal Convention and quoted part of it. Perhaps I may quote it more fully. It states:
"Contracting States shall, in accordance with international and national law, endeavour to take all practicable measures for the purpose of preventing the offences mentioned in Article 1 ",
and Article 1 lists as offences acts of violence against a person on board an aircraft, and various actions to damage aircraft or air navigation facilities, which are generally known as sabotage.
There is no doubt at all that Her Majesty's Government are taking all practicable measures, in our whole system of aviation security, for the purpose of preventing hijacking and sabotage. The Protection of Aircraft Act 1973 was, in fact, passed in order to give effect to our obligations under the Montreal Convention. The Convention, however, does not say anything about how these measures should be financed. Article 10.2 requires a contracting State, in whose territory a hijacked aircraft lands, to take the necessary action to facilitate a continuation of its journey and to return the aircraft to its owner. We naturally have a whole range of contingency plans for dealing with such an eventuality. This Bill does not in any way detract from the efficacy of our aviation security arrangements. Indeed, its form is largely motivated by the desire to reinforce them. I hope that that helps my noble friend in relation to the Montreal Convention.
She then referred to Recommendation 15 of the European Civil Aviation Conference. Here, again, may I quote specifically paragraph (c), which I think is the one that she may have particularly in mind. It states:
1002
"Governments should, in principle, bear the cost of security measures adopted under their control or at their direction; this does not exclude arrangements for contributions from other sources, but the effectiveness of security measures should not be impaired by lack of financial support from any source ".
The action which we propose to take under this Bill is fully in accordance with this provision. The Aviation Security Fund, under the control of the Secretary of State, will bear the cost of the security measures. The phrase,
"This does not exclude … contributions from other sources",
covers the contributions from the airport authorities to the Aviation Security Fund, provided for in Clause 2. The proposed system provides greater assurance that the effectiveness of security measures will not be impaired by lack of financial support, since aviation security expenditure will no longer be subject to cash limits or any across-the-board cuts which a Government may have to impose in times of financial stringency.
Then we had a very vigorous contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, on the theme of the Great Mogul, which he used as a characterisation of this, as he saw it, massive increase in governmental power. It was a speech well worth listening to, but I think that he exaggerated a little the extent to which the Great Mogul is being reinforced. I can give him the one assurance for which he asked; that is, that amendments to the regulations—a second set of regulations—would be equally subject to Parliamentary control and to the Affirmative Resolution procedure as would the original set of regulations. But on his more general point, I would ask him to recognise that there has grown up a terrible security problem; and, indeed, that the noise problem of aircraft is one that gives a great deal of anxiety. Although he seeks to criticise us for taking powers to deal with these problems, I believe that we would be subject to even greater criticism, perhaps from the noble Lord himself, if we did not take the necessary powers to deal with these matters.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to make one point clear? I am grateful for his assurance that the Affirmative Resolution procedure will go with any amendments to these regulations. But does that also

1003
apply to regulations on noise, as well as to regulations on the levy?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think that it would apply to any regulations which are authorised under this Bill. But I will check on that and, if I am wrong, I will certainly let the noble Lord know. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Hill—
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene, because this question follows on from the Great Mogul approach of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour: I asked my noble friend whether there would be a breakdown of security costs, by category and amount, and, if so, to whom this would be made available—Parliament, the airlines or the airline users. If he cannot answer now, I can return to it on Monday.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for taking that position, because it would not be easy for me to answer this evening and, certainly, waiting until Monday or dealing with it by correspondence would be a better way of covering the question. I was about to reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who made a number of points. He talked about the effect of the 80p on air tariffs, and indicated that some airlines were adding to the 80p. I am not in the least objecting to his raising them here, but these observations would have greater relevance at the hearing of the Civil Aviation Authority on the domestic air tariff.
It is left to the airlines to decide how to recover from passengers the money that they have to pay to the aerodrome authority. They have chosen to ask for £1 on each journey, but they do not have to do so and I am sure that, if we tried to exercise too much authority over them in this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, would think that the Great Mogul was getting greater still. I think that I can, perhaps, summarise the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, in this way; that the industry is being made to bear costs of protection against terrorism, and is being singled out for special treatment.
Then he made the point that the proposed levy would add to the cost of
1004
air travel, particularly short haul flights. In dealing with the airport of which he has close knowledge, which I think may be Luton, he made the point, which was made in another place, that the cost of security provision at Luton is only 28p. But, in making that point, I noticed that he recognised the need for a certain uniformity of approach by the Government throughout the country.
Regarding the noble Lord's first point about the aviation industry being singled out, there are indeed precedents. The aviation industry is now being asked to pay for its own protection, just as other industries all along have had to do. Restaurants, shops, railways, et cetera, have to bear this cost. The levy of 80p per arriving passenger is not, I suggest, a significant increase on most journeys. The noble Lord instanced domestic journeys where it is a significant proportion, but it is unlikely that the general fare will be less than £30. I should like to point out that the Government have made special provision to exclude from the levy the small number of cases where it would be a serious burden. Therefore, to some extent the noble Lord's point has been met.
