Lords Sitting of 30 October 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Earl Howe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his cousin.
Lord Harmsworth—Took the Oath.

Jamahiriya School: Security
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are still of the opinion that the Libyan presence at a school in Chelsea poses no threat to security.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I understand that the Jamahiriya School at Chelsea is a bona-fide educational establishment. If there were any reason to suppose that this establishment posed a threat to security, the police would take whatever action was necessary.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at any given time upwards of six cars with diplomatic number plates can be seen parked in the playground of this school, and that there is a constant coming and going of people whose appearance leads one to suppose that they have only a tenuous connection with the education of small children? Will the Minister assure the House that these premises have no form of diplomatic immunity and that there is in force a security operation which would give us early warning if the premises were being improperly used?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot comment on the appearance of the people going in and out of the building. I am aware that a number of cars belonging to Libyan diplomats who were formerly resident in this country are parked at the Chelsea school pending their eventual disposal. The police pay close attention to the situation, but I understand that there is at present no reason to believe that there is anything untoward about the presence of the cars which are not, as the noble Lord rightly says, on diplomatic property.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend express similar confidence about the Libyan presents to the National Union of Mineworkers?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to be strict about the rules of order and what is on the Order Paper, no matter how strong is the temptation to break them.

"Generals For Peace" Organisation: Security
2.38 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the activities of the organisation known as "Generals for Peace"; and whether they are of the opinion that these activities are consistent with the maintenance of security in the free world.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we are aware of the activities of this organisation, which originated in discussions at Sofia during a World Peace Council Congress in1980. The collective views of Generals for Peace and Disarmament are contrary to those of the Government and our allies. The Government's policy is of course to preserve the security of the United Kingdom and the countries of the Western Alliance.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether the Government are aware that of the eight founder members of this organisation, which purports to consist of NATO generals, four are members of the World Peace Council, a notorious Soviet front organisation? Is she further aware that the founder and controller of this organisation until very recently was Dr. Gerhard Kade, who is a senior figure in the Soviet propaganda apparatus? Is it not a matter of grave concern that an organisation posing as NATO Generals for Peace might be the instrument of disseminating Soviet disinformation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are fully aware of the close links between four of the original sponsors and five of the current 14 members of the so-called generals group and the World Peace Council. Dr. Gerhard Kade, their co-ordinator until last year, is also an official of the World Peace Council in Helsinki and of its subsidiary, the International Institute for Peace, in Vienna.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I can remember as far back as 1938 and a famous Secretary-General of the Communist Internationale giving instructions as to how to recruit people into the Russian peace organisations? His words, I remember, were, "One sympathiser, a writer of reputation or a retired general is worth more than 500 poor devils who know no better".
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is an organisation of ex-generals and admirals of both the West and the East, and even those who have commanded United Nations forces? Is she further aware that its purpose is to prevent a nuclear war, with all its threat to mankind? Is that not the stated purpose of the Government, and therefore should not this organisation be welcomed?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. These retired officers from NATO countries in no sense represent

435
the alliance or their countries. They claim, in fact, that they are working for disarmament, but they have been strongly critical of Western strategy. They have particularly attacked the deployment of Cruise and Pershing II missiles. They have endorsed the Warsaw Pact disarmament proposals, and have wholly failed to protest at the Soviet Government's recent stationing of nuclear missiles in Czechoslovakia and East Germany.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the danger of this type of Soviet disinformation is enhanced when two national newspapers like the Guardian and the Observer publish accounts of Generals for Peace without any mention of their connections with the Soviet Union? Is she also aware that when this evidence was produced for the Observer the editor categorically refused to print it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am aware of the point that my noble friend has made. The fact is that in this country we have a tradition of responsible newspapers printing relevant facts, and any lapses from such a high standard would be regrettable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British officer among these generals is an officer with a distinguished record, whatever may be his views about strategy or armaments? Would it not be quite wrong to give the impression in this House that we all regard him as a mole, a red under the bed, or a communist stooge? Is he not entitled to his views on these matters without being so branded?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in a free society the officer in question is as entitled to express his views as anybody else. But it is a dangerous matter when the suggestion is made that these people are speaking on behalf of NATO or the NATO allies, or are writing on their behalf when, in fact, they are retired generals.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister is right to say that this officer is as entitled to express his view as everyone else in this country. Is he also not entitled to be excluded from being described as a communist, a traitor, a red under the bed, or any other unpleasant name which people direct at him? Will the noble Baroness be quite clear in what she says about that?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that in any of the exchanges that have taken place across the Floor of the House this afternoon anyone has described Brigadier Harbottle in those terms. What the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, drew attention to was the link between this organisation and the World Peace Council which I have supported.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned Brigadier Harbottle, but was it not quite clear from the implication of what was said by her and others that he was so regarded? Would she not agree that he is a distinguished ex-officer with a good record?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are not discussing the record of any particular person. The point that has been made in this exchange is that there is a link between this organisation and the World Peace Council.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—she seems to be very well aware of a great many of the activities of this organisation—that ex-General M. H. von Meyenfeldt, who I understand is presently chairman of this posse of generals, wrote in the journal of the World Peace Council in October 1981:
"The foreign policy of the USA is aimed at retaining its position of strength and returning to its old plans of world domination"?
Does my noble friend agree that while we must be careful of spotting any particular reds under beds, we should also be careful of wolves in sheep's clothing and possibly even of bears in doves' plumage?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I would agree with my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if, instead of listening to this somewhat inflammatory Question and Answer, noble Lords would read the document Generals for Peace and Disarmament, which may be obtained in the Library, they would discover that the policies put forward by the Generals for Peace are almost identical in many respects with those of Her Majesty's Opposition?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in these circumstances is it not highly undesirable that the defence committee of this House should be under the control of people who take such a biased view of the whole situation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me to show that the policy of Generals for Peace and the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition are the same. I should have thought that there were divided views on that matter. I would hope that that was the case.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the organisation called the Centre for International Peacebuilding, which houses Generals for Peace and whose director is their administrator, has set up a registered charity called the Caroline Gourlay Trust? Might this matter not be brought to the urgent attention of the Charity Commission, in view of what many people regard as the blatantly pro-Soviet propaganda distributed by these organisations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there are very strict rules regulating the conduct of registered charities, particularly regarding activities of a political character. The points that my noble friend has made, if valid, are no doubt for the consideration of the Charity Commissioners or for my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Minister aware that I am grateful for the robust answers that she has given to my Question? Is she also aware that I accused no one of being a traitor, least of all the British member of this strange organisation? Is she aware that in my view the links between this organisation and the Soviet propaganda organisation are a matter of concern? Would she not agree that the fact that ex-NATO generals who held very high positions should now be meeting serving Soviet generals to discuss strategy in Western Europe is a matter of the gravest concern?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made. In fact, the meetings which have taken place, and the third meeting which has recently taken place in Vienna, have in many respects been gifts to Soviet propaganda. In practice these meetings have been stage managed by the Soviet-controlled International Institute for Peace—the Vienna counterpart of the World Peace Council in Helsinki—from whose former offices it operates.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I trespass for one moment?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would give way? We have been nine minutes on this Question. Perhaps the House might agree that after the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has put his question and my noble friend has answered we should move on.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I merely wanted to ask the noble Baroness whether she was aware that what I am about to quote is from the pamphlet issued by Generals for Peace. This quotation will commend itself to the whole House:
"One must recognise the wisdom of the wartime slogan: 'Know your Enemy'."
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that we should know our enemies.

Electricity Prices: Consumer Representations
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their answer on 17th May last (col. 1504) and subsequent letter of 4th June to the Baroness Burton of Coventry concerning the right of the London Electricity Consultative Council to make further representations to the Secretary of State for Energy, they will indicate the present position on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I understand that the London Electricity
438
Consultative Council, following its representations to the Electricity Council about the increase in domestic electricity prices last April, has not chosen to pursue the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the central point at issue in all this was that the electricity industry was being required to make a separate grant to the Treasury in 1984–85 of £360 million over and above the £380 million which would have been consistent with the financial target for that year? Does he also recall that the chairman of the Electricity Council, Mr. Jones, said that the £360 million was necessary neither on economic pricing grounds nor in order to meet the industry's current financial target? Furthermore, would the Minister accept that this was not an agreed figure but one imposed without any consultation at all?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, I would not agree with what the noble Baroness says. We are now going back over the ground covered in April. At that stage a 2 per cent. increase in domestic prices was the subject of a challenge by the London Electricity Consultative Council, and the consultative council exercised its rights under statute formally to appeal. This rise of 2 per cent. was agreed by the Electricity Council and duly came into force.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I should like to know where he disgrees with me? It may be in the past; it relates to last February; but, certainly, what I stated is correct. I wonder if I might ask him whether he is denying that Mr. Jones, the chairman of the Electricity Council, did say that the charges were imposed without consultation and that the council gave way afterwards.
As we are on this point, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the Government's attitude towards consumers is causing acute puzzlement and dismay among consumers? Does he recall that Mr. Alex Henney was not reappointed as chairman of the London Electricity Consultative Council in August and that many of us feel that Mr. Henney was not appointed because he was being a nuisance as he was endeavouring to give teeth to the council and was pursuing the Government on this particular matter?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Electricity Council proposed the 2 per cent. increase across the board which took place in the spring. Mr. Alex Henney was not reappointed. A new chairman has been appointed, a Mr. Bourne, and we wish him well.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl use this occasion to confirm to the House the unequivocal statement that he made to your Lordships' House last December that the Government had neither the power nor the wish to increase electricity or gas prices?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am happy to confirm what the noble Lord has said I said. I am delighted that he put it in a letter to The Times.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that when a very well-informed critic such as Mr. Henney is not reappointed to his position it at least raises the suggestion that the Government are not interested in informed criticism on behalf of the consumers?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said, but I personally was very stimulated by Mr. Henney's words and what he produced for the Government and would welcome his reappointment if he wished to serve on the national council. As far as the London council is concerned, at the end of his three years he was not reappointed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has denied the assertion by the noble Baroness that no consultation took place, but he omitted to deal with her point that the chairman said that there had been no consultation. Would he care to reply to that point now?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is very difficult, when the noble Baroness produces a whole lot of sentences, to know to which particular sentence one is replying. As far as I am concerned, the consultative council is at the moment in consultation with the Ministry, and I am sure that this will be to the benefit of all concerned.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it in order, before asking another supplementary question, to ask the noble Earl to repeat the beginning of the last remark of his because I did not catch it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness will have to wait for Hansard tomorrow.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: So, my Lords, not waiting for Hansard tomorrow, may I ask the Minister whether he recalls that last week in this House we discussed telephone charges which were being imposed with no consultation with the consumer organisation? Now we are discussing electricity charges which, equally, have been imposed without consultation. Is the Minister aware that consumer organisations just do not believe that the Government have any use for consumers at all except to call them in aid as a public relations exercise?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Baroness is that, as far as I am concerned, when I was there, she is totally wrong. I initiated talks with the consumer councils, with the chairman, Mr. Hatch, and I understand that my successor is continuing these discussions.

