Lords Sitting of 14 November 1978

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

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD: ACCOUNTS
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken on the strong recommendations made in the Eighth Report (H.C. 621, 25th July 1978) of the Public Accounts Committee that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to the NEB's books.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are still considering this recommendation and will report their conclusions to both Houses at an early date.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that private sector companies have by law to produce detailed and audited accounts in respect of individual companies and subsidiary companies? Surely it is desirable that the NEB should act no less circumspectly when dealing with taxpayers' money in order to carry out what is provided by the Companies Act—I think it is Section 6(7)—which lays down that the facts must be produced within seven months. Is it not essential that all-Party recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee should be taken most seriously, and that the Comptroller and Auditor General should therefore be given access to the books of the NEB?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point, it would be quite wrong if he was giving the im-
644
pression that the NEB does not produce audited accounts. It does in fact produce audited accounts, as I think the noble Lord is aware, and it can be called—as indeed it was—by the PAC with any papers and the chairman may be required to answer questions. The matter with which both the noble Lord and the Government are concerned is that of the appropriate form of accountability for a public sector trading company. The practice in relation to nationalised industries, and the vast majority of other public sector trading bodies, shows that the tradition of the past 30 years has been against any Comptroller and Auditor General involvement in the affairs of bodies of this kind. The problem is to find the right balance between public accountability and commercial freedom, because here we are dealing with a rather different kind of animal.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while disclosing an interest as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, may I ask the noble Baroness this: Where an organisation is using very substantial sums of money, is not a very substantial objection required for arguing that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not see the books?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was saying—and I repeat—that the PAC made the recommendation. The Government are considering it, and will be reporting their conclusions shortly. The noble Lord, as an ex-chairman of the PAC, will be very well aware—more aware than I am—that this is an extremely complicated subject. I return to the point of trying to get the right balance in relation to public accountability, without making it difficult for the Board to carry on its day-to-day affairs or without it being inhibited by having shackles on its commercial freedom when trying to conduct business. I do not think that we can have it both ways. I am sure that the noble Lord, whom I should have thought to be a great exponent of free enterprise, must see this point.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, why does the noble Baroness think that submitting the books to the Comptroller and Auditor General would interfere in any way whatever with the commercial effectiveness of the NEB?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is not a case of submitting the books; the actual wording is having "access to the National Enterprise Board's books". I understand that to mean that the Comptroller and Auditor General would at any time be able to call and look at the books, even during the course of a transaction. I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter but I am trying to put both sides of it to the House. There is the problem, which was readily recognised when the nationalised industries were set up, of avoiding interference in their day-to-day affairs while auditing their books. As the noble Lord is aware, the auditors are chosen with the agreement of the Government. There is a difficult problem here, and the Government are aware of it. It is not a case of presenting a blank wall against what is suggested. I return to my original Answer and point out that the Government are still considering the recommendation.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that the last report of the NEB shows the turnover of the NEB and its subsidiaries to be £3,500 million, and that it involves a very large, and increasing, number of companies? In the circumstances, would there not be a better balance if the Comptroller and Auditor General was allowed access to the books, so that we can see that the taxpayers' interests are being properly looked after? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that, if the Public Accounts Committee's all-Party recommendations—without a minority viewpoint—are not carried out, Parliament will be deterred from keeping control of the ever increasing sums of public money spent on its behalf?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am quite aware of the number of people and of the amounts of money involved. However, I should point out that my right honourable friend has made clear that the NEB profits before tax in the first half of this year were £2.4 million, and so it is not really an entire loser, as I think has been implied.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is not one of the difficulties here due to the fact that the NEB has to come to the rescue of private enterprises that have failed?
Baroness BIRK: This is true, my Lords, and I think that over the weekend one of the spokesmen of the Party opposite in another place referred to keeping the NEB on as "a casualty clearing station."
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness seriously pretend that those enterprises which have failed ought not to show their books to the public when they receive public money?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am not pretending anything at all. As I repeated—and I am sure the noble and learned Lord heard me—an audit is conducted, it is open, and the people concerned are called by the PAC. The subject and the point of the noble Lord's Question, and what we are discussing, is access to the books by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is that which is under consideration by the Government, which quite naturally take any recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee very seriously.

NURSES' AND MIDWIVES' PAY
2.44 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to accept the recommendations of the appropriate Whitley Council on special increases in income for members of the nursing and midwifery professions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, on 16th October last, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services met representatives from both sides of the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council to discuss the claim that nurses and midwives should be treated as a special case for purposes of pay policy. My right honourable friend undertook to consider carefully with colleagues the arguments that had been put to him. He reminded the deputation, however, that the overriding need was to defeat inflation and that any claim to special treatment would have to be examined

647
very critically. I cannot today indicate the outcome of the consideration which is being given to this claim.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord very much for that at least helpful Answer, may I ask him this question. Though he did not emphasise it, the deputation got a very good welcome from the Minister who received them. Therefore, if he had not agree that they should be treated as a special case he probably would have said so; but he did not, because he seemed to agree with the point that was put forward. I do not want to enter into any particular controversy, though I am very honoured to be a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, and am not particularly interested in the new Bill which the Government seem to be putting forward; but can the noble Lord say whether the refusal to accept what the Minister seemed to think was a very wise request arose because of the fact that the Government have no money left? I should like an answer "Yes" or "No" to that.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness always puts me in a difficult position by demanding a "Yes" or a "No", and I once proved to her quite conclusively that there are some questions you cannot answer with a plain "Yes" or a plain "No". I hope that my Department as well as every other Government Department receives deputations with some sympathy and understanding. People normally do not go on deputations unless they feel very strongly about the subject matter. My right honourable friend is sympathetic, but the nurses and the midwives are asking for special consideration. It may well be that they are entitled to it, but there are a large number of other organisations which feel that they ought to be considered as a special case. In these matters, the Government are prepared to look at the cases personally to see whether or not these requests can be met. I have only this to add: in 1970, when my right honourable friend was Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, he was responsible for giving the nurses 20 per cent., and in 1974 it was this Government which gave the nurses a 30 per cent. increase in one go and backdated it to 23rd May, 1974.
648
We really understand their problem. We try to help them; and if there is anything that can be done we will try to do it.
The EARL of HALSBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that that rise of 30 per cent. only four years ago was awarded as a result of a recommendation to the Prime Minister by the committee of which I was then chairman; that it gave universal satisfaction by equating the wages of a ward sister with those of a station sergeant in the police force; and that, on a recent occasion when an increase in pay to members of the police force was announced, I asked whether that equation would be preserved for the sake of the nurses and was told that it would be a dangerous precedent? Does the noble Lord consider that there is a future for turning simple administrative decisions into dangerous precedents, the implementation of which should be postponed to the Greek Kalends?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for chairing that committee, and he will agree that when he made that recommendation of 30 per cent. it was immediately accepted by my right honourable friend, and was backdated. Whether one can go on treating applications as special cases, I do not know. But in addition to the 30 per cent. to which the noble Earl referred, in the years 1974 and 1975 the nurses received 16.8 per cent. by way of threshold payments, and in each year afterwards they received the same increases as everybody else: in 1976, £6 a week; in 1977, not less than £2.50 and not more than £4, like everybody else; and in 1978, this year, 10 per cent.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that the decision of the Minister will not be too long delayed? Otherwise, there is a risk that the recommended increases, or otherwise, may become slightly unrealistic.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are no recommended increases so far as the nurses or anyone else is concerned. Obviously, this must be considered along with the claims of other groups which consider that they are special cases and in the light of the Government's determination to win the battle against inflation.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that while there are many special cases, these are very special people? May I suggest to the Minister that if it were not for nurses and midwives quite a number of the present Government and Members of this House would not be here?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I accept that; but there are very many other groups in the community who also need to be considered. I am almost tempted to say that junior Ministers in this House are grossly over-worked and disgracefully underpaid. Obviously, there are so many factors to be taken into account that it is difficult to say that one group in the community is more important than another.
Lord BROCK WAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that there is now a shortage of nurses in many hospitals and that the recruitment of nurses is disappointing? Are not the conditions under which nurses now work largely responsible for that?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the last few years, the number of people who have been recruited into the nursing profession organisations runs into several thousands. It is true that last year the recruitment was rather disappointing; but from April to September of this year there was an increase against the same period last year of over 40 per cent. in the recruitment of those new students who wanted to take the State-registered nursing qualifications. Last year, there was also a fall in the number of entrants who wished to take the State-enrolled nursing qualifications. This has been arrested and there has been a marked increase in these numbers during the period from July to September of this year.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): —My Lords, I think we have had a pretty good—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble
650
Lord the Leader of the House very much for treating this as a special case. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, does not like "Yes" or "No" answers, but is he aware that, over the years—and I was in the other place for 38 years—we have always had to fight for the nurses? That also applies to my own Government—I remember voting against them as well as against this Government. Can the noble Lord say why he did not answer my question as to whether it was a matter of money with a "Yes" or "No"?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are considering this matter to see whether the nurses can establish that they have a special case. If they have, we shall be looking around for the money.