As the noble Lord pointed out, it is true that to some extent the 80p levy has a greater impact on short-haul flights, but it was the view of the industry during the consultations that a flat rate was preferable to variable rates. If the industry subsequently feel that this is a problem, it is open to them to charge a smaller levy on short-haul flights and to compensate with a larger levy on international flights. However, this would be difficult for some authorities which do not have the necessary spread of traffic. Nevertheless, may I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has promised to reconsider all of these points in the light of experience.
May I turn now to one or two of the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who took us very reasonably through the Bill clause by clause and made comments upon them. I hope the noble Lord will agree that a number of his points can he taken up on Monday next during the Committee stage of the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord indicated that this was his wish, particularly in

1005
relation to Clause 2. However, the noble Lord made one or two specific points.
With regard to borrowing powers, the noble Lord asked whether the money raised could be used to cover operating deficits, and I have to tell him that this is not so. The operating deficit is met by means of a grant in aid. The noble Lord also asked about the disposal of aircraft. I do not think that the problem he has raised is very large, because I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority have only one aircraft to spare. It is thought that if they get £750,000 for this aircraft, a reasonably good deal will have been made.
As I have said, I will certainly take careful note during the weekend of quite a number of other points which the noble Lord raised and make sure that, so far as possible, I am able to answer them either on Monday or in some other way. That remark naturally applies to all of the speakers in the debate. I will make sure that careful attention is paid to any points which I have been unable satisfactorily to answer this evening and ensure that an answer is received in one form or another.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROBATION ORDERS (VARIATION OF STATUTORY LIMITS) ORDER 1978
7.14 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the draft Probation Orders (Variation of Statutory Limits) Order 1978, laid before the House on 31st January, be approved. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this order is straightforward. It is to reduce from one year to six months the minimum period of supervision which a court may specify in making a probation order. Accordingly, and subject to Parliamentary approval, the order would enlarge the sentencing discretion of the courts by empowering them to make probation orders for a period extending from a new lower limit of six months to the existing upper limit of three years. It would make no change in the other well-established provisions relating to probation, including the need to secure the consent of the offender and the availability of requirements and sanctions.
It may be helpful if I rehearse fairly briefly the background to the decision to invite Parliament to approve the order which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would like to make as soon as possible. During the last few years, the probation and after-care service in England and Wales has moved forward in an impressive and imaginative manner.
I am glad to be able to say that there has been a readiness to engage in experimental and innovatory methods of treatment. A notable example is the introduction of differential methods of supervision which has opened up the possibility of carefully structured short-term supervision. While selection of offenders for such methods is crucial, experience has shown that it is possible to identify some whose problems and needs lend themselves to short-term intervention where the approach to case work is centred on specific tasks. A prime consideration is that the offender should have the capacity and motivation to respond in identifying and pursuing realistic, relevant and attainable goals.
This experience has demonstrated that a positive and productive relationship can be established between selected offenders and their supervising officers rather earlier than might otherwise have been the case. It has further proved possible to sustain joint and planned efforts towards agreed goals. Both parties should be able to see that, by achieving these goals, the offender should be better able to cope and be less vulnerable to the kinds of social pressure which in the past have contributed to his offending behaviour.
Developments along these lines led the Government to include a power in the Criminal Law Bill which was brought forward during the last Session of Parliament to enable my right honourable friend to vary the minimum and maximum period of probation by order, subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. This provision became Section 57 of the Criminal Law Act. Shortly after Royal Assent, the Home Office embarked on an extensive process of consultation involving members of the Judiciary, the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks Society and the representative organisation of the probation and aftercare service.
The draft order follows directly from the results of this process, which were

1007
that, broadly speaking, the bulk of those organisations consulted, including the Magistrates' Association, were in favour of the proposed reduction. It would also seem relevant for me to explain that the Home Office sought comments on the possibility of reducing the maximum period of probation from three years to two years.
Viewed from the point of view of professional practice in the probation and after-care service, there are strong reasons for contemplating a change of this character. On the other hand, it is clearly important to preserve maximum flexibility in matters of sentencing and to avoid action which might lead to any increase in the prison population.
The balance of these and other considerations led my right honourable friend to conclude that it would be inappropriate to invite Parliament to reduce the upper limit of probation and that he should instead issue guidance to the probation and aftercare service which would also be drawn to the attention of the courts, encouraging the use of administrative action to secure the early discharge of probation orders or the substitution of conditional discharge, wherever this is appropriate.
If I may, I should now like to make one final point. Although the number of offenders who may be suitable for the use of the new power to make a probation order limited to six months may initially be relatively small, the experience gained may be of rather wider significance. The new power may provide added thrust on a broader front to the purposeful pursuit of realistic and attainable, if often necessarily limited, objectives in the supervision of a range of offenders. In the light of these considerations, we believe that the order will make a small but helpful contribution to the general administration of justice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Probation Orders (Variation of Statutory Limits) Order 1978, laid before the House on 31st January, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it is a strange thing that during the whole of the passage of the Criminal Law Bill of last Session through both
1008
Houses not one word was said upon the enabling section from which this order stems. It is, therefore, very valuable to have the explanation which the noble Lord has given in the Official Report, particularly as the similar explanation in another place appears in a very obscure part of Hansard which may not be readily available.