European Monetary System and the UK
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider the circumstances are now right for the United Kingdom to join the European monetary system; and if not, why not.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): No, my Lords. When your Lordships last debated fully the question of sterling's participation in the exchange rate mechanism, my noble friend Lord Cockfield identified the difficulties created by the very different effects of uncertainty about the dollar and oil markets on European currencies, notably on sterling and the deutschemark. Both sources of uncertainty are clearly still affecting exchange markets at the present time.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for that reply. Is it not very disappointing that for so long we have been told that at the right moment the Government will become a full member of the EMS? What is really holding it up at the present time?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that it is quite as disappointing as the noble Baroness makes out, because strictly speaking we are already a member of the EMS. We contribute 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves to the European Monetary Co-operation Fund, and we participate in realignment conferences. The pound is also included as a component of the European currency unit. Sterling does not participate in the exchange rate mechanism because, as a petro-currency, it rises and falls with oil prices, while other Community currencies do precisely the opposite.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean that there are no circumstances in which we shall join the exchange rate mechanism?
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords—I dare not. As I said, I think that the time is not ripe mainly because our currency, unlike the European currencies, is linked to the rise and fall in oil prices.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, as a congenital waiverer on this issue, may I put a question to my noble friend? Does not past experience suggest that outside the exchange rate mechanism sterling tends to weaken less than the member currencies in the exchange rate mechanism when the dollar is strong, and to strengthen less than the member currencies in the exchange rate mechanism when the dollar is weak? Might this not suggest, given that so much of our own imports are actually denominated in dollars and given that if sterling were to strengthen substantially against the dollar this would assist in the abatement of inflation expectations, the moment at which we might contemplate joining the exchange rate mechanism would be the moment at which we had concluded that the dollar was finally turning turtle as at some stage it will, always supposing that we can identify that moment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am rather entranced by my noble friend's suggestion that he is a congenital waiverer about anything. It is certainly the case that membership of the exchange rate mechanism does not provide immunity from the effects of dollar strength on European currencies. Experience suggests that when the dollar shifts significantly downwards then the exchange rate mechanism comes under strong

441
pressure. Since my noble friend and I both hope that this shift in the dollar will happen within the next six months or so, I think that my point is reasonably well taken.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, on the assumption that Her Majesty's Government see the advantages of exchange rate stability, and that they say they will join the exchange rate mechanism of the European Community when the time is ripe, and having heard the Minister talk about the difference between sterling and the European currencies because sterling is a petro-currency, may I ask whether there is any early prospect of the Government's joining the exchange rate mechanism? I should have thought that that was a more or less permanent situation.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that the point I made in my first supplementary to the noble Baroness is the one that the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, with all his experience in these matters, could perhaps take notice of: that we are already a very considerable participator in the European monetary system. The difficulty and the argument is about our participation in the exchange rate mechanism. It is not, I think, so much a question that this will be out of issue; that it will not be possible while we have oil assets. It will be more a question of Europe perhaps coming in line with a currency system that is less linked to oil assets.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he seems to have gone back on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this important issue? Would he care to make it absolutely clear that the Government are still in favour in principle of taking this further step? Is he further aware that there are many authoritative voices—we have just heard one most authoritative voice and there are many others—who take the view that it is extremely appropriate now to take that further step? If he is not in agreement with that as to timing, when can we look forward to the Government ending this question mark over their policy and making a clear decision?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it was, in fact, in your Lordships' House in November of last year that the Government gave their most recent and fully authoritative view of this position in a debate which enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. That was the point at which my predecessor my noble friend Lord Cockfield set out the position most authoritatively. He stated quite categorically that we were in favour of participating in the EMS—and I have dealt with that point—and that it would be in an ideal world a good thing to involve ourselves in the exchange rate mechanism, but that the timing was not right because of uncertainties in international currencies through their relationship with oil prices, which particularly affected ourselves.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords——
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for half a minute, we have been 26 minutes on Questions already. We were two minutes on the first Starred Question, which means that we have had an average of eight minutes on the others. I understood
442
that his noble friend behind him was speaking from the Front Bench opposite, but if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would like to put his question quickly and if my noble friend would reply, perhaps we could then move on.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy. May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government's apparent uncertainty in this matter is perhaps due to the fact that the Government's prime objective may be that which was talked about by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in March 1980, when she burst with pride when the dollar was standing at 2·40 to the pound and said that the high exchange rate was a matter of national pride?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is always a matter of national pride when one's national assets are fetching very large sums of money. But in the real world in which we live the prices of raw materials fluctuate.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on famine relief in Ethiopia.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at 7.30 this evening.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [H.L.] London Transport (Tower Hill) Bill [H.L.] Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and, if I may, speak also to the second. These are two further procedural Motions similar to those that I moved yesterday in connection with the Private Bills mentioned on the Order Paper to enable them to continue their way through Parliament in the next Session.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to

443
every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Dartmoor Commons Bill Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill London Docklands Railway (No. 2) Bill
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their messages of 31st July and 24th October.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Rent (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to with an amendment; the amendment was printed pursuant to Standing Order 48.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rent (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [References are to [Bill 214] as first printed for the Commons]
  Clause 85, page 58, line 12, leave out ("tribunal") and insert ("assessment committee").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment. This amendment is necessary to correct an oversight in the Bill. Put shortly, the Bill includes reference to the rent tribunals. The functions of the rent tribunals were transferred to the rent assessment committee by an Act of 1980, but, unfortunately, this matter was, by oversight, not contained in the earlier Act of 1971 and it was not accordingly changed. In these circumstances, I beg to move that the amendment be considered and accepted. I should say that the amendment has been seen and approved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments be now considered.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill

  COMMONS REASON
  [References are to Bill (230) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
  ("Subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament")
  The Commons disagreed to the amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 6, for the following Reason:
  Because it could result in unnecessary delay in transferring property, rights and liabilities in accordance with the Act.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton rose to move, That this House do insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the outcome of this debate is concerned with the rights of Parliament. The single central issue to be decided by your vote is not whether this Bill shall pass. That is not in dispute. It is not the principle underlying the Bill to place a public asset—our ordnance factories—into private hands. That is unchallenged. That principle, although opposed, is not in dispute.
  What is at issue is the right and the duty of Parliament to be given the opportunity to consider the details of the prime instrument transferring those powers contained within a scheme or schemes. It is the refusal by this Government to provide both Houses with that opportunity before such a scheme is started that is in dispute. Quite simply, opposition to our amendment denies proper parliamentary scrutiny. Those who believe that this House has a part to play in exercising proper parliamentary scrutiny will support the amendment. The issue is as simple as that.
  In another place, the Minister in charge of the Bill called the scheme nothing more than
  "conveyancing machinery for transferring property from the Secretary of State to the new company".
  He chided my honourable friends for being concerned with the details of the scheme. What reason do the Government give to your Lordships' House for asking it to reject the amendment which we in this House passed but three months ago? I quote: "Because it could result in unnecessary delay". I ask your Lordships to note that it is not "delay", but "unnecessary delay". I ask the question in all seriousness. Surely it will be a sad day if the proper accounting to Parliament by Government and the proper scrutiny of that accounting to Parliament is viewed as unnecessary. In a saga stretching over many months, even years, what would be unnecessary? It could be as little as hours of parliamentary time—hours, my Lords, not days or weeks.
  The truth is that the Government will not tolerate or brook any delay by anybody, including either or both

  445
  Houses of Parliament. That is the measure of the Government's desperate and intolerable haste. What do the Government want no unnecessary delay to interfere with? I quote again:
  "with transferring property, rights and liabilities in accordance with the Act".
  We have no details of substance relating to land, buildings, machines, intellectual rights, valuations. There is no conclusion to the protracted negotiations with the trade unions on pension rights, redundancy terms, negotiating rights. Yet the Government seek approval to proceed, come what may.
  What awkward questions do the Government think Parliament can ask, and why do they deny to Parliament the right to ask those questions? I tell this noble House that if a Labour Government came to either House, said that they wanted to take an industry into public ownership and asked for the principle of that decision to be agreed by the House without giving details of compensation, organisation or the transfer of liabilities, there would be a tremendous outcry from the Conservative Benches—and rightly so. Labour would be accused of riding roughshod over Parliament. We should be told, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that we had an elective dictatorship.
  Noble Lords do not have to take my words. When we debated and determined this very issue in your Lordships' House on 19th July of this year the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said at col. 1635:
  "In all my experience of legislation … I have never seen a Bill which consults Parliament so little, and indeed which scorns Parliament in the way it gives all power to the Government and to the Minister and none to anybody else".
  That was a devastating indictment. We shall hear that there is no time, that deadlines have to be met, that all has been revealed, that the Minister has nothing to hide; yet for more than nine months Parliament has been fobbed off with promise after promise after promise.
  Where is the memorandum of understanding? Where are the articles of agreement? Three months ago we were told that they were in final draft. Where are they now? Where are the details of the intellectual property rights? The Minister said in February, nine months ago, that they would be produced in three months' time. Six months after that promise, where are they? The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have repeatedly asked for details. Those details have been promised but have never been given. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Lord, Lord Carver, have asked questions time after time, but in vain. We have asked for details of the valuation of assets. All we have been promised in the scheme is a statement of the principles of the valuations.
  What will be the capital structure of the company? We do not know. How will assets be transferred? We do not know. The scheme is the heart of the Bill, yet it is the intention of the Government, in Clause 3(9), not just to lay a copy of the scheme and allow for no debate upon it but to do so up to one month after—I repeat after—the scheme has come into force. Surely this cannot be right. Surely it lacks courtesy to Parliament. Surely it is undemocratic.
  Let me repeat, in order to reassure those who share my concern over constitutional proprieties, that the amendment which I move seeks to provide both Houses of Parliament with an opportunity to exercise their duty and their rights. It is designed to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is not a challenge to the principle of the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is not a delaying device. It will force the Government to treat Parliament not as a rubber stamp but as a responsible element in our legislative procedures. By supporting this amendment, noble Lords are doing no more than is their duty. We cannot do less. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion.
  Moved, That this House doth insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
  3.16 p.m.
  Lord Diamond: My Lords, I understand that it would be more convenient if I said what I have to say now rather than after the Minister has responded to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
  I am most anxious to do everything I can to satisfy your Lordships that this is not a party or partisan matter. That was the principle of the Bill and it has been disposed of. Both Third Reading and the Question, That the Bill do now pass have been settled in both Houses of Parliament. We are concerned solely with whether we should insist upon Parliament being consulted. We are not asking for power to alter any detail. Merely do we insist upon Parliament being consulted in circumstances in which the Government have chosen to introduce an enabling Bill which, as I said on a previous occasion, is enabling with a capital "E".
  The Bill gives to the Minister, and only to the Minister, enormous powers to privatise, as everybody knows, part of the supply of materials which affect the security of this country. This has continued for 400 years or more and has never been in hands other than those of the Crown. The Government are doing it by means of an enabling Bill which has only one effective clause: the power to make a scheme. We know very little indeed about what the scheme will contain. I put it to all noble Lords that it is no less than minimum courtesy and a matter of reasonable consultation with both Houses of Parliament for the Government at least to say what is in the scheme before, not after, it has become effective.
  The Government do not dispute that Parliament is entitled to know. They say that the scheme will be published within one month after it has become effective. There is no dispute about that. We are all agreed that Parliament should know. The issue is when Parliament should know. Should it know at a time when it can express its view, at a time when the Government would have to justify—this is at the heart of democratic proceedings—and persuade all Members of both Houses that the course they have taken is reasonable?
  If the Government had given to Parliament adequate details of what is to be included in the scheme, we should not be pursuing the matter. The details are important. There is no question that many of the most important details are still open—details