ERITREA: GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.54 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their official policy to back only the weaker of the two liberation movements fighting for Eritrean independence, and to describe the other as "guerrillas"; and whether they have now decided not to relieve suffering among the majority of the population who live in areas controlled by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the British Government favour a negotiated settlement in Eritrea, and do not support any of the movements in question. The British Government deeply regret the suffering in Eritrea; their policy on the distribution of humanitarian relief is to try to ensure that it is channelled through international bodies without discrimination.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, while the aid is being channelled solely through the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, it reaches the ELF without the knowledge of the

651
Ethiopian authorities, and because of the Government's refusal to make this relief aid available to the Eritrean Relief Association, it does not get to areas controlled by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front? Why are the terms of the Disaster Emergency Committee framed in such a narrow way that help cannot be given to the vast majority of the Eritrean people who live in those areas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord agrees that it is necessary for this aid—or any aid of this kind—to reach the people who really deserve and need it. I appreciate his concern on this score. The matter which he has raised about whether, through these policies which the Overseas Department rightly insists on, this aid is getting to the areas he mentioned I will take up with my right honourable friend and seek her views on it. I take it that he and I are agreed that the aid should be properly supervised through international agencies to ensure that it reaches the people for whom it is intended.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is still a Cuban presence on Eritrean soil and what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist in its removal?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is certainly a Cuban presence in the area mentioned by my noble friend. We have no evidence—at least at the moment—that it is combat presence. We have consistently made it absolutely clear to the Cuban Government and to others that we regard involvement in a military sense in internal disputes of this kind as very detrimental to the prospects of peace and a peaceful settlement of such disputes.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the latest information from Eritrea is that Cuban troops have been involved in combat? Returning to my Question, does he not agree that, since the Eritrean Relief Association is not an international agency, it has not hitherto been recognised by the Disaster Emergency Committee? Would he put that point to his right honourable friend? Can I send him material showing the enormous preponderance of need in
652
territory controlled by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, where relief is administered by the ERA?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly, if the noble Lord wishes to give me information on this point, I would see that my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development considers it very carefully. I would suggest that he might have a word with my right honourable friend directly. There is no need to go through an international channel for that kind of bilateral contact. If I can be of any help in this matter, I take the view that the objective is to make available to the people who need and deserve this aid, through the proper agencies, whatever is offered. ODM have laid down certain conditions. I do not think they are onerous; they are very prescient. I would expect—indeed, I suspect—that the noble Lord is in agreement with those objectives. Any information that he cares to make available to me, I shall gladly consider and discuss with my right honourable friend.

IRAN: ARMS SALES
2.58 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their provision of arms to Iran in view of its denial of democratic and human rights.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we keep all defence sales under constant review. As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on 6th November:
"At the moment we think it right to continue our support for the Shah and for the CENTO Alliance. However, we shall have to consider each arms sale as it comes along".
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while many of us admire the service which the Foreign Secretary is giving in other spheres, we think he made a great mistake in supporting this supply of arms to the Shah's régime, which for 14 years has been

653
denying human rights, banning Opposition Parties, condoning corruption within the Royal Family and condoning torture by the army and police? Is he aware how shocked we were when we saw on television British Chieftain tanks with their guns directed against the demonstrators for democracy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly join with my noble friend in upholding the right to peaceful demonstration for change. It is unfortunately the case that when such demonstrations take on the nature of chaotic and indeed destructive disturbance certain counter-measures are taken. We are ourselves conscious of the attack on the Chancery of the British Embassy in Tehran. I am very glad to assure the House that nobody was seriously hurt—nobody in fact killed—in that demonstration. It would have been a great help to us, as it was to our American friends, whose embassy was perhaps not quite as exposed to demonstration as our own was, if there had been certain means of protecting our fellow nationals on the spot on that night.
As to the supply of defence material to friendly countries—and Iran has been friendly for very many years to this country and of immense importance to the life and livelihood of our people in this country and to the West generally—we scrutinise these requests for arms very carefully indeed. We are by no means the major suppliers of arms in this world, although in the debate the other night I was almost under the impression that some Members thought we were. Quite 70 per cent. of these arms are supplied by the two super Powers, shared equally between the Soviet Union and the United States. We supply a little under 5 percent. and that under very rigid scrutiny indeed, as I know is the case, equally in regard to Iran as in regard to any other country. Nobody can say what turn events in Iran may take in the next few weeks or months.
What we can say is that, largely under the influence of friends, the Shah and his authorities have declared to be clearly in favour of a policy of liberalisation and indeed of free and fair elections between now and next June. We believe that he means this. In the meantime, therefore, we think that we ought to support the
654
existing Government of Iran and encourage them as much as we can to fulfil their undertakings.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord and the Government not agree on the importance to the West of a stable and friendly Government in Iran, not just because of the West's economic and strategic interests in the area, but also because of the future of the Gulf States and beyond? Would he not also agree that the successor Government, which I suppose would be the Opposition Party, will hardly be likely to advance the cause of human rights and democracy, and would be far less likely to do so than the Shah?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will not be drawn by the noble Lord into a comment on the latter part of his supplementary question. I prefer not to comment on the policies of any possible successor régime in Iran. We shall have to deal with them if such a régime comes into being. As to the first part of what he said, he has expressed much more succinctly than I managed to do the immense importance of Iran to this country and to democracy, with which I equate the Western World—no other part of the world appears to be standing for democracy—in the context of the Near East and Middle East; that part of the world between Turkey and the frontiers of the Indian sub-continent which have traditionally been the object of attention from their North and the subject of immense strategic and economic importance to the West. On that basis, British self interests and the interests of Western democracy are best served at the present time by encouraging support for the liberalising policy of the Shah.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that our friendship with Iran has been invaluable, both to Iran, Great Britain and indeed the cause of the Free World; that an alternative to the rule of the Shah might involve much greater dangers to human rights in Iran, as has happened in other places where revolutions have taken place, and might involve great dangers in that part of the world for the peace that all of us are seeking?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as I said, I prefer not to speculate on the virtues and viability of alternatives, but I take note of what my noble friend has said which joins with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. I am in absolutely no doubt as to the importance of the friendship of the people of Iran. The future of Iran and of this entire area lies with the West, with democratic values. The pace at which these are fulfilled is a matter for local management and concern, together with external encouragement.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government agree that it is desirable also to take a somewhat broader and longer view of the enormous services which the Shah has rendered to Iran by vastly increasing literacy and education at all levels, by producing a much greater state of social equality than there was when I was in Iran 30 years ago, and by modernising his country in an active way with so much liberalisation as is possible among people where it is extremely difficult to do things effectively? In any case, would the noble Lord not agree that to intervene in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would be to interfere undesirably in the internal politics of Iran?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway is entirely right to intervene in this matter and to point out to us the fundamental importance of our being very careful indeed not to do anything politically, militarily or otherwise to subserve any repressive régime. What I have said to my noble friend, with great respect, is that we see in the present posture of the Shah's Government a genuine intention to liberalise and democratise, believing that we ask him and others to join us in encouraging the Shahanshah on this path. As to what my noble friend Lord Hankey has said, naturally I will consider with very great care everything he says with his great experience. Once more I ask him, like others, not to ask me to speculate about the future.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords—
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that noble Lords have had a very good innings on this Question. I hope my noble friend who has raised this Question will
656
accept that. We have taken over 31 minutes for Questions, and Question Time should not be monopolised in that way.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord PEART: I hope that my noble friend will understand.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.8 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Viscount Trenchard to advance his Motion on the Thirty-eighth Report of the European Communities Committee from Thursday the 30th to Tuesday the 28th of November.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in accordance with Standing Order 72, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:—

Beswick, L.

Byers, L.

Carrington, L.

Champion, L.

Denham, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Molson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Shackleton, L.

Wigoder, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974;
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures:
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

658

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:—
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Segal, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Vickers, B.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or

659
Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Abenlare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee of last Session be agreed to. I think I should say a brief word in explanation of the first item in the report as it is a little obscure. It refers back to a full-scale debate that we held in this House on 5th July 1977 which I am sure your Lordships will remember. As a result of that debate a Sub-Committee of the Procedure Committee met and discussed what was best to be done following the debate. It recommended that a limited experiment should be conducted. However, the Procedure Committee itself thought that it was premature to take any action before it was known what the other place was going to do as a result of their deliberations of their Select Committee on Practice and Procedure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee of last Session [HL 259, 1977–78] be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, may I express the view that this is a most
660
unsatisfactory situation? It is now nearly 18 months since my noble friend the Leader of the House promised from the Box that during the ensuing Session we would have an experiment on the lines recommended by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure. One whole Session has now gone by without that promise being fulfilled. We are now in the second Session and it seems, from the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper, that yet another Session is to go by with that promise unfulfilled. It really is not good enough, given the hard work put in by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure and the very firm offer made from the Despatch Box by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
The position, as I understand it from the Chairman of Committees today, is that the Select Committee on Procedure now want to look at what the other place has decided to do in this matter of the Committee stage, particularly, so I understand, regarding the scrutiny of public legislation. There are two comments that one can make about that. The first is that in matters like this this House, as I understand it, has never waited unduly for the other place. Our procedures are separate. We are masters of our own system of procedure in this House; and this matter was carefully reported upon by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, recommending that we begin to move more clearly towards procedure which enables us to claim to be a revising body rather than merely a debating body, as is so often the case at the moment. In that sense we have an ancillary function to perform which, frankly, does not depend on what happens at the other end of the corridor. That is my first comment on it: I do not understand this continuous delay, waiting for the other place.
The second comment I would make is that, as I understood it from the words used by my noble friend when he made this offer to the House—indeed, this promise, as I say—all of eighteen months ago now, the Select Committee on Procedure was not being asked to report on the merits, the principles, of this change but merely on the mechanics, the procedure to be followed, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure. What

661
we seem to have now in this report is a report from the Procedure Committee, wanting to go over the whole principle again.
This really is not good enough, and I strongly protest and say that the House should not be treated in this way by one of its Committees and that an offer honestly made and honestly accepted by those who had worked hard on the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure should not take so long to be carried out. Indeed, it seems that it is going to be two or three years before a simple recommendation of one experiment is put into effect. I personally do not agree to accepting this Report from the Committee. It is time the House itself had in front of it a Motion to carry out the recommendation, and indeed the promise, made by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will also have taken note of what was said in regard to the undertakings, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, put it. All I can say is that the Sub-Committee that is mentioned in the Report, of which I had the privilege of being Chairman, was indeed the body that looked at the "mechanics", as the noble Lord described them. We put forward what we thought would be a way of conducting a limited experiment; but, indeed, when the matter came back before the Procedure Committee, that Committee took the view, and took it very strongly, that to go ahead at this moment, when there was another Committee in another place considering similar proposals, would not be in the best interests of the relations between the Houses. It is a very fundamental proposal that was before the Committee and has been considered by the House. Certainly the Procedure Committee took the view that it had very far-reaching implications and that this would not be the right time to go ahead with it, although they are continuing to keep it under review.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he then tell us what timetable he now envisages? Am I right in suspecting
662
delay for another whole Session—indeed a Session in which this experiment would be very suitable, when there is a lot of legislation of a less contentious kind that could be examined in this way, as suggested? Could he tell us how long we are to wait and whether the Procedure Committee is going to give an early report so that we can have the experiment during this Session?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, it is not up to me. I am the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, but it is up to the Procedure Committee. The only thing I can say is that the Procedure Committee are well aware of what is going on. I will certainly undertake to draw to their attention what has been said by the noble Lord and I can assure him that they will be considering this matter again in the course of this Session.
3.16 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.

ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is identical to the one which was introduced into your Lordships' House last Session, and was read a second time on 20th June 1978. It was unable to complete its Parliamentary progress then, because of lack of time. The Bill is a consolidation measure, which incorporates amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. It consolidates a number of enactments relating to electricity in Scotland, and, apart from the amendments which are intended to remove certain minor anomalies in existing law, the Bill makes no

663
change in the existing law. If your Lordships approve, the Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which will consider it and make its report to the House in due course. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1978
3.21 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 1st November, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations increase the financial limits for legal aid in civil proceedings and for legal advice and assistance in civil and criminal matters. There are corresponding regulations for Scotland and these stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. What I have to say applies to both sets of regulations.
It has become the practice in recent years for the financial limits for legal aid and legal advice and assistance to be increased annually in line with increases in supplementary benefits. In that way, the limits keep pace—at any rate, to some extent—with the rate of inflation. These regulations, which I move today, are a holding operation. I intend to make further regulations in the earlier part of next year, which will make significant and urgently needed improvements to the financial conditions for legal aid, advice and assistance and will bring a far larger proportion of the population within the Legal Aid Scheme.
Turning to the regulations which are at present before your Lordships, the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1978 increase the lower income limit (below which a contribution from the litigant is not payable) from £760 to £815 a year, and the upper income limit
664
(above which legal aid is not available) from £2,400 to £2,600 a year. Both limits relate to a person's "disposable income". This is arrived at after allowances have been made for dependants and deductions made for necessary expenses such as income tax, rates, rent and so on.
The regulations also increase the lower capital limit (below which no contribution is payable) from £340 to £365, and the upper capital limit (above which legal aid is normally not available) from £1,600 to £1,700. I have also made other legal aid regulations, which are not subject to Affirmative Resolution, and which will come into force at the same time as these regulations, increasing the allowances for dependants when assessing disposable capital. This will mean that the upper capital limit of £1,700 will be further increased to £2,080 for a married person with two children.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations make corresponding changes for legal advice and assistance. The upper disposable income limit for legal advice and assistance is increased from £48 to £52 a week, and the disposable capital limit from £340 to £365. I have also made two other sets of legal advice and assistance regulations, which are not subject to Affirmative Resolution, but which come into force at the same time. They raise the lower disposable income limit for advice and assistance from £23 to £25 a week, make consequential amendments to the scale of contributions for legal advice and assistance, and increase the allowances for dependants when assessing the disposable capital limit. With the new allowances, the disposable capital limit for a married person with two children will be £745.
As I said—and I now emphasise—these regulations are no more than a holding operation. I am preparing a package of significant improvements to the financial conditions for legal aid. I am not, unfortunately, in a position to be precise about the details of my proposals at this stage, but I am in a position to give the House their broad outline. The extra cost of the improvements I have in mind, which will gradually increase to a maximum of about £6 million a year, is within the public expenditure plans announced by my right honourable friend

665
the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th November.
The cost of legal aid is, of course, already substantial. Despite the very low limits which have been imposed upon it by financial stringency the cost of civil legal aid has, in fact, risen from £26 million in 1975–76 to something in the region of £38 million in 1977–78. To this must be added the cost of criminal legal aid in magistrate court cases, which falls on my vote. This has risen from £14 million in 1975–76 to around £20 million in 1977–78. Finally, there is legal aid in the Crown Court which falls on the Home Office vote and which is now in the region of £23 million.
Even in its present reduced state—which I admit to be the case—the civil legal aid scheme is of immense value to a large number of our fellow citizens, who without it would not be able to enforce or defend their legal rights in the courts. It covers a vast area. Last year, the number of claims submitted by solicitors in respect of advice and assistance given by them to members of the public was in the region of 323,000. So far as legal proceedings are concerned, over 147,000 legal aid certificates were issued in 1977–78. Over 20,000 of them were for non-matrimonial proceedings in the High Court. Although legal aid—but not, of course, advice and assistance under the Green Form scheme—has been restricted for undefended divorce, legal aid remains available for contested matrimonial proceedings and over 57,000 legal aid certificates were issued for matrimonial proceedings in the High Court and county court in 1977–78. A further 16,000 certificates were issued in respect of county court proceedings and 53,000 in respect of matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts.
The package of improvements which I intend to introduce next year will substantially increase the coverage of the legal aid scheme. It is designed to ensure that such resources as are available go first to those in greatest need. Here I have in mind those on low earnings, families with low incomes and pensioners. I am very conscious of the hardship which the present low limits have caused in these areas, and I am determined to do all I can to end this hardship. At the
666
same time, and consistently with this principle, a very determined effort will be made to reduce the present complexity of the financial conditions for legal aid, and to simplify the present complicated and expensive system, of legal aid assessment.
The construction of the package is not unlike the construction of a mini-Budget First, the Budget strategy has to be decided —and I have just outlined mine; namely, to help the most needy—and then it is necessary to consider what adjustments can be made to the "regulators" in order to achieve it. The regulators in this case are the upper and lower limits, capital and income, and the amount taken by way of contribution. In making adjustments, it is necessary to take account not only of current earnings but also of the pattern of welfare benefits and the operation of the complex discretions and disregards used in the assessment of income and capital. Work is still proceeding on these complex matters and I will be giving the full details later. I must ask your Lordships for forbearance in the meantime.
At present I can say, however, that comprehensive and significant improvements to the financial conditions for legal aid will be introduced in the early part of next year. The basis of the package will be a substantial increase in the lower (free legal aid) limit which will not only assist those in greatest need, but also permit a start to be made in the simplification of legal aid assessment procedures. It will be accompanied by appropriate increases in the allowances for dependants in order to ensure that the improvements do not discriminate in favour of those without families.
It is not enough to be eligible for contributory legal aid; the applicant must also be able to afford the contributions asked. Accordingly, the measures improving eligibility will be accompanied by an appropriate reduction in the amount, in the percentage of contribution to be asked of assisted persons. At present this cannot be changed by regulation. Legislation is required. Accordingly, it is intended to include in the Legal Aid Bill, referred to in the gracious Speech, a regulation-making power enabling me to make regulations adjusting the amount of contribution to be called for. This

667
power is an important part of my proposals. If changes in the amount of contribution taken cannot be made, further adjustments would have to be made to the lower (free) legal aid limit in order to ensure that those just outside the free limit were not required to pay more than they can afford. The Bill, therefore, is an integral part of my proposals. I am hoping to introduce it before long, and I hope that it will get a fair wind.
My proposals also include a corresponding increase in the upper (eligibility) limit corresponding with the increase in the lower (free) limit. This is designed to bring back a large number of households who have ceased to be eligible for legal aid. There will also be substantial increases in the lower (free) and upper (eligibility) capital limits, possibly in line with the minimum recommendations in the report of the Financial Provisions Working Party to my Legal Aid Advisory Committee. Finally, there will be corresponding appropriate increases in the limits for advice and assistance—the Green Form Scheme.
This package is without prejudice to the consideration in due course by the Government of whatever recommendations may be made by the Royal Commission on Legal Services. The Royal Commission will be reporting on a number of important matters affecting those services, including the balance between the legal aid scheme and publicly funded legal services such as those rendered by law centres and CABs as well as upon the difficult question of representation before tribunals. It is not possible to make additional commitments in these areas until it has reported, and I understand that that will take place next year. There is, however, one area where I am resolved to give further help. It is the law centres. They are at present an essential part of the legal services, working in areas of greatest need. The package will, therefore, include some modest reinforcement for them pending the outcome of the Royal Commission recommendations.
May I say that it gives me personally particular satisfaction to be able to announce these proposed changes today, remembering as I do my maiden speech in the House in 1974 when I stressed the importance of extending legal services
668
throughout the country, in particular to those most needing them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 1st November, be approved. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, I welcome the announcement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of his package. We shall be examining it in due course when it is presented in detail, but I understand that this is almost an annual exercise relating to the increase in the various limits of the sums which are set out in the regulations. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that they were to keep pace with the rate of inflation, and they seem to vary between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. I do not intend go go into the question of whether the rate of inflation kept between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. during the whole of last year, nor do I know whether it will during the coming year. Certainly, however, an increase is essential, since more and more people are being denied the use of legal aid.
Noble Lords will recollect a very important matter which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, during the debate upon the gracious Speech. He mentioned that something like 58 per cent. of households in this country were eligible for legal aid in 1954 but that only 23 per cent. of households were eligible for legal aid 20 years later. That was a figure which came as a great shock to me personally, as it must have done to other noble Lords who are interested in and concerned about this matter. There must be increases every year, just to keep pace with the present position. I shall not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks that these increases are sufficient until he introduces the package which he has just announced to us.
The difficulties with regard to civil legal aid which the noble and learned Lord has spoken about and which is primarily his responsibility, since criminal legal aid is the responsibility of the Home Office, seem to require, in my view, much more attention than those which relate to criminal legal aid. I suspect that criminal