I confess that when I first saw this order I wondered whether it was being introduced for the purpose of limiting resource implications. I am very glad to hear it is not. While I was listening to the noble Lord it occurred to me that since the two periods were laid down, the three years maximum and the one year minimum, there has, of course, been an opportunity for the Probation Service to work with selected offenders under the parole system, very often for periods of six months or, indeed, less. In those cases they have been very successful, not least, I would think, because the person concerned has already become very well-known to the prison welfare authorities, who are themsleves probation officers; he goes into the hands of the outside Probation Service with a good deal of information known about him and probably having been seen by his outside probation officer before he leaves the prison. If that is the kind of criterion of selection that is intended, then I can see nothing but good from it.
The only thing that concerns me a little—and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would be able to say a word about this—is how it is going to work in practice in the courts. I have seen in my time many a social inquiry report, usually, it is true, at what used to be Quarter Sessions or in the Crown Court; but the format of those reports did not on the whole indicate the criterion that I think the magistrates would need to know before they made so short-term a probation order. Very often all that has been said—and, perhaps, I am a little out of date—is that, if the court saw fit, the probation officer thought that he could easily handle the matter; but there has never been any indication of how long the probation order should be. I therefore think that if administrative procedures are to be used in order to pick out certain probation orders which may be suspended or may be turned into conditional discharges, so, too, will administrative procedures have to be

1009
used in order to give the magistrates the proper information to enable them to choose the right cases. If the noble Lord could say anything about that, it would be a help. I am afraid I have not given him notice of the question. Otherwise, I am all for flexibility and innovation. This can be an experiment, and if it does not work it will not continue to be used; and therefore we are no worse off.
The noble Lord said something about the maximum. Of course, this order does not touch the maximum. If the Government wish to come along with another order which says something about the maximum, the House will listen to it on its merits at that time. So far as this order is concerned, I am as happy to support it as was my honourable friend in another place. Subject to anything the noble Lord can say about the point I have raised, I would now leave it to the House and hope that those on this side will support it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. There are three points I should like to make in responding to what he has said. First, the example of parole which he gave is a good example because, as the noble Viscount rightly said, the Probation Service has had a substantial amount of experience now of supervising paroles for a relatively short period of time. Often these people are inevitably more criminally sophisticated than some person who may be made subject to a probation order for some offence in the courts. Nevertheless, it has given the service some experience in this direction of dealing with an offender over a relatively short period of time.
The second point I should like to make, which really rather reinforces the first, is that there has been some work done in Inner London, where as a result of an experiment which they carried out it was arranged that in appropriate cases orders which were made for 12 months—which until this order is passed has been the statutory minimum—would be discharged after a period of six months. This experiment was concluded in March of last year and was, broadly speaking, a success. Therefore, we are not going into wholly uncharted waters so far as this is concerned.
1010
Thirdly, the noble Viscount raised the question of whether probation officers would make a specific recommendation to the court suggesting that this might be a case where a six months order might be appropriate. It is, of course, very difficult to influence probation officers in matters of this kind because inevitably it is a matter for the probation officer himself to decide how to put his recommendation to the court. The noble Viscount will know that the situation, at least in the past, has been that some courts have welcomed clear recommendations from probation officers, whereas, again I hope only in the past, some other courts have not welcomed clear advice from members of the probation service.
But I am sure that when this new arrangement comes into operation a great deal of thought will be given in the Probation Service as to whether or not they should, in some cases at least, make specific recommendations where they think the six months order would be the appropriate way of dealing with it. Lastly, I repeat the point I made when I moved this order; all this order does is to give greater discretion to the courts, and I think we all welcome that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
7.28 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 9th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will extend to Northern Ireland the option mortgage scheme which was introduced in Great Britain in 1968. Under the scheme, people will have the option of paying a lower rate of interest on their mortgage if they do not receive any income tax relief on their repayments of interest. This will allow a borrower who pays little or no income tax to receive the same benefits as someone on a higher income who borrows the same amount. The scheme should help more people in Northern Ireland to own their own home.
The order will also phase out the Private Enterprise Subsidy and the Housing on Farms Grant. Although there has been

1011
some criticism in Northern Ireland of this proposal, the Government are satisfied that the present schemes should go—they are no longer a significant incentive to encourage new building and are basically unsatisfactory, as they give assistance to all regardless of need. Representations have been made about the need for some new incentive which would help first-time purchasers and encourage the building of more houses for sale at the lower end of the market, and the Government are now considering this.
I believe that the main provisions of this order will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. Any increase in home ownership will reduce the massive burden on the Housing Executive, and so enable it further to concentrate its efforts on those in greatest need. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 9th February be approved.(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 15th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will implement in Northern Ireland various changes in the law on rape which have already been made in England and Wales by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. The main effects of changes proposed in the order will be, first, to ensure that rape victims are treated with more humanity under the legal process; and, secondly, to provide for some much-needed clarification of the law.
Article 3 of the order provides a statutory definition of rape which emphasises that lack of consent, rather than violence, is the main defining characteristic of rape. The order also provides that a jury must not only consider whether the man believed the woman to be consenting, but also, in considering that point, must have regard to whether that belief was reasonable.