  447
  affecting the employment, redundancy conditions, pension rights and other rights of a huge labour force which was totally loyal and totally strike-free until the introduction of the Bill. They are concerned about the prospect of up to 1,600 people being declared redundant in any week. Whether that will be before or after the scheme is introduced, one does not know. They do not know for certain what their future will be. Nor do the Government.
  The Government say, very properly, that certainty can be obtained only by consulting the courts. That is a reasonable statement, but surely it is reasonable for Parliament to be given the opportunity to know the Government's proposals on a number of vital issues. How is the company going to be run? That is called a memorandum of understanding. What it means is, how is the company going to be run? It is going to be wholly owned by the Secretary of State. How is he going to exercise his powers? Answer: under a memorandum of understanding. What is the memorandum going to say? We do not know. Time and time again the Government have promised to produce it, but they have not produced it for the best of all reasons; they have not yet decided what the memorandum of understanding is going to say. One can continue in this way on a number of most important issues.
  A whole series of assets is going to be transferred? Which assets? I am sorry, but neither the Government nor I can tell you, because the Government have not yet decided. How are the assets going to be valued? I am sorry, but neither the Government nor I can tell you, because the Government have not decided what are the principles of valuation. They decided earlier that there was a principle, which they promulgated, though I had never heard of it before, notwithstanding having spent a lifetime in my profession. It was the principle of usefulness. That did not last long, and they have withdrawn from that. I can only help your Lordships by saying which principle will not be adopted; but I cannot be more constructive and say which principle will be adopted for valuing the assets, nor which assets will be transferred, nor, when they are transferred, how the business will be run.
  Good heavens! Have I not put before your Lordships sufficient information to establish the point that it is reasonable that Parliament should be consulted before the event, and not after it, so that it can express its views? We all know that Parliament can express its views only when dealing with an affirmative resolution, which takes half a day in another place (and that is the amount of the delay involved) and perhaps half a day in your Lordships' House; a total of one day. That is what we are talking about—whether that is a price worth paying to consult Parliament.
  The Government are saying that that is a price not worth paying and that it is unnecessary to incur that delay. I am inviting your Lordships to take quite the opposite view and say the other place should consider on this procedure—an affirmative resolution—whether the Government have filled in these vitally important question marks reasonably; or if not, what suggestions they have to make. As we all know, there is no question but that the Government, commanding the majority which they do, will get their
  448
  way. The Government must, and should, get their way at the end of the day, after Parliament has been consulted. There is no difficulty about that position. There is no difficulty about the constitutional position, the procedural position or any of those matters. It is simply an issue of whether that kind of delay can be described as unnecessary.
  I hope very much that your Lordships will accept my assurance that I have tried to take out of my mind completely the fact that every opposition party in both Houses, as well as ex-Secretaries of State and distinguished ex-Chiefs of General Staff have all opposed this Bill. I have tried to take out of my mind the point that when this very amendment was being considered in another place not one Member spoke in support of the amendment against this amendment and in support of the Government. Certainly they voted in support of it, and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will not be surprised at that. He has described this pattern of voting in language which I would not attempt to improve upon.
  The issue is not whether the Government can get their majority at the right time in another place; of course they can. And once they have voted on a Motion of this kind, we in this House—and certainly we on these Benches, for whom I speak with authority—would not dream of opposing by a vote that which the other place has decided, because we would then be challenging the other House in such a way that it could not think again. That is not the function of your Lordships' House.
  We are absolutely on safe ground in respect of the constitutional, procedural, and other considerations. We are not damaging the Bill in a central way at all. We are asking the Government to reconsider and to do what everybody who has spoken has asked them to do: please consult Parliament before, and not after, the event.
  Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I shall say only a few words. I had down two amendments concerning this proposition in Committee and at Report stage. It is a very great experiment after 300 years completely to change the lives of the people who are working in these factories. I should like to say that they have done a wonderful job. Now they are not going to be civil servants and they will have a different type of master. They will have a different type of life, and we still do not know what pensions they are to receive. We have a rough idea, but we do not know. I really think it is essential to receive reports from the Ministry and I should like to suggest that if we cannot get this amendment through, we put down Unstarred Questions from time to time in order to get the information we require.
  I hope that we shall stick by our feelings on this matter, even if this Bill goes through. I have worked in these factories and have some knowledge of what is done there and what has been done there in the past. When I was working in them I did not always feel that the arrangements were satisfactory. Conditions may become a little better now that the factories will be subject to different health and safety Acts. But if we are going to let this Bill go through, we want to be quite sure that certain matters are going to be put right and

  449
  that the people working there will have a better life and a better living.
  I support what has been said by the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition and I wish to say that I would be prepared to put down an Unstarred Question so that we can learn more about what is happening in these factories in the future.
  3.27 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the other place has given as its reason for disagreeing with this amendment that,
  "it could result in unnecessary delay in transferring property, rights and liabilities in accordance with the Act".
  The delay would clearly be appreciable. Arrangements for the necessary debates could not be made until all work on the scheme had been completed, since it is implicit in the amendment that the scheme must be approved in the form in which it will ultimately be made.
  The scheme would need to be laid before Parliament well before the debates were to take place, in order to allow honourable Members in another place, and your Lordships here, time to consider it. The Government would have to take into account the possibility that one House, or both Houses, might withhold approval to the scheme. It would therefore not be possible to fix a definite date for vesting day until both debates had been held. On the other hand, the need to plan ahead would require the setting of a provisional date, with the hope of being able to keep to it. Probably, in order to cater for all eventualities, delay between the finalising of the scheme and vesting day would have to be in the order of months rather than weeks.
  There is much to be done to weld the existing organisation into a coherent, independent, commercial entity. No real progress can be made in this direction until total independence is achieved by vesting day. The sooner the company can get going, the sooner it can start to build on the success of the ROF trading fund and begin to achieve some of the aims we would expect of it. Unnecessary delay in reaching vesting day would incur the risk of diluting the enthusiasm which now exists within management, lowering the morale of both management and workforce, and jeopardising early attainment of the Government's objectives.
  That risk should be incurred only for sound reasons. Such reasons are, of course, said to exist in this case. The Government are said to be abusing the democratic process in not subjecting the scheme to parliamentary scrutiny and approval before it comes into effect. I find that a curious charge after the numerous debates we have held, both in your Lordships' House and in the other place; the Questions which have been put to us and answered; and the explanations we have given of our future intentions. It really is not credible to suggest that the Government's intentions have not been revealed, or subjected to detailed examination.
  Much of the criticism that is made of the Government in this respect comes, I think, from a mistaken idea of what the scheme will contain. It was described in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement as a conveyancing document. This description was
  450
  somewhat scathingly received there by the Opposition. But the fact of the matter is that it is a conveyancing document. It is a mechanism for transferring property from the Secretary of State to the new company more easily and more conveniently than the usual legal instruments. I wonder whether, if the property were being transferred in the normal way, there would be the same wish to approve the various deeds of conveyance and leases, drawn up by the lawyers, before they came into effect. I very much doubt it.
  The truth is that the scheme will contain little or nothing concerning the matters in which Parliament has, quite rightly, expressed the greatest interest. The scheme will be a very limited document consisting mostly of lists of property and other assets to be transferred, stating the number of shares which are to be issued in consideration of the transfer and setting out the conditions on which certain property, most notably intellectual property rights, is to be held by the new company. There will be nothing in it which we have not already made abundantly clear to Parliament on many different occasions, and Parliament's knowledge of the issues will not be advanced in any significant degree by the scheme when it is published.
  The matters of greatest concern to Parliament, such as the value of the new company, the details of the new company pensions schemes, the policies of the Ministry of Defence towards the new company and the plans which the Government have for privatisation will be nowhere mentioned in the scheme. But these, and other matters like them, are the things in which Parliament is really interested. A debate purporting to be on the scheme would inevitably turn into a general debate on these topics. But it is the Government's case that we have had sufficient debate of that kind already and that there is no advantage in discussing the matter further which is sufficient to compensate for the damage which additional delay would cause to the company and the implementation of the Government's plans. The Government are not abusing the Parliamentary process. They are trying to determine the balance of convenience between competing courses of action. It is our belief that Parliament has had, and will have in the future as my noble friend Lady Vickers so rightly pointed out, all the information it has wanted concerning our intentions.
  We shall lay the scheme before Parliament. We shall publish the opening balance sheet of the new company. We shall make statements of our intentions at the appropriate time. All this will enable Parliament to ask questions and make points about what we are doing and intend to do. I ask your Lordships to be content to leave it at that, and not introduce the prospect of additional and unnecessary delay in reaching vesting day by insisting on this amendment to the Bill.
  Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he add, in fairness to the House, what he means when he says that the scheme will be put before Parliament? When will it be put before Parliament?
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have had a long debate on these and related matters. Perhaps I could say in parenthesis that the articles of association, in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is