669
legal aid is given too freely and that it is also given without sufficient investigation of the means of persons who actually receive criminal legal aid.
I recollect appearing for a national newspaper before the Divisional Court in circumstances in which two persons, who were accused of crimes of which they were subsequently convicted and who were the leaders of very large criminal organisations, had complained concerning the newly introduced restrictions on the reporting of proceedings before committing magistrates. There was an argument before the Divisional Court. The two complainants, these criminals,
failed. On behalf of that national newspaper I asked for costs, which I was entitled to do, only for it to be announced that these two persons—having a life style which was well publicised, since they were the heads, as I have already said, of very substantial criminal organisations, as they were subsequently proven to be—could afford only a nil contribution. Although they lived in the style of princes, they were being defended out of public funds. They were making no contribution at all to that legal aid.
I have always felt that on the criminal side there is reason to be concerned, but very much greater concern ought, I believe, to be attached to civil legal aid. The greatest attention should be paid to it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated the package which he is going to produce some time next year. I hope that he will concentrate much more on these levels of legal aid than on the law centres.
Parliament has willed that persons facing litigation—and of course persons accused of crime—shall receive professional help and, if that is so, then Parliament must provide the means. As I indicated to your Lordships not long ago, I believe that there should be a substantial switch of resources, including greater assistance to the court service, greater and proper financial rewards for the professional services, where, perhaps I may say, after over 30 years of practice, without having to declare an interest, the young barristers in the Crown Courts have a level of remuneration which is far too low. If there is going to be a social service—which this is—then it should be adequately remunerated.
670
It is in regard to proper levels of legal aid that, in my view, at the present time the scheme has gone wrong. Therefore we shall look forward to seeing the increases which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has foreshadowed, when he introduces the Bill next year. He has referred to the Royal Commission on Legal Services which will be reporting next year. I do not know whether he will be able to help your Lordships by telling us about when next year he anticipates that this very important Royal Commission will be reporting, but I presume he means that it will be reporting after he has introduced his Bill, which I understood was to be early next year.
I hope he will not overlook the upper eligibility, because, in my experience, it is there that great hardship is being forced upon persons who are just above the level of legal aid because of their very modest capital and income position and so are totally excluded from any assistance whatsoever. While it is important to recollect that plaintiffs should be given assistance to pursue their claims, there is also a case for those who have to defend claims and who ought to be able to receive the appropriate assistance which the State has said it is going to provide because of the decision to give legal aid to those who have to prosecute or defend suits in the courts. It is of course welcome that there have been these very modest increases at this particular time and we look forward to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introducing his Bill, which I hope he will do at the earliest possible opportunity, when we can see that greater justice is given to those who really require this aid in order to be able to pursue justice.
3.42 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the sympathetic way in which he placed these regulations before us. He described the regulations as being a holding operation and gave us promise of a generous package by way of comparison in the future. I know that he will not be surprised if a member of the legal profession bases his comments in the same way as I believe a cock once did to a hen when he showed her an ostrich egg,

671
and then said "This is not by way of complaint, my dear, but by way of indication of what one can optimistically hope for".
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the increase which we are now looking at is indeed a very moderate one. As the noble and learned Lord also said, it is based upon a linkage with supplementary benefits and I believe that in turn is based upon the prices index. It is of course a fact that wages have risen by twice as much as the prices index since the last regrading. That therefore means that a proportion of those who until this moment have been able to benefit from legal aid will now not be able to do so and, by virtue of the fact that this is such a meagre rise, that the proportion—however small that might be—of those who could benefit before will not now be able to do so until this further package comes about. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, who I believe gave a figure of 20-odd per cent. of households which were now able to benefit, my figure—it may be wrong and I merely put it forward for correction—was in fact double that. It was 44 per cent. and I understand that it is that figure which will now be reduced.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, if I may intervene, I was quoting the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who produced figures before your Lordships last week. I think he said that 28 per cent. only were now eligible as compared with 54 per cent. about 20 years ago.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am obliged and I shall see to it that I am corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or perhaps the noble Lord will find himself able to say that his figure was wrong. The figure I was given this morning—which I may have taken down inaccurately—was given to me by a very authoritative source as being 44 per cent., but even that has been reduced. In any event, the principle is the same.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to a very serious way in which hardship arises at the moment which is that many who have been granted legal aid because their cause is one which the authorities who look at these things
672
have decided ought to be dealt with in the courts and that they ought therefore to be assisted, cannot now go ahead with that assistance and many members of my profession are finding this by virtue of the fact that they cannot afford the contributions. When we look at the situation regarding a disposable income of £815, and a third over and above that disposable income, noble Lords will realise what a limitation this is, since a contribution has of necessity to be made when that situation arises.
My last point was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I believe I am right in saying that he said legislation would be necessary not only in regard to that matter but also possibly in relation to assistance by way of legal aid for those who appear before tribunals. It may be that this can be done under another Bill, giving him the right by regulation to see that those people who have to appear before tribunals are assisted.
In my maiden speech to this House, I had the privilege of referring to the situation under which those who have suffered as a result of crime and who therefore wish to go to a tribunal in order to get some compensation for the violence that they have sustained are unable at this moment to get assistance under the legal aid scheme. I was obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, for asking when the report of the Royal Commission is expected, because, if that report is not going to come before us until late next year and the Bill to which reference was made in the gracious Speech and which was referred to by the Lord Chancellor is in fact to be brought forward early next year and before the report of the Royal Commission, one would hope so much that whatever regulatory power or statutory power was required in order to enable people to have the benefit of legal aid before the tribunals, will, if necessary, be provided for before the Royal Commission reports.
3.50 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, the practice of quoting from one's previous speeches is something, as I have no doubt your Lordships agree, to be deeply deplored, but I ask to be allowed to quote a few words from what I said on the debate on

673
the gracious Speech, because some re- ference has been kindly made to what I had to say and the statistic which I produced on that occasion. As some of your Lordships who were here on that occasion may remember, I started off by quoting what had been said by Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was the Attorney General in 1948 who introduced the original Legal Aid and Advice Act. The words which he used upon that occasion of the
Second Reading of the Bill were these:
"It is the charter of the little man to the British Courts of Justice … It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay".
Those were the high expectations and hopes with which the Bill was heralded at that time, more than 25 years ago.
As to the statistic that I quoted, there appears to be a little doubt as to what has happened since. The reason why I quoted it was because it seemed to me the simplest way of illustrating how far short the scheme of civil legal aid has fallen below the expectations which were held at that time. The statistic must be true because it is produced by the Law Society. The quotation I made was this, that in 1954 58 per cent. of households with children were eligible for legal aid on income grounds—that is, if capital is disregarded or they have none—but by 1974, 20 years later, the figure had fallen to 23 per cent. and so had been cut in half.
In order to try to emphasise the way in which we have fallen short of our hopes of 25 years ago I quoted something that happened in the other place last year. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote it again. It seems to me to illustrate the failure, up to now, in the most understandable form. It was back in April last year when Mr. John Ovenden asked some questions of the Solicitor General. He asked some questions about the cost of civil legal aid during the preceding five years; and when the Solicitor General had provided that information Mr. Ovenden asked whether the Solicitor General would accept that those figures reflected the failure of the incomes scale to keep pace with inflation, resulting in a smaller proportion of the population being eligible for legal aid, and whether he was satisfied with a situation where the only people
674
who qualify for maximum legal aid are those living on incomes just above the supplementary benefit level, and that to qualify for legal aid at all people must have incomes well below the average industrial earnings. When the Solicitor General rose to reply, he said that he could not dispute the figures that Mr. Ovenden had quoted. I have taken leave to remind your Lordships of that because that really does represent a true statement of the present situation.
May I at once say to the noble and learned Lord that the statement which he has made to the House today will be received with the utmost gratification by those who have been striving to get a reform of this, as we believe, evil. I should like to add my congratulations to the thanks, and I am sure it will be of great and legitimate satisfaction to the noble and learned Lord that he will, early in the New Year, be bringing before us, as I understand it, radical alterations in order to try to put this situation right. It will take a little time. I am a lawyer and I think I know something about the legal aid system—I have been living on it for a long time; it will take all of us a little while to digest the information which the noble and learned Lord has given us, because, as he said, it is a very complicated subject. But the news that we are going to have some radical measures proposed early in the New Year will come as a great satisfaction.
My Lords, I do not think we want to confuse the position—I am sure that is not what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, intended to do—by talking about criminal legal aid, because criminal legal aid is quite a different matter. In my view, criminal legal aid has worked and is working very well in this country at the present time, subject only to one matter which has been a matter of considerable public debate; that is, the difference in the granting of legal aid in the magistrates' courts and Crown courts as between one court and one jurisdiction and another. That is a matter which ought to be urgently looked at. I believe I read something the other day in the newspaper to indicate that a request has been made by the Magistrates' Society and the Justices Clerks' Society to the Lord Chancellor that he should issue some further directions—or possibly the

675
Home Office should; I am not sure who does it—in order to try to bring into some sort of level the way in which the criminal legal aid system is administered in different courts.
I heard with some regret that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not feel able to make any change in the matter of legal aid or tribunals until the Royal Commission report. One well understands that it may be quite wrong to pre-empt what the Royal Commission may say; but I would emphasise this fact, that until the legal aid system is extended to cover tribunals a great many people will not be able to pursue their legitimate claims before industrial tribunals, medical tribunals and the like; they will simply be precluded from going to those tribunals at all because almost inevitably in matters before such tribunals the layman cannot present his case properly on his own. Therefore, I hope that the Royal Commission are going to come up eventually with a proposal that legal aid shall be so extended.
My Lords, that is all I want to say, except to conclude by again congratulating the noble and learned Lord and thanking him for the small mercies which he has given us now and the greater mercies which are going to be extended next year.
3.59 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I too would welcome these orders and, still more, the vista which my noble and learned friend has held out to us about the delights which he has in store for us in this field, during this Session. When I say "in this field" I shall confine my observations to civil legal aid. May I say as a further preliminary what a pleasure it is to me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have not had the pleasure of doing so before; I know his very wide experience in the whole of this field.
My Lords, the main problem with legal aid is not that, although it is nearly 30 years since it was brought into effect, the whole of the provisions of the 1949 Act are not yet in operation. I persuaded my colleagues to extend it for the first time to a tribunal. It has not yet been extended to other tribunals. There are still forms of action which it does not cover, but which it ought to cover.
676
However, the sad point about the whole of its history is the extent to which successive Governments have deprived people of their existing rights. As I have ventured to say on a previous occasion, it is absolutely useless for any Government to continue passing legislation, conferring rights on poor people or people of moderate means, if they cannot afford to enforce or defend their rights. If they cannot afford to enforce or defend their rights, they might just as well throw their rights into the wastepaper basket for all the good they are to them.
Mention has been made of the way in which successive Governments have actually reduced the numbers of people who are so entitled. In the last report of the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid and Advice at paragraph 16 it said:
"Increases in eligibility such as those in recent years can, however, only be marginal and can do little to repair the serious inadequacy of the present financial conditions. The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 and its successors, were designed to provide people of both small and moderate means with a subsidy where appropriate. There is now a large number of such people who are either ineligible for legal aid, advice and assistance, or if they are eligible, are unable to afford the contributions asked of them. These people cannot afford to establish or defend their rights and therefore the legal aid scheme fails to achieve what Parliament intended".
The advisory committee has stressed this point year after year and in its report of the previous year it illustrated the very large numbers—I suppose millions of families—who previously were entitled under the Act to enforce or to defend their legal rights, but whom successive Governments have deprived of doing so. It said in paragraph 15:
"A study made by our Special Consultant, with the help of the Central Statistical Office, confirms that the proportion of various social groups which are eligible for legal aid has generally fallen. The main conclusions of the study, which we think very significant, are that:—

(a) in 1950, when the scheme began, the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid on income grounds alone was over 80 per cent. (though the low capital limits would have reduced this proportion);

(b) between 1950 and 1974 there was a dramatic decline in eligiblity based on income grounds alone. By 1973, only about 40 per cent. of the population as a whole was covered, and this proportion would have been even lower if demographic and social changes had not increased the number of old-age pensioners and single-parent families;

(c) the decline was particularly marked in the case of married couples with children.