Articles 4 and 5 of the order seek to reduce the extent to which the defence may introduce evidence about a woman's sexual history with men other than the accused. As in England and Wales, the trial judge will have discretion to permit the introduction of such evidence where it would be unfair to the defendant to exclude it. Article 6 provides for anonymity of both complainant and defendant, and once again safeguards exist in that the trial judge may lift these restrictions if the defence might otherwise be prejudiced. Article 8 provides that exceptional circumstances apart, the defendant's name can be reported only after conviction. My Lords, this order is an important extension of existing criminal law in England and Wales to Northern Ireland I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 15th February, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
7.31 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 15th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order, the first in a new cycle of orders appropriating funds for services administered by Northern Ireland Departments, serves two purposes. First, it covers the Spring and Further Spring Supplementary Estimates for the coming year. Copies of the Supplementary Estimates volumes are available in the Library, and provide details of the services for which additional funds are now sought. The total additional provision required is some £64·2 million; this brings the total Estimates for this financial year to £1,318 million, which is some £170·3 million more than the total voted for 1976–77.
It might be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly mention the most significant items in the Estimates. First, £7 million is required for capital grants for industrial development, because of the cancellation of the three-month deferment of payments of grant, and to provide for an

1013
increase in the number of claims. £10·6 million is required for the Roads Service; £7·3 million of this is to cover price increases; the meat industry employment schemes will require an additional £5·5 million. The additional £12 million for schools and higher education is due mainly to increased costs of supplies and services, and to increased awards.
The additional £14·6 million for Health and Personal Social Services is mainly accounted for by increased costs. The special payment of £10 to pensioners at Christmas requires the allocation of a further £3·4 million. The second purpose of the order is to appropriate the sums required on Account for 1978–79, to provide Northern Ireland departments with funds until the Main Estimates are approved. My Lords, I have briefly outlined the main contents of the order, and I shall, of course, do my best to answer any questions which noble Lords may wish to raise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 15th February, be approved. —(Lord Melchett).
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the final appropriations for this year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred in the first half of his remarks on this order, and the sums granted on account for next year, include selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding. I am very concerned as to whether the Government intend to impose sanctions against firms against which the Secretary of State for Employment or, I imagine, it is the Department of Employment in Northern Ireland, decides to take action for breaching the pay guidelines by refusing to allocate Government grants. May I make it perfectly clear that Northern Ireland industry, certainly as represented by the Northern Ireland CBI, supports pay moderation and recognises that pay guidelines will be reflected in Government contracts—indeed, they have been in Government contracts since 1975. However, of course, if contractors are to be held responsible for pay settlements of sub-contractors, just to mention one difficulty which the Government are trying to write into clauses with Government contractors, there will be chaos.
This issue has been raised more than once in recent weeks in your Lordships'
1014
House, so I shall not go into the details. However, I must press the Government about the extraordinary discretion which is given to the Secretary of State in this matter. The dispensation which was given to Ford's when it breached the pay guidelines, was explained to the House on the 28th February last, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in answer to a Parliamentary Question put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I refer noble Lords to the Official Report of 28th February, column 365, where the noble and learned Lord said:
"but Ministers in this instance," —
he was referring to the instance of Ford's—
"as in all instances, have to take into account not just the overriding priority of combating inflation but also other factors, including employment, particularly in areas which are hard-hit by unemployment."
I assume that the noble and learned Lord was referring in particular to unemployment levels in South Wales. Nowhere is unemployment a greater scourge in the whole of the United Kingdom than in Northern Ireland.
There is a further difficulty. If one considers Belfast, there is the disastrous problem of trying to attract skilled labour in competition with a great nationalised firm, Harland and Wolff, which is now wholly nationalised and paying rates which other firms must compete with if they are to obtain skilled men. I have not discussed this matter with the company concerned, but I have little doubt that that problem caused the pay settlement at Mackie's which, for some reason best known to themselves, Government Ministers condemned while being prepared to take a benevolent view of the Ford settlement. I hope that that puts the problem in the Northern Ireland context. I am bound to add that the action of the Secretary of State against Mackie's will make Northern Ireland firms particularly wary of the blank cheque which industry, throughout the United Kingdom, is being required to sign, namely, the requirement to conform with any guidelines expressed in any future White Paper. I must say to the Government Front Bench quite roundly that if the Government wish to carry industry and commerce with them in this matter that is certainly not the way to go about it.

1015
However, my reason for raising this question on this order is that industry in Northern Ireland is dependent on the system of capital and recurrent grants which particularly relate to the Province, in order to attract new industry and to combat unemployment. In return, I think that it would be common ground between both sides of the House to say that the response has been remarkable. The rate of days lost due to strikes in Northern Ireland is below that in Great Britain. The export record there is marvellous when one considers all the problems and a variety of products manufactured in Northern Ireland are bought by public authorities. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that one could not wish to have a more deserving cause for the receipt of Government assistance. If that is the case, let me remind the noble Lord that in defending the grant of assistance to Ford's new engine factory in South Wales the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, also said on 28th February:
"The grant of assistance in relation to the Welsh project is one thing; pay policy is another."
If that argument is not to be applied to Northern Ireland I should like to know why. Therefore, I ask: do the Government intend to withhold grants in connection with guideline pay settlements? I hope that the noble Lord will give me an assurance that that will not occur; if not, it will be a blow to confidence in Northern Ireland.