  451
  particularly interested, have now been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House, save for one particular clause which will have to be added at a later date and which is not appropriate at the present time. The time at which we were proposing to publish the scheme is immediately after vesting day, and I hope that the noble Lord will regard that as satisfactory.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he can confirm, as much has been said about the constitutional position, that the constitutional position is the same for enabling Bills, whether they have a large "E" or a small "e", as for all other Bills, and whether he can assure the House that there is no constitutional impropriety involved?
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hasten to give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks. Of course there is no constitutional impropriety in this Bill. The Bill has now passed effectively through both Houses save for the small remaining matter we are discussing today. Therefore, I hope that in due course it will become the law of the land.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord who has just spoken that there is no challenge from this side that there is any constitutional impropriety in what the Government are doing; and we were at pains to point out that there is no constitutional impropriety in what we are seeking to do. In other words, we are saying to the Government that in this debate we have not sought to argue the, merits. We have argued, and we have lost. The parliamentary arithmetic stands up pretty well in both Houses. We are not arguing about the principle: that has gone. We are arguing about the opportunity which the Government have, and which they decline to take, of taking Parliament into their confidence, treating it with a little more respect and simply saying to us, "Although we are intending to do something, before we do so this is what we intend to do."
  The Minister says "within one month", and the Bill says, in Clause 3(9):
  "Within the period of one month beginning with the day on which a scheme comes into force".
  In other words, we are going to be told within one month after a scheme comes into force. It might be one week, two weeks or three weeks, or it might be four weeks. We are saying to the Government that that is a tiny price to pay in order to keep the confidence and satisfaction of the House on their side.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who quite properly stressed that there is no challenge to the principle of the Bill. He pointed out that it is an enabling Bill with enormous powers. We are not talking about the transfer of fish or fruit, or anything like that: we are talking about the transfer of assets which at the moment form part of the national security of the state. I appreciate that the Minister has told us that safeguards have been written in, but this is an enormous transfer of assets of what I say are a unique kind.
  The Minister alluded to the information that has been given over the period by his good self and his
  452
  parliamentary colleagues in another place. I have not argued that from the time the Bill received its First Reading in another place until now there has not been adequate time for debate. The problem of those who asked the questions is that they received promises, promises and more promises as to when they were going to see a little more flesh on the bones, but we have not seen it. I remember that it was nine or 10 days ago that my noble friend Lord Stoddart asked if he could sight something, and he was told that it was available. We are told it is available now. It might have been available for a longer period than that. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Stoddart has had an opportunity to see that document.
  I take very kindly the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that if the Government do not accept our amendment there are other legitimate devices that we can use. Of course there are, but we ought not to adopt guerilla warfare tactics in order to get what Parliament ought to be given freely. We ought to be able to say to the Government, "Trust us. Trust us and give us the information." I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, hit the nail right on the head. The Government are literally making it up, not as they go along, because there are problems, but they are not yet in a position to produce the finished goods. We are saying, "Right; but when you do produce the finished goods simply consult us before going on".
  I am grateful for the support that we on these Benches have received all round the House, not only today but at other stages of the Bill. I beg the Minister seriously to recognise the deep feelings which have been expressed and to reflect on the enormity of the actions which are contained in the enabling powers. The Government intend to take those powers, and they are entitled to, but it will take out of the public domain an organisation—the Royal Ordnance Factories—which has served the nation faithfully and well for more than 400 years.
  All that we are asking for in this simple amendment is an opportunity for debate in both Houses of Parliament before that dissolution of public assets takes effect. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was absolutely right. The price that we are asking the Government to pay is one three-hour debate in each House. Surely that is a small request. What have the Government to fear? Why incur the wrath of the workforce and damage the Government's democratic integrity for such a tiny price? Why imply that neither House of Parliament, nor any of their Members, is capable of offering suggestions to improve the details of the scheme by not giving them the opportunity to comment before this change comes into effect?
  Earlier this year the Grant to Redundant Churches Fund Order 1984 was approved by Parliament and this Government. That is subject to the affirmative procedures which I seek in this amendment. I cannot believe that it is right to treat our ordnance factories with less dignity and respect than redundant churches. I ask the House to support the Motion.
  3.41 p.m.
  On Question, Whether this House doth insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 130.

  DIVISION NO. 2

  CONTENTS

  Ailesbury, M.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Airey of Abingdon, B.

  Cathcart, E.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Chelwood, L.

  Allen of Abbeydale, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Avon, E.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Bauer, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Bellwin, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Croft, L.

  Berkeley, B.

  Daventry, V.

  Bessborough, E.

  Davidson, V.

  Boardman, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  470

  Boothby, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Dormer, L.

  Broxbourne, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Bruce-Gardyne, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

  Elton, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Energlyn, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Enniskillen, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Faithfull, B.

  Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  Molson, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Gardner of Parkes. B.

  Mottistone, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Munster, E.

  Gormanston, V.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Gridley, L.

  Pender, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Porritt, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Renton, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Rochdale, V.

  Henley, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Hornsby-Smith, B.

  Sandford, L.

  Hunter of Newington, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Selborne, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Sharples, B.

  Inglewood, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Ingrow, L.

  Soames, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Somers, L.

  Kaberry of Adel, L.

  Southborough, L.

  Kilmany, L.

  Spens, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Stamp, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Swinton, E. [Teller.]

  Lauderdale, E.

  Terrington, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Teviot, L.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Long, V.

  Todd, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Tranmire, L.

  Luke, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  McAlpine of Moffat, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  McAlpine of West Green, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  McFadzean, L.

  Vickers, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Ward of Witley, V.

  Marley, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Marshall of Leeds, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Young, B.

  Merrivale, L.

  Young of Graffham, L.

  Mersey, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Amherst, E.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Ardwick, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Gallacher, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Banks, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Gosford, E.

  Birk, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Grey, E.

  Bottomley, L.

  Grimond, L.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Hall, V.

  Brockway, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Hayter, L.

  Caradon, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Irving of Dartford, L.

  471

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Collison, L.

  Jeger, B.

  David. B. [Teller.]

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Kaldor, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Donnet of Balgay. L.

  Kissin, L.

  Elwyn-Jones. L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. B.

  Ezra, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Shackleton, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  McNair. L.

  Stallard, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Molloy. L.

  Stewart of Fulham, L.

  Monson, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Morris of Grasmere, L.

  Stabolgi, L.

  Mulley. L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Nicol. B.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Northfield. L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Oram. L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Peart, L.

  Walston, L.

  Ponsonbv of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Rhodes, L.

  White, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Ross of Marnock, L.

  Willis, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Scanlon, L.

  Seear, B.

  Winstanley, L.

  Serota, B.

  Wootton of Abinger, B.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Ethiopia: Famine Relief
3.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should now like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development about famine relief for Ethiopia. The Statement is as follows:
"The House knows of the very deep concern felt throughout the country at the effects of famine in Ethiopia—and indeed in other countries. Last Wednesday my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced three important further measures designed to help tackle the problem. These follow the substantial steps that we and the European Community were already taking—almost £10 million from the British aid programme in the last 18 months, including our share of over £22 million from the European Community.
"The new measures were: first, the despatch by the United Kingdom of a further 6,000 tonnes of

455
food aid; second, the allocation of a further £5 million for spending on famine relief in Ethiopia and other African countries; and, third, a pledge to press the European Community for additional action.
"The House will wish me to report on the action we have put in hand.
"On Saturday night, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Trefgarne, and I met in London Commissioner Dawit, head of the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission.
"I informed him of the additional 6,000 tonnes of grain, which will be shipped within the next few days. We discussed ways of speeding up the transport and distribution of supplies through the port. I agreed that we should draw on our £5 million offer to provide dump trucks to help with unloading at the port of Assab and Land Rovers and spare parts for them to help with distribution. I also agreed to supply water drilling rigs and medical requirements. In addition, we told him of our offer of a Royal Air Force detachment of two Hercules aircraft and the appropriate support to undertake internal relief operations within the famine areas. There was some discussion about this offer, but I can tell the House that it has been agreed that we will make the detachment available for three months. The initial deployment will involve several additional flights to Ethiopia to ensure that our detachment is self-sufficient and fully equipped for the task. So far as we are concerned, the first two aircraft are ready to leave tomorrow. Two RAF officers have now arrived in Addis Ababa to discuss urgently the practical arrangements.
"I am sure that these aircraft will make a very valuable contribution to distributing food where it is most needed.
"I have also agreed to make available two further civil aircraft—one of them a Hercules—to support the voluntary agencies, who are doing such a fine job in Ethiopia. Both will take out relief supplies and the Hercules will stay in Ethiopia for some weeks for use by the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are also paying for some of the supplies needed. I had this morning a constructive discussion of priorities and implementation with the Disasters Emergency Committee led by Lord Hunt.
"All this represents a very significant British contribution. In addition, the European Community is taking valuable action.
"So far this year the European Community has already made direct allocations of 53,000 tonnes of cereals and 3,000 tonnes of other products to Ethiopia. But the needs of Ethiopia are so great that we have pressed the Community to do more. Following my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's message to Dr. FitzGerald, President of the European Council, the Council's Budget Committeee has approved and the European Parliament is to consider today a special programme of food and transport assistance worth £20 million, of which the British share would be about £4.5 million.
456
"The needs of Ethiopia and other parts of drought-stricken Africa will be further discussed by Community Foreign Ministers in Ireland at the end of the week and by the Development Council—which I shall attend—in Brussels next Tuesday.
"We have been active in other international organisations. The Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes (the CFA), the supervisory body of the World Food Programme, is currently meeting in Rome. On a British initiative the meeting is giving priority to the needs of Ethiopia.
"At the same time, other Western donors have offered increased assistance.
"The grave problem of drought in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa cannot be solved overnight or by one massive airlift. But the measures we have announced are valuable in themselves and have given an important lead."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Oram: My Lord, I should first like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. On behalf of my noble friends I wish to express satisfaction that arrangements have now been made for providing air transport to help with this rescue operation in Ethiopia.
Should I take it from the Statement that the difficulties that were first encountered with the Ethiopian representative, in respect of the air transport, have now been overcome?
We appreciate the fact that the Government have now made an increased offer of aid in response to the very great public concern that has arisen about this tragic situation. However, are there not two important lessons to be derived from the experience of the last few days? The first is that the existence of voluntary agencies, such as the Save the Children Fund, Oxfam and War on Want, is a tremendous asset in these situations, and that they are therefore worthy of the fullest backing by both the public and the Government. Indeed, not infrequently they lead where governments follow.
Secondly, should we not realise that this is not a crisis which has suddenly come upon us? Warnings have been given by the voluntary agencies over many months. I recall that in a debate which I initiated in your Lordships' House some 18 months ago my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition gave a specific and urgent warning of the developing crisis and urged that appropriate action should then be taken.
I welcome what the Statement says about initiatives being taken within the European Community and in other international bodies. However, should not those bodies not only be concerned with measures to meet the present emergency situation, but also be planning for the long term, so as to avoid repetitions of this tragedy time after time in the months and years ahead? It should not be a matter of a month's effort; it should be a long-term and continuing effort.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the statement and to the Government for their response to the public's demand

