Lords Sitting of 18 July 1979

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

LORD GODBER OF WILLINGTON
The Right Honourable Joseph Bradshaw Godber, having been created Baron Godber of Willington, of Willington in the County of Bedfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the Lord Carr of Hadley.

LORD CLEDWYN OF PENRHOS
The Right Honourable Cledwyn Hughes, CH, having been created Baron Cledwyn of Penrhos, of Holyhead in the Isle of Anglesey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Elwyn-Jones and the Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
The Lord Killanin—Took the Oath.
The Lord Dunleath—Took the Oath.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: FUTURE
2.38 p.m.
The MARQUESS of DONEGALL: 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 future they envisage for the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE: HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government see a continuing role for the Equal Opportunities Commission; however, our detailed policies regarding the Commission's work are being worked out.
The MARQUESS of DONEGALL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Are the Government aware that any review—and I understood the noble
1418
Lord to say that one was being undertaken —of the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, if it is to be a useful review on behalf of the taxpayers, need occupy only a very short time? Are the Government further aware that it would be extremely difficult to take seriously their intention to economise and give the taxpayers good value for their money if they continue to employ this organisation in any form whatever?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the Equal Opportunities Commission's budget will be included in the Government's overall review of public expenditure.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are still many examples of discrimination which operate to the detriment of men? Is he, for example, aware of the fact that if a Peer marries his wife becomes a Lady with a capital " L ", whereas if a Peeress (or woman Peer) marries, her husband remains plain " Mr "? That is a scandalous example of discrimination.
Lord BELSTEAD: If that is the case, my Lords, it is a matter for the Equal Opportunities Commission. I should like to point out to the noble Lord and to my noble friend that the Commission is, of course, independent in the day-to-day conduct of its business.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on the statement contained in the Conservative Political Centre's recent publication The Quango Explosion, that the Equal Opportunities Commission employs a total of 400 staff? Will he tell the House the actual number of staff currently employed by the Commission?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, 171.
[See Personal Statement: col. 2035.]
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the work of the Commission is regarded as very important indeed, not only here at home, but abroad as well, and that some of your Lordships who have represented this country abroad—I am thinking particularly of the United Nations —have found it of immense value to be able to refer to the work of this Commission, especially when dealing with human

1419
rights matters and in trying to encourage other countries to advance the cause of human rights? Will he accept, therefore, that it is vitally important that nothing is done to impede the work of this Commission, both for national and international reasons?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. He mentioned human rights. It might be for the information of your Lordships if I remind the House that the Commission has published discussion documents on such subjects as taxation and the pension age. It has published its findings on credit facilities for women and on services available from building societies for women. Full details of those and other matters are in the Commission's annual reports, the third of which was published on 14th June. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, will agree that none the less the Commission's budget must be included in the Government's overall review of public expenditure.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, regarding the question which my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby asked, will the noble Lord not agree that the figure of 400 — compared with 171 which the Minister mentioned—is just a blatant lie by the Conservative Political Central Office?
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. Perhaps we were just not too good at figures.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if the Government are genuinely committed to the policy of equal treatment, will they reconsider the policy advocated in their Manifesto of allowing wives to come to the United Kingdom to reside with husbands who are United Kingdom citizens, while in the future denying entry to men who marry United Kingdom citizens?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the Commission is responsible for dealing with sex discrimination and equal pay. I believe that the noble Lord's question falls within the scope of race relations. If the noble Lord would care to table a Question about that, I should be only too ready to do my best to reply on another occasion.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, in fact, it is a case of sex discrimination?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I may, I should like to think about that and will write to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord feels that my answer was misconceived and would like to table a Question, I should be at his disposal to answer it on an appropriate future occasion.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, by that time it will be too late because the House will have risen for the Recess. Will the Minister not reconsider, as a matter of urgency, this policy of denying entry to men who marry United Kingdom citizens, in view of the fact that, if we seek to discriminate against women as regards entry into the United Kingdom at the ports, such a policy by the Government will undermine the equal treatment of women as compared to men within the boundaries of the United Kingdom?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord's substantive question is " No ". If the noble Lord would like to table a Question, I repeat that I am at the disposal of your Lordships to do my best to give whatever satisfaction I can to noble Lords who wish to ask me further Questions.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his complaint that there might not be time to answer a Question, is it not the case that the Prime Minister has promised a Statement on immigration before the House rises?
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, will the Minister reflect upon his eventual reply to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby? Will he note that the Labour Party did not take an equal opportunity of being inaccurate in its figures in the general election? Therefore, will he report the matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted to tell the noble Lord that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who is the very distinguished chairman of the Commission, is present and has been listening. If she wishes to discuss these matters with my right honourable friend or any of the junior Ministers, we are at her disposal.

DOMINICA: DEVELOPMENT AID
2.50 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what financial assistance was given to the island of Dominica on its attaining independence; whether any conditions were attached to this grant; and how it has since been utilised.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to provide development aid to a total of £10 million for projects to be agreed between the two Governments. The first £5 million will be on grant terms. So far £500,000 has been spent, much of it on projects agreed before independence; 19 new projects have been approved. Special financial assistance in support of Dominica's budget was also approved, tapering to nothing after three years. So far, 2.5 million Eastern Caribbean dollars equalling £457,000, has been paid, and a maximum of three million EC dollars is to be provided over the next two years.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware that in its eight and a half months of independence the Commonwealth of Dominica has had four Presidents; an Attorney-General and Finance Minister arrested on criminal charges; a Prime Minister deserted by the whole of his cabinet; and outbreaks of riots, looting, arson and strikes have continued during the whole of the past three months? Is not the British taxpayer entitled to some degree of accountability as to where some part of his £10 million has gone ? What will the Government do about it?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, your Lordships may be assured that we keep a very close eye on the political situations in all countries where we grant aid of any sort. We are satisfied that the aid granted in this case has been properly accounted for.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Finance Minister has
1422
been arrested on a charge of taking funds on false pretences from the island's treasury, can the noble Lord give an assurance that no part of this £10 million has gone into the pockets of private politicians instead of, as was intended, for the benefit of the people of Dominica as a whole ?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House may be assured that we take proper steps to see that the money we provide is used for the purposes for which it is intended.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government have received a report on the various malpractices that have occurred in the treasury of the Commonwealth of Dominica? Would it not be wise for the Government to send a British representative to ascertain accurately the facts as to where a great part of this money has already gone?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have permanent representation in all countries of this nature through our High Commissioners.

MERCENARIES: ALLEGED RECRUITMENT
2.54 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any evidence of the recruitment in Britain of mercenaries for service in the Caribbean, and what has so far been the response.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the Government have no evidence of such recruitment.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of a programme which has taken place on BBC's " Panorama " alleging that such attempts at recruitment have been made, and in view of the harsh sentences inflicted on British mercenaries who volunteered for service in Angola, would not the Government express their displeasure, or say at least that they view with disfavour any such attempts made to recruit British

1423
volunteers either to overthrow, or to bolster up, a corrupt dictatorship at the cost of British lives?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have great regard for the noble Lord's views, and the way he expresses them, but I am not able to express displeasure on this occasion, because, although I am aware of the allegations made in the " Panorama " programme, I am not aware of any evidence that recruitment did in fact take place.

MANPOWER SERVICES COMMISSION: DISPERSAL
2.56 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: 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 steps are being taken to eliminate the anxiety of employees in the Manpower Services Commission that the move to a new headquarters at Moor-foot, Sheffield, promised by the previous Government will be abandoned by the present Government although many of them have entered into expensive commitments in reliance on that promise.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government are committed to a reappraisal of the Civil Service dispersal programme, including the proposed move of the Manpower Services Commission to Sheffield. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is well aware of the uncertainties for the staff involved and for their families. He has met the staff unions for discussions. The Government have made it clear that they hope to announce their decisions before the summer recess.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the general economic case for the dispersal had been more than confirmed by the erudite research done by Strathclyde University? It shows thereby that this
1424
dispersal programme would be an advantage to the economy. Would he, therefore, without delaying the House and the noble Members of the House, see that a result is given to the Manpower Services Commission as soon as possible to relieve the anxieties of people who have already bought houses in Sheffield in anticipation of living there? Finally, on both sides of the House there are men and women who recognise the assiduous work done for the country by the Manpower Services Commission.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I certainly endorse the sentiments contained in the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary. We are of course conscious that people have bought houses and that any dispersals, or views of dispersals, must be done with a view to continuity and seeing that people are not disrupted in their work. That is why we have engaged in discussions with the staff unions. The noble Lord asked me for a fairly early answer. I am conscious that I have had to give rather stonewall answers in this House recently, but there is not much left of the parliamentary Session, and I say that we are committed to making a decision before the recess.

THE INDO-CHINA REFUGEE PROBLEM
2.57 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will make a Statement on the Indo-China refugee problem. Noble Lords will be aware of the deep concern with which the Government have viewed the rapid deterioration of the refugee situation in South-East Asia over recent weeks. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Waldheim, has now convened a special international meeting in Geneva on 20th and 21st of July to deal with the problem. The Government welcome this move, which was originally proposed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
There can be no doubt that it is the callous and inhuman policies of the Vietnamese Government which are the root cause of the problem and it is imperative that the Vietnamese Government

1425
change those policies. Meanwhile, the burden which the flood of refugees is imposing on others in the region can be relieved only by a major and genuinely international effort.
The Government have given very careful consideration to the extent of the humanitarian problems, and in particular to the appalling burden which is being placed on the resources of the Government of Hong Kong. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has asked us to accept a further 10,000 refugees from Indo-China for settlement here. We have agreed. Because of our direct concern for the situation in Hong Kong, these extra refugees will be taken, over a period to be agreed with the Governor, from Hong Kong where there are already over 66,000 awaiting resettlement.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is getting in touch with the voluntary agencies who have played such a commendable role in helping with the resettlement of the refugees who have already arrived in the United Kingdom. I should like to take this opportunity of recording again the Government's gratitude to the voluntary agencies for the splendid work which they are doing in this field.
The Government also propose, subject to parliamentary approval, to make a further £5 million available from the overseas aid programme for dealing with the refugee problem in South-East Asia over the next 12 months. I shall myself attend the opening session of the Secretary-General's meeting in Geneva on 20th July. I can assure noble Lords that we shall play a full and constructive role in Geneva.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to thank the noble Lord, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, for the Statement he has just made. For our part we entirely agree with the purpose and content of that Statement; it is very much in line with what we believe, with the Government, to be the important facets of this appalling human tragedy which is unfortunately continuing in South-East Asia. We welcome very much the noble Lord's decision to be present as the British Foreign Secretary at the opening session in Geneva. When he has given the prestige
1426
of his own presence and office on our behalf at this important conference, at what level will the British representation at the conference continue?
We also join with him in our insistence that this conference should tackle the source of this problem. It is, of course, necessary to do everything we can to alleviate the terrible human suffering which has been caused and is continuing in South-East Asia. At the same time, it is of the utmost importance that those who are the authors of this tragedy and, for all we know, intend to go on with this dreadful policy, should be brought to Geneva to the conference and be face to face not only with the condemnation of the world hut constructive suggestions of countries like our own as to not only the alleviation of suffering but also the ending of the policy that causes that suffering. May I therefore ask the noble Lord whether he has been informed by Dr. Waldheim, the convenor of this conference, that in fact the Vietnam Government will be represented in Geneva? What other countries will be present? But, specifically, will Vietnam be present there?
We warmly welcome the decision to accept a further 10,000 refugees from Indo-China and the provision for further financial aid to help in this matter. No doubt that provision for financial aid will be reviewed as necessary over the months for which it is notionally intended. I can assure the Government that they will have every support from us in the measures which they deem, with their knowledge of the situation, to be necessary in order to pursue proper humanitarian policies in this area. Finally, I join with the noble Lord very warmly in expressing gratitude and admiration for the role which our splendid voluntary agencies have already played in this matter and stand ready to continue with their excellent services; and perhaps I could couple with them the coolness and steadfast humanity shown by the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Murray MacLehose, throughout this time.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I wish to thank the noble Lord for the Government's humane and generous attitude, which I believe is in no small measure due to the benign influence of the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, himself. With regard to the

1427
attendance at the conference, if the Vietnamese Government, as I suspect, have not accepted the invitation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, may I ask the noble Lord to say how influence can be brought to bear to change the policies in the way the noble Lord suggests; what further steps does he think are open to us, apart from mere persuasion? Also in regard to the attendance, can the noble Lord say what influence the Governor of Hong Kong and his officials may have, considering their vital interest in the solution of this problem?
How will Her Majesty's Government convince the people of the United Kingdom, if there is any doubt, that this decision is fully justified by the humanitarian considerations involved? Will they lose no opportunity in emphasising that in recent years emigration from the United Kingdom has exceeded immigration by about 40,000 a year, so that the number of refugees we are now proposing to take will he only about one-quarter of the net emigration from the country?
In regard to the voluntary agencies, I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that this emphasises yet again the need, to which attention has been drawn regularly by the Standing Conference on Refugees, for a permanent centre for refugees to be set up, with a nucleus of trained staff who could expand the resettlement work when an emergency of this kind arises.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said, and I think they echo the sentiments of the whole House over this matter. Both asked about the Vietnamese Government. The Vietnamese Government have been asked and are going to attend the conference. Consequently, they will be able to hear for themselves what is said. Of course, the conference is predominantly a humanitarian conference, but certainly I cannot believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, that one can divorce this matter into two; the source of the problem is the Vietnamese Government and it is right that we should say so and bring home to them the enormity of what is happening. Lord Goronwy-Roberts also asked me who was to be the British representative after I
1428
left. It will be Mr. Blaker, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office; he will be there the whole time the conference lasts.
I, too, wish to pay tribute, as both noble Lords did, to the Governor of Hong Kong. Having myself been in Hong Kong and seen what has happened, the actions and achievements in the most difficult circumstances of the Governor and the Government of Hong Kong have been truly remarkable, and we owe him and the Government a great debt. He will be with me at the conference and will be there for the duration of the conference, so he will have the opportunity also, I hope, of saying something to the conference about the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about a permanent centre for refugees. I should like to look at that to see whether any-thing could be done about it, although I think the scale of this problem is such that no permanent organisation of that kind could be big enough to deal with it; it really is an enormous problem.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks there will be any possibility at the conference of setting up an organisation to trace relations? One of the saddest things about the refugees are children separated from their parents, and many of them have other relations with whom they would like to have connections. Of course during the war this was done by the Red Cross very successfully.
Lord CARRINGTON: I will certainly look into that, my Lords, to see whether anything can be done, and will make that suggestion.
Lord JANNER: My Lord, while thanking the noble Lord for the replies he has given and the excellent example that is being set by him and the Government and the country generally in respect of this matter, may I ask whether he can inform the House if any other countries have taken action of a similar nature and whether we have made approaches, before the actual meeting in Geneva, to see if we can get some of our friends—for example, in the EEC, and others—to do something similar?
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. A great many other countries