In connection with direct Government finance in this order, I should like to ask a question about the Andersonstown project called Strathearn Audio which was mentioned in an article in last Monday's Financial Times. That project is a subsidiary of the Northern Ireland Development Agency and, as reported in the Financial Times, the project has not taken up anything like the 1,500 or so jobs in West Belfast, as was hoped. Moveover, when it was passed from the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation to the Agency it had already lost some £8 million. What that figure is now, I simply do not know. Should there not be a Government inquiry into a loss-making project of this scale? In saying that I am not necessarily criticising the Agency, but it must be of public concern as to why such large sums have been lost and as to why the policy
1016
pursued in supporting this project has foundered. If we do not look these problems squarely in the face, similar problems will recur.
Finally on this order, I should like to turn to the subject of education. The order also appropriates funds for expenditure on schools. In this connection, I should like to ask what is the latest estimate by the Northern Ireland Department of Education for reorganising secondary schools. If I may say so, I thought that the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on 15th June last year in respect of the capital costs of reorganisation was perfectly fair. In that statement the noble Lord said that it would be wrong to determine a fixed resource allocation and then produce proposals to match it. But, by now, I think that we should have some idea of the financial realities.
I understand from this week's Northern Ireland Press that the noble Lord has just issued a statement about the observations which have been received about the Cowan Report over the last year and a half. I understand that the noble Lord is reported to have said that there was a good deal of support for 11–18 comprehensive schools in the observations received, and for separate provision at the age of 16-plus—which presumably means sixth-form colleges—but some concern expressed with regard to the latter form of reorganisation at the loss of senior pupils and advanced work for secondary schools.
The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that such a statement does not advance the educational debate very far. But I should have thought that these two different forms of provision—the all-through comprehensive school and the sixth-form college—must have very different financial implications. I should like to know how far consideration of those implications has now proceeded. I should also like to know the weight of objections to the policy of reorganisation. No consultations will command respect unless the Government openly admit who is opposed to the proposals which are under consideration.
Lastly, I should like to ask the noble Lord to give an assurance that the new alternative transfer arrangements by which pupils are this year being transferred from their primary to their secondary schools

1017
have the full approval of the Government. The preparation and administration of these transfer arrangements must have demanded a great deal of work on the part of many people, not least the teaching profession. I think that it is important to have that assurance from the Government this evening.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, the hour is late and this House has already stood a considerable period of discussion about Northern Ireland matters. Therefore, I am slightly hesitant about speaking for any length of time, but this is a very important order for Northern Ireland and there are many subjects which ought to be raised. The state of Northern Ireland requires that this appropriation order should, in fact, he examined in very great detail. I should have liked to raise many subjects and to have asked the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the marina at Bangor which is a matter of great personal concern to me; I should have liked to see that brought forward. I should have liked to discuss the future of the meat, pig and poultry industries, all of which are matters of very great importance. I do not feel very optimistic about the unemployment position of the two agricultural industries. It would have been great if we had had the time and the support to be able to go into these matters in detail.
We in Northern Ireland have always been determined, as part of the United Kingdom, to accept the burdens of austerity and the benefits of prosperity equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Belstead has explained with his usual clarity the problems which are raising their heads as a result of the use by the Government of the anti-inflation clauses and the way in which this affects Northern Ireland, especially in relation to grants. I gave the noble Lord's Office fair warning that I would be raising this subject. It is the most serious problem among some very serious problems which are affecting us.
The problem that we, in Northern Ireland, face is that although we accept that we should bear equal burdens to those in the United Kingdom, they must, when they are applied, bite equally. In my opinion, they do not in this case
1018
because the base from which they start is so much more vulnerable. I should like to give a few—specially selected, I agree—unemployment figures which are really horrific and which, if they existed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, would be a cause of an absolute outcry.
The total unemployment in Northern Ireland is 11.5 per cent. but I should like to take male unemployment in just three places. In Enniskillen, near my own home, there is 18.1 per cent. male unemployment; in Strabane, there is 35.9 per cent.—nearly 40 per cent. male unemployment and in Newry the figure is 27.3 per cent. Those figures were given to me by the Manpower Services Commission this afternoon as being those relevant at the end of February. I fully understand that no one is more aware of the horrors of unemployment than the present Secretary of State and his team. I do not suggest for one single moment that they are not fully aware of them and fully determined to do what they can to put matters right.
However, the facts of the situation are that Northern Ireland is in a far worse position than even those figures show. I do not know how many jobs or positions relate to, or how many people are employed directly or indirectly in, security work, but the number must run into thousands. I also do not know exactly how much money is pumped into the economy as a result of the fact that 14,000 troops are stationed in the country, as a result of which a proportion of the money for feeding them and the whole of their spending power goes into the Northern Ireland economy.
When I was chairman of Fermanagh County Council, I know that we looked into the question of the police training depot at Einniskillen. It was the equivalent of a jolly good factory. Therefore, we must look at the situation and realise that the very fact that this money is in the economy and that these jobs are involved is an extremely dangerous situation and means that there must be substantial capital injections in order to redress the position and to create a permanent base for employment in Northern Ireland.
In 1971 new jobs—I find "jobs" a difficult word—or positions for employ—

1019
ment created totalled 7,000. Last year they totalled only 2,000. That illustrates the run-down as a result of violence and certainly is not the result of a lack of effort from anybody. With Northern Ireland isolated as it is and such a small part of the United Kingdom, this is not, in my view, the moment to deter investment for the creation of jobs. From the moment a company decides to expand and to create new jobs to the time when that creation becomes a position and someone is employed, is a very long time.