457
for more help to famine-stricken Ethiopia. It certainly is welcome that they have now worked generously and fast in giving this aid. I hope I shall not appear to be carping if I express regret that the Government have taken so long to respond to the requests which have been put to them over many months, as I understand it.
I am glad that the noble Lord paid tribute to the voluntary agencies. In that connection I should like to ask him when it was that the Government first received warnings from any of the voluntary agencies, such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, and War on Want, as to the state of affairs which had already arisen many months earlier in Ethiopia and which inevitably was going to escalate at a terrifying rate, as we have now seen.
Secondly, would not the Minister agree that valuable though this help is—in particular not only the supply of grain, but also the transport to move the grain to where it is needed—the amount that is given will very soon be exhausted and in the months ahead there will be a need for yet more aid, especially in the supply of grain?
Would the Minister not also agree with this? Both this country and the Community as a whole have now enjoyed the heaviest cereal harvest that they have ever reaped, so that they now have a surplus running into many millions of tonnes. Are the Government thinking in terms of making some of this available to meet the continuing needs of both Ethiopia and other countries, either directly from this country or preferably through the Community?
Finally, may I remind the noble Lord—if, indeed, he needs reminding—that this is not just one urgent short-term need? No matter what happens to the weather, no matter what happens to the civil war and no matter what happens to the internal government in Ethiopia, the need will inevitably exist for at least another 12 and probably 18 months, and thereafter there will be need for a different form of aid through different forms of voluntary agency, such as, for example, Voluntary Service Overseas and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which the noble Lord, through his handling of these matters, knows well. Will the Government consider increasing the funds available for those two organisations so as, in the long term, to prevent a recurrence of the types of famine we are now hearing about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that some initial problems in connection with the aircraft have been overcome and that our offer has been gratefully accepted. As for the voluntary agencies, I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that they play an invaluable role in situations of this sort. Of course, they often have access to these places and to information to a much greater extent than governments. That is why we support them as much as we can whenever we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that this was not a sudden crisis but that it had been with us for some considerable time. That was also much in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. It is indeed the case that we have for some time been very anxious about
458
the situation in Ethiopia. But, contrary to misleading reports, we have been helping that country for a number of years. While it is true that we have only a very limited development programme there, British aid from 1973 to 1981 averaged over £2 million a year, rising in 1982 to £5·6 million, of which £5·2 million was given as food aid in response to the effects of the drought, then in its early stages.
Over the past two years British aid to Ethiopia has been worth more than £13 million, including our share of European Community support. We are not making a belated response to the drought: we have done much already. Indeed, as recently as this last July we cancelled Ethiopia's aid debts to Britain, which at that time were worth more than £2·5 million. I think it is right to say that this is, indeed, a long-term problem which will need long-term solutions. But, on the other hand, there is clearly an immediate short-term problem as well, and that is why we have moved as we have.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, a great deal of attention has been focused on the large-scale tragedy in Ethiopia during the last week or 10 days. Indeed, my noble friend's Statement has been almost entirely about the starvation and near starvation on a large scale in Ethiopia. However, as he said three times in his Statement, similar tragedies are being experienced in other countries in Africa, without looking beyond that continent. Can my noble friend assure the House that, so far as this is possible to arrange, there is a fair division of aid given from voluntary and governmental sources among all those countries in Africa where there is starvation or near starvation on a large scale?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly do our best to assist in situations like those to which my noble friend refers. That is why my right honourable friend said in his earlier statement last week that the £5 million for spending on famine relief would be available in Ethiopia and, indeed, in other African countries, although I must say that in present circumstances I anticipate that the lion's share will go to Ethiopia.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the British Red Cross is very grateful to the Government for supplying them with a Hercules aircraft which will enable them to take to the disaster area vehicles, shelters, tents and blankets? Will the noble Lord also agree how fortunate we are to be working with a very efficient and splendid Ethiopian Red Cross Society, which is working with the International Committee of the Red Cross, with the League of Red Cross Societies and with our own society; which is itself supplying nurses and doctors to look after the sick; and which is also very busy helping to feed at the feeding centres the pregnant women and nursing mothers, who represent over 50 per cent. of the population? Is the noble Lord aware that, because of the overcrowding, there is still a very terrible problem there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. The Government were very pleased to be able to assist the International Committee of the Red Cross in the way that we did. We have provided

459
for them, or paid for, a civil Hercules aircraft. That is not, of course, one of the RAF ones.
Lord Somers: My Lords, will the noble Lord observe that while the difficulties which have been set up by the Ethiopian Marxist Government have now been largely overcome, many of us who wished to give a contribution to some of the voluntary organisations have been told that it was no use because it simply was not getting there? I do not know whether that is no longer the case.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are really two separate aspects to the present problem. The first is to ensure that there are sufficient supplies of food in particular available in or near Ethiopia. The second is to distribute those supplies within that country. Frankly, the quantities of grain either available or shortly to arrive in Ethiopia are quite considerable. The principal problem, now, I think, is to ensure effective distribution throughout that country.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, while no one would doubt the need for considerable quantities of food aid to Ethiopia and other countries in Africa and elsewhere, is my noble friend aware that this is a problem that will be with us year after year after year, and possibly over an increasing area of Africa, unless something is done effectively about short-sighted methods of agriculture and inadequate policies of aforestation and irrigation? Will he say what the international agencies are doing to grapple seriously with this problem in the long term?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has probably put his finger on the essence of this problem. The long-term solution is certainly, I think, in the direction that my noble friend points. We are therefore working vigorously with the agencies concerned to try to see that that can happen.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, about there being a short-term problem within a long-term one, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned a period of 12 to 18 months, while I would put the long-term problem at 12 to 18 years? The period to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, referred, I would put nearer to 50 years. When you consider that it took us from 1935 to the present day to achieve a 150 per cent. increase in our food production, it would take just about as long, if not longer, bearing in mind the conditions in these areas. So we have really three problems: the short-term, the 18-month one of feeding these hungry people: the long-term one of meeting the needs of 400 million people in the world who are below the level of proper nutrition; and then the very long-term one. I recall that when I first came into this House there was a debate on this subject when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made this very point. It has taken us a long time to take real cognisance of the point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I think, quite right to point to the long-term nature of the problem. The problems arise from the difficult
460
terrain in that country, poverty, a civil war, a growing population which, in recent years, has increased very dramatically and, I have to say, a collectivised system of agriculture, introduced some years ago, which has not contributed to the solution of the food shortage.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, may I reinforce the questions put by the last two speakers? When I was chairman of the Meteorological Office I was aware that, for many years past, there had been climatic changes going on in the Horn of Africa and that we must expect them for the time being to continue more or less indefinitely. What sort of temporal perspective is the noble Lord applying to the situation created by these long-term climatic changes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I would need to reflect a little on the particular climatic implications of the noble Earl's question. But the fact of the matter, as the noble Earl rightly says, is that there has been a drought situation emerging in Ethiopia for 20 years at least, which I imagine goes back at least as far as the time when the noble Earl was concerned with these things.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I warmly welcome the rapid action taken by the Government over the last few days and the action taken by the voluntary organisations. May I warmly support the proposals put by the noble Lord. Lord Maude, and my noble friend Lord John-Mackie, and press the Government to take some initiative in regard to longer-term action? Would the Minister not agree that the agencies do exist, through the United Nations and in other forms? The problem, for political and other reasons, is to get the Governments of Africa, of the countries which are affected by this constant annual drought, lasting over a very long period, to co-operate.
Does the Minister not believe that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to take a very positive and constructive initiative through the agencies concerned? They have taken a short-term initiative now with the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes. I do not ask the Minister necessarily to give an answer now, but I should like him to give an undertaking that he will discuss this matter with his right honourable friend and in due course give us some indication what initiatives he thinks might be profitable.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's response to the rapid arrangements that we have been able to make in this matter. Perhaps it is worth saying that I think we are the first Western Government to announce precisely what we are doing in this tragic situation, although other governments, I believe, are close behind us. As to the long-term solution—if I may say so, so much in the minds of your Lordships at this moment—I certainly agree that we need to be looking to create an effective programme, probably through the international agencies, for the solution of this problem in the long-term; and my right honourable friend will be thinking very hard about that.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
Bill returned from the Commons earlier this day with certain of the Lords amendments agreed to; with certain other Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; with another Lords amendment disagreed to, but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof: and with the remaining Lords amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement; and the Commons amendments and reason were printed pursuant to Standing Order 48.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason and amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill (225). The Commons Reason and Amendments are printed in italices.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ("constable") insert ("in uniform").
  2 The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment because it would unduly restrict the circumstances in which a constable might exercise his powers.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment numbered 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.
  When this Bill came to your Lordships' House from another place it was received by a number of your Lordships with a good deal of suspicion. This was because a number of your Lordships believed that it gave new powers to the police, that these powers affected the civil liberties of individuals towards whom they might use those powers, and that the safeguards which the Bill provided for those liberties were not adequate to balance them.
  The whole of our lengthy and painstaking treatment of the Bill has turned again and again upon this question of balance—the balance between, on the one hand, the power of the police to protect the public from criminals, and, on the other, the need for the law to protect the fundamental liberties of those the police suspect of being criminals.
  The first debate on that central issue emerged on the first day, on this amendment of the first clause. The clause, as it came to us from another place, proposed a power for any police constable who had reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person or a vehicle was carrying stolen property, or articles intended for use in the process of acquiring other people's property by illegal means, or offensive weapons, to stop them and search them for these things. This was a power short of arrest which had been available to a number of police forces for a long time and which recent Scottish
  462
  experience had proved to be beneficial in the fight against crime.
  Nonetheless, your Lordships were suspicious of it. Noble Lords opposite were suspicious of it on the general grounds I have already mentioned and they sought to limit it beyond the limitations as to place and circumstance already in the Bill. Those limitations included the requirement that before he began the search the constable should identify himself with his name and the name of his police station; that he should tell the suspect what he was looking for and why he was looking for it; that he should inform him that a written record would be available to him, on request, of the object and grounds for the search; of the date, time and place of the search; of what, if anything, was found by the search; of any injury or damage resulting from the search; and, of course, of the identity of the person carrying out the search. The Bill also prevented a constable, in conducting a search, from requiring a person to remove more than his outer coat or gloves.
  The safeguards written into the Bill included everything recommended by the Philips Royal Commission, and more besides. Those fairly substantial safeguards were not enough to settle your Lordships' anxiety, and after 14 columns worth of debate your Lordships persuaded the House to limit the power further and substantially. This was done by an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, evidently very persuasively, to the effect that the power should not be given to every police constable but only to police constables in uniform.
  That amendment was passed against the strong advice both of the Government and of the Philips Royal Commission, whose opinions on other matters noble Lords opposite regarded as being more sacrosanct. It would be fruitless for me to wheel out again all the arguments I fired off at this amendment at Committee stage. Suffice it to say that the amendment took from the police a power which both we and they believed to be of great importance to law enforcement and without which both off-duty men and policemen on duty in plain clothes must either arrest a suspect or let him go unchallenged. This has serious implications for essential planned operations such as those against shoplifting, which in some places is very serious indeed. It also means that no beat policeman can search someone he meets unexpectedly and while he is not on duty, who he believes may be on the way from a burglary, if he is not wearing his uniform, unless he first arrests him and enters upon the procedures which the Bill already lays upon him for an arrest. Noble Lords, it seems, felt that they would rather the innocent suspect was arrested, and presumably taken to the police station, than have his innocence quickly demonstrated on the street.
  Noble Lords were not reassured by the requirements already in the Bill that a constable not in uniform must produce documentary proof that he is a constable before he embarked on a search; nor were they impressed that exercise of this power in the past had not produced the general disquiet they now told us to expect. We had argued that the balance between suspect and police was evenly struck. It was very much a question of balance, and in the end your Lordships