1429
have done a great deal, particularly—to single out three countries—the United States, France and Australia, who have done a very great deal in accepting refugees; and of course the Community itself, when the Foreign Ministers met not long ago, discussed this matter and we issued a statement about the refugee problem, as indeed did the Seven when they met at Tokyo a few weeks ago. So a great deal has been done, and though I am not sure whether all the countries are prepared to accept the targets which have been given to them, I know that a great many have and I am sure that all the countries will do what they can.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to give an estimate of the number of persons involved and the number of deaths that have already taken place, or are such figures not available?
Lord CARRINGTON: Not really, my Lords, but at the moment there are several hundred thousand to be resettled; I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is 200,000 or 300,000. Of course, what is even worse is that we believe that about half of those who left Vietnam, or perhaps even more than half, have drowned on the way either to Hong Kong or Malaysia.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether the Press report that the Soviet Union is to be represented at the Geneva Conference is correct, whether he has been informed to that effect, and whether at the same time he has any information about the Chinese People's Republic being represented?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the Chinese will be represented, but I am not quite sure about the Soviet Government. Certainly my impression has been that the Soviet Government and the countries of Eastern Europe do not recognise that there is a problem.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while I am sure that the Government will clearly do their very best to help find solutions for these unfortunate refugees, may I ask my noble friend whether he can give any further assurance to the British shipping industry concerning refugees who have been rescued by British ships? Will the Government at the
1430
Geneva Conference be pressing for the enforcement of the understanding concerning acceptance at the first port of call, and will it be possible for the Government to give first priority in the United Kingdom quota to those refugees who have been rescued by British ships?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a real problem, and indeed there have been considerable difficulties facing British shipowners as a result of it. I hope very much that the Geneva Conference may be able to do something to help in this particular regard. I will look into the other flatter that the noble Lord raises.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the conference is to last for only two days and has to deal with an enormous problem of the resettlement of the boat people, can the Minister give us an assurance that the British contribution will prevent the conference being hogged down over political differences about responsibilities, on which there arc different views, and that it will really address itself to the humanitarian problem of dealing with the condition of these people?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know of any different views about the responsibility for what has happened, but I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the conference is a humanitarian conference and must come up with some solutions which are on a scale to deal with the problem. Certainly Her Majesty's Government's intention is precisely that, as was shown in my Statement. I think it very important that there should be an adequate follow-up.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great satisfaction that his Statement will give to the voluntary organisations? Is he also aware that those organisations are indeed ready to back up any support that the British Government are able to give and any assurances on behalf of Great Britain that we will not be behind-hand in the future as in the past in dealing with this infamy? Further, is the noble Lord also aware of the great admiration which some of us have for the personal part that he has already played in this business?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the voluntary organisations ought to take heart from the fact that almost everyone who has asked questions has paid tribute to them, and I do not know that it would be possible to deal with this matter were it not for them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, first, whether we still have diplomatic information from Hanoi—or Ho Chi Minh city—which is of use to the noble Lord? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have seen the devastation of 30 years' war in Vietnam feel that there will be no modification of the bitter Communist policy until there is some co-ordinated policy of aid towards a country that has been devastated by insecticides and pesticides that cause teratological differences to the people and which are causing immense difficulty in the problem of growing enough rice today? I believe that that problem, too, should be considered at the Geneva Conference, which should not he concerned only with justifying what is happening to the boat people; indeed this other matter must not be omitted.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have an embassy representation in Vietnam, and obviously we receive from them a good account of what is happening. Regarding the noble Lord's second question, of course one must have regard to the causes of problems and the history of a country, but I believe that in any other situation noble Lords opposite, and noble Lords on this side of the House, would say that this was a blatant exhibition of racialism.

NHS: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consoli-
1432
date certain enactments relating to the registration, inspection and conduct of residential homes for the disabled, old or mentally disordered persons and to the provision by district councils of meals and recreation for old people. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

FAMILY PROPERTY: LAW COMMISSION REPORT
3.16 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE rose to call attention to the Third Report of the Law Commission on Family Property and to the need to reform the law of married women's property; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper. I am sorry that only a few noble Lords have put down their names to speak in the debate. I am quite certain that that is not due to any lack of interest in the subject; indeed, the number of witnesses and the weight of evidence given to the Law Commission is proof to the contrary —particularly the evidence given by the Married Women's Association. I think that your Lordships have suffered from the lack of Order Papers, from the difficulty of coming by the Law Commission's Report —I myself had to borrow the Printed Paper Office's only copy—and finally there was the cancellation of the first balloted Motion.
Your Lordships will unfortunately be thereby deprived of hearing my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman speak on this matter, on which he is a great authority, since he is engaged in judicial duties at this moment. I am particularly sorry because I know that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was anxious to hear the views of your Lordships on the Law Commission's proposals. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, is to speak because he is an incomparable authority on this matter. At any rate, the debate gives your Lordships an opportunity to hear about the thinking of the Lord Chancellor himself on these questions.
There are three reasons why reform of the law is called for, and is urgent. The first is that the present law is unjust. That is the almost universal view of people who have looked into this matter. It was accepted by the Law Commission itself. It is quite true that most married people live in what lawyers would call " community of goods "; they share their earnings, they share their property, they make provision for their joint retirement on an equal basis, and each generally leaves his or her property so that the wife or husband has at least a life interest. But the law does not exist primarily for those who need have no recourse to it. It must have regard to what has been called the pathology of personal and social relations, and the pathology in this field, where it exists, is unfortunately virulent. The Law Commission has made an exhaustive study of the problem and particularly its repercussions.
If I may say so with respect, the report seems to me in every way a model one, ending up with three draft Bills for your Lordships' consideration. I should like to pay a tribute, if I may, to the Law Commission, which seems to me to be one of the outstandingly successful institutional innovations of our time. We owe a great deal to my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, as its first chairman. He developed the brilliant idea of the consultative document, the Green Paper, which has been subsequently adopted by Governments and which has proved extremely valuable in this instance. Perhaps I could mention also the name of the late chairman, Mr. Justice Cooke, who was chairman of the Commission at the time when this report was published and submitted to Parliament. His early death was indeed a very great loss to the law.
My Lords, that is the first reason why reform of the law is urgent and called for —that it is unjust. The second reason is that, as a result of the 1969 divorce law reform, the financial and proprietary position of married women is now significantly worse than that of divorced women, and that surely is an intolerable position. I spoke of the injustice, and when one examines the injustice of the present law one sees that that indicates clearly, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, the type of reform that is necessary. Husbands and wives per
1434
form differently their complementary functions in society. Your Lordships will remember the horrifying opening of Aldous Huxley's novel, Brave New World, with the babies in test tubes. But until we arrive at the time of test-tube babies, men and women, husbands and wives, have to perform different functions for the continuance of society. The wife has to undergo nine months of discomfort; 12 or 24 hours, possibly more, of pain and peril; and even if, afterwards, she can resume an economic activity, her financial and economic prospects have already been impaired, and will continue to be impaired, because, when the small child has measles, on the whole it is the wife and not the husband who has to take time off from work to look after the child.
In other words, the wife, by performing her function as home-minder, releases the husband to be the bread-winner; and when you get a co-operative division of labour in that way, it means that the person who makes sacrifices acquires rights. The wife, by releasing the husband to be bread-winner, acquires a right to share in the loaf that he brings home. That should be vindicated by the law: in fact, it is not. That is mainly for historical reasons. The position of married women was first of all safeguarded in the Court of Chancery when they developed the married women's separate estate, and then by the Married Women's Property Acts of the last century, which method of law reform really compares very adversely with that with which your Lordships are concerned after an exhaustive investigation by the Law Commission.
In the last century there was a vociferous group of professional women who were clamant that their professional earnings should not pass into the possession of their husbands. That was perfectly reasonable at the time. They enlisted under the banner of John Stuart Mill. But it meant that, in vindicating the interests of those professional women to acquire and retain separate earnings, the law took yet a further step away from the community of goods, which is what the division of labour indicates and, indeed, what is indicated by the promise made at marriage,
"…with all my worldly goods I thee endow ",
which is certainly not the legal position.
So the logic of putting right the present injustice really leads to a system of community of goods—that is, a sharing of goods. That was the system adopted at one time in the Middle Ages in this country. It has been widely adopted on the Continent, particularly in the French civil code; but, although it was put forward for consideration in the working paper of the Law Commission, it did not find approbation generally and, in their first report, with which your Lordships are not concerned today, they turned it down as a means of dealing with this problem. I myself remain a convinced community of goods man, but a long time ago I used to be a politician and I learnt that the best is frequently an enemy of the better. The Law Commission's proposals are distinctly better, and I certainly would not wish to lose them by pressing views which I do not think are now politically feasible.
The Law Commission treated this matter under three main heads. The first one was co-ownership of the matrimonial home; the second was securing the wife's occupancy of the matrimonial home by largely technical amendments to the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967; and the third was giving the wife some rights to the use and enjoyment of the contents of the matrimonial home. The co-ownership of the matrimonial home was very widely accepted. When the Law Commission took a sample of opinion they found that 91 per cent. of married men and 94 per cent. of married women were in favour of some form of co-ownership. The Law Commission therefore proceeded on the basis that that was desirable, and worked out in a truly dazzling fashion the details of its implications.
The main matter they considered and allowed for was a right to opt out of joint ownership by making other arrangements of ownership; and that seems to me to be right. Also, the other main exception that, where the donor of the matrimonial home indicates that it is for one spouse or the other, the co-ownership provisions do not apply. The scheme seems to me to be fair and just; the argument of the Law Commission seems to be entirely convincing; the draft Bill is really a model and 1 very much hope
1436
that the Government will accept and implement the proposals.
The second book of the report does not really need detailed examination. It is to improve the wife's rights of occupancy in the matrimonial home and it is largely designed to effect improvements in, and to correct defects in, the Matrimonial Homes Act. Again, I welcome their proposals. There is only one matter to which I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention and that is Schedule 2 to the draft Bill. That re-enacts the Matrimonial Homes Act with such amendments as have been made in the past and also with the amendments proposed in the draft Bill. In other words, it is a consolidation; and I venture to suggest that it would be convenient if, when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House, that particular schedule should be referred to the body which commands the expertise on this subject, the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills, of which at the moment my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel is the chairman. I do not ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to answer that directly now but I ask that he should give favourable consideration to the suggestion.
The third matter considered was the use and enjoyment of the household goods. The Law Commission, as a result of discussion and comment on their working paper, have fundamentally changed their minds on that matter. They originally proposed to give a wife a right of property in the household goods. They have now changed their minds about that. I, myself, think that that is a pity. I think that the difficulties were very much exaggerated and I think that that is shown by the fact that the recent (1976) New Zealand statute dealing with the matter not only provides for joint ownership of the matrimonial home but also enjoins joint ownership of its contents. Again, I would not wish to see the best oust the better. I regard what the Law Commission recommend as distinctly better. What they recommend is a procedural remedy; that either spouse may apply to the court to have the use and enjoyment of the household goods protected.
The only other matter that I think needs to be mentioned in connection with the commission's third proposal leading to their third draft Bill is that they include the

1437
car among the household goods. Personally, I think that that is quite right and that the way they deal with it is quite right. Many American courts have developed the idea of a matrimonial car, and the English courts have tinkered with this idea for some time until it was found not to work at all; and it seems to me to be an illustration of the far more satisfactory method of law reform through Law Commission investigation as opposed to law reform by the judiciary, except in the very narrow sphere of lawyers' law. There is another example in this very field. The courts, obsessed with the unfairness of the law about the matrimonial home, tried to develop the idea of a married woman's equity (licence) to occupy the matrimonial home. That broke down utterly on investigation. It threw up all kinds of anomalies and I am quite sure that it is the sort of matter where one should be guided by the Law Commission.
My Lords, there is one final matter that I would mention; that is the courts that are proposed to deal with this problem. They include the county courts. Since considerable expertise and sensitiveness is required in this field of litigation, I respectfully ask again that consideration should be given to the system of family courts, a hierarchy of family courts, which was proposed in the locus classicus of the Finer Report, in which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, had a principal hand. Again, I do not want to ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to commit himself today beyond saying that he will have another look at the problem. I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, it would be hard to over-estimate the importance for ordinary citizens and for society of the subject raised with great legal authority and clarity by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. During the last 100 years there have been far-reaching changes in the effect which marriage has upon the property of spouses, because the law governing matrimonial property in part reflects and in part helps to shape the community's attitudes to the family and to relationships within it. Today, this law has a vital bearing upon the social situation and status of a woman and upon the most widely spread form of property. Indeed, family property is the
1438
only property which most of us will ever possess. For these reasons, despite the very difficult technical and legal problems which the regulation of matrimonial property has produced, reform cannot be left exclusively to the lawyers. It is for Parliament to define what are the familial and social objectives to be secured; it is for lawyers to devise the legal techniques which will secure the desired results. It is therefore proper for a layman to speak, although he does so with great trepidation.
A brief glance at the social history of this branch of the law will demonstrate quickly the present need for reform. The common law virtually stripped a woman, on marriage, both of her existing property and of her capacity to acquire property for herself in the future.
"We twain ",
said her husband,
" have become one flesh and, as far as our property is concerned, I am he ".
Oddly enough, this was the property régime which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out in his Holdsworth Lecture, was brought into being when the bridegroom pronounced the words: " With all my worldly goods I thee endow ". Few were thereby affected, for the common law served only the common people whose poverty protected most of them from all anxieties concerning rights in matrimonial property.
Had the rules applied to the wealthy, the property of a wife and thus, through her, of her kin, would always have been at the mercy of her husband and his kin. To prevent this, equitable devices had been invented and refined to enable a married woman to have a separate estate out of which she could not be kicked or kissed by her husband. The object of this protection was not to secure the equality of husband and wife or even the comforts of rich men's daughters, but to keep family properties intact.
By later Victorian days, demands for cheap law, greater equality between rich and poor and between husbands and wives produced a series of reforms which included the seminal Married Women's Property Act of 1882, within the influence of which we still live. This Act gave all wives a separate estate in their property. Equity had tempered the wind to the well-fleeced. This statute protected the whole