Today we have the anti-inflationary measures of the Government stopping investment. Not only do they stop it but they prevent further thought being given to it by many companies. So its effect is not only felt today but goes much further back. I should like to quote two cases which illustrate the problem. Although I join with everyone in congratulating the Secretary of State on having attracted an industry called AVX to Northern Ireland, it will take some time before the jobs created there reach more than a very small number. But it is still worthy of congratulation; it is a wonderful thing to have done. However, it is only from existing industry that the main progress can be made. It is from large industries and small industries; we shall obtain any major breakthrough from the hundreds of industries that employ the "tens".
The first example that I should like to quote is that of an existing industry which, after much thought, decided to expand. It negotiated with the Ministry of Commerce for grants which looked as though they would total about £150,000. I cannot say exactly how many jobs that was either going to preserve or create, but it still was a decision to expand. When, at the end of all these negotiations, a letter of offer was formally sent to the firm setting out the conditions of the offer and the other conditions, I have to say that it was to the astonishment of people in the company that it included the new clauses in the anti-inflationary measures.
They have, in practice, refused the grant to that company unless that company can impose on sub-contractors the conditions as laid down in the anti-inflationary measures. I want to ask
1020
the noble Lord to imagine the situation that that company accepts those conditions, has decided to expand, and decided to accept a Government grant of about £150,000. In the middle of it one of the sub-contractors drops a "clanger" and makes a wage agreement, so that the grant is then removed, and not only the grant but work in progress. Everything is removed from that company.
The company in the first place decided to expand. It realised that it had not sufficient resources to expand without a Government grant, and in the middle of expanding the Government remove the grant and say, "You are on your own, mate ". What is going to happen? You will not only lose the jobs created by expansion, but you are going to have that company close down. I am not in a position to say whether that is true, but I know of a lot of companies where expansion has only taken place, and can only take place, because there is a Government grant. I think that that is an outrageous way to give Government grants in the present conditions in Northern Ireland.
The second case is a very much smaller one, but there are many excellent companies in Northern Ireland which exist on a very small scale, and the fact that they are small makes them just as important. This company was considering expanding its product. They have large contracts with Government Departments, or agencies, and if they were to use that increased capacity for their product it became necessary, because the trade was so structured, for them to employ sub-contractors to fix the product they were producing.
They were considering it, and they were very close to making a decision. They made it clear to me that the moment these conditions came along they decided they were too small a company to take the risk. Those are just two examples. The implementation of this policy in an economy such as Northern Ireland is a very difficult operation. I believe that the Government, and the noble Lord opposite, are fully aware of it, but we must press the noble Lord to make sure that it is known publicly, and that full knowledge of this operation exists, because it is killing expansion in Northern Ireland.

1021
The next question I must ask the noble Lord is this. Can he tell the House, maybe not now but at a later date, whether the offer of grant to AVX contains the same anti-inflationary clauses? I should be very interested to know that, because AVX were given a letter of offer of grant the same as the other firms. If the Government want to establish the type of country which has been portrayed in George Orwell's 1984, then we are right on target, and we certainly will not be behind that by 1984. I welcome this appropriation.
7.55 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their welcome for the order. However, I confess to being a little disturbed at the extent to which they have painted rather a dire picture of the effects of the Government's attack on inflation policy. As the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have made clear, Government Departments in Northern Ireland are including in their contracts the same arrangements as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether I detected from the noble Viscount the wish that these similar arrangements should not apply throughout the United Kingdom, and that Northern Ireland should be placed in a special position. I think that that is a quite fundamental point which ought to be clear.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? My noble friend quoted from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the operation of the Ford issue, and when unemployment considerations were going to take place. We are trying to probe to see whether the Northern Ireland situation is in fact going to have probably a rather more generous interpretation of those conditions.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with respect, the noble Viscount did not answer the question I asked him. It is quite clear that if the same policy is applied throughout the United Kingdom the same discretion is available to Ministers throughout the United Kingdom, but nevertheless Government Departments throughout the United Kingdom will include the same clauses in the contracts
1022
which they offer, and that is in fact what is happening.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Lord is habitually helpful to the Opposition, and I do not want unduly to prolong this debate. I think that the noble Lord would be unintentionally misleading the House if he were to suggest that the pay guidelines had been imposed in the same way, for instance, on Mackies and on Fords. I am quite ready to be told that I have got this wrong, in which case I will immediately withdraw. My impression is that in one case you had a firm in Northern Ireland which was penalised, whereas in the case of a large firm in South Wales in a very similar position, in an area of high unemployment, the pay settlement, which breached the guidelines, was allowed to go through, and indeed to go through with Government assistance.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not think, with respect, that I said anything which could be construed as misleading the House, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I did not say that all cases were treated in exactly the same way under the impact of the anti-inflation policy. It is clear from what the noble Lord quoted from Hansard of previous discussions in this House that a particular case in South Wales was not treated in the same way, and other considerations were felt to be important. What I said was that the policy is being applied throughout the United Kingdom, and that the same discretion—and this was something to which, as I understand it, the noble Lord was objecting in his own remarks—applies to Ministers throughout the United Kingdom in implementing the policy.