  463
  decided against the Bill, the Government and Philips, and in favour of the noble and learned Lord's amendment, and did so by two votes; so the balance in that case was very nearly even.
  The practical and operational arguments against taking that course are the same today as they were on 25th October, and if I were to advance them again in the same circumstances, we ought, other things being equal, to get the same result. But other things are not equal. Two things have changed; both of them are very relevant, and I ask your Lordships to give due and considerable weight to them. The first is that we have since agreed to subject the whole of the stop and search provisions of the Bill to the operation of a code of conduct. Breach of that code will be a disciplinary offence which the courts are empowered to consider in any case involving the search. That code has been published in draft. It is available to your Lordships and I think your Lordships will agree that it does add significant weight to the safeguards of individual rights embodied in the Bill.
  Indeed, the view of noble Lords opposite may now already be that of the leading article in Thursday's Guardian newspaper—a paper which I understand is very much read by noble Lords opposite. That paper says:
  "Accepting the Lords' amendment would mean accepting that a plain clothes police officer, on duty to prevent and detect crime, must ignore deeply suspicious behaviour. That would not reduce crime. Stop and search creates apprehension because it is open to police abuse. Mindful of that, the Government has introduced a stop and search code. It is the strength and rigorous enforcement of that, rather than the Elwyn-Jones amendment, which will best serve the twin interests of justice and civil liberty".
  On those grounds alone I believe that the voting balance, so narrowly tilted one way, can now fairly be tilted the other. But it is not the only change in circumstances. There has been another. The other is that the elected House of Parliament, having considered that balance, and having taken note of that additional safeguard, has come down on the side of the Bill as drafted and against the amendment.
  I believe that the proper thing for your Lordships now to do is not to insist on your Lordships' amendment. The arguments against it when it was first moved were such as to give only the narrowest majority for it. It was agreed on the grounds that the safeguards in the Bill were inadequate—they have since been reinforced. It is the decided opinion of another place that in these new circumstances the amendment is no longer merited. I respectfully suggest that your Lordships might now agree with them.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.—(Lord Elton.)
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in spite of the persuasiveness—if I may return the compliment—of the noble Minister, I invite the House to insist on your Lordships' amendment which was carried, albeit by a small majority, as the noble Lord has said, but with support from all quarters of the House. Indeed, that was quite a remarkable feature of the debate.
  This is an important amendment which, of course, is why we are endeavouring to insist upon it. As the
  464
  noble Lord has indicated, it arises from Clause 1 (2) of the Bill. Whereas subsection (1) of that clause, giving powers to the police, states that it may be exercised only by "a constable in uniform", subsection (2) gives the power of stop and search to a constable simpliciter and that means that he need not be in uniform when he stops a member of the public and searches him or any vehicle at any time of the day or night in any public place—or other places as well—anywhere in England and in Wales if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles. "Prohibited articles" are defined to include offensive weapons and of course any article in the possession of an offensive person can easily be construed as an offensive weapon. But that is the mischief that is sought to be exposed and attacked.
  We on this side of the House are not challenging the need for the police force to have the power of stop and search. What we are challenging is their power to do so in plain clothes—that is the sole and crucial issue that arises on this amendment. The value of stop and search powers in terms of protecting the community is in any case very small. Yet if the Bill as it now stands receives Royal Assent and if the practice in London—where there are a million stops and searches in a year—is extended throughout the country, it may well mean that 7 million or 8 million of our fellow citizens may be stopped or searched on the streets in many circumstances and on many occasions by plain clothes constables. The huge majority of that vast number of our fellow citizens will be innocent. They will have done nothing wrong and will have no cause to be stopped or searched. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of those will be youths and particularly members of the ethnic minority. I think it is significant that a recent report of the Policy Studies Institute on the metropolitan police indicates that only 3 per cent. of the stops and searches carried out by the police resulted in arrests—three out of 100. We do not know in how many of that limited number of cases there were subsequent charges or how many charges resulted in conviction.
  To be stopped and searched even by a police constable in uniform is not an experience to which the public take kindly especially—as will be the case with most of them—when they are innocent. I submit that they will take even less kindly to being stopped and searched by someone of whose credentials when they are stopped they are not sure.
  The matter was put with great force by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, when she spoke in our debate on 26th June. Incidentally, we hope that she will be back among us again soon. I do not think that the noble Baroness will mind if I quote her. She said:
  "I am only a common citizen who might be stopped. I would prefer to be stopped by an officer in uniform. An officer in uniform carries more weight and much more authority … I am thinking specifically of the young. They need to have confidence in the people who might in the future stop and search them. It is important that the young person involved should be able to see the [constable's] number and know, because of the uniform, that there was a perfect right to stop and search them. That is followed by confidence, and in turn will be followed by communication between the two. That will do both sides a very great deal of good."—[Official Report, 26/6/84; col. 794.]
  With that I respectfully agree, and in a way it goes to the heart of what we have to decide this evening.

  465
  The Minister has properly and not surprisingly relied on the safeguards which exist in Clause 2 of the Bill and which he has described. But while those safeguards are good as far as they go, the difficulty will be that the constable has quickly and immediately to convey the information set out in that rather elaborate clause, and the danger is that the communicated information will come too late. The critical point which we are dealing with in the circumstances which could arise concerns the first minutes, or seconds even, after the stop and the attempted search. The probable reaction in many cases would be resistance or an attempt to escape, followed by a chase and then other succeeding charges.
  We do not think that the safeguards will create certainty in the mind of the person stopped or searched that the person seeking to stop him and search him is indeed lawfully entitled as a member of the police force to do so. At the end of the day the important question as we see it is this: will giving the power to stop and search to plain clothes police constables enhance the police service, or will it be liable to increase the friction between the general public and the police? The ordinary citizen if approached by a constable in uniform has the natural reaction to co-operate with the police, but approached by someone not in uniform the reaction may well be very different.
  If the police are to succeed in combating crime—and it is very important that they should do so for they are and should be in the front line of the action against crime—they must retain the public confidence. That is an absolute necessity in the struggle against increasing crime, and alas that is not happening. Giving power to the police in plain clothes dressed like any ordinary citizen, or perhaps even in some curious so-called ordinary clothing, to stop and search a citizen in the street, maybe at night in a secluded place, will be liable not to increase confidence in the police force but rather to diminish it. I beg to move the insistence on the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I am in a little difficulty. I thought that the Question was, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 2.1 have no brief as to what I say now, but I thought that the Question would be "Content" for the noble Lord's Motion and "Not-Content" for those who disagree with him.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I took too much upon myself, perhaps not for the first time. The noble and learned Lord is of course right.
  4.31 p.m.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I shall not delay the House for long. Up until now I have had the powerful support of two noble friends, one Liberal and one SDP, who are prominent criminal lawyers, and in speaking as a layman one must be very careful. There are two serious dangers here, one on each side. One of the dangers has been well described by the noble and learned Lord. It is the growing distrust of the police—and it is still growing in certain areas—felt by
  466
  in particular youth and ethnic youth. The second evil is the feeling of the police that without these powers they cannot do their proper job.
  These are two important points, and it is difficult to decide quickly between them. The issue is much narrower than one at first thinks. The PSI figures, which the noble and learned Lord quoted, show that out of a million stops and searches in the metropolitan area, only 5 per cent. were done by policemen in plain clothes. Therefore, whereas we are talking in general in regard to this clause about a million stops and searches in the metropolitan area, we are talking in this case of only 5 per cent. of that.
  If you are stopped by a man who is obviously a policeman, you will not react violently unless you know he has got you and you are wrong anyway. But if you are stopped by somebody who is not obviously a policeman, and if you come from the world where you strike somebody very early in an argument—and these people live in that world, make no mistake about it—you are liable to strike a plainclothes man and then be had up for resisting the police.
  I cannot quote figures, but there are many cases where this has happened, where the person has got into trouble not through refusing to be searched by a policeman, but through having an argument with somebody he thinks, or likes to think, is not a policeman. It is a difficult decision. I am advising my noble friends on these Benches to vote the way we voted last time and support the noble and learned Lord, but I think that it is a narrow decision.
  The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, perhaps I may say one word, because I feel so strongly on the subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to the young. I have a number of young children. We have in our midst a terrible affliction which threatens our young every day, and that is drugs. I can visualise circumstances in which it might be necessary for the fight against drugs to be undertaken by a policeman in plain clothes. It might be necessary for policemen in plain clothes to stop and search people for drugs. This seems to me to be so important that I cannot visualise that it would be right to remove this option from our police.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I briefly intervene on that point? I think I am right in saying that the drugs legislation expressly gives the police those powers in or out of uniform.
  Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should like to say a few sentences in support of the Government. We ought not to read too much into some of the theoretical arguments which we have heard deployed in this House. We have to remember that individual policemen will be out alone, often late at night, and through the small things they may see and think unreasonable, they can be on the way to discovering quite considerable crime.
  This power is practical, so far as I can see, but it is not sinister. It is used, by tradition, in certain districts more than in others. Like many police powers, it can be abused, but where powers are abused it is the business of the supervisory grades to be sure that that