677
In 1964, over 60 per cent. of these couples were still eligible, but by 1974 the figure had shrunk to just over 20 per cent.;

(d) since 1974, the overall decline in eligibility appears to have been largely arrested;

(e) some part of this decline is due to an increase in the earnings of wives, but the rest is due to the failure, over many years, to keep the financial limits in line with earnings;

(f) at the same time as the failure of the financial limits to keep up with earnings has pushed a large proportion of the population outside the scope of the scheme, the cost of civil litigation has risen to such an extent that, despite higher earnings, the position of an unassisted party who has to pay his own way has worsened since the scheme began".

It concluded:
"thus the scheme has become more and more limited, and now only covers the legal problems of those with little or no income; and this is true of legal advice and assistance as well as of legal aid".
It is most regrettable that successive Governments should actually have deprived millions of families of legal rights which they had previously and could enforce, but who are now, as a consequence, outside the scheme.
I know that this is a subject very near to the heart of my noble and learned friend. All those concerned with legal aid know that no Lord Chancellor could have done more in this area than he has done. However, before closing may I ask him two questions? I apologise for not having given him notice of them, but not having heard what he was to say I was unable to do so. First, can he give us any idea when the Royal Commission is likely to report? Secondly, if all his intended proposals for the forthcoming Session are accepted by Parliament, can he give us any idea of what proportion of those who in recent years have been excluded from the scheme will be brought back into it?
4.6 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to make a few comments because I think that I am one of the two survivors of the Legal Aid Committee which devised the scheme which became the Legal Aid and Advice Act, almost without alteration. I think that the other survivor is my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has pointed out, the scheme as
678
devised and enacted covered a far wider area than it has been possible to implement at present. It is sad to realise that over the years the section of the community which was covered by the Legal Aid and Advice Act has narrowed almost year by year. I should like to join in welcoming the proposals put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and thank him for making such improvement as he can at present, and I look forward to seeing his further package proposals in the future. I hope that they will at least bring back within the scope of the Act that section of the community which was originally covered.
I do not intend to go into the details of percentages and matters like that, but I think that everyone who has sat on the Woolsack has known and experienced the difficulties of getting enough resources to be able to achieve what every Lord Chancellor since the passage of that Act has sought to achieve in respect of legal aid. One of the problems is the ever mounting cost. That must be faced, but at the same time I think that perhaps some close investigation should be made into the expenditure.
From all I hear, I would lend my support to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, said when he expressed the view that criminal legal aid was given too freely. I believe that there is substance in that observation and that it may be worth examining, although I must confess that during the passage of, and the debates on, the Legal Aid and Advice Act none of us, no matter on which side of the House we sat, and none of us on the Legal Aid and Advice Committee, was able to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of securing financial contribution from those charged with criminal offences who could well afford to make such contribution. Whether or not criminal bankruptcies and so on have enabled some funds to be extracted from them I do not know.
However, I have also heard it said—and this also may be worth looking into, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not doing so at present—that sometimes the grant of legal aid leads to cases lasting considerably longer than they should, and so to more expense on the fund. I am not sure whether that is happening, but I support the plea that

679
those who conduct legal aid cases should be adequately remunerated, and may I add—and this, I think, is perhaps even more important—promptly remunerated, for their services. If one could ensure that the money is perhaps better spent and investigate that matter and secure some savings, it might make room for some improvement in the level of remuneration. The granting of legal aid before tribunals has always been a difficult question, but now that there are so many tribunals I would certainly support the proposal that it should be available for some. I rose only to add a few words and to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on what he has been able to achieve in the face of what, I have no doubt, were considerable difficulties.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I propose to exercise patience and forbearance.
4.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which these modest regulations introduce in the legal aid field, but I can only say how relieved I am that at least I was able to announce the package, because had I been relying entirely upon the modest increases in the regulations now before your Lordships' House I should have come into this Chamber very naked indeed.
The package to which I refer is, of course, related to the civil field. Responsibility for criminal aid is divided between the Home Secretary and myself. He has responsibility for what goes on in the Crown Court; I have responsibility for what goes on in the Magistrates' Court—part of that fascinating pattern which, for better or for worse, history has imposed upon our legal institutions.
Naturally, I have listened carefully to what has been said about criminal legal aid. I am bound to say that the complaints that come to me with regard to my responsibility for criminal legal aid in Magistrates' Courts are not that such aid is given too freely, but that it is not given frequently enough, and attention is drawn to the curious variation in the practices of one Magistrates' Court compared to another. Some, which I shall not name, show a great reluctance to grant legal aid;
680
others make legal aid very freely available. This is a field where I do my best to try to secure a better balance.
However, these are of course matters which are left to the discretion of the courts themselves. Parliament has decided upon that. Therefore, the extent to which 1, as a Minister, can give directions as to practices and amounts is limited. All I can say is that we do our best in the various ways open to us—for example, in my addresses to the Magistrates' Association and in other ways—to move towards as much uniformity in practice as possible.
With regard to the plea for legal aid for tribunals, there is, as noble Lords have said, a very great proliferation of tribunals in the country. They go to very large numbers indeed. At present, legal aid is available in three trinunals—namely, the Lands Tribunal, the Commons Commissioners and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The view has been taken that, so far as possible, the proceedings before tribunals should be informal and should be dealt with without the participation of lawyers. However, I am bound to say that, particularly in the field of industrial tribunals, the greater complexity of the provisions presents serious problems which greatly concern me. On the whole, the trade unions—I do not speak of all the trade unions—have tended to take the view that the less the lawyers dominate the proceedings before industrial tribunals the better. They favour rather more representation by trade union experts in this field, and they believe that for officials to spend a great deal of time instructing often rather young counsel or solicitors who are not very experienced in the field, is highly unrewarding. I shall not go into the merits of that, but that is a point of view and it is a point of view that is very strongly held.
However, legal aid is already available for the Employment Appeal Tribunal which, of course, hears appeals on points of law from the industrial tribunals. As I have said, the Government will await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, which I have no doubt will have gone into these matters in some depth. I am afraid that I cannot tell the House when the Royal Commission will report, but I certainly intend that the Bill—which, as I have said, is an important

681
part of my package—will be introduced early in the new year, and I anticipate that that will happen before the Royal Commission reports, which I hope will be in the late spring or the summer. I had better not repeat the ancient formula of time which proved so misleading when one of my right honourable friends made a guess a long time ago. As Mark Twain said:
"It is always very dangerous to prophesy, especially about future events".
Turning to the immediate matters of the legal aid package, I hope that it will not be disappointing when it surfaces. However, I assure noble Lords that it has distressed me greatly to see the decline in the number of people eligible for legal aid. I held the high office of Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, when we introduced the legal aid schemes in the House of Commons. The expectations which he then expressed—which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has read to us—were certainly what we intended. However, let us not overlook the fact that the legal aid scheme which we then introduced has, in the meantime, helped millions of our citizens to obtain justice in the civil courts and to obtain proper defence in the criminal courts. This country was a pioneer in this area. Perhaps by now the United States have caught up with us; some of the Commonwealth countries have fol-owed our example and it may well be that they have overtaken us.
We all know that the last two or three years have been a period when every Department of State has had to make sacrifices. Cuts in public expenditure have become necessary, and I had to make my contribution. However, having made my contribution—and I was able to do so because of the simplification of divorce proceedings which, frankly, rendered participation by lawyers in the courts an expensive waste in most cases in those matters which were undefended and where no issues were left for decision—I have come virtuously to the doors of the Treasury and at last I am able to reap some reward for my patience.
I cannot tell my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner what precise proportion of the population will be able to enjoy legal aid. I shall not guess at that
682
at this moment, but I am anxious to ensure that there will be a very large increase in the number of households that will become eligible. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has referred to the struggle by Lord Chancellors to get their share of the resources available, and these are, of course, the battles that go on in a little room in Number 10. Everyone who has held my office will know what the problems are. However, as I say, although there has been this disappointment in not maintaining the legal aid scheme at the original high level, it has nevertheless been a very important part—indeed, in my view, one of the most important parts—of the social services that we in this country provide.
I conclude by thanking those noble Lords who have spoken. I wish that one or two of the non-lawyers in the House had contributed, but I make no complaint about that. This is a matter which greatly concerns the ordinary man and woman in the street and his family who, when they come up against the law, are entitled to get such assistance as we can give, otherwise we shall be back in the days when it was said that the Law Courts, like the doors of the Ritz Hotel, were open to everybody. Well, we do not want to revert to that state of affairs, and I look forward early in the New Year, or at least not late in the New Year, to carrying out the promises I have made to your Lordships today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1978
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I formally move that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1978 be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 1st November, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS)(No. 2) REGULATIONS 1978
4.21 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his earlier remarks, the Scottish Regulations parallel the regulations we have just been discussing as they relate to England and Wales, and accordingly I do not propose to add any further comment. Accordingly I beg to move that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1978 be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 2nd November, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1978
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1978 be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 2nd November, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE QUEEN'S FLIGHT
4.23 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to re-equip the Queen's Flight with modern aircraft. The noble Earl said: My Lords, no one, I think, can deny that the Queen's Flight is the most prestigious in the world. The Andovers which it possesses are washed daily, polished weekly, and are painted every three years. I have not seen it but I am told that the floor of the hangar is so spotless that you could eat your dinner
684
off it. So far so good, and I do not think anyone would argue that the situation should be any different, but there is one thing glaringly wrong: the three Andovers are 14 years old and are turbo-props. I admit that they are fine aircraft and they still have many other operational uses, but not for the aerial transportation of the Queen, the Royal Family, certain Ministers of State, visiting Heads of State, and other dignitaries from abroad.
To my mind, there can be no argument whatsoever for not modernising the Flight and re-equipping it with the British Aerospace 1–11. This country invented the jet aircraft and, as such, the Queen should travel in a modern British jet aircraft. The fact that she does not is really unbelievable. In 1972 the Air Board approved an order for two 1–11s, but this was turned down by the then Government. A re-equipment programme was examined again last year, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked an Unstarred Question on, I think, 5th July, and just before Christinas the present Government turned the scheme down, although rumour has it that it was a photo-finish, so the Queen's Flight nearly won.
The jet operational performance for the Queen's Flight calls for short field and short sector performance together with a long-range potential for overseas tours, and the long-range requirement would save money by preventing the need to charter commercial aircraft. The 1–11 475 would meet all these requirements as it could be fitted with extra tanks under the floors, which would then give it a range of 2,750 nautical miles. One of these aeroplanes costs about £6 million, but, believe it or not, a third of this cost is in its avionics. However, it is by no means impossible that the three Andovers would fetch £1 million each on the American market, particularly bearing in mind their present ownership.
I would not argue that the running costs of the 1–11 would not be more expensive, but I think one must look at the other side of the coin and examine it very carefully. In 1977, there were 37 Royal VIP flights and/or tours abroad, and these entailed visiting 22 countries. This year, up to 8th November, which is only six days ago, there have been 32 flights