1439
flock by extending to them the same rights as every English gentleman had for generations past secured by marriage settlements for his own daughters. The Act was hailed by law reformers and by the women's movement as a triumph for equality of the sexes.
Thus, it is easy to see how the concept of separation of property within marriage became for lawyers and laymen alike associated with equality between husbands and wives, though in fact there was no necessary connection between them. Indeed, the consequences of this Statute were the opposite of those sought by its promoters. The Married Women's Property Act unintentionally institutionalised inequality in the economic relations of husbands and wives. By preventing husbands getting their hands on their wives' money, the statute denied wives rights in their husband's money. And in the real world, it was mostly the husbands who had the money.
However, as long as wives were in prospect or in fact financially dependent on their husbands, the assumed connection between equality and separation of property caused few legal or social difficulties. The chief troubles stemmed from the great extension of married women's employments during and since Hitler's war, and with the resulting reduction in wives' dependence on husbands as sole bread winners and the growth in wives' contributions to family budgets. In recent decades, many families have become economic partnerships in which the role of wives is no longer exclusively to free their husbands to earn by looking after the home and the children. They often do this for periods in accordance with the requirements of family building and child care. But for much of the time they contribute to the family pool earnings derived from part or full time work.
Moreover, people nowadays think of marriage as an equal partnership, even though it may be based on different and unequal contributions. In this partnership, all earnings and nest eggs brought in are thoroughly scrambled in the process of living together and turned into a community of family assets. The norm of separation of property has no relevance to the way that most of us live now, except in relation to third parties.
1440
Of course, the judges have known this better than the rest of us and have for a generation of imaginative and creative law-making been teasing the justice of partnership rules out of the principle of separation of property in disputes between husbands and wives. The Divorce Reform Act led Parliament to step in when marriages are being dissolved and the courts have now wide discretion to rearrange a family's finances and property. But it would be a fallacy to believe that property issues between spouses which require legal determination arise only when marriages collapse. As the Law Commission put it in the report which we are now considering:
" In our view it is a poor and incomplete kind of marital justice which is excluded from continuing marriage relationships and allowed to operate only when those relationships end ".
And we might add that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, explained, it is a cruel absurdity to put a divorcing wife in a superior position to that of a still married wife in her role in respect of her rights over matrimonial property.
From a layman's point of view, I believe that any reform of matrimonial property law must satisfy two tests. The reform should give expression to the morality of family life, as approved and practised by most citizens; and the reform should result in fairness and certainty so that married couples—and those who have dealings with them—know where they stand. No doubt the necessary legal techniques will be complicated; but this is not incompatible with giving effect to principles which are widely approved, understood and respected.
In my view, the Law Commission's report fully satisfies these tests. The Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, not only developed the technique of giving wide consideration to working papers and assimilating the resulting comments, criticisms and political objections, but they also, as stated in this seventh annual report gave
"…careful thought to ways and means of making greater use of the social sciences both in determining law reform priorities and in the preparation of proposals ".
One result of this approach was their commissioning in 1971 a national random sample survey of the attitudes of married

1441
couples to matrimonial property. This was the first occasion when social research on any scale was harnessed to law reform, and I hope that the Commission have not forgotten the intentions of their 7th Report.
Among much other information, the survey showed that slightly over half the population were owner-occupiers, of whom 52 per cent. had their houses in joint names. Of those who did not, some 90 per cent. said that each thought of the home as a joint possession. Three-quarters of the wives had contributed earnings made before or during the marriage to the purchase of the home and of its contents, and half of them regarded their work in the home as an equivalent contribution. There was no doubt that many couples thought of themselves as engaging in a partnership, of which the home and its contents were the main tangible asset.
Thus the Law Commission have a sound, empirical basis for their insistence that the matrimonial home is a unique form of property and one to which a unique law of co-ownership should apply. They have a sound basis, too, for the chief reform of the law which they propose in their report; the introduction of a statutory scheme for co-ownership of the family home, subject to the two exceptions mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Co-owner-ship is coupled by the Law Commission with protection for either spouse in the use and enjoyment of the household goods, and this would be a corresponding right to that of occupation of the home afforded by the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, which the Commission also proposed should be amended.
I think that the proposals of the Law Commission have great merit. They are in accord with actual behaviour within the family and with prevalent notions of the proper relationships between the spouses. They will give reality in our social and economic circumstances to the intentions of the framers of the 1882 Act by establishing a clear and simple principle, and they will introduce certainty of rights and thus enable a wife, perhaps struggling to preserve a marriage, to act with confidence about the future. Certainly, in many circumstances, she cannot at the moment act with confidence about her future. Most importantly, the Law Commission's
1442
proposals will remove the last great legal inequality suffered by wives in England and Wales. Of course, technical legal difficulties may arise, but they ought not to be allowed to become delaying obstacles to this overdue reform. I welcome the report of the Law Commission and the opportunity provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for debating it.
3.54 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, may I first apologise for the fact that by some error my name does not appear on the list of speakers: I note the disappointment that surrounds me as I rise to speak! I should like to make four observations before dealing with this very important report. The first is that my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones would have wished to address your Lordships on this matter today but he has a very pressing and important engagement and asks, through me, to be excused. The mantle which he graces has temporarily fallen upon my inadequate shoulders and I know that, with your usual kindness, your Lordships will fail to notice how badly that mantle fits.
Secondly, may I say to your Lordships that I am sure my noble and learned friend would have wanted to express, as I do, thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving us the opportunity in this short debate to deal with this report and for having made such a lucid, clear and informative speech as he did this afternoon.
Thirdly, may I make it completely clear that I am merely expressing personal and respectful views to your Lordships and in no way am I communicating the views of my noble and learned friend or indeed those of anyone sitting behind me at this moment. It is a matter which I believe comes outside the normal purview of politics and I believe that your Lordships may perhaps be anxious to hear some personal views, which I will venture most respectfully to give.
Lastly, may I say as a preliminary observation that the Commission which prepared this report deserves the appreciation of all of us. The members worked very hard; they produced working papers and they listened to arguments and

1443
evidence. If I venture to express a view, which is really a query about the means and not the ends which they have endeavoured to reach, I am sure that your Lordships will realise that I do it with the greatest possible deference and I repeat that in no way do I quarrel with the ends which they were endeavouring to reach.
I suppose that one day this report will be known as the "women's matrimonial home charter". As your Lordships have heard, the report deals with three main headings. The first is the interest of spouses in their matrimonial home. The second, is the suggested improvements to the rights of a wife—since it would normally be the wife—to occupation of the matrimonial home. The third, is the use and enjoyment of household goods. There is criticism of the present law, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned this. He said that the law was unjust. He could have said in addition that it is highly technical and also uncertain in application. When he said it was unjust, he certainly meant, too, if I quote the wording of the report rightly, that it was " inappropriate in substance ", because the matrimonial home is dealt with in our law in almost precisely the same way, except for certain rights of occupation, as is the ownership of other property.
The report says, your Lordships may think most correctly, that the matrimonial home is something different and that in many cases it is the major, possibly the only, asset of the couple. It is the result as a rule of the joint contribution of both husband and wife. It is not only the financial contribution that counts in regard to a matrimonial home: it is the care, the work and all the things that the noble and learned Lord mentioned in introducing this matter—even, if I remember correctly, the occurrence of measles in the household! It is essential, too, for the family as a whole. Your Lordships are not merely considering husbands and wives but also the position of the family unit. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said, it is indeed a unique item—he, too, was quoting from the report—and therefore there is need for a unique law.
It has been mentioned—your Lordships may think correctly—that it is not right that our law should limit a decision as to
1444
ownership rights as between a husband and wife, when the marriage ends either by death or by divorce, and that there should he an innate right in a wife in the matrimonial home after marriage. I have an idea that up to this stage all your Lordships will be agreed on the merits of the principle behind this report. and the only niggling doubt that I venture to put before your Lordships is whether the solution suggested in this report—and I do this with the utmost deference—consists of too many complexities. It is the suggestion of a statutory right of co-ownership, with legal formalities that flow, with rights of spouses to contract out, if I may put it that way, within two years of marriage: and there are other complexities which I wish to draw quickly to your Lordships' attention. Indeed, the report itself says:
" It cannot be denied that the provisions which we propose for co-ownership arc complicated and difficult".
In any such new legislation which would have to deal with this matter, if the scheme were adopted—and I repeat that the aim behind the scheme is a more than meritorious one—one would have to define the extent of what is the matrimonial home and to sever what is not the matrimonial home. The common law wife is not provided for. If a couple are lucky enough to have more than one matrimonial home, the scheme says that it applies to all of them, and the scheme furthermore says that it is intended to be permanent. in other words, if the user ceases to be that of a matrimonial home, then the statutory co-ownership still applies.
It may be thought, and I put this forward with all humility, that the same object could possibly be reached—and I know that some of my colleagues in my own profession are thinking along these lines, but have reached no conclusion as yet—that most of the ills that we are trying to cure, or, to put it more positively, most of the justice that we are endeavouring to secure, could be secured by a statutory presumption of a joint tenancy by husband and wife in regard to the matrimonial home, that presumption only to be rebutted by just cause to be adduced before our courts. I know that that leaves gaps in the way of a sole owner—although, in most cases, there is joint ownership, as we have heard—and in the

1445
way of receipt of the purchase monies in order to make sure that the wife receives her share of a sale. There may also be gaps in connection with the need, when a first or second home is sold and there should be a home supplied in its place, to see that that replacement home is secured. But I cannot help thinking that, to a large extent, one could cover those needs by implementing some of the rules that we already have in regard to the need for two trustees when one has a trust, and the receipt by those two trustees of purchase monies and matters of that kind.
I do not intend to develop these themes before your Lordships today. The only doubt that I have in my mind is the whole complex new legal system that this scheme would set up. I do not have the slightest doubt about the justice of it and need for it, and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right that it is better to adopt a scheme quickly, even though it be complex, if you are after justice and are after it quickly, then no doubt in due course the views that I have expressed will be, as they may deserve to be, ignored by your Lordships or by whoever else, apart from your Lordships, may legislate upon this matter.
I only desire, again with humility, to correct, if I may, what was a slip—and I know that the noble and learned Lord will want that to be corrected in the Official Report—when he gave certain statistics; namely, in regard to the 91 per cent. of husbands and the 94 per cent. of wives who said that they thought that the matrimonial home should be owned equally. I think I heard him say that that was a survey that was carried out by this Commission. Indeed, it was not. It was a survey that was carried out in 1972 by the General Division of the Office of Population Censuses. That division and that group gave those figures and the Commission duly considered them.
I move on quickly to the second matter dealt with in this report; that is, the right of a wife to continue to occupy the matrimonial home. Only because these points have not been brought to your Lordships' attention by previous speakers, due to the difficulties of summarising a lengthy report of this kind in a short debate, your Lordships may allow me just to point out some of the difficulties which
1446
this report highlights. There is a right for a wife to register against a property, against the matrimonial home, which protects her in regard to her occupation of the matrimonial home. But the present law has difficulties in it, as the report points out. There are difficulties where the house is mortgaged and a husband defaults. There is a question of the right of the wife to succeed to a statutory tenancy on the death of a husband from whom she is parted, although she may live in the home, because the present Act talks in language of living with her husband at the date of death, and if the husband has left the home and she is still there she does not get the protection that she should.
There is the position of a widower. We have heard up to now of the rights of the wife. Occasionally, there are rights which are vested in mere men and the position of the widower is not protected by our present law in regard to occupation; it is only the right of the widow which is so protected. Lastly, there is a questionable position in regard to the right of a wife of a tenant, after the landlord obtains a possession order against the tenant. In regard to all these matters, the report makes recommendations with which no one, in my humble submission to your Lordships, could quarrel at all.
Finally, may I move to the third section, which deals with the use and enjoyment of household goods. I should like to tell your Lordships in clear terms what the proposal is. It is a proposal that at any time during the subsistence of the marriage, except where a judicial separation decree is in force, the court should have power on the application of either spouse to make an order against the other spouse for the use and enjoyment of household goods.
" Household goods " are defined as
" items needed to meet the ordinary requirements of his or her daily life ".
The order can include an order not to remove the household goods and an order to deliver the household goods, and, in either case, an order not to sell the household goods. And it is recommended that the courts' powers should not be limited to emergency situations. Articles under hire-purchase agreements and similar agreements are excepted. Caravans, which are not part of realty, are included and houseboats are also included. There

1447
is the right, too, by way of sanction for the court to impose punishment on the grounds of civil contempt and to award compensation in addition to any penalty that the court may invoke as a result of the breach of an order.
All this takes place during the subsistence of a marriage. The doubts that I have, with respect, are that at a time when our courts are already over-full with cases, and when one does not want to tempt husbands and wives into courts of law while the marriage is still subsisting—and I repeat that these applications are not limited to emergencies—is it correct, is it being better than the best (and I shall revert to that in a moment) to recommend that these rights should be given to a husband and a wife to bring every quarrel about the use and enjoyment of household goods before our courts of law, be it—
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to make one point. Are not the only alternatives either to give the wife property in the household goods—which the Law Commission, after consideration, turned down—or to let her enjoy, so far as she can, an empty house?
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord heard me say that I proposed to revert to his own phrase " the better may sometimes be more desirable than the best ". I was going to revert to it by saying that I thought that the Commission's first thoughts on the matter were not only better but the only practicable thoughts one could have. In my humble judgment, the wife must have a right vested in her in regard to the joint ownership of household goods. If their imagination is employed on this for one moment, I do not think that noble Lords could regard this as a practicable alternative to a consideration of the right of ownership being vested in a wife in half of the household goods. Ought we to encourage—as this scheme does, as I have said—an automatic application to a court of law in order to decide a dispute of this kind between husband and wife and then to end up with a use and enjoyment order and nothing more?
1448
I end as I began. First, I apologise that your Lordships did not hear the far more authoritative and clear voice of my noble and learned friend from this Front Bench. I repeat that the views which I have expressed are purely personal and again I repeat, as I sit down, that I have not the slightest doubt about the merits of the principles behind the proposals. I have merely ventured respectfully to suggest that there may be more easy and practicable solutions.