  467
  abuse is in fact corrected. A discreet and correct use of this power may greatly help with the normal routine duties that fall the way of every constable and stolen property is frequently recovered as a result. It is best for us to delete the words "in uniform" so that this wider power remains in the hands of the individual policemen who will proceed and who, under the proper supervision of their seniors, will be doing a most important job on the streets of the cities of this country.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I, too, promise to be brief, and I shall keep my promise. In the course of his remarks to the House in support of the views expressed by another place, the noble Lord the Minister said that certain factors had supervened since the debate in your Lordships' House. With great respect, I must tell him that I have read with the greatest of care the debate which took place elsewhere, and there is no question at all but that precisely the same arguments and considerations that came before your Lordships came before that place and no additional factors were there in that argument whatsoever.
  To say, for example, that there is a code of practice and that that code of practice now forms part of a Bill does not affect in any way the matter that your Lordships have to decide today, and have decided on a previous occasion. To be practical for one moment, one can well imagine that if any police officer—and I admit that this is true both in uniform and without uniform—says against a person who has no witness whatsoever that he gave all the particulars and said all the things that he ought to have said, and there is merely a citizen complainant who will put his word against that of a police officer, it will be extremely difficult for any disciplinary board, however fair it may want to be, to find against the police officer concerned.
  There is one central issue in this matter. My noble and learned friend put it with his usual clarity and, as the noble Lord the Minister said, persuasiveness. He was right in this point. It is that the one essential thing that we have been trying to safeguard throughout our consideration of this Bill is the relationship of the police with the community. To give the power to a police officer not in uniform, be it in the open street late at night when nobody else is there, or be it in some alleyway, to come up in plain clothes and to say "I am going to stop and search you", is to invite trouble of a completely honest kind so far as any of our citizens is concerned. Does one really imagine that, without adequate lighting and in the agony, as it may be, of that moment, every citizen will be able to say, "Yes, thank you very much. I will put my glasses on, I will inspect your identity card as a police officer. I have noted the number you have been kind enough to give me and now let us proceed with the whole affair"?
  Life is not like that. What will happen is that on a number of occasions there will be resistance because the citizen concerned will not know whether he has been properly stopped. That is something that will never occur with a uniformed officer.
  There can be as much debate as your Lordships like in another place or in this place. That was the central issue we debated last time: that is the central issue now. When we start talking in terms of certainty on
  468
  one side or the other, I find myself in so much agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. It was a difficult decision to take, but we took it. Reference was made to the Royal Commission. One member of the Royal Commission recommended that indeed it should be only officers in uniform.
  When your Lordships debated this matter I can remember so well the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who is not known these days for disagreeing with the Government. Upon that occasion he definitely said that he was swayed one way and then the other and did not quite know where to land. That, with the brain of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is saying to your Lordships that we should be very careful before we disagree with that we decided on a previous occasion.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, briefly may I support the Government on this? I suggest that it would be wrong to insist on this Lords' amendment. I respectfully question the assertion that power to stop and search under Clause 1 is of scant value. It obtains for places to which the public has access; this, without exercising the power of detention under Clause 2, both powers under both clauses are requisite. One example of the planned type of operation might be drugs, on which my noble friend has already spoken. Another might be using places for prostitution of the very young. There are such places to which the public has access in London.
  A watch has to be kept by a plain clothes officer, for obvious reasons. By the time a police officer in uniform has arrived the suspect one would have wished to search may have left in a vehicle which one would also have wished to search. That is a reasonable situation. It would be wrong, in the overall interest of justice, to tip the balance too far against the police in their protection of the public.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the number of things which noble Lords opposite have said with which I agree is remarkable in this respect—that it is so different from the number of conclusions which they have reached therefrom with which I agree.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was right to say that there was support from parts of this House other than the part in which he sits. To that, I can only say that I address my arguments with the greatest of fervour to those who have strayed furthest into the lobby in which he voted on that occasion. He was wrong if it was his intention to imply that the description of an officer as a constable simpliciter in Clause 2 in any way reduces the limitations imposed by this amendment to Clause 1, upon which it depends. But he did not make much of that and nor shall I. He was right to say that those who are stopped by plain clothes policemen will, in many cases, be absolutely innocent. I wonder why therefore he insists that arrest shall be the only means of establishing that innocence in future. He is right to say that the numbers of searches are large. That is why substantial cautionary words are in Section IB of the code of practice.
  He and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, were both right to say that these stops and searches easily can and often have had a bad effect on the confidence of the

  469
  people searched. That is why we have in the code—I will read the briefest excerpt—that,
  "It is … important to ensure that the powers are used responsibly and sparingly. Over use of the powers is as likely to be harmful to police effort in the long term as misuse. It is also particularly important to ensure that any person searched must be treated courteously and considerately"—
  and not in a manner that can be mistaken as an assault in a back alley—
  "if police action is not to be resented".
  The whole of this code will guide and inform the supervisory grades, who, my noble friend Lord Inglewood rightly reminded us, will be seeing that the junior ranks behave themselves as they should in carrying out these operations.
  My noble friend Lord Dudley, rightly highlighted the importance of drugs. To the extent that these items can be searched for by constables under another Act of Parliament, this amendment is an anomaly and superfluous. But shoplifters do not usually steal drugs: muggers do not use drugs as offensive weapons against their victims: burglars do not use drugs to open other people's windows, and these are the matters that we are concerned with.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right to say that there was one dissentient voice on the Philips Commission, but I think he might have mentioned that there were 15 other voices altogether who agreed.
  I come in conclusion, because your Lordships wish to conclude this matter, to the question of public confidence to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—persuasively as always—rightly drew your Lordships' attention. We believe that public confidence in the police is essential in a free society. We do not believe that the public can maintain confidence in a police force to which Parliament denies rights to carry out their essential functions in uniform or out. We believe that those who are stopped and searched, now that the code is in existence, will be less numerous and far less alarmed than they have been in the past. We believe that the powers we ask your Lordships to leave in this Bill are essential to good order, safety and public confidence in the police service.
  4.48 p.m.
  On Question, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 2:
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not- Contents 108.
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 29, page 24, line 36, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Subject to subsections (1B) and (1C) below, the police station to which an arrested person is taken under subsection (1) above shall be a designated police station.
  (1B) A constable who is working in the area covered by a police station which is not a designated police station may take an arrested person to any police station unless it appears to the constable that it may be necessary to keep the arrested person in police detention for more than six hours.
  (1C) Any constable may take an arrested person to any police station if—

  (a) either of the following conditions is satisfied—

  (i) the constable has arrested him without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him;

  (ii) the constable has taken him into custody from a person other than a constable without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him; and

  (b) it appears to the constable that he will be unable to take the arrested person to a designated police station without the arrested person injuring himself, the constable or some other person.

  (1D) If the first police station to which an arrested person is taken after his arrest is not a designated police station he shall be taken to a designated police station not more than six hours after his arrival at the first station unless he is released previously.").
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
  4 Line 5, leave out from ("constable") to ("may") in line 6 and insert ("to whom this subsection applies").
  5 Line 9, at end insert—
  ("(1BB) Subsection (1B) above applies—

  (a) to a constable who is working in a locality covered by a police station which is not a designated police station; and

  (b) to a constable belonging to a body of constables maintained by an authority other than a police authority. ").

  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to the Lords Amendment numbered 3.1 shall also, with your Lordships' leave, be speaking at the same time to Lords Amendment No. 6 and the Commons amendment to it numbered 7.1 have before me an explanation of this small but complicated issue which these amendments resolve. The difficulty is one which was spotted only at the last moment. If your Lordships wish, I will expand on what I now say after noble Lords have shown that they wish me so to do.
  But your Lordships may be contented if I merely say that an accidental result of the way in which the Bill was drafted when it left us was that constables who are members of non-Home Office police forces were prevented from taking suspects to their own police stations when those stations were within the area served by a Home Office police station always. The intention and the effect of these amendments is to remove that anomaly so that people like the British Rail police can still handle offenders and suspects in the way that they have done without, of course, escaping the provisions of the custody officer and so on which are required if there is an arrest for a serious arrestable offence.
  Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to the Lords Amendment numbered 3.—(Lord Elton.)
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords these would appear to be sensible and desirable amendments and we do not oppose them.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  6 After Clause 33, insert the following new Clause:
  Custody officers at police stations.
  (" .—(1) One or more custody officers shall be appointed for each designated police station.
  (2) A custody officer for a designated police station shall be appointed—

  (a) by the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station is situated; or

  (b) by such other police officer as the chief officer of police for that area may direct.

  (3) No officer may be appointed a custody officer unless he is of at least the rank of sergeant.
  (4) An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them.
  (5) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to section 37(2) below, none of the functions of a custody officer in relation to a person shall be performed by an officer who at the time when the function falls to be performed is involved in the investigation of an offence for which that person is in police detention at that time.
  (5A) Nothing in subsection (5) above is to be taken to prevent a custody officer—

  (a) performing any function assigned to custody officers—

  (i) by this Act; or

  (ii) by a code of practice issued under this Act;

  (b) carrying out the duty imposed on custody officers by section 37 below;

  (c) doing anything in connection with the identification of a suspect; or

  (d) doing anything under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

  (6) Where an arrested person is taken to a police station which is not a designated police station, the functions in

  473
  relation to him which at a designated police station would be the functions of a custody officer shall be performed—

  (a) by an officer who is not involved in the investigation of an offence for which he is in police detention, if such an officer is readily available; and

  (b) if no such officer is readily available, by the officer who took him to the the station or any other officer.

  (7) References to a custody officer in the following provisions of this Act include references to an officer other than a custody officer who is performing the functions of a custody officer by virtue of subsection (4) or (6) above.
  (8) Where by virtue of subsection (6) above an officer who took an arrested person to a police station is to perform the functions of a custody officer in relation to him, the officer shall inform an officer who—

  (a) is attached to a designated police station; and

  (b) is of at least the rank of inspector,

  that he is to do so.
  (9) The duty imposed by subsection (8) above shall be performed as soon as it is practicable to perform it.")
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
  7 Line 45, ("officer") insert ("of a force maintained by a police authority")
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg formally to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to the Lords Amendment numbered 6. I have already spoken to these amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to the Lords Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Elton).
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may copy the benevolent remarks made by my noble and learned friend and say that we do not object to these amendments. They appear to be very sensible.
  5 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  8 After Clause 71, insert the following new Clause
  Improperly obtained evidence.
  (" .—(1) If it appears to the court in any proceedings that any evidence (other than a confession) proposed to be given by the prosecution may have been obtained improperly, the court shall not allow the evidence to be given unless—

  (a) the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that it was obtained lawfully and in accordance with a code of practice (where applicable) issued, approved, and in force, under Part VI of this Act; or

  (b) the court is satisfied that anything improperly done in obtaining it was of no material significance in all the circumstances of the case and ought, therefore, to be disregarded; or

  (c) the court is satisfied that the probative value of the evidence, the gravity of the offence charged, and the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained are such that the public interest in the fair administration of the criminal law requires the evidence to be given, notwithstanding that it was obtained improperly.