685
which have visited 20 countries, and in the five years from 1973 to 1978 a total of 60 different nations have been visited. While I am on this subject of foreign and Commonwealth countries, I should like to point out to noble Lords that the Heads of State and Governments of 55 countries alphabetically from Algeria to Zaire have a total of 139 jet aircraft between them. Should any noble Lord wish to see this impressive list I have it here in my hand.
So what better chance or opportunity could we give the British Aerospace industry as a sales promotion platform for other countries to buy British? It is still not too late for the Queen's Flight to boost British air technology and engineering, but, even if this should not happen, let us look at one or two other perhaps more mundane reasons why the Flight should be re-equipped. First of all, more speed and greater range offers greater security. More day sectors flown mean fewer night stops, and this reduces security arrangements, whether they be against hoaxes or real threats from extremists. Thirdly, as an alternative to civil charter, RAF Transport Command has to provide VC 10s. This means taking an aircraft out of service, and fitting it out specially. The man-hours involved for this preparation, both primary and back-up, are prodigious.
The present Queen's Flight operates without back-up aircraft and with com-paritively few serving personnel. The latter are under the more than able command of Air Commodore Whinskill, who, alas, is not present this afternoon as he is en route to Saudi Arabia where he is arranging for next January's State visit by the Queen in a civil charter aircraft. Operating a 1–11 to such a distant destination as, say, Singapore would take an insignificantly longer time than using a VC 10, as the 1–11 would be ready to go at one day's notice. In addition to all this, the jet operating technique of quick rates of ascent and descent with the ability to cruise above the weather avoids prolonged flight in turbulence. Let us not forget that the Andover takes something like 30 minutes to reach its cruise height of 15,000 feet. Today, in the jet age, there is really no excuse for giving the Royal Family or VIPs a rough ride at turbo-prop cruising altitude. I believe it is known that whenever possible, Ministers
686
—and I do not blame them—try to catch a 125 if they can, so as to avoid turbulence.
What gives me great disquiet is that I am given to understand that no provision has been made in the Ministry of Defence budget in the next 10 years for money to re-equip the Queen's Flight. If so, then by that date the Andovers will be 24 years old. There is also a minor smokescreen which seems to be issuing that perhaps the new British Aerospace 146 might be obtained. I am in agreement on that, but with one proviso, namely, that the 146 will probably not fly for about five years and then it will take at least two years for it to be proven, so the earliest it could be in service with the Queen's Flight is in seven years.
There are a few "knockers" about who say the 1–11 is too noisy. Perhaps it was unfortunate at Farnborough this year that the commentator spoke about the hush kit in the 1–11; most people at Farnborough thought the demonstrator had that equipment fitted. In fact, the aeroplane was noisy because the hush kit was not fitted. As British Airways are supposedly buying three more 1–11s—my noble friend Lord Kinnoull will be asking about that next week—and given that these aircraft will meet the noise requirements in the mid-80's, the argument that the 1–11s for the Queen's Flight would be too noisy seems irrelevant.
To disgress slightly, on 23rd October last, it was reported in a newspaper that the Ministry of Defence would be spending £200 million on a new fleet of executive aircraft to replace the Devons and Pembrokes to transport Ministers, top brass and senior civil servants. This may be necessary because the Devons and Pembrokes are, I agree, very old, but please let us get our priorities right first and re-equip the Queen's Flight. It was also mentioned in that report that these replacement aircraft would be American Cessnas. In fact, a Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed that this re-equipment was under "active consideration", but gracefully added:
"Naturally, in the course of this consideration we need to look at all possible options, foreign as well as British".
I agree that, if there are no suitable British replacements, they should be European, and last of all should they be American. Next week in your Lordships'

687
House there will be a short debate on the subject. Will the Minister confirm or deny that report?
Reverting to the Queen's Flight, surely the greatest argument of all is "prestige" in capital letters. If we are to sell our technology and aircraft throughout the world to foreign and Commonwealth countries, however immaculate the Andovers may be, it must be a terrific stumbling block to possible would-be purchasers of modern British aircraft. Fifteen per cent. of the Queen's Flight business is non-Royal and, as I said, in addition to VI Ps from our own country, in the last year it has carried Chancellor Schmidt, President Giscard d'Estaing and King Hussein. A civil servant once said, "There is no need to replace the State Coach, so why replace the Andovers?" A young Queen's Flight officer pointed out, "Britain is not in business trying to sell state coaches".
If the Minister gives a non-committal or negative answer, I ask Her Majesty's Government here and now to re-think the whole question all over again. If they do, I am convinced they will come up with a very different answer and that the balance sheet will come out on the plus side. This is the last opportunity we shall ever have of letting the Queen's Flight have a wholly British-built jet aircraft. Do not let us make yet another aviation blunder. I ask the Minister when she answers for Her Majesty's Government to give the reasons and objections in great detail for not re-equipping the Queen's Flight, if i that is their intention, because the old chestnut of "We can't afford it" will not wash, as to re-equip the Queen's Flight with 1–11s would be a gilt-edge investment.
Let Her Majesty have the type of aircraft of which she is more than worthy as well as one of which not only Her Majesty can be proud but millions of loyal and devoted subjects will approve, an aircraft which will enhance the prestige of not only the Queen's Flight but the whole of Britain. Perhaps on this day—a special day, 14th November—Her Majesty's Government might consider answering my Question with a positive and constructive reply. What a truly wonderful birthday present a satisfactory Answer would be for our intrepid aviator, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales!
4.36 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are, as always, grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this matter; he often raises in your Lordships' House aeronautical subjects of this kind, and he has done so today with his usual clarity and force. Having said that, I am bound to say there is a certain air of déjà vu about all this. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull raised this matter 15 months ago and we had a long debate on it then, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, replied for the Government on that occasion.
There are two separate aspects to this matter. There is the undoubted need to give urgent consideration to the replacement of the Andover Fleet, and at the same time we must consider the need to replace the equally aging Wessex helicopters, of which the Royal Flight has two. When I spoke to my noble friend's Unstarred Question 15 months ago I asked the Government to undertake a study of the work carried out by the Royal Flight, not only flights involving members of the Royal Family but flights involving senior Ministers and visiting Heads of State. We cannot effectively consider the need for a replacement—rather, which aircraft to adopt as a replacement—without first embarking on a study of that sort.
Lord Kimberley confined his remarks to the need for a replacement of the fixed wing aeroplanes, but, as I said, we must also consider the rotary wing helicopters and I do not think the two can be divorced in any study that is taking place. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be able to give a sympathetic response to my plea, which I repeat, namely, that we must study this matter carefully before embarking on over-hasty decisions perhaps for the wrong reasons. Having said all that, quite clearly the choice of a fixed wing replacement comes down to three aeroplanes; the HS 125, the British Aerospace 146 and of course the 1–11. Like Lord Kimberley, I tend to think that the first two, the 125 and the 146, are, for various reasons, unacceptable. The 125 is very small—in fact it is already used by the Royal Family a good deal—and, as the noble Earl said, the 146 is not yet in production and is not likely to be available for four or five years. We are, therefore, down to the 1–11, which is

689
undoubtedly the best British aircraft available for this purpose. I agree it would be quite unacceptable to consider anything other than a British aircraft, particularly as there is a very reasonable range from which to choose.
The 1–11, however, is a considerably larger aeroplane than the Andovers presently in service and it will therefore be necessary to consider the possibility of using these aircraft more widely than they are at present used by the Queen's Flight in order to justify the very high costs that will be involved. When I spoke on the last occasion I think I mentioned a figure of £20 million as the cost of securing a small fleet of these aeroplanes—perhaps, two or three—together with the necessary spares and the necessary introductory costs, not least of which would be a simulator for crew training purposes.
I have no doubt that the RAF would be reluctant to introduce a new type of aircraft into its inventory, but I fear that in these circumstances there will be no alternative. I believe that the question of the extra utilisation is of paramount importance in this matter because it is necessary to use a modern jet aircraft, at least to the extent of 2,000 hours a year, and on the information that I have so far the Royal Flight could not produce that kind of workload for two or three aeroplanes. Thus, we are obliged to contemplate an extension of the use of the aeroplanes by Ministers and others, and that does not always have a very favourable reception in Parliament and elsewhere.
When I was seeking material for my remarks this afternoon, I got in touch with the Under-Secretary of State's office, and they were kind enough to send me some information including photocopies of Questions asked in the other place by Mr. William Hamilton, and I do not suppose that I need tell your Lordships about the kind of Questions that he had been asking about the Royal Flight. If the Flight was to acquire a whole fleet of new aeroplanes, it would undoubtedly cause more Questions from Mr. Hamilton and his friends, and I do not think that particularly desirable.
The other important aspect of the matter is the question of the rotary wing aircraft. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who
690
is to speak later, is a very much greater expert than I in these matters, but I believe that he will agree with me when I say that the two Wessex helicopters also need early replacement. The only possibility of helicopters available would be the Sea King helicopter presently used by the Royal Navy, or some derivative of it. That particular helicopter is a licence-built and much modified version of an American helicopter called the S61, and it may be that we would be better advised in thinking about the S61 itself, rather than the Sea King; but either way I believe that one of these two alternatives would be desirable.
As I said earlier, I believe that the secret of this matter must be the investigation which should be carried out into the scale of the problem and the best way of solving it. This was the point that I made as forcefully as I could on the last occasion we discussed the matter, and I make it again tonight. I hope that the Government will accept that this is the way to proceed, and that they can give us an assurance that the considerations that have been given in the past, and which have resulted in either no decision or a postponed decision, can now be taken into account again and produce a more satisfactory conclusion.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this Question today. The noble Earl has built up an enviable reputation for his knowledge on aviation matters, particularly in terms of furthering the cause of British industry. I suggest that but for his energy and enthusiasm there would be many a day—including today—when your Lordships' Business would look a little thin and uncolourful. Like other noble Lords, I wish to pay a tribute to the Queen's Flight and to the 183 men and women who make up that elite team. Anyone who has been down to RAF Benson and has seen how they operate cannot but come away refreshed having been imbued with the spirit of dedication, pride and enthusiasm with which each member appears motivated. They give remarkable reliability and service with a punctuality which I think is second to none. Indeed, I consider that the Queen's Flight is a very special arm of the