NHS: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
4.I4 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it might be convenient if I were now to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on the Report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. The Statement is as follows:
" The Royal Commission, set up by the right honourable gentleman the member for Huyton in 1975, have presented their report to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It has been published today, and copies of the full report are available in the Printed Paper Office.
" The Government are grateful to the Chairman, Sir Alec Merrison, and the other members for the time and trouble they have devoted to this important task.
"The Commission's Report is long and detailed. It merits careful study. Today I can make no more than a preliminary reference to a few of the issues with which it deals.
" The Commission recommend that the administration of the Health Service should be simplified by eliminating, in most cases, one tier of management; and they recognise that management decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.
"A number of the Commission's recommendations will be costly, as they themselves recognise. They state, and I quote,

1449
'It would be unrealistic to suppose that the fortunes of the NHS can be insulated from those of the nation '.
"On the question of private practice, the Commission see no objection to a significant expansion of the private sector, providing that the interests of the NHS are adequately safeguarded. Nor do they consider the presence or absence of pay beds in NHS hospitals to be significant at present from the point of view of the efficient functioning of the Health Service. It is, of course, the Government's policy to welcome the contribution that independent medicine can make to the health care of the nation, and we published our proposals in a consultative letter last month.
" I would like to tell the House how we propose to handle the report. This report has been made to the Government, and it is now tip to the Government to respond with our own proposals. On the major issues of structure and management we shall put forward proposals in a document in the autumn, and will invite early comments on that document from the interests affected. Subject to this consultation, it is our view that early progress is essential to simplify the structure of the Health Service and to devolve management authority to the lowest effective level.
" A number of the Commission's more detailed recommendations will be studied by the Health Departments through the ordinary machinery.
" Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Statement deals with general matters relating to the United Kingdom. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be making separate arrangements for dealing with those recommendations which relate to their separate interests."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this Statement. If I begin by making a complaint, I think the noble Lord knows me well enough to know that it is not directed at him
1450
personally. However, I really do feel that it was lacking in consideration that the Opposition parties in your Lordships' House received no copy of that report. I myself did not receive a copy of the report until 3.30 this afternoon, although obviously copies must have been made available to the Press on Monday, or certainly yesterday, because the recommendations of the Commission were printed in the mid-day papers of today and there was a very lengthy announcement of their recommendations on the one o'clock news on the BBC. I could not even get hold of a copy of the brief report of the recommendations—I am referring to this one here—until three minutes to half-past three; and there was only one copy in your Lordships' House at a quarter to two, and that was in the Library.
I feel that in a matter of some import the Opposition should have access to reports when they have obviously been made available to the Press on the previous day. I received a copy of the Statement which the noble Lord has just made only at about 10 minutes past three this afternoon. As I say, I think it is important that in matters of this kind, the Opposition should be furnished with copies. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will have a word with his right honourable friend. It is not so much that I am complaining about personal treatment but that the Opposition, in a matter of this kind, should be better informed much earlier.
The only thing I want to say is that the report, after three years of thorough investigation, has endorsed the fundamental principles upon which the National Health Service was established by Nye Bevan 31 years ago. I call in aid two of their recommendations: one is that the service should be nationally financed and charges should be abolished so that the service once again is wholly free at time of use.
We on this side of the House all welcome strongly the Commission's proposals to move us towards a more integrated Health Service than even, I think, Nye Bevan himself felt able to introduce. I refer to the Commission's recommendations that an option should be introduced for a salaried general practice, that Family Practitioner Committees should be integrated with the

1451
rest of the Health Service and that the Health Services Board should have still tighter control over the development of private hospitals, and I emphasise this because we have rumours that the party opposite want to get rid of the Health Services Board.
We on this side of the House have always fought to improve the standard of the Health Service, and the Commission endorse our view in so far as they say that more should be spent; and I am sure it is not by coincidence that they pick out the very things in the community which we ourselves picked out and which appeared in our election programme: that the prevention services and services to children, the elderly and mentally ill are priorities where there must be extra spending. I do not want to labour this but the Royal Commission criticise the cumbrous multi-tier structure of administration which the right honourable gentleman Sir Keith Joseph was responsible for, and they endorse the move towards single district areas which we initiated when we were in government.
I am quite sure that the Royal Commission are right in suggesting that the trade unions and the health departments need to work more closely together to improve industrial relations, and we on this side of the House were particularly glad that the Commission welcomed the proposals which we worked out with the unions when we were in office for new procedures to deal speedily with local disputes. I am disappointed that the Commission did not see the fundamental need to establish a public sector firm in the drugs industry, but they have made useful recommendations about improving the information that doctors get on drugs and to encourage generic prescribing.
I want to conclude with just one other quotation from the Commission's report. It says:
" In our view of the National Health Service as it exists, we found much about which we can be proud. Our examination of foreign health systems for the most part reinforced that view. If in considering some aspects in detail we have made specific criticisms we have done this in the hope that in the future the National Health Service can provide a better service, not because we think it is in danger of collapse "—
as we are so often told by friends of the noble Lord opposite!
1452
I want now to put three questions to the noble Lord. First, whether his right honourable friend the Secretary of State joins with the Commission in endorsing the present method of financing the service, and will he give an undertaking that he will not consider any divisive method of insurance financing of the type which was headlined in last Monday's Daily Mail?
With regard to pay beds, I want to ask the noble Lord whether the Secretary of State will abandon his politically inspired plan to abolish the Health Services Board, which deals with pay beds. We think this would be a major step forward in improving industrial relations, and I want to ask him whether, instead, he will strengthen its powers, as recommended by the Commission. Whatever we may feel from a political point of view about pay beds we cannot deny that the Health Services Board, which has met regularly under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, a Member of your Lordships' House, has done really magnificent work. That work has been commended in the Commission's report and the implication is very clear that it should continue.
My final question is on a matter of spending. Will the noble Lord the Minister ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to undertake that the budget for the service will not only be protected from all cuts in public spending, but increased to enable the Commission's spending recommendations to be implemented?
4.26 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ash-bourne, for repeating the Statement made in another place. With regard to both the content of the Statement and the very complex and lengthy report to which it relates, the noble Lord will understand that we will wish to study these very carefully before coming to final conclusions.
In that connection is it not perhaps regrettable that the shortened version of the report, which was apparently issued to the Press at noon today, was not available for noble Lords in your Lordships' House until a few minutes ago? Nevertheless,

1453
we would wish to congratulate and thank Sir Alec Merrison and his colleagues for the speed—perhaps a speed uncharacteristic of a Royal Commission—with which they have reported on a very complex and urgent matter. It is a degree of speed which appears to have been achieved without detriment to the quality of the report.
I should like to conclude by asking the noble Lord two questions. First, will Her Majesty's Government rapidly endorse what is said in the report about the dedicated work of some of those employed in the National Health Service, which has maintained the standards of health care in the service during very difficult times and in the face of an ever-increasing workload?
Secondly, I would ask the Government to ponder most carefully recommendation No. 112 in the report, regarding the phasing out of charges levied on the patient at the time of the patient's need. In that connection, is it not unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government should have seen fit to " jump the gun ", as it were, with regard to prescription charges without awaiting the publication of this report? And will the Government note, as is demonstrated in the report, that the need for a prescription bears no relation to the demands made by the patient on the service? One patient may take an hour of the doctor's time for advice, need no prescription and have no charge; whereas another patient with a chronic ailment may take two minutes and yet need a prescription with six items costing two or three pounds.
Finally, will the Government give your Lordships' House an early opportunity to debate very important matters within the report, such as the administration of the National Health Service and the need to phase out one tier of administration while preserving some local and consumer accountability and, of course, the need for vastly improved industrial relations within the National Health Service, before rather than after the Government make up their own mind on these important matters? I think noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House have important and well-informed advice to offer on these matters.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble
1454
Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for what they have said. I am sorry about the non-availability of the report. I understand that that was not in any way our own fault but that of the people delivering the reports. I myself managed just before lunch to get hold of one from the Department; but there was not one in this House, and I have not really had time to read it either. There was no discourtesy intended; it was simply unavoidable.
I do not know whether I can well answer the questions which have been put to me, because this is a report which has taken three years to produce. There are 400 pages; there are 100 specific recommendations and many other suggestions for further study and work. A really vigorous period of consultation will now take place. There are some matters on which the Royal Commission fully agree with the Government's thinking, and some on which they do not; I think I would be unwise to give any indication as to what the Government's final suggestions and recommendations will be until those consultations are over. I should like, if I may, not to go any further than that, and would thank the noble Lords for what they have said.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I welcome in particular the last sentence of the Statement which my noble friend has repeated; namely, that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are expected to make separate recommendations in due course. In the presentation of any proposals will the Government make very clear that there is a different and separate system of health services in Scotland, for which the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Office are responsible, and not the DHSS. Will they also especially bear in mind that, in that Scottish system, which was restructured in a Scottish Act in the early 1970s, there is only one tier of health boards. While that Scottish service may be far from perfect, whatever criticisms are being levelled and have been levelled at the Health Service in England and Wales, many of those criticisms are not applicable to the Health Service North of the Border.
Lord DRUMALBYNI: My Lords, I wonder whether I could follow on, if I

1455
might, what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, but from a rather different angle. I am asking really about the handling of Statements of this kind. In the old days papers about which announcements were being made were normally laid immediately after the announcement, though there had no doubt been some Press conference and possibly a hand-out before that. In this case there seems to have been an abbreviated report that was available in very small quantities, so that what we had, if I may say so—I hope I give no offence in this to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—were questions not about the Statement being made but about the contents of a report which nobody had seen, even in brief, except the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, himself. I feel that this is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding, and I wonder if my noble friend will take this into account.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for pointing out the differences between Scotland and England, and I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for what he has said.

FAMILY PROPERTY: LAW COMMISSION REPORT
4.33 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is rather a curious sort of procedure. I think we must try and get back to the Motion in the name of, if he will allow me to call him so, my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches; to call attention to the Third Report of the Law Commission on Family Property and the need to reform the law of married women's property, and to move for Papers.
My Lords, I say so as should not, but I was originally provided with rather a good speech to make; it was provided very largely by others, and so I think I can say so without immodesty. I am afraid that almost everything worth saying in it, although I shall have to repeat some of it, has been said and said rather better by the speakers who have preceded me in
1456
this debate, and this I am afraid is going to make my own final speech rather scrappy and to some extent unsatisfactory, for which I apologise in advance. I am quite sure that the House would wish me to begin by thanking my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches for introducing the subject, both from the point of view of the speech which he has himself delivered and of the opportunity which he has given to the other noble Lords who have participated to make their own comments upon the report. I share to some extent, in fact to a great extent, his disappointment that for various reasons for which none of us is responsible so few noble Lords have felt it possible to give the advantage of their opinions to the House, because I had been very much hoping that some test of opinion of the House, apart from the very experienced Lords who have taken part in the debate, would be available as a result of this debate. Indeed, the speech with which I was provided was based on the assumption that a large number of noble Lords would wish to speak, and that, therefore, they would wish the Lord Chancellor to speak rather earlier in the debate than I am doing. It was only when I discovered that only a few names were down that I decided that it would be much more appropriate, if I were to speak at the end.
I congratulate my noble and learned friend, and I think the immense contribution of knowledge, experience and humanity which he has brought to bear on this subject should be put on record. He is not only a man of immense erudition —his little excursus into the history of the subject is enough to illustrate that—and not only a person who has very clearly expressed and has humane views on the subject, but what he did not say, and what I can say from my own knowledge, is that he has an immense experience as president of the Family Division in the actual case load of the subject, without which it is very, very difficult to generalise on the subject of marriage or its problems.
I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who speaks in effect from the sociological point of view and was able to bring to bear his personal experience of the matter. I think I only quarrelled with one thing that he said. I think he was wrong when he said that the old common

1457
law, which everybody now agrees effected a great deal of injustice, applied only to the common people and that the rich had somehow contracted out of it. I think if he had been an expert in the school of English lit. rather than sociology he would have arrived at a very different view. If one reads, for instance, the novels of Jane Austen, or the novels of Trollope rather later in the 19th century, I think one would be quite clear in ones own mind that the injustices of the common law bore as heavily in effect upon the professional and middle classes, and to some extent upon the rich, as upon what he described as the common people. Of course, one can only read between the lines of Jane Austen and Trollope, but one sees the pursuit of the heiress and one sees that consequence of the heiress's marriage to an unsuitable husband as creating the very dramatic situations with which those authors were concerned. I mention that because I believe that there is a little too much assumption these days—too much assumption that the rich were catered for, before the advent of Sir William Beveridge, in a very much better way than the poor in this respect. I do not believe that that is good social history.
It is necessary for me to begin by saying the obvious; namely, that what we are discussing is the property arrangements which exist during marriage and not the property arrangements which exist at the termination of marriage. My noble and learned friend in his opening speech made that very plain. But it is important to remember that because as the noble, Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly pointed out, married couples do not usually go to law against one another unless their marriage is on the rocks. One wants to be very sure that the rights and liabilities of spouses do not tempt them to do so.
Marriage is the very foundation upon which society rests. The idea that a marriage will survive very long if the parties are dashing off to the family court —if there is one—or to the county court or the Family Division in the High Court, to decide questions of property, I do not think bears examination for a moment. I speak as a man who was married happily for 34 years. Like all married men who have been married for a long period, I had many disagreements from time to time
1458
with my wife. But, over that 34 years, think I can honestly say that I never had a disagreement about property at all under the existing law, and I do not think that I would have had any disagreement about property whatever during that 34 years even if the law had been different—whether worse or better. I think that one must bear that in mind.
On the other hand, the law of property which exists during the continuance of a marriage has a distinct bearing upon the law which applies at the breakdown of a marriage. The possible breakdown of marriages cannot be disregarded when one is considering the law of property affecting happy marriages because divorce is really entirely about custody of children, money and property. When the marriage comes to an end the divorce judge has to consider a number of quite different problems. The first is the maintenance of the spouses and their children. The second is the division of their property which may be different from, but still bears a relation to, their actual proprietary rights during the continuance of the marriage. Then he has to consider any transfers of property which take place as a result of the breakdown of the marriage. Therefore, although the question that we are deciding is the property rights between the spouses during the continuance of what is, one hopes, a happy marriage, it also bears a relationship to divorce and the consequences of a broken marriage.
Although, strictly, it is irrelevant to the Motion of my noble and learned friend, I should like to make a comment which might interest the House about " breakdown ". Obviously coming back, as I have, to the Woolsack after an interval of five years—it is rather like being Rip Van Winkle, only it is five and not 100 years—one is interested both in the resemblances and in the differences between one's first and second incarnation. One of the most striking differences which I have noticed already is the enormous number of letters coming from Members of another place to the Lord Chancellor enclosing constituents' letters complaining of the law relating to property after breakdown of marriage. There is a startling difference. They all have to be answered because they all make complaints, not so much about their individual cases—as regards which a