The important point for people in Northern Ireland to understand is that the attack on inflation is as vital, if not more so, for Northern Ireland as it is for the rest of the United Kingdom. There can be no question—and I hope neither the noble Viscount nor the noble Lord opposite would suggest this—that those in Northern Ireland should benefit from the sacrifices which the whole country has had to make to reduce the rate of inflation, and reduce it very considerably for the great benefit of industry throughout the United Kingdom, and in particular in Northern Ireland, without having to take part in the fight

1023
themselves and having to take sometimes the disappointing and not too pleasant consequences of that fight against inflation. The fact is that public sector and private sector salaries and wages have had to be controlled in Northern Ireland as they have in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anyone has suggested that that should not be done. That is true of the other measures which the Government have taken, and are taking, to control inflation.
The noble Viscount said that Northern Ireland starts from a worse base in this respect. It is certainly true that the level of unemployment throughout Northern Ireland generally is far too high, and in some areas—and the noble Viscount quoted some—is absolutely appalling. No Minister in the Northern Ireland Office has ever suggested otherwise. As noble Lords know, we have bent all our efforts to reducing it. But the worst thing that any Minister in Northern Ireland could possibly do is to suggest that we should let inflation rip there to the exclusion of the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that in some way is going to do Northern Ireland some good, or be of some benefit to local industrialists.
I hope that the noble Viscount will at least consider telling those firms that are worried about these clauses in contracts that they have a responsibility, as do all industrialists and the whole of the community in the United Kingdom, to fight inflation and to continue the very good rate of reduction which we now have in the rate of inflation. If Northern Ireland wants to attract outside investment and new investment, and if the United Kingdom as a whole wants to do so, then that is one of the most important points on which we must continue to concentrate.
Having said that, I accept that there are particular worries about the clauses that have been included in contracts; but it is important that this should be looked at in a United Kingdom context. It is a matter which the CBI nationally has raised with Ministers, as well as the CBI raising it with the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland; and those points will no doubt be considered very carefully by Ministers, but in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole and in the context of the overriding importance of reducing the rate of
1024
inflation and continuing to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said it would be a blow to industry in Northern Ireland if I could not give a more positive answer than I suspect he will feel I have; but I can only tell him that it would be a far worse blow to industry in Northern Ireland were we to let up on the attack on inflation which the Government have undertaken so successfully so far.
I was glad the noble Viscount mentioned the new investment which has been announced in Northern Ireland this week, although I was a little sorry to hear him, as it seemed to me, reduce the good news by saying it would take some time for the jobs to build up. That may be so, but we are talking of an investment which may lead to 2,000 jobs. That for Northern Ireland, coming at a particularly tragic time for Northern Ireland, is a marvellous thing to have happened and I am delighted with it. I will certainly look into the point the noble Viscount asked about the letter that was sent to the company and write to him when I have the information, so long as it is not of a confidential nature. Nevertheless, nobody should underestimate the importance of this investment, not only because of its size and the number of jobs involved but because, coming at the time when it did, it is a tremendous demonstration of confidence in Northern Ireland and, I would say, in the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, and, incidentally, in the ability of Ministers in the United Kingdom to continue to control inflation.
Neither noble Lord opposite mentioned the other extremely important announcement we have had in Northern Ireland this week, of about 2,500 new jobs in the public sector—important jobs in schools and hospitals and so on—which will be welcomed by the community and which will help particularly in the sort of areas the noble Viscount mentioned, where it is unfortunately still very difficult to attract investment. I would add to his list large sections of Belfast—Central, North and West Belfast—which, as he knows, I take a particular interest in. We shall be concentrating these new public sector jobs, particularly in those areas while we have to accept that private investment is likely not to be so easily attracted to them.

1025
Before I leave, as it were, industrial and economic matters, perhaps I could take up the question which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked about Strathearn Audio. Certainly the company has faced very serious problems and has not developed as was originally hoped. But it would be naive to suppose that any firm could break into the very high technology market, which Strathearn Audio was attempting to do, without considerable expenditure. I would also say that the Strathearn Audio operation must be looked at in the context of which I have just been speaking; namely, that it is based, as both noble Lords know, in an area of Belfast where unemployment is certainly as high as anywhere else in Northern Ireland and where the numbers of unemployed are far higher even than in areas like Strabane, which tend to be the ones of which people speak and which hit the headlines. It does, therefore, represent an important part of the Government's effort to improve conditions in those areas.
Nevertheless, it is clear that we must get the company back on the rails and on the right lines. There have been some changes and the company is now concentrating its efforts on a much narrower front and, I think and hope, now has the opportunity to show that it can produce viable products and secure the employment which the considerable public investment has given it the chance to do. The noble Lord can be assured that we are keeping an extremely close eye on developments in the company, and my right honourable friend Mr. Don Concannon has had a considerable amount of discussion with both the work-force and the directors and management of the company
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a considerable amount of information and we are grateful for that, but I am afraid he has not answered the question which both my noble friend and I asked, namely whether sanctions will be taken against firms which may not themselves have broken the Government's pay guidelines but whose sub-contractors may have done so with regard to Government assistance and grants.