691
Royal Air Force, and one of which all those who have served, and who are serving, in it, can be justifiably proud.
The issue of re-equipping the Queen's Flight with modern jet aircraft is no new one, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has acknowledged. From what one has read the Air Board recommended it in 1972, and my noble friend Lord Carrington, who is sitting in front of me, probably has a good idea of that. But it did not happen. We read that the issue came up again last November, but again was not confirmed. One has assumed that on both occasions other priorities of the day on costs, on the precious defence budget that we have, have overruled a decision. We all miss the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, from the Government Front Bench, though we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in his place. When we discussed the issue last July the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said that the decision was not when, but how soon, in the light of the current restrictions on public expenditure. Like the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I do not accept that one cannot justify now the updating of the Queen's Flight with, I suggest, two BAC 1–11s. The justification clearly falls into three parts. The first is obvious—prestige. It is not a question of prestige or loss of prestige to our Monarch, but it is a question of prestige or loss of prestige to our industry.
This is a very well-tried argument which I know at present has not won the stone hearts of the Treasury, but like the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I believe that the question of prestige is very important when deciding this issue. It must seem very odd to many people, particularly in this country, where we are so proud of our industry, so proud of being the inventors of the jet engine, and the co-designers of Concorde, that we still offer our Head of State a 15-year-old Andover with all its limitations of range, speed and poor weather flying. What impressions do foreign Heads of State take back with them after experiencing a bumpy flight up to Aberdeen? Certainly they will take back a unique experience, because I do not think that there are any other Heads of State who have such an aircraft.
With regard to the cost, this, too, has been a very strong argument against
692
re-equipping the Queen's Flight. If one looks at the capital cost one sees—and I am sure that the noble Baroness will confirm whether or not this is so—that the cost of purchasing two BAC 1–11 aircraft and their equipment would be in the region of £15 million. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has said, the resale value on the Royal Flight Andovers is not precisely known, but if one looks at the price which a second-hand Royal kilt made only yesterday, I cannot believe that the second-hand value of a Royal Flight Andover would not be a considerable figure.
The purchasing of two new aircraft is not entirely based upon the capital cost, but also on the operational costs. These aircraft will be operating for a very long time. I suspect we shall be told from the noble Baroness's brief that the Andover is a very suitable aircraft; it is very reliable, it is very good for short journeys, and it is very economical. And for the long journeys, what is wrong with chartering British Airways aircraft or the Royal Air Force DC 10s? How do the Government evaluate the operational costs of the Andover? How do they evaluate the costs of obtaining spares now for the Andover? How do they evaluate the extra costs of security necessary for the short flights that have to be made? How do they evaluate the lack of room for equipment on tour? How do they evaluate the cost of charters, the special fitting out of British Airways aircraft, against any costs of acquiring, say, the BAC 1–11?
Turning briefly, if I may, to the use of the aircraft and the extra capacity the 1–11 would give, clearly this is another argument which, in the past, has swayed against a decision. We know that the number of operations that the Royal Flight perform every year has to be of a fairly low nature compared with similar aircraft, if there are any, in airlines—and the reason is obvious. The Royal Flight has no backup or reserves; it has to be serviceable all the time. My Lords, 85 per cent. of its operations, I believe, are performed for members of the Royal Family and 15 per cent. for either Ministers or Government use. How can one justify purchasing new equipment with extra capacity when existing equipment appears, by airlines standards, to be underused? The answer, I believe, is simple: it is to

693
rationalise the Government use of the Queen's Flight; it is to widen that use; it is to allow more Ministers to fly by Queen's Flight on trips abroad; it is to examine whether the Department of Trade really need, separately, the HS 125s, and whether the Civil Aviation Authority need, separately, their HS 125s. Should not all of these come under the flag of the Queen's Flight? The savings by way of Government chartering aircraft and air fares by Ministers would, I believe, be very sizeable; and the rationalisation of use, I am sure, would help if examined when looking at this re-equipment decision.
The last argument I use in support of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, is the industrial one. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the decision by British Airways to buy virtually entirely American aircraft in their very sizeable re-equipment programme has come as a real body blow to British Aerospace, particularly to its civil division and particularly to the BAC 1–11. I believe it would be a very great fillip to that industry if a small order from the most prestigious carrier, the Queen's Flight, could be placed. Not only would it help the production lines: it would help those who have to sell the aircraft abroad. I hope the noble Earl's Question today will give an opportunity for the Government to say that a decision on re-equipment is not only under review but is likely to be made very shortly. This would be cheering news coming from the noble Baroness, whose first sortie into aviation matters I think this is; and seeing her smile, I am indeed hopeful.
4.54 p.m.
Lord GLENARTHUR: My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, this is the second occasion within 16 months when the re-equipment of the Queen's Flight has been discussed in your Lordships' House; and I, too, should like to say how grateful we must be to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for once more bringing the subject to our attention, because a debate of this kind highlights the technical and practical aspects, but particularly, as has already been said, the strength of feeling on the much more important aspect of prestige. I concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by earlier speakers in
694
connection with the need to replace the Andovers. These aircraft have served their purpose, and indeed they continue to serve it well. They have proved reliable and adaptable, and not altogether unpopular with their passengers; and they are a very fine aircraft in their own right. But they are slow; they cannot always fly high enough to avoid the weather; they have a limited range; and they are, let us face it, becoming old-fashioned. On the positive side, however, they have excellent short-field performance, and this is certainly an advantage in many cases where airfields are small, particularly abroad and in some of the remoter areas of the United Kingdom.
It occurs to me, however, that in addition to this there is one rather tenuous advantage to these aircraft in that they in fact take rather longer on short sectors than a jet might, which probably allows members of the Royal Family, in particular, time to relax a little between their engagements. In speeding the whole process up there might be a temptation to expect an already very full programme to be filled still further. It also goes without saying that heed should be paid to the views of those for whom the Queen's Flight primarily exists. After all, they include two accomplished and knowledgeable aviators in His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales.
I should like to leave my comments on fixed-wing aircraft at that, but I want to draw attention to the helicopters in the Flight. The two Wessex helicopters are about nine years old, and their rate of use has risen significantly. The Wessex is a fine aircraft with twin-engined reliability; it is reasonably economical and in general, proven service with the Royal Air Force. Indeed, it has the considerable added safety factor of having among the best single-engined performance in the event of one engine failing of all helicopters on the market. But with its special interior it can carry only three or four passengers and rather limited baggage, and its range is limited to about 200 miles.
It seems to me that notwithstanding the success of the Wessex—and here I speak as a professional helicopter pilot—the needs of the Royal Family and others who use the aircraft might be better served by a helicopter of greater range and greater

695
capacity—greater payload—than the Wessex. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, if consideration will now be given to the replacement of the Wessex in due course by, for example, a version of the Sea King or the S 61, as we have already heard suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, or, ultimately, the proposed Sea King replacement, the WG 34. The range of the Sea King is double that of the Wessex, and the pay-load, also, is at least double that of the Wessex. Such an aircraft would add considerably to the scope of helicopter travel within the Queen's Flight.
I should also like to ask whether, given the increase in use of the Queen's Flight helicopters, consideration might be given to the acquisition of one of the smaller, faster, new technology third generation helicopters. These are capable of carrying a load similar to that of the Wessex for Queen's Flight purposes and at considerably higher speeds—one is talking of 110 knots going up as far as 150 knots nowadays—with much less vibration and noise, and indeed more cheaply. Coupled with this, can the noble Baroness also say whether the requirement to "buy British" is absolutely sacrosanct?—because among the smaller new technology helicopters there is sadly not a suitable British type. The Lynx, although an excellent aircraft in its military role, is not really a suitable passenger-carrying aircraft; and the Puma, which is also partly made by Westlands, is not full of passenger appeal either. Helicopters such as the Sikorsky S 76 and the Bell 222 come to mind as possible starters. I strongly endorse the ideal of using British aircraft, but a purchase of American aircraft would not be entirely without precedent because, after all, the Whirlwind, the Wessex and the Sea King are all of United States ancestry.
In summary, therefore, the priority must go to replacing the Andover; but will the Government now consider adequate replacements for the Wessex and possible augmentation with new-technology aircraft to meet the Queen's Flight helicopter requirements for the future? It is in this area that there has been such a significant increase in use, and, in the field of helicopters particularly much progress has been made in recent years which could enable those serving
696
in the Queen's Flight, with their zeal, enthusiasm and professionalism, to carry out their duties even more effectively than they do at present.
5 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should like first to welcome the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Winter-bottom and perhaps I am the one who misses his presence most on this Front Bench, for I find myself unexpectedly taking his place in this debate this afternoon—I think as perhaps the only amateur who has taken part in it. I have listened with interest to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and other noble Lords about the re-equipment of the Queen's Flight with suitable aircraft. Her Majesty's Government recently examined the case for re-equipment. It was, again, concluded that replacement of the aircraft of the Queen's Flight was not justified at this time. Before I go on to deal in more detail with the reasons behind that decision, it might be helpful to noble Lords if I gave a little more general information about the Queen's Flight. At present, the Flight operates three Andovers, which it has had since 1964, and two Wessex helicopters, which it had had since 1969.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the primary factor which must be taken into account when considering aircraft to be employed in the Queen's Flight is safety. On this count, the Andovers and Wessex have such impressive records which result from a combination of the extremely high standards of maintenance and airmanship achieved by the members of the Queen's Flight and the excellence of the aircraft themselves.
May I digress for a little and talk about the role and the justification for the Queen's Flight, how it is commanded and controlled, and about its cost and manpower at the present day? The Queen's Flight, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has told us, is a dedicated and self-contained unit which is used for the routine official journeys by Her Majesty the Queen and by other members of the Royal Family and for some years, with the approval of the Palace, the use of the Queen's Flight has been extended to certain senior Government Ministers, Defence VIPs and, as we heard from the