1459
Lord Chancellor can make no comment whatever, except that if they do not like the judge's decision they must appeal—but about what they call " the system ".
The letters break themselves down into, first, letters from husbands complaining that the system has moved too far in favour of wives. Indeed, recently there have been a great number of such letters because of a certain organisation which has been asking people to write to their Members of Parliament about it. Then there are the wives who complain that the best years of their lives have been given to their husbands, after which their husbands, when they have become old and perhaps less attractive, have gone off with a little bit of fluff. There are also letters from second wives who complain that the first wife nagged so badly that their husbands were driven away to go off with them, and as a result they cannot pay for the new family. It is said to be a very unfair system.
That brings me back basically to what my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches was saying. People must realise that, in fact, the relationship of husband and wife may have to be one of equality. As has been said more than once in the debate, it is a partnership between equal partners. However, the function are different. In another place—I think " out doors " as the old phrase in Parliament used to be—my noble and learned friend said that the cock may feather the nest, but the hen has to sit on the eggs and the cock is therefore free and under an obligation to feed her.
The functions of the wife and the functions of the husband are different in character. As a rule, the wife undergoes the burden of bearing the child—and I think that it was my noble and learned friend or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who raised this point—and she has the function of home making; and the husband, as often as not, is the wage earner. Thus, it is often the husband who has to pay maintenance at the end of an unhappy marriage. On the other hand, it is the wife who asks both for maintenance and for a share in the property whether it is the property acquired during marriage or the property acquired afterwards. Each in his and her own way has a case. It is a different case, however
1460
much equality there may be, because the facts of life provide them with differentiating functions, with differentiating consequences, relating to the possession of property and to the obligations after marriage.
I turn to the Law Commission Report which is the subject of the first part of my noble and learned friend's discourse. To begin with, I would share very much what he has said about the value of that body. I think that it has made law reform infinitely easier, although it is still almost incredibly difficult for a Lord Chancellor to introduce measures of law reform. However, it has made it infinitely easier than it was before, and the working paper, to which my noble and learned friend drew attention, is one of the most valuable devices which have been employed by the Commission. I was only disappointed that my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman was not present to take part in the debate, as I had hoped; I think my noble and learned friend Lord Simon was correct in giving him the credit for this valuable invention.
The Commission's report divides itself into three draft Bills. If I may say so, it is also a valuable invention that a parliamentary counsel should be available for the Law Commission—or, indeed, for other bodies—in order to embody the proposals in the report in a draft Bill. Before this was done, law reform was incredibly difficult because, effectively, no Private Member—even if he agreed with the recommendations of a law reform committee—could undertake the burden and technical difficulty of draftsmanship. Now Private Members of either House are free, if they will, to introduce a Bill with which they agree. If it is one of the Bills recommended by one of these bodies —the Law Commission or the Law Reform Committee—and has a draft Bill attached to it, the Member does not have to go through the business of draftsmanship; he can introduce the Bill and the Government are thereupon put under pressure to support it, to block it, or to give a definite answer about it.
The position about this report is unusual in that it contains three draft Bills. I shall not give exact figures because I should have to look at the Book in order to give them precisely, but there is a Bill about the home in Book One, which

1461
comprises about 35 clauses. I must say at once that I see no prospect of the Government legislating on that scale during the coming Session. That may be a disadvantage, or it may be an advantage, in that it will give public opinion more time to think about the matter. There is a short Bill about occupation, which I want to see on the statute book as quickly as possible. By what mechanism that is done, I cannot yet say; but if I can, I shall do my best to get it through. It is a manageable Bill; it is much shorter than the other Bill—I think it comprises 10 or 12 clauses. If the parties co-operate, I see no reason why we should not get that Bill through, perhaps during this Session.
The Bill about goods is, I think, more controversial, for the kind of reason which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave in his speech: it may create problems rather than solve them. At any rate, because the Bills are in the report, any Private Member can introduce them, either into this House or into another place, and they can be discussed at length. Therefore, that is a very great advantage.
I say in passing to my noble and learned friend who put these two questions before me, that I shall certainly ensure that the Keeling schedule, as I still like it call it — Schedule 2—of the intermediate Bill is considered before the Select Committee as he asked. I shall see that my office examines his suggestion most carefully in our various efforts to put the Bill on the statute book. I always wish that amendment Bills had Keeling schedules, but I am assured that it is impossible, both when I advocate it in Opposition and when I suggest it in Government. This is a consolidation schedule which would be very useful to the practitioner.
The other question which my noble and learned friend asked was about family courts. I do not think that I can give him very much satisfaction about that, except to say that if the system can be grafted onto the pyramid of existing courts, I am a family courts man, However, personally, I do not favour the creation of special tribunals or courts outside the hierarchy of the existing courts where it can be avoided. For a very long time the whole motion of legislation has been to try to co-ordinate the courts into one structure. I see no reason why family courts should not be introduced
1462
into that structure without destroying it. My noble and learned friend can be sure of my sympathy, but I am afraid that he can get no comfort from me because at the moment it forms no part of Government policy; it had no place in the Queen's Speech and I do not see it coming to fruition this Session. I can see a good deal of discussion and difficulty inside and outside the Government machine before it becomes law. However, I have not forgotten Mr. Justice Finer, who I think I appointed and whom we all miss today. My noble and learned friend will certainly have whatever little sympathy I can give, both inside and outside the Government if the matter of family courts can be properly co-ordinated.
I have stated a great deal of what is contained in my rather longer speech, which was prepared for me on a different hypothesis. There is one other point about the debate which surprised me: nobody mentioned tax. Tax is an extremely important question to consider in relation to the ownership of family property. This has a direct bearing, for instance, on the ownership of the family home. Perhaps I may instance a personal interest. Obviously, if the partners are not the same age, they do not expect to die simultaneously. In my case, my wife was very much younger than me and I was considering—though, in fact, I did not do so—putting the whole of the matrimonial home into her possession before I died. There were certain tax advantages to be gained in so doing, which I believe to be legitimate tax advantages. As matters took place, it happened the other way round. But let us suppose that this report had been the law and that there had been no statutory exceptions—and in my case there would have been a statutory exception because of the tax situation—when my wife died her estate would have gone, on a higher level of taxation, to the Revenue. When one is dealing with family property, one must not forget that the private arrangements between partners should not be put on a sort of bed of Procrustes, because, in fact, it may inflict the most incredible hardship in relation to the incidence of tax. I am bound to say that it rather surprised me that this was not raised.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the Commission's report, as I am sure the

1463
noble and learned Lord knows, dealt with this aspect, and that is why the period of two years was allowed in the report for the spouses to consider the tax position and contract out, as it were, of the statutory joint ownership.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was intending to make that very point. I think that the report was right, not only about tax, but in general in allowing parties to contract out. For the circumstances of almost every marriage are different. The parties have different obligations. Sometimes they have had previous marriages; sometimes the property may be a family property. The more one learns about marriages, the more certain one is of the difficulty of forcing each marriage into a bed of Procrustes which is designed to fit all marriages and which, in fact, succeeds in fitting very few. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has reminded the House in his intervention, the report is sound on that very point—not only on tax but on the infinite variety of matrimonial life.
At the end of the day, I would suggest that the important questions on the matrimonial home which must be decided by public opinion are, first, should the differing roles of the spouses be recognised by the law in terms of property rights? I think that the answer to that has been given fairly clearly by the few speakers who have spoken as an emphatic " yes ", but still we should like further expressions of opinion. It is noteworthy—and I think it is contained in the report—that more and more families are in fact doing this very thing in relation to the matrimonial home, and, as both my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have very rightly said, the survey of opinion, from whatever source it came, indicated that a large number of people agree with this view.
The second question is whether, if the existing law relating to the property rights of spouses during marriage ought to be changed, any reform should include the principle of co-ownership of the home. To that, my own answer—but it is not a Government answer—is, yes, it should, but there should be, for the reasons I have tried to elaborate, a means of contracting
1464
out. The third question is whether, if there is to be any co-ownership of a home, it should admit of any exceptions other than the right of the parties to exclude co-ownership by agreement. In other words, to what extent should co-ownership by compulsory? My own view is that the commission may have got it about right. I shall not elaborate on that any further.
Then the question is whether this should be enshrined in law. The Government have formed no view on this. My own view is that sooner or later we shall have to legislate, and there we have an instrument which we can either accept or modify. On the rights of occupation I wish to say very little because I have already said that I should like to see the second Bill on the statute book, and I derive a great deal of encouragement from knowing that it has had the support of all previous speakers. I shall see what I can do, including taking into account my noble and learned friend's suggestion about the Select Committee.
I am a little more doubtful about the Bill on household goods. I should like to think more about it. I am sure that we shall study all the speeches that have been made, but I should not like to give endorsement to it as at present because I had exactly the same reservations about it as were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mischon. I repeat, however, that all three Bills arc available for Private Members if they wish to put the Government on the spot. I think I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his Motion. I do not know whether he wants to put it to the vote. As he has moved for Papers, I should think probably not, but he will want to reply to the debate.
5.3 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, in rising to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, may I thank noble Lords who have spoken for their most felicitous and valuable contribution to this subject. We are all deeply grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for giving us an indication of his thinking. I think that the speeches today have vindicated the first two points of my Motion. As for the Papers, I do not know what they mean. I have so many papers unified

1465
that I have managed to lose my rail card among them, so, without hesitation, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HEATHROW: BAGGAGE HANDLING ARRANGEMENTS
5.4 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER Lord BOYD-CARPENTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish an independent inquiry into the arrangements for handling arriving passengers' baggage at Heathrow Airport. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I rise to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name. As your Lordships will appreciate, it relates to the narrow but not unimportant issue of the handling of passenger baggage at Heathrow Airport. It is an issue of substantial public significance. It is, after all, the fact that the great majority of those who come to this country, whether as visiting businessmen, or on holiday, first arrive at Heathrow. Their first impression of this country, its attractiveness, its efficiency, and the way it is run, is the impression they get at that airport. The efficient functioning of that airport is therefore a matter of some public importance, and I am sure is so regarded by Her Majesty's Government.
It is also the fact, as your Lordships know well, that tourism, coupled with the income of the airlines, is the biggest single contributor to the earning of foreign exchange of any economic activity in this country. As a very large—though not the whole—proportion of that tourist trade flows through Heathrow Airport, its efficient functioning, and its capacity to attract rather than to repel potential passengers, has some substantial significance for our national economy. I therefore make no apology to your Lordships for seeking to invite your Lordships' attention, and to seek a reply, and, if I am not being wildly optimistic, even action from the Government in this connection. I hold the view—I do not know whether it is generally accepted in this House—that the question of the handling of baggage at Heathrow Airport gives rise to very substantial complaint, and that in fact the standard of service has deteriorated over recent years. It has certainly not improved. I have now no official connection
1466
with any aspect of the aviation world. My only claim, apart from some past familiarity with certain aspects of it, is that like many of your Lordships I find that my business life causes me to travel very frequently, and I am therefore a frequent user of Heathrow Airport.
I should like in a moment, by way of illustration, to describe one particular and recent experience that I had. But I hope my noble friend who is to reply will allow me at this stage to say that, knowing him, I am confident that the reply will not consist of the familiar excuses which all of us have heard on many occasions. Let us discount them at once. I know that the British Airports Authority, who are responsible for Heathrow, have suffered from certain disadvantages. They suffered one serious disadvantage from the refusal of the previous Administration to allow them to get ahead with building the fourth terminal, the operation of which undoubtedly would have relieved general pressure on all aspects of the airport. They suffered from the fact that the previous Government insisted, before giving permission for that construction to go ahead, on a public inquiry which was certainly not a legal necessity and, whatever its outcome, obviously cannot be allowed to frustrate—though it has succeeded in delaying—the construction of a necessary part of the economic infrastructure of this country.
They have suffered from unhappy industrial relations, and I would not want this afternoon to allot any blame there. I know that there is a whole batch of excuses. The noble Lord could give them in his sleep. I could give them in mine. What I am hoping for from him, particularly because I know he has practical experience of the aircraft industry—and until he went into public office he was a director of an extremely efficient and well-run airline, and he has a certain measure of impartiality because that airline operates out of Gatwick—is that he will indicate that the Government are not just going to rely on vague assurances of the British Airports Authority, but are going to insist, either in the way suggested in my Question, or in some other way, on getting a grip on this matter and ensuring that improvements are made.
I know that your Lordships' House much prefers practical personal experience to support a case in debate to vague