While on my feet, perhaps I may repeat that, certainly as represented by the CBI in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland industry entirely goes along with the pay objectives which the noble Lord has put
1026
across the Dispatch Box tonight. There is no question about that. But, as he himself was generous enough to say, there are problems about the way in which these sanctions are being imposed, and these are indeed now being looked at by Ministers after talking to the Director of the CBI in London.
As my noble friend asked specifically about the firm AVX, we should be grateful, if the Minister does not have an answer, if he would say so and write to us, or write to my noble friend and send a copy to me. This is a specific question that is being asked. The chaos which will result, if, in the middle of an investment programme, Government assistance is suddenly withdrawn because a sub-contractor has reneged on the pay guidelines, will cause great difficulty to many firms.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: And unease, my Lords.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I apologise if I did not make clear that I was attempting to answer that question by saying that this sort of problem is being looked at in a United Kingdom context and that whatever is decided for the United Kingdom will apply in Northern Ireland. I made clear that the matter is being reviewed by Ministers following representations both from the CBI in Northern Ireland to my right honourable friend—and those representations have of course been passed on—and from the CBI nationally. Certainly, when I receive any more information—though I doubt whether I will receive it in advance of noble Lords through the news media—I undertake to write to both noble Lords and let them know anything more that I can.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, regretted that we did not have time to discuss the marina at Bangor or the meat, pig and poultry industries in Northern Ireland. I heaved a sigh of relief that this is the first Appropriation debate I have answered in which we have not discussed the meat and pig industries. However, the marina at Bangor intrigues me and I should be interested to hear from the noble Viscount at some other time exactly what the problems are.
Turning briefly to education, the noble Lord asked about the cost of the reorganisation of secondary education, and

1027
he was kind enough to say he thought the approach we adopted in the Statement of 15th June was reasonable. I hope he will also accept that it is a little early for us to go much further than that; we cannot go very much further because we have not yet got the local planning to any sort of stage which will enable us to look at the consequences of reorganisation and to know what sort of changes will be made in particular districts and areas and therefore what the financial consequences are likely to be and over what sort of time-scale the changes will need to be carried out.
The other reason why we do not have the information which we need to give a more definite answer about finance is that the working parties which are sitting—certainly the one which, under Dr. Benn, is looking at the financing of voluntary grammar schools in a restructured system—have still to complete their deliberations and report. Their recommendations will clearly have financial consequences for secondary education in Northern Ireland in the future. It is quite possible that the recommendations that some of the other working parties make, particularly the working party looking at matters such as boarding and preparatory departments, will have financial implications. Until their deliberations are completed and the Government have recommendations and can look at them, we are not in a position to say anything more about the financial consequences.
A final point on finance. It is clear that this process will be spread over a period of several years. New building of any sort is bound to take at least five years from planning to completion. There is quite a substantial budget for secondary education capital expenditure in Northern Ireland at the moment. I should like it to be bigger, and perhaps we shall be able to look at increasing it. But it is a substantial budget, and most of the kind of changes that I should think are likely to be necessary ought to be able to be subsumed within the normal year to year expenditure, particularly when we are looking at a process of change which will in itself take several years.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of sixth forms and asked about the
1028
Government's plans on that. This is entirely a matter for local planning by the area education and library boards. I would not expect the same solution to be right in all areas of Northern Ireland by any manner of means. There are clearly many schools which ought to remain as 11 to 18 schools. There may be some areas where separate sixth-form provision is desirable, and is liked and is wanted by local schools and local people. That would certainly be likely to have greater financial consequences than 11 to 18 schools. But 11 to 18 schools cannot be provided in all areas of Northern Ireland. There will not be a sufficient number of sixth-form students. Again we need to wait until local planning is under way before coming to any conclusions about this.
The noble Lord asked me about the weight of objections to secondary reorganisation, and who was opposed to it. The resumé which we published on Monday attempted to provide, in a reasonably concise and readable form, the evidence which we received up until the 15th June, during the nine months of consultations on the Cowan Report, as it is known—the consultative document. That resumé makes clear that there were objections to comprehensive education, to non-selective secondary education, particularly from those people representing grammar school interests: parents, teachers and the governing bodies of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. So we have made that perfectly clear in the document which the Government have published.
The document also makes it clear that there was a very strong view that selection at 11-plus should cease to be carried out in Northern Ireland, and that is the decision the Government have taken—to abolish selection at 11-plus. I think we shall be able to evolve a system which will involve all the existing schools in Northern Ireland in a non-selective system, and enable them all to go on playing a part in what is a very excellent system of education.
In the meantime, as the noble Lord pointed out, we have introduced a new selective transfer arrangement to replace the 11-plus, but this is still a selective system, and I could not tell the noble Lord that I was happy with it, or that it had my, or the Government's, full approval,

1029
because no system of selection at 11 would. Nevertheless, I believe that it represents a considerable advance on the 11-plus. It transfers some of the burdens from children to the teachers. That is not necessarily something which teachers would welcome, but I think that they generally acknowledge it to be an improvement for an interim period. That is the period for which the new transfer arrangements will be used, the period until we manage to restructure education in Northern Ireland, so that we do not need to divide children at 11 into arbitrary categories of successes and failures, which I think all noble Lords would not wish to see continued, and which I hope will come to be seen in Northern Ireland as a considerable advance on the present system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHRIST CHURCH WOBURN SQUARE AND SAINT MATTHEW OAKLEY SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the Further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table: Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.