697
noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, important foreign visitors to our shores. In all, something like 600 passengers are carried every year, of whom about 150 are not members of the Royal Family.
The existence of the Flight derives from the need to provide a service which is geared to meet a heavy round of official engagements with very tight schedules to meet. This demands very high standards of flight, of aircraft safety, administrative efficiency and physical security because VIP travel itself poses its own particular problems and experience has shown that these are best handled by
experienced staff. The Flight is composed of volunteer personnel who are trained, equipped and organised to maintain the special engineering and supply standards for aircraft maintenance and component inspection that are required. The historical association of the Queen's Flight with the Royal Family is one of 30 years' continuous service and one which is held in very great pride by the RAF. The establishment and retention of the special unit has brought prestige and favourable world-wide publicity to the RAF as a whole.
The essential justification for the Flight is that it is the most cost-effective way of providing the special facilities and personnel that are required. A study has been carried out in the past few years by the RAF to see whether the Queen's Flight could operate more efficiently and effectively as part of one of the RAF's normal operational commands. It was concluded that there were many disadvantages of organisation, command and control of maintenance of security and of cost in such a proposal; but it is something that is kept under review by the Ministry of Defence, and no doubt from time to time they will ask the RAF to have another look as to whether there cannot be some sort of integrated service within other RAF units.
On command and control, the command of the Queen's Flight is vested in an Air Officer Commanding in Chief Strike Command and is delegated by him to 38 Group who exercise the operational and disciplinary control through the Captain of the Queen's Flight who is a retired air commodore. When established in post, the Captain of the Flight by tradition retires from the Service but
698
continues as a civilian member of the Queen's Household. Thus, he is responsible both to Her Majesty and through the Air Officer Commanding in Chief Strike Command to the Ministry of Defence for maintaining the operational, administrative and engineering efficiency of the unit and for its Service and civilian performance. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has said, the present officer in charge of the Queen's Flight is at this moment proving, as it were, the flight to Saudi Arabia for Her Majesty's future visit.
The present establishment of the unit is some 20 officers, 152 other ranks and three civilians. All of these are highly-qualified and specially selected volunteers; and, although the Flight is part of the RAF within Strike Command, it is a separate and self-contained unit and most of its personnel are not subject to the normal operational tours of duty elsewhere in the Service. Many of the ground crew remain with the Flight for several years despite the pressure of many long hours and exacting standards which are created by the need to maintain the highest technical expertise and to provide aircraft often at very short notice. For the air crew, the longer tours are particularly valuable in providing a long and thorough apprenticeship necessary to build up to the required efficiency and familiarity with all the aspects of Royal and VIP air travel.
As we were reminded today, the unit is sited at RAF Benson, within easy reach of Heathrow and RAF Northolt as well as the grounds of Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace. It is completely self-contained with its own officers, hangars, workshops and stores. I welcome and join in the tributes to the personnel concerned with the Queen's Flight for the magnificent job they do and the way they keep all these aircraft available at a moment's notice.
On the running costs and manpower, the latest available annual running cost of the Flight is about £1·8 million. On the hourly running costs, the cost per flying hour in terms of spares, petrol and lubricants for the Andover is about £200 per hour and for the Wessex £230 per hour. If the BAC 1–11 (which has been suggested) flew as many hours as the Andover—and I accept that they fly

699
faster or go further in the same time—their cost on a similar basis would be £720 an hour. This costing information is at the moment in process of up-dating. The
final figures were not available for me to use this afternoon but it is expected that the increase is likely to be in the order of 10 per cent. On the manpower, we have the 20 officers and the 152 airmen and three civilians. In 1977 the Queen's Flight flew 1,118 flights including 729 positioning flights. In my innocence, being new to this field, I had to inquire what positioning flights were and I was told that they were the flights to get the machines from Benson to wherever the actual journey starts. One could argue that they arc part of the journey itself, but they are counted separately. Fifty nine of the flights carried Government Ministers, Defence officials, or important foreign visitors. In the first six months of this year, some 532 flights have already taken place of which 383 were for training, positioning and testing and 32 have been for Ministers, officials and foreign visitors.
The unit at RAF Benson has the facilities and expertise to carry out not only the first and second line servicing but also third line major overhauls. Because of the great utilisation of aircraft, the maintenance standards are extremely high and exacting. The aircraft must be 100 per cent. serviceable before each flight and, on their return, they are immediately serviced regardless of the time. Those components which have particular safety or functional importance are changed when only half the life predicted by the manufacturer has expired so that these machines are always well within the bounds of safety.
As a general rule, the Andovers are employed for the longer journeys up to 800 miles and the Wessex for the short journeys up to 200 miles. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Glen-arthur, and I will mention the point he raised to my right honourable friend, because personally I found his arguments, so far as helicopters were concerned, very convincing. The need for a helicopter was very well demonstrated by Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Northern Ireland last year. As for the Andover, it is still an excellent aircraft for the job and, bearing in mind the meticulous
700
maintenance standards applied, it could remain safely in service for many years to come. One of the most important capabilities that the Andover offers is the ability to operate in the smaller airfields. The 1977 Jubilee Tour made by Her Majesty the Queen to Papua New Guinea and the Fiji Island Group demonstrated this admirably.
Noble Lords will appreciate that there are occasions when the Queen will need to fly over longer distances than is possible in the Andover. On these occasions, satisfactory arrangements have been made to utilise either an RAF VC 10 or an aircraft provided by British Airways or other civil airlines. "Why cannot the Flight have more modern aircraft?" and "Why cannot the Government consider being equipped notably by BAC1–11s, HS 125s or others?" are questions which every noble Lord has asked today. If we may deal with the HS 125 first, this aircraft is already in service with the RAF Communication Fleet and has been used on occasion by members of the Royal Family. It would not be a suitable replacement for the Andover because, as has been explained this afternoon, it cannot carry as many passengers, it has limited baggage space and does not have such a good short-field performance.
The BAC 1–11 has fewer drawbacks although it would not be able to get into some of the smaller airfields that the Andover can safely use now. The BAC 1–11 is undoubtedly a first-class aircraft and to procure it for the Queen's Flight would no doubt be an excellent advertisement for a British product. But the existing Queen's Flight, together with the RAF's VC 10s, also continue to provide an excellent service. The cost of the Queen's Flight is of course borne on the defence budget. Any proposal to re-equip the Queen's Flight must therefore be considered alongside other demands on the defence budget.
I am sure that noble Lords appreciate that there is at this time much pressure on Her Majesty's Government to improve our military capability. The Government have accepted this and are carrying out the promises that they have made in response to President Carter's initiative at last May's NATO Summit. These improvements to our Armed Forces, many of which have been announced by

701
my right honourable colleague in another place, have to be funded from the defence budget at a time when the fight against inflation, to which the Government are all so heavily committed, requires strict control over public expenditure.
The Government are well aware of the arguments in favour of re-equipping the Queen's Flight. They have been admirably and
forcefully expressed here, not only by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in asking his Question but by all other noble Lords who have spoken. The Government accept the force of many of these arguments, but they still consider that they are not sufficiently strong when considered alongside the other demands on defence resources to justify the re-equipment at this time. Perhaps I am really repeating in rather more words Lord Winterbottom's earlier reply when he said that the answer is still not when but how soon the funds are available for this project as against the other priorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said that the Ministry of Defence were spending some £200 million to replace the Devons and the Pembrokes. My understanding is that these are communications aircraft which can last well into the 1980s. The Department is at present studying their replacement, but the cost quoted in the House this afternoon we think is wildly exaggerated and might be more of the order of the £20 million quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in another instance.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested the Department of Trade and Civil Aviation Authority's HS 125s ought to be integrated in the Queen's Flight. I am sure that we may find when we look at this that it is impracticable for the same reasons as those for not integrating the Queen's Flight in the RAF's operational fleet. But I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
I welcome the opportunity to hear the views of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and his colleagues and to learn more about this subject for myself as well on the question of re-equipping the Queen's Flight. We are aware of the need to keep the question under review, not least because of the need to maintain rigorous safety standards, and I can assure noble Lords that all the points that they have
702
made today will be brought once again to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and particularly the idea of another detailed study and the suggestions for rationalisation and increasing use of the Queen's Flight, but that I am afraid is as far as I can go this afternoon in answering the noble Lord's Question.
Lord NAPIER and ETTRICK: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether it is possible to indicate to your Lordships' House when she thinks it will be an opportune moment to consider replacing these somewhat ancient Andovers? Are we thinking of 1980, 1985 or when?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my information is that the Andovers can quite safely remain in service for another six years. I understand that they have a flight life of something like 20 years and only 14 have gone by at the moment. Further than that I could not say at this point in time. All the while the Queen's Flight is part of the Defence budget it means that its needs are weighed against all the other military decisions that have to be taken by the Government. It is a question of when that priority gets to the top or more money is available to enable us to do this job.

PENSIONERS PAYMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
SHEFFIELD CEMETERY BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and (pursuant to the Resolutions made on 26th July last) pro forma, read 2a, and reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and (pursuant to the Resolutions made on 26th July last) pro forma, read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.