1467
generalities. I will therefore quote one personal experience. I have a number that could be quoted, but I do not want to weary your Lordships and I think one will suffice. This was as recently as the afternoon of Thursday, 14th June, when I flew in from Zurich on British Airways flight No. 615, the aircraft of which got on to the stand at Terminal 1 at just before 1450 hours that afternoon. The day of the week and the time are significant because it was neither a peak day, nor a peak hour of the day, for traffic.
We were taken by buses to the terminal, passed quickly, efficiently and politely through immigration and went to the baggage reclaim hall. We arrived there at a moment or so before 1500 hours. The scene there was one of cloisteral calm. Four of those machines which for some reason arc called carousel—as those of your Lordships who are familiar with casinos will know, they resemble broadly very large roulette wheels and are, on the whole, as chancy in their operation as that particular instrument of gambling—stood in immobile dignity. One had a flight number on it. It was not the number of my flight. The large hall was fairly empty, but even so there were only a handful of seats and there was no sign of human life other than a few arriving passengers and some porters. There was present—and this is significant—no representative of the Airports Authority whom I could see, or any representative of the airline.
Peace and calm brooded for the next 10 minutes, then the carousel which had a flight number on it began to move. One suitcase appeared and it revolved with dignity. I did not count the number of times because when it began I did not realise it was going to go round so many times. No one appeared to claim it; I assumed the passenger had probably died of old age since its arrival. Then eventually it stopped and the one piece was taken away, and I do not know what its fate was. Another carousel down the hall woke to life and about a dozen pieces of luggage eventually appeared on it and about a dozen people collected them and went away. Calm returned, and no information of any sort was given—until at a time which was very nearly one hour after the aircraft had landed, the number
1468
of my own flight came up on one of the carousels and it woke into life. By good fortune which one so rarely encounters, my wife's and my baggage was the first on it. I grabbed it and departed, and therefore do not know the rest of the story.
May I put one other factual matter before I comment. That same evening some colleagues, who had been on the same business trip as I had, arrived by Swissair at Terminal 2, where the situation was the exact opposite. The baggage of three crowded flights was piled on one carousel. It duly appeared, but as it was piled three deep only athletes, in the peak of condition and prepared to leap upon the machine and grab their baggage from underneath the pile, could do anything about it for a long time, until by erosion of time the upper stratum had been removed. Again, I was not present on that occasion, but I am told that no indication was given by any official as to what on earth was happening.
I now come to my comments. I realise as well as anybody that these machines can break down and there can be trouble with labour and so on; but for the unloading of a moderate sized aircraft—the aircraft I was on was a Trident III—a gap of nearly an hour between the landing and the delivery of the first baggage, when the flight itself took little more than an hour, is really not acceptable. If such a delay for some unexpected reason takes place, those responsible should make an announcement and even, if they are feeling particularly genial, an apology. To leave passengers waiting possibly indefinitely gives an extraordinarily bad impression. And if there are to be delays of this kind, there should be adequate seating. People should be made comfortable, but they also should be given an opportunity to know when their baggage is likely to come, so that if they have urgent business or are feeling tired they can leave and come back and collect it at some predetermined point later on.
There are a variety of things that an imaginative direction could do to ease the situation which practical difficulties may well cause. The impression made on a number of foreigners from Europe on my flight was undoubtedly that at this airport nobody cared. Nobody gave one the slightest indication as to when one was likely to see one's luggage, if indeed

1469
ever, and no facilities or amenities to while away the time were provided. This is a matter requiring fundamental rethinking, not just somebody looking at the machinery and seeing if it can be speeded up by two or three minutes. It needs a fundamental re-think of the whole system.
I have one practical suggestion to make which would only mitigate the trouble, but which I think could help at any rate to reduce the number of those who suffer from it. In the United States internal airlines frequently have on the aircraft what is called the cloakroom system: those who are able-bodied enough to handle their baggage can themselves carry it on to the aeroplane, put it in a sort of cloakroom near the exit, collect it on arrival and walk straight off. That is of course no answer for the unfit, the elderly, people with heavy baggage and long-term tourists, but for the businessman in a hurry it is an extremely sensible system. I always adopt the principle with air baggage that one should treat it like liquor—not take more than one can carry—and this system would at least mitigate the problem by reducing the number of people having to wait for their baggage to emerge from the hold. But it is not an answer, just a mitigation, though it is something on the lines of an answer which I would hope Her Majesty's Government, with all their resources, will, in consultation with the British Airports Authority and the airlines, who are both involved in this, produce.
I realise that the fact that there are split responsibilities—as I understand it, the airlines are responsible for getting the baggage off the aircraft but the British Airports Authority is responsible for providing the machinery and premises in which the baggage is received—makes for administratively an awkward system. If one splits responsibilities it is, I think, all our experience that one is apt to get something of a breakdown, with each side only too easily willing to blame the other.
My plea this evening is, in brief, quite simple, and I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, is to speak; she has done so much work for the airline traveller over the years. If during my time at the CAA I did one good service to the airline passenger, it was in appointing the noble Baroness to the Airline
1470
Users' Committee. My plea is simply the one with which, in the days when we had The Times newspaper, so many people used to end their letters to that great organ of opinion: " Something must be done ".
5.19 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am very glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was a great nuisance to him on the Airline Users' Committee and, nuisance though I was, I could not have served under a chairman who was more fair or more considerate. Having him here and being able to join with him in what I will not call an onslaught but at least some requests to the Government has particular value.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will remember that we almost defeated the previous Government —the Government I supported—on the air security charges, and 1 recall that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told us that he had never spent a more unhappy afternoon than the afternoon when we discussed those matters. I hope that his memories, and ours, of today's debate will be much happier. I hope very much that he will feel able to agree to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, and that he will be able to accept the noble Lord's request for an independent inquiry, which I hope would he conducted quickly. We all smiled at the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and we may smile at one that I propose to give later; but that does not deter from the real seriousness of the position, and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be able to do something about it.
On 27th June we had a debate in which my noble friend Lord Parry told us that in 1968 the tourism industry earned us £383 million and by 1978 that figure had multiplied more than eight times. In fact in that year we earned £3 billion from foreign visitors. I want to quote two very short statements made by the British Tourist Authority in connection with that debate. The tourist authority told us two facts that we all know, but I think they should be underlined and should be put on the record. The first statement was:
" Tourism is an important creator of jobs. The British Tourist Authority and the tourist boards believe that 1½ million jobs are directly and indirectly dependent on tourism ".

1471
The second statement was:
" Britain could greatly increase its tourism income in the next few years—but this cannot be taken for granted. Britain, through the travel trade and the British Tourist Authority, must increase its overseas marketing ".
Eighteen months ago, on 25th January 1978, we had a debate in this House on tourism and the economy. Many of us taking part in today's debate were able to contribute to that earlier debate. I was able to make a point which many other noble Lords also made and which I think was acceptable to everybody, and on which we could have no argument. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, opened with the point this afternoon. It is that the welcome received by a visitor from overseas arriving by air in London is of immense importance because it colours his whole attitude towards Britain; and I believe furthermore that it colours his whole attitude as to whether or not he will visit this country again. I consider that the handling of baggage is one of the most important of the early stages of his welcome.
Going back a few months, I recall when Terminal 2 was the real problem. Passengers wrote to me in sheer frustration, while our own businessmen returning from Europe wrote in despair, at the effect that there was on visitors. At that time the frustration was in particular due to the fact that in Terminal 2 there were notices to the effect that a passenger could not have a trolley until he had collected his baggage from the carousel. If he went to get one he could not have it. The baggage was heavy and so many people could not struggle with it to where the trolleys were being guarded. At the same time it was suggested that for reasons of safety people should not leave their baggage unattended. That combination of circumstances completely defeated the foreigners and greatly worried the businessmen who wrote to me. One correspondent thought that I would not believe what he told me and so he took a photograph of the sign which stated that a passenger could not have a trolley until he had collected his baggage. I forwarded that photograph to the relevant quarter.
Coming up-to-date I should say that the main complaints today seem to me to relate to Terminal 3. Last month I spoke
1472
at a world airports conference in London, and one of the delegates from the USA said that he was making his 123rd trip. He had kept a careful record of his trips and on four out of every 10 his baggage took more than one hour to get to the carousel. Official returns show that the American businessman was no exception. Numbers of passengers have had to wait—and do wait—for much longer than an hour, and many are now saying, as I am sure the noble Lord knows: Aviod Heathrow if you can—
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I want to try to be helpful on this point and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can answer a question: one hour from when to when? Can she be specific?
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear what the noble Lord said.
Lord TREFGARNE: Can the noble Baroness be specific as to when the one hour applied? Was it from aircraft touchdown, or from aircraft on stand, or perhaps from when the doors were opened?
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: The American who has made 123 visits had to wait one hour for his baggage to arrive when he got to the carousel—and this has happened on four out of 10 trips.
Lord TREFGARNE: One hour from when?
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: One hour from when he reached the carousel.
I do not think that anyone wants the advice " Avoid Heathrow if you can " to spread. It would have a disastrous effect on our income and on our tourist trade. I believe that an independent inquiry is the only way to find out what is happening and what can be done to alleviate the situation. I do not think that anybody could deny that it exists.
The reasons or excuses given for the delays are endless. One hears of specialised unloading vehicles for the 747s not being available and of others being unserviceable. One also hears of staff sickness, of industrial disputes, of some

1473
ground equipment vehicles used to move cargo and baggage being simply too old and of inadequate design, requiring heavy maintenance. I am sure that all these are true facts, but they do not interest the passengers. All the passengers want is their luggage delivered promptly; and if they cannot get it delivered promptly here, they will go elsewhere.
I said that this was a general complaint. I spent this morning at a meeting of the Institute of Travel Managers, of which I happen to be the president, and I said that this matter was to be raised in your Lordships' House this afternoon. The travel managers are closely involved with sending people to and from foreign parts, and if I had taken note of all the examples that they gave me we should have been here a long time this evening. I point out to the noble Lord—though probably he does not need to be told this—that these complaints really are genuine and are causing people much worry. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I have not made them up; they really do exist.
Going on from that point, I had wondered whether I could stretch the interpretation of this Unstarred Question concerning arriving passengers' baggage so as to include the baggage of passengers arriving en route for departure, which seemed to me quite a literal interpretation. However, I shall leave that aspect of the matter for another occasion, though mentioning it now gives me the chance to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to note three points for his file. In January 1974, as this House well knows, the check-in service for passengers and their baggage was withdrawn from the West London air terminal although it was used by more than 1⅓ million passengers per annum. In April this year the remaining airport bus services were withdrawn from the West London air terminal, although more than 1 million passengers used them in the preceding 12 months. Passengers wishing to use the bus service to Heathrow now have to use that which operates from the Victoria terminal. This goes to Terminals 1 and 3. There is no service to Terminal 2; and I think that that should be on the record.
It seems to me that these three points are relevant to any arrangements for handling the baggage of passengers arriving en route for departure. I do not want
1474
to add to this interpretation this evening because I do not think that that would be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter; but I wanted these facts in the Minister's file, together with my fear that soon we may see the bus service from Victoria withdrawn, too. I say that because a year ago we were given an assurance in this House that there was no question of withdrawing the bus service from the West London air terminal. Then we find, on April 1st this year, that it has gone—just like that. I think it is important to have these things on the record, and I have the column numbers if the noble Lord wants them.
I should also like to say to him that it is rather difficult, because when one raises these matters with authority—and these are matters concerning passengers and their baggage—one is told, " We have not had any complaints ". I think that if the people concerned went to Victoria and saw the conditions at the air terminal there of people getting off the bus with their luggage, they would agree that it really is not good enough. I hope very much that the noble Lord will take account of that.
Earlier, my Lords, I mentioned the world airports conference held in London in June, and in that connection there is one point I should like to raise. We had a discussion for half a day on this question of transport, and the delegate from the USA said that be believed that transport for passengers and their baggage should be provided from the downtown area to the airport concerned. I think I should say that it should be available, because obviously passengers would have to pay for that themselves. But I told the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I would be asking him about this. I am not relating it in particular to Heathrow, but I am wondering, in the future—because I think it is tied up with this baggage question—what part public service should have to play in the provision of civil aviation. I am wondering if the noble Lord can tell me whether he thinks that the provision of transport for passengers and their baggage should be made available from the centre of a city or the downtown area to the airport concerned; and, if so, who or what he thinks should be the authority responsible for seeing that such a provision is available.

1475
That is all I wanted to say, my Lords. I am very glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that my businessmen this morning assumed we were going to get a favourable answer, and that all this was going to be put right. I did not say that we were: I merely said that I hoped.
5.33 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss once again this vexed question of the delay in passengers' baggage arriving at Heathrow Airport—a problem which simply does not seem to go away. But before discussing whether another inquiry is likely to produce a solution, I should like to draw attention once more to the causes of the problem, and to note the steps which arc at present being taken to try to alleviate it.
For quite sonic time now passengers at Heathrow have had to wait long, irritating and, I would say, totally unacceptable periods of delay before they can claim their baggage off the carousel and then proceed to go through Customs. This mostly happens, though not entirely, at peak periods. I have been told—and I think the noble Baroness made a point of this—that recently there were quite a few passengers travelling eastwards across the Atlantic, bound for various destinations in Europe, who hitherto had made a point of stopping off for a day or so in the United Kingdom. But now they overfly to Amsterdam, Brussels or Paris in order to avoid this intolerable nuisance. In their so doing, we are, of course, deprived of the foreign exchange which they would have spent in this country, quite apart from the damage that it does to our national image. I drew your Lordships' attention to this on 22nd February, 15th March and 5th April of this year.
The peak periods for arrivals are: Terminal Buildings 1 and 2, 8 to 10 a.m. and again from 4 to 7 p.m.; and for Terminal 3, 6 to 11.30 p.m. As I think your Lordships must already know, the problem is to get the registered baggage offloaded from the aircraft on to the trucks that take it to the terminal buildings, here, after sorting between that baggage
1476
for interlining and that to end here in London, it is transferred to the moving belts that take it up to the carousels, from where the passengers can collect it; and to do this over a period of time that does not subject a passenger to an overlong period of waiting after he has gone through immigration.
As an illustration of the point, let us take the case of a large jet carrying, say, 300 passengers, each with two pieces of baggage. That means there will be 600 pieces of baggage to be so handled. But at peak hours the interval for all arrivals is about two minutes. Some aircraft have more than 300 passengers, some have less; many passengers have more than two pieces of baggage each. Then conies the point when a carousel has not cleared the previous load; the next load is kept waiting to be put on to the moving belt; that, in turn, extends back to the offloading of the trucks and their return to the aircraft for more loads; and the delays get progressively worse and worse all along the line. It may be said that the provision of more carousels, more moving belts and bigger loading bays is a possible answer; but, as I have pointed out many times, for some time now Heathrow has been, and is, bursting at the seams, and it appears that there is virtually no more cubic space available in which to instal any such new installations.
A decision to build a fourth terminal is still awaited before they can start work. This is planned to relieve the pressure; but even if a decision comes immediately it is not anticipated that it will be ready much before 1984. The possible extension of the Piccadilly Tube to the new terminal from the central area will probably take much longer, as will the talked-of possible rail link coming in from Feltham. Meantime, Heathrow has now reached a figure of 27 million passengers for the year, and expects to reach a saturation point of 30 million in 1980. What is going to happen in the four-year gap? Some relief may be expected if British Airways will agree to transfer more of its long-haul services from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1 at offpeak periods at Terminal 1. They have already transferred sonic of their Chicago services. With a similar object in view, there was a proposal to move Iberia, TAP and Air Canada to Gatwick, which is being

1477
contested by the airlines in question for various very strong reasons. The problem is still to be resolved. The selection and the creation of a third London airport, with all its attendant difficulties, public inquiries and the rest, must take a very long time.
Despite the scarcity of space at the airport, the authorities have now found a way to enlarge the size of the existing carousels and extend the lengths of the moving belts, which will give a greater capacity and enable them to cope with the baggage loads of the larger aircraft. Also, the airlines are producing better machinery to get the baggage out of the aircraft. The airport authorities are also installing TV scanners to help the handling processes. Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked if an independent inquiry should not now be the order of the day. On airport questions there have been a number of inquiries to date. The last one, a public inquiry on the question of a fourth terminal building, has taken a year and a half. A decision to start work is still awaited.
There have been a number of inquiries by the consultative committee at Heathrow specifically into the problem of baggage handling. If another one is to be convened, even at once, we shall probably not get the result much before the end of 1980, or possibly 1981—that is, unless, of course, there is some further system of scanning witnesses to eliminate those eager people who insist on giving evidence, evidence which has virtually little to do with the case in question, and who seem to have the object in mind of getting their names in the papers and their pictures on TV. I shall be much interested to hear whether the Government will establish yet another inquiry; and, if not, perhaps we can be told why.
5.40 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, this is an aspect of airport life which, I think, Arthur Hailey failed to include in his famous novel. I think that if he had heard what we have heard this afternoon he might have done so. During the past four years, I have been every week, and sometimes twice a week, across the Channel starting at Heathrow. When coming back to London, I have often had to wait almost as long for my baggage
1478
as it took me to fly from Brussels to London. I have no strong complaints about Terminal 1. I have had to wait there; but on the whole, I think that things are fairly well handled. But Terminal 2 really has been the end. It has symbolised to me (as I think to many visitors) Britain's current comparable failure to organise and create. The alterations there have been going on for years and now they are almost complete; but even now Terminal 2, in its design and in its amenities, is no more than the kind of airport which any developing country might be proud to have. Of Terminal 3, I have no experience at all.
The worst feature of Terminal 2 has been the luggage handling. They never seem to know which carrousel your baggage will come to until it has arrived there. The luggage trolleys are stored at the far end. Even now, they are unwillingly doled out by an attendant who is performing an unnecessary service. Until recently, as the noble Baroness has said, they would not give you a trolley until you had your luggage. This meant that you might have to drag it the whole length of the hall. I remember a noble Lord suffering from a physical handicap becoming almost apoplectic with righteous indignation when they imposed such a strain on his physique. The fact that he was crippled did not make it possible for him to be given a trolley. Standing all around there are sturdy porters. How they make a living I do not know, because they seldom seem to be employed. I wonder whether they are strictly necessary. I wonder whether they would not be better handling luggage out of sight. Are they on the payroll and how much do they receive in wages?
It is remarkable that the main-line railway stations are often devoid of porters and of luggage trolleys, too, while the airport has a seeming superfluity of them. I should not be surprised, in view of their under-employment, if there were not some kind of restrictive practice going on in Terminal 2—some kind of gentle discouragement to passengers—but it does not seem to have done them any good. This problem has been partially solved now, but not wholly.
I very strongly support the noble Lord's request. There is a particular type of passenger who has a kind of neurosis

1479
about losing sight of his baggage. They take it with them everywhere, dragging their heavy bags along the long alleys to take into the aircraft with them. It was not until this afternoon that I realised why the airline companies are so tolerant of these bulky packages and suitcases, which are far bigger than should be permitted to be taken on board. Obviously, the airlines allow them to be taken on board because, if the passenger has the responsibility for taking the baggage off the plane, that solves their problems. However, I may say that their carrying these parcels makes it inconvenient for other passengers who have handed ill their luggage. I feel that something ought to be done to discourage this.
One can see the difficulty arising out of the vast number of passengers and the large aircraft of today. It is a difficult problem, but I am sure it is not an insoluble one. I hope that the inquiry will reveal how it can be solved and how it will be solved.
5.45 p.m.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I intrude with diffidence into this debate, but I do so because my noble friend who opened it asked those of us who have practical experience to say what they have found. I travel from Glasgow to Heathrow practically every week during the time that this House is in Session and I arrive between 1.30 p.m. on most days and, later on, two hours later. Let me explain that I carry my luggage myself, otherwise the situation would be hopeless. I get down off the plane and I go to the point where the bus arrives. There I find a pavement about half the width of a pavement of an ordinary street in the City of London. It is piled with trolleys and baggage of the people who are already waiting to get a bus. I have to wade through that mob and generally have to get off the pavement and walk in the roadway, in imminent danger of being mown down by a bus arrival.
Next, I must find where to get a ticket. There is a small window about 18 inches by 18 inches—not much more—and I have to find it. I look hard to find a notice which says " Tickets ". The lettering is about one and a half inches high so that one has to look closely before one can
1480
find it. I get in a queue there, and from other countries people are arriving who have foreign money or who have English money in large denominations. We pay £1.20 to get the bus to London. There is one person inside doling out the tickets, giving change, collecting money and so on.
When I have a ticket, I look for a bus. I may have to wait for up to a quarter of an hour before one arrives. When it arrives it comes from another terminal and is already three-quarters full so that sometimes there are only two available seats. That is a lot of help after waiting a quarter of an hour or so. Once on the bus, I have to find somewhere to put my hand luggage. Having done so, the bus proceeds on a devious route to Victoria. I am speaking principally from the time that the West London terminal was done away with. It was quite simple in those days! One got to the West London terminal, got a taxi and was at one's destination quickly.
Now, one gets on the bus and arrives at Victoria having gone round through various routes, eventually on to the river bank and along Grosvenor Road for two or three miles before reaching Victoria Street and going over Ebury Bridge. The bus arrives at the back of Victoria Station aircraft station and then I must get out, not on to the pavement but on to the roadway. Often there is no one to tell people where to go. I happen to know; but people from abroad can have no idea, and most people on the bus are foreigners. I wonder what they think of this country when, after all the trouble they have to go through to get the bus, when they get to Victoria they must find a taxi—and there is room for only three taxis at the place where they must go; and it is through a building. Directly outside, is the main road to Ebury Bridge and taxis are not in the usual course likely to come there very often; so I join a queue and wait there. Before the West London terminal was done away with, I used to arrive here between 1.20 and 1.40 p.m. Now, since having to go round this circuitous route I am here on average 20 minutes later than I used to be. It is the most awful mess that I have ever seen. For anyone who likes organisation, it is obvious that the people who run the show do not know the first thing about it; or how to handle passengers. It is a complete abomination and a disgrace to our country.
5.50 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I want to add just one personal experience. On 26th June I arrived at Terminal 2 from France. I had heard that the terminal had been completed and I looked forward to getting through it with greater ease than in the past. I came down to the luggage reclaim hall. There were four gigantic turntables there. There was no indication which one one should go to. One had to go round and look at the indicator in the centre to try to find out which turntable was appropriate to the flight, whereas any sensible person could put up an annunciator which could be seen by everybody from a distance and say: " Flight No. so-and-so. Turntable No. so-and-so ". It would be as simple as that. Instead, one has to try to find the turntable and the right one might not he indicated for quite a long time.
This was on a Tuesday at 3 o'clock. I cannot say that the place was deserted, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, found. It was, on the contrary, very busy, and I could not find a trolley. I found, with great difficulty, a porter. I told him that I wanted to get on to a bus to the West London Terminal. I found to my horror that there was no longer a bus to the West London Terminal. The porter said to me, " You can go on the Underground ". That meant that I would have had to carry my luggage down to the station there and out at the station at this end. I asked him, " Is there no bus? " He said, " There is a Green Line bus which goes to London ". He was very polite and obliging.
He took my baggage round to where the Green Line bus stopped. He left me there and did not even take a tip. For politeness I awarded him 100 per cent. marks. But I had to wait for nearly an hour for a Green Line bus before I could get off to London. When I arrived at this end I was put out at a stop in Buckingham Palace Road, where it is extremely difficult to pick up a taxi. I had to wait nearly half an hour before I found a taxi which was free. This is not a way in which aircraft passengers should be treated.
5.53 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords
1482
will thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for raising the issue of the handling of baggage at Heathrow Airport. As Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lady Burton of Coventry and Lord Amherst have indicated, it is very important that people arriving in this country should feel welcome when they arrive at a major international airport. In a number of ways this was underlined in this House recently in the debate on the service industries, and previously in the debate on tourism which I initiated some 18 months ago.
We should not forget that Heathrow, although it is only the fifth largest airport in the world, is the largest airport for the handling of international traffic. International traffic tends to bring with it a much higher percentage of baggage than an airport which handles largely national passengers. As has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, there have been a number of inquiries in the past concerning the handling of baggage at Heathrow. In particular, I have in mind the inquiry carried out in 1977 by the Passenger Services Sub-Committee of the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee. I found that a very useful report, in that it describes the arrangements which exist at the present time for the handling of baggage at Heathrow.
This report made a number of recommendations. In particular, it proposed that baggage handling should be more closely monitored than it has been in the past. They have stated in the report that a target time for the first item of baggage to arrive on the carousel or on the race track should be 20 minutes, and that most airlines set themselves a target time of 45 minutes for the last bag to arrive. Unfortunately, that does not always happen, as we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He had to wait 60 minutes for his bag to arrive. One would have thought in any case that the airlines should be setting themselves a rather shorter time period for the arrival of the last bag on the carousel. To my mind, a period of 20 minutes seems reasonable for the arrival of the first bag.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? It is important. This is the same question as was asked by the noble

1483
Lord, Lord Trefgarne: 20 minutes from when?
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: From the point of time when the aircraft arrives on the stand. My Lords, the consultative committee is in a sense run as an organisation which has had a certain connection with the Greater London Council and is representative of the authorities in the area, and other user groups, ordinary users, such as the Consumers' Association, and so on. It can be said to be an independent body in the sense that it does not represent the airlines as such. They recommended in their report of 1977 that the Home Office be asked to consider increasing the number of immigration officers at Heathrow, particularly for Terminal 3 arrivals, and to look further into alternative methods of organising queues to accommodate short-stay non-British passport holders and thus improve service to all.
The recommendations of the committee were largely accepted by the British Airports Authority, which welcomed the report, and accepted some of the recommendations, although they did not agree entirely about the way in which the recommendations should be implemented. The Airline Operators Committee also welcomed the report, although they had certain specific comments to make about one of the recommendations. This was the recommendation concerning the segregation of baggage of first-class passengers and those paying a full rate of fare. Regarding this particular recommendation, the airlines found that there were insurmountable difficulties with regard to enforcing them.
Subsequently, a lot of these recommendations have been put into force. The geographical split of arriving non-EEC and United Kingdom passengers, splitting those off from those of the North American continent, has been introduced. It generally seems that the immigration facilities arc working more smoothly than they have been working in the past. Indeed, it is rare for people to be held up in immigration to the extent at they find that their baggage has ved in the baggage hall before they get It is slightly ironic in some ways the British Airports Authority that having improved some of
1484
the immigration facilities, the pressure is now very much on improving the baggage handling arrangements because people are able, and I am sure we would all welcome this, to get through immigration more quickly than they were able to, do before.
I gather that on 23rd June the committee inspected the arrangements again, and they felt there was little more that could be done physically to improve the arrangements at the present time, given the constraints imposed by the airport's design. That, of course, very neatly tucks in with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that a major constraint is the fact that there is no fourth terminal at the present time and that greater latitude is needed by the Airports Authority in order to further improve the arrangements.
I think we should recognise that. Heathrow, when it was built, was built for very much smaller aircraft carrying very much less baggage than is being carried today, and it is having to function with larger aircraft carrying larger amounts of baggage than in fact had to be carried in the past. Therefore, this inevitably creates problems. I certainly feel that anything which can be done to improve the arrangements at Heathrow to enable there to be better handling of baggage is something which should be supported; but one wonders at this point of time what further inquiry is likely to bring forth.
A number of noble Lords have made very valid complaints. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Douglas of Barloch, made particular complaints, but in fact they were not so much about the handling of baggage but about the arrangements for transportation from Heathrow to Central London.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, surely the handling of the passengers is even more important than the handling of the baggage. I am complaining, as other noble Lords have done, about the complete mishandling of passengers, which makes them all very angry.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble Lord says, but the debate that has been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord

1485
Boyd-Carpenter, this afternoon is in respect of an independent inquiry into the arrangements for the handling of the arrival passengers' luggage at Heathrow Airport; and this is what we are debating now. I have entire sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I am sure that this is something which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will wish to take up —indeed, we will all wish to take it up—with the British Airports Authority and British Airways, to exert pressure to see that this particular service from the airport to the West London air terminal is reintroduced, so that the noble Lord, Lord Stratchclyde, can be with us 20 minutes earlier on a Monday afternoon. That is something I am sure we would all support. But what we are actually talking about is the question of baggage and, as I said earlier in supporting what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, I believe it is very important that this must be adequately handled, or else people will do as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has suggested—they will overfly to Paris or to Amsterdam and cut out London.
I do not myself want to talk about all the problems involved or else I might fall into the trap I had almost accused the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of falling into: that is, of talking about matters which are not on the Order Paper this afternoon. But I feel that various conference organisers, for example, have been feeling in the last year or so that they want to be fairly well assured that if they do decide to come here at a certain point in time they will not be hit by these problems in these sort of areas, so causing their conference not to function smoothly. That side of the matter is very important and we should try to ensure that it works smoothly.
What I am not entirely convinced of as yet—and no speaker so far today has come out with any particular ideas—is how the baggage handling is going to be improved, given the present constraints at Heathrow. I very much hope that the noble Lord will take to heart everything that has been said and, with his very much greater experience of this industry, that he himself will have some ideas as to how we could produce a radical improvement at Heathrow. Perhaps I could say in closing that sometimes when one goes to the smallest airport in the world in fact one's baggage is handled
1486
most quickly. Certainly I remember that 18 months ago when I went to Mauritius, one had hardly got out of the plane when all the luggage was already on the runway, and that was as far as it had to go.
6.6 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I shall need the divine protection that was afforded to Daniel in the den tonight if I am to get away with my skin, but I will do my best! I think we all recognise the importance of the subject which the noble Lord has raised this evening. With his great experience of aviation matters, both within government and as the first chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, he will know that the handling of baggage at Heathrow is not primarily the responsibility of the Government but is a matter for the day-to-day management, first, of the airlines but also of the British Airports Authority. Nevertheless, he has constructed his Question in such way as to enable the House to have this useful short debate on it and I congratulate him upon doing so.
While it is the case that the Government have no direct responsibility, we are concerned about baggage handling for two reasons. First, we are involved, as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, with that organisation's work in improving the movement between countries of aircraft, passengers and cargo. Within the industry, this is described as " facilitation " and baggage-handling is one of the areas of particular importance. ICAO held a major conference about facilitation in April this year, in which the United Kingdom took an active role. Our delegation comprised representatives from the Department of Trade, Customs and Excise and the Immigration Service and they were supported by advisers from our airlines and the airport authorities. We believe that this was useful in seeking to improve the handling of aircraft, passengers and cargo at our airports. But, apart from our support for the efforts of ICAO to improve air transport facilitation throughout the world, the Government are concerned also with facilitation generally, and baggage handling specifically, from the standpoint of airport planning.
The House will understand the need to use as fully and as efficiently as possible

1487
the airport resources available to us. This requires, among other things, the movement of passengers as rapidly as possible through the passenger terminals at our airports. To assist this process, the objective should be, wherever possible, the elimination of bottlenecks, whether they be in baggage handling, at the Immigration Control or at the Customs check. Against the background of the work which is now proceeding on future airport capacity for the London area, our debate today is again particularly apposite.
I visited Heathrow recently to see the situation for myself and to discuss the problems with the British Airports Authority and the chairman of the Airline Operators' Committee. I was able to gain an all-round impression of the way the baggage-handling system at the airport works and to clarify what I know is a matter of some confusion for many people—namely, where the responsibility lies for the handling of passengers' baggage at airports. At Heathrow, as at many other airports throughout the world, the task is split betweeen the airlines and the airport authority. The British Airports Authority is responsible for allocating aircraft stands, which can make a difference in the time taken for passengers and baggage to reach the passenger terminal. The BAA also provides and maintains the necessary equipment such as conveyors and mechanised sorting devices within the terminal buildings. But the responsibility for the handling of baggage rests with the airlines. The sorting of baggage, its transfer to and from the aircraft, and the loading and unloading of aircraft are all undertaken by airline staff. The airlines also provide the vehicles and equipment necessary to transport baggage between the terminal and the aircraft.
The airlines are constantly seeking ways of improving their performance in the reclaim of passengers' baggage. British Airways, for example, publishes regular statistics of the time lapse between the arrival of aircraft on the stand and the delivery of baggage to the terminal building. In addition, the BAA has undertaken the monitoring of the baggage delivery performance of all airlines since 1975. Baggage handling working groups have been set up to deal with particular problems, and the BAA is in constant touch with the airlines to find ways in
1488
which baggage handling may be improved. I am advised that there is a monthly review of progress.
At Heathrow the standard time for the delivery of baggage from the aircraft to the terminal is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said, 20 minutes. During the period of heaviest traffic, from August to October 1978, when there was a 21 per cent. increase in the number of flights as compared with the same period a year earlier, baggage handling performance nevertheless improved slightly. The baggage from nearly half the flights was delivered in less than the standard time and three-quarters was delivered by the standard time. Within 10 minutes of the standard time—that is, within half an hour of the arrival of the aircraft—94 per cent. of baggage was delivered, compared with 93 per cent. a year earlier. Three of the handling agents delivered 99 per cent. of their baggage within half an hour. This, as I have explained, was against the background of a substantial increase in traffic between the two years, which inevitably put a strain on all the baggage handling facilities of the airport.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to his unhappy experience with British Airways. It is true that British Airways was not one of the agents which delivered 99 per cent, of its baggage within half an hour ot fhe aircraft arriving. British Airways is conscious of the need to improve its performance, and it is not my purpose to answer for, or excuse, British Airways this evening. However, to put the matter in perspective, I would just observe that British Airways handles many of the smaller airlines at Heathrow, in addition to its own services. Indeed, in the period August to October 1978, British Airways handled nearly 75 per cent. of the flights at Heathrow; in Terminal 1, 98 per cent. of the baggage on its domestic flights and 94 per cent, on its international services was delivered within 10 minutes of the standard time; compared with a year earlier, British Airways handling in Terminal 2 achieved the biggest improvement of any handling agent at the airport; and in Terminal 3 the airline also achieved a useful improvement in its performance.
I quote these figures only by way of illustration, because there can be no

1489
grounds for complacency. A passenger opinion survey conducted at Heathrow last September found that there was a balance of opinion in favour of the airport, and over half those questioned considered that Heathrow gave a smart and bright impression and thought it friendly and relaxing. However, I have to tell your Lordships that baggage handling was a principal source of complaint.
It is often suggested that baggage handling should be organised under a single authority, be it the airline, the airport authority or an independent agent. As your Lordships will know, at many American airports the largest airlines have their own terminals. This certainly has its attractions, but it depends upon a generous supply of land for separate airline terminals which is simply not available at Heathrow. Moreover, the American system is designed around domestic air transport, since international flights are only a small proportion of the total traffic. This greatly simplifies the task, since the arrangements for customs and immigration do not have a major influence on the layout and organisation of the airport. The reverse, of course, is the case at Heathrow, with its heavy preponderance of international traffic. Where US airports do have a major element of international traffic, they are, I am afraid, subject to criticism at least as severe as that directed at Heathrow. Another solution sometimes proposed is to have all the handling done by the airport authority. This is not a solution which normally commends itself to the airlines. Their business depends upon the service that they can give to their passengers, and they are understandably reluctant, particularly in so sensitive an area as baggage handling, to abrogate this responsibility to the airport authority.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the points that have been made this evening. As for the specific delay raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he opened this debate, I will certainly take that up with British Airways and see whether there is an explanation, if not an excuse, that can be given to the noble Lord for what certainly sounded to be unsatisfactory performance. The noble Lord suggested that there ought to be at least an apology for delay when it occurs,
1490
and perhaps some explanation. I think that that is certainly right. When I visited Heathrow a week or so ago to prepare myself to answer this Question, I was shown the facilities that the BAA have in each baggage hall. I can tell the noble Lord that there are BAA officials who arc there all the time monitoring the situation and that, in most cases, they have closed circuit television to monitor the arrival of baggage at each of the carrousels.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also referred to the " cloakroom system ", as I think he called it, which is used in aircraft of other airlines away from the United Kingdom. I think that that sounds an excellent idea which I shall certainly draw to the attention of British Airways. But it occurs to me that there may be some security implications, in that every bit of baggage which is carried on to the aircraft, as distinct from being put into the hold of the aircraft, has to he searched in order to make sure that it does not contain any weapon or other device which could be used in a hijacking attempt. But I do not want to shoot down the idea at this stage without further examination.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and others referred to the question of trolleys and help for the aged and infirm. The BAA makes a sustained effort to provide sufficient self-service trolleys at the places where they are needed. I am told that 4,000 are in service and 2,000 of these are in Terminal 3. In addition, there are nearly 400 porters at the airport, of whom about 100 are on duty at peak times. The porters, who are employed as ordinary members of the staff and allowed to accept (but not solicit) tips, have orders to give priority to the elderly and infirm and group tours. The rapid clearance of groups benefits independent travellers. Travellers departing by Underground are expected to use trolleys and can take them as far as the ticket barrier at the top of an escalator, whence they are taken back to the terminal by BAA staff. When I visited Heathrow recently, I made a special point of travelling by the Tube. I found it convenient, speedy and comfortable and my impressions would seem to be borne out by the many of those who use it, but not, I fear, by some of your Lordships who perhaps have not yet had the chance to try it.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, how much baggage did the noble Lord have?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I agree that the Tube is not the best form of transport for anyone with a large quantity of baggage. But, all the same, as I have said, baggage trolleys can be taken right to the barrier of the Tube and it is then just a very short walk on to the train itself. We must, however, recognise—
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Nobody has disputed the value of the Underground for people without baggage. What we are trying very hard to get authority to see, and to get both Governments to see, is that there are two ends of the Tube. There is the one where you get on, where you have to leave your trolley and get your baggage past the barrier. Then there is not a single London Tube with an exit at street level for passengers with their baggage.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords. I agree that there is a problem for passengers with baggage on the Tube. The Tube is certainly not the best method of travel for those who are elderly or infirm, or who have a large quantity of baggage. But I shall come to the question of buses in a moment. Passengers for Central London, who are elderly or infirm or who have more baggage than they can carry on the Tube, are expected to use the British Airways bus service to the Victoria terminal, and I understand that they would be advised to that effect by the porters. I think the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, would confirm that. However, I shall come back to the buses in a little more detail.
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst—I should like to deal with these small points, because the buses are rather important—referred to the need for further terminal capacity at Heathrow. As the House knows, the British Airports Authority has plans to build a fourth passenger terminal at Heathrow. It was the subject of a public inquiry last year. That was decided upon by the last Administration. My right honourable friends received the inspector's report towards the end of May. This is now being considered and they hope to announce their decision and to publish the report very shortly.
1492
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, also referred to the transfer of services from Heathrow to Gatwick. That would certainly help to relieve some of the congestion at Heathrow. There is no doubt that some redistribution of traffic among the London airports is essential and that traffic will have to be transferred to Gatwick since Heathrow will be unable to accommodate the demand. I can say that my right honourable friend is presently considering the next steps in the development of this policy.
To come to the question of buses, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, asked me specifically about the need for bus services from the centre of cities generally to airports and specifically in the case of London and Heathrow. I agree that unless there is a train service with adequate accommodation for luggage, a bus service is essential. I have no particularly strong views as to who should run that service, but clearly there is something to be said for the airlines themselves doing so. They can synchronise the buses with their flights and make special arrangements when flights are delayed, but we should recognise that a bus service is part of the competitive package which airlines offer. If they consider that they will attract additional passengers by offering check-in of luggage at the town centre, coupled with the bus service, then no doubt they will do so, and we should welcome that. That is why there are still three airline bus services from Central London. If there are still passengers who cannot conveniently use the existing bus services in sufficient numbers to support a viable service for passengers from various airlines, then I would expect the public transport authorities to identify the need and be prepared to do something about it. I am sure that it is not right for subsidised bus services to be provided for airline passengers for any of the organisations concerned with air transport. May I say in parenthesis that when the service from the West London Terminal Air was withdrawn recently, it was losing something like £900,000 a year, which your Lordships will agree is a very substantial sum.
We all recognise the problem of baggage handling—and the airlines and the airport authority do as much as anybody. Some progress is being made with containerisation, which allows all the bags for one

1493
destination to be removed from the aircraft in a few moments. This is a major advance, but the question is: what more can be done, both in the interests of the passenger and the more efficient operation of the airport? My noble friend has suggested an independent inquiry.
There was such an inquiry in 1972 during the last Conservative Administration. This inquiry was conducted by the Metra consulting group who worked under the guidance of a steering committee of officials. Their report—which cost £40,000, no less—contained proposals designed to reduce the time passengers and their baggage spent at Heathrow. It dealt also with wider matters such as checking-in systems, the handling of transfer passengers and immigration procedures, but by far the greatest effort was devoted to baggage handling.
Metra recommended that effort should be concentrated on the unloading of the aircraft and that there should be much more and better equipment. They also suggested a substantial increase in manpower and ways in which the organisation and motivation of the manpower might be improved. These proposals were largely adopted. In 1977 there was a further study—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—by the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee, this time dealing solely with baggage handling. They, too, made a number of detailed suggestions: better monitoring arrangements, improvements to baggage reclaim units, better road access, improved deployment of trucks and more consultation on day-to-day problems between the airport and the airlines. These proposals, too, were substantially adopted and the monitoring and consultation arrangements, to which referred earlier, continue in force.
I mention these matters to remind the House that this whole difficult subject has been considered carefully in the past and that the problem areas, while easy to identify, are less easy to resolve. The essential conclusion to emerge from these earlier studies is that there is no dramatic initiative which can be taken to effect an immediate improvement. The problem needs day-to-day attention and constant effort to improve performance. While, then, I consider this to be essentially a managerial problem for the airlines and
1494
the airport authority, I believe that there is also room for independent criticism and guidance. This is a role which is already filled by the on-going work of the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee and by the Air Transport Users' Committee. I do not have the direct knowledge of these committees available to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, but I believe the relationship between the committees and the airport and airline managements to be a stimulating and constructive one. We should consider very carefully before interposing a further body which is hound to overlap with their activities.
This is, as I have said, an important issue but it is a matter for the day-to-day management of the airlines and the airport authority. I do not believe that Government intervention could assist and I am hound to say, in view of past studies and the attention which is given to baggage handling within the industry, that I remain unconvinced of the need to appoint yet another body to inquire into this subject.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, I wonder whether he would consider this. Personally, I have sympathy with his doubts about another body, but will my noble friend give consideration to selecting an experienced individual, such as Sir Peter Masefield, who, given a small staff, could take a quick and independent view of this system? My noble friend knows as well as I do that when one is running a system, everybody becomes wedded to it and a little conservative. Sometimes the wholly independent judgment of somebody with experience—and I have suggested, off-the-cuff, Sir Peter Masefield—can throw up possible improvements.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, no one is a greater admirer of Sir Peter Masefield than I. However, I should have thought that the motivation for airlines, particularly in this matter, to achieve an improvement in their performance must be quite powerful. I doubt whether any other body, however expert and famous, is likely to provide any suggestions which are any more likely to achieve success than those which are

1495
available already to airlines. However, as I have said, the Government will certainly keep their eye on the situation. If things do not improve—or, worse still, if they decline further than they already have—we shall certainly want to have another look at the matter.
As I have said, I have no doubt that what has been said and the suggestions which have been made will be considered fully and carefully by the airlines, the British Airports Authority, the independent—I emphasise that word—Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee and, not least, by the Air Transport Users' Committee, upon which the noble Baroness serves with such distinction.
Within Government there is a strong commitment to the welfare and efficiency of air transport, which is an industry in which our country continues to hold a place among world leaders. We know that foreign tourists will bring in about 3 billion pounds sterling of foreign currency this year, many of them travelling by air, and that some 15 per cent. by value of the country's trade is now carried by air. The best immediate contribution which the Government can make is by encouraging a greater use of Gatwick—and baggage handling times there are of course distinctly better than at Heathrow—and by removing as soon as possible the uncertainties surrounding the question of airports capacity for the London area.
We are pledged to less Government rather than more and, where intervention remains appropriate, we shall not hesitate to take the necessary action. For the moment, however, we are not convinced that this is an appropriate case.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.