  (2) For the purposes of this section, evidence shall be treated as having been obtained improperly if it was obtained—

  (a) in breach of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment or rule of law; or

  (b) in excess of any power conferred by or obtained under this Act or any other enactment; or

  (c) in breach of any provision of a code of practice issued, approved, and in force under Part VI of this Act; or

  474

  (d) as a result of any material deception in obtaining or exercising any power under this Act or any other enactment.")

  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment, but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
  9 After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause
  Exclusion of unfair evidence.
  (" .—(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
  (2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence. ")
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their amendment numbered 8, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their amendment numbered 9 in lieu thereof. At the Report stage of our proceedings on this Bill your Lordships decided to insert a new clause after what was then Clause 71. The scheme of the new clause, which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is that a court shall not allow evidence to be given unless certain requirements are met. Once it is plausibly suggested to the court that evidence may have been obtained improperly, the court has no choice under the new clause but to apply the tests set out in the subsections.
  It is, I think, both clear and generally agreed that this provision will result in a significant increase in the numbers of trials within trials, and that they will be long and complex. But that does not seem to us to bring any benefit to the process of justice. This is one of the considerations which has led the Government to dislike the new clause.
  That is not to say that the court should never hold such a trial within a trial; nor is it to say that the court should not have a discretion to exclude unfairly obtained evidence if the admission of it would render the proceedings unfair. Nor, indeed, is it to say that the discretionary power should not be written into the statute book. In all this we are on common ground with the noble and learned Lord and his supporters, and that is why, in a moment, I shall be asking your Lordships to agree with an alternative amendment which gives this discretion to the court. I must, I think, say what are the other reasons we have for disliking what the noble and learned Lord proposed, and your Lordships agreed, and for seeking an acceptable alternative, but I shall do so only briefly because we are on familiar ground.
  Much has been made, especially in another place, of the clarity and precision of the drafting of the new clause. The court would know what to do, it was suggested in another place, because Parliament would have told it what to do. As a layman, I found myself a little surprised sitting there in the Gallery. I recalled the seven tests in the clause, and I also recalled the very trenchant things said about them by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I should reassure those of your Lordships who feel that you have come to a play in which the understudy is in a principal role, by saying that my noble and learned friend will reply to your Lordships' remarks.

  475
  But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is about as far from being a layman as it is possible to be, pointed out that the amendment as drafted invited the court to accept a different and apparently lower standard of proof in cases involving a very grave offence from those involving trivial ones. He asked whether that was the intention of sub-section (1)(c). He asked what sort of significance the court was to take as being "material significance" in the subsection before it. He asked what standard of certainty was required by the words,
  "If it appears to the court… that any evidence … may have been obtained improperly",
  with which words the whole process of testing is initiated.
  All these seemed to me, as a layman, very pertinent questions. They are open questions, and they are questions which a court must answer before it is able to obey the direction laid on it by this clause. The fact that they are questions at all—and my right honourable friend asked them in much the same terms in another place—makes it clear that the court is invited to make a series of value judgments about matters on which the clause cannot be precise at all. They must remain in doubt, and doubt seems to arise in this clause more readily than one might wish of anything we put on the statute book.
  But of one thing I think there is no doubt. All of your Lordships, I believe, wish to see justice done, and done fairly. We want to see the guilty fairly convicted and the innocent fairly acquitted. What we do not want to see is the guilty being unfairly acquitted. Yet as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary pointed out in another place, the new clause could lead to the acquittal of a guilty man, not because of a confession that has been wrung from him by oppression, nor as the result merely of a fair trial, but simply because evidence has been obtained in breach of the law or of the codes of practice.
  Many noble Lords who supported this new clause did so, I believe, because they wished to prevent misconduct by the police. I will not now recite yet again the impressive battery of safeguards against such misconduct that we have already erected both in the Bill and in the codes of practice, because your Lordships know them all too well. The point I now wish to make is that if misconduct nevertheless does occur, then the effect of the clause is to punish not the police, but the public. Punishment is exacted from the public by turning the guilty, and perhaps dangerous, man loose among them. That does not seem to us what your Lordships would, on reflection, wish to do.
  I will not dwell longer on our objections to this new clause. They were put cogently on the record by my noble and learned friend for all to read at the last stage here. But while we discussed that amendment, my noble and learned friend had another on the Marshalled List. His proposal was to give the judges a discretion to exclude unfairly obtained evidence, and to make the basis of that exclusion the fact that not to exclude it would upset the fairness of the trial. That amendment remained on the Marshalled List here and the noble and learned Lord's amendment went, on a majority of seven votes, with the Bill and down the corridor to another place. In another place, it was
  476
  rather less successful and the elected House of Parliament decided against it. That, I submit to your Lordships, would alter the case even if we now offered your Lordships an amendment in exactly the terms of that which was on the Marshalled List at Report, but that is not what I propose we should do.
  In discussion at an earlier stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, brought two points home to us with considerable force. He reminded us that the term "prejudicial", which we had used to describe the effects of evidence which might cause it to be excluded, had been invested by the courts with a much stronger meaning than was appropriate in the context, and we have removed it, thus considerably altering the impact of our proposed new clause. He also pointed out that, in all fairness, what we proposed to do for evidence gained from the accused ought to be done for evidence gained from any other person. Again, we were persuaded, and we have changed the amendment accordingly.
  The amendment as drafted gives the court discretion in criminal proceedings to refuse to allow any prosecution evidence to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. It simply allows the court to exclude evidence if the fairness of the proceedings would be adversely affected, and explicitly requires the way in which the evidence was obtained to be addressed in any such decision.
  In enlarging the effects of the clause in response to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, we have taken the opportunity to embrace evidence given in a confession. Our amendment is therefore intended to provide a framework for considering the fairness of admitting all forms of evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely in any case brought before the courts.
  We believe that this amendment will achieve the fairness that all want to see established: fairness to the accused, because decisions on admissibility of evidence against him should not depend, for example, on the charge he faces; fairness to the public, because evidence will not be excluded purely for some reason lying outside the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused; and fairness to the court, because the number of disputes over the admissibility of evidence will be reduced by this amendment, so it can devote itself effectively and efficiently to its proper function—providing a fair trial for the accused.
  I believe that this amendment is preferable to the present clause. The underlying principle is there, but our proposal will also simplify procedures on the exclusion of evidence; will reject evidence whose use is unfair for whatever reason; and will include all relevant and good evidence in the best interests of justice—and that means in the best interests of us all. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on their amendment numbered 8, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their amendment numbered 9 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Elton.)
  Lord Scarman: My Lords, as the one who moved the amendment which found favour with your Lordships' House, I think I owe it to the House to indicate at once my position upon the Message from another place. I confess that the longer I listened to the delicate shafts directed by the noble Lord the Minister towards what I would impertinently call "my amendment" the more I became determined to change my mind and have a fight for the original amendment. I have resisted that temptation. I do so not because I share the noble Lord's dislike of your Lordships' amendment. I still think that it has great virtues and that it is preferable to that which has emerged from another place. I do so for two reasons. First, I see the virtues and qualities in the amendment which has come from another place. I believe that it has absorbed those virtues and qualities from a certain ministerial study of your Lordships' amendment. It is certainly an amendment which will provide the judges with a useful exclusionary rule where it is right and proper that evidence should be excluded, by which I mean where improperly obtained evidence should be excluded.
  Secondly, bearing in mind what has been achieved in another place—largely, I suspect, due to the imaginative and determined work of this House—I suggest that this is not an issue upon which we should enter into an argument with the elected House of Parliament. I attach great importance to the constitutional argument. Questions of principle will arise in which the constitutional argument cannot be allowed to prevail; but when the question is, as here, a choice between two proposals, each of them having merit, the fact that I may happen to think your Lordships' proposal has greater merit than that from the other House is no reason for rejecting the other House's view, they being the elected House, if there is quality in their proposal, too. I should not advise the House to insist upon the House's amendment.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am perfectly sure that the House would always want to follow the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, to which we have just listened. I therefore rise merely in order that the record should be clear. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and I—I add my own name with all due humility—have studied both amendments and have listened to the arguments about the limitation of the amendment coming from another place relating to the case within a case and we do not have the slightest doubt but that the amendment which is now before the House for acceptance will widen the area of debate, argument and dispute.
  The original amendment of the noble and learned Lord laid down very clear guidelines upon which the court could act. We now have an amendment under which all the circumstances in which the evidence is obtained—broad terms, general terms—can be taken into account by the court. In those circumstances, one can imagine every advocate appearing for a defendant thinking that he has not done his duty if he has not asked the court to explore every single avenue relating both to impropriety and to the grounds of admissibility or non-admissibility. That is because the amendment which we are now considering is in such general and vague terms.
  478
  As I have already mentioned, I put this on record as the view which my noble and learned friend and I take about this amendment by way of tribute to the original amendment which was passed by your Lordships. However, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said about what he rightly called his amendment, I have nothing further to add.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I be permitted merely to add a tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman? It was he who initiated this fascinating and, I believe, extremely important discussion which has produced the compromise result we have arrived at today. Before I sit down, may I also pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord for his initiation of the important amendment regarding racial discrimination and express our pleasure that the Government thought it right yesterday to support the decision of your Lordships' House.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having opposed the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in its various forms at various stages of the Bill, may I be allowed to associate myself with the tribute which has been paid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones? Without the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, we could never have arrived at this broadly acceptable situation, which fuses the good aspects of both sides of the debate. I merely wish to acknowledge that fact.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is content with the present situation, we on these Benches will say no more about it.

Airline Competition Policy
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on the White Paper Airline Competition Policy (Cmnd. 9366) prior to any debate in Parliament.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper today, perhaps I may remind the House that just before we rose for the Summer Recess we were indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating a debate on the report of the Civil Aviation Authority which had been requested by the Government. Unfortunately, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is abroad on Parliamentary business. We all regret his absence today.
Since that debate, we have had the response of the Government to the report of the Civil Aviation Authority. Some of the decisions and judgments many people find puzzling. I have tried to word my question accordingly. Before there is any general debate in Parliament I, for one, should like to raise several points which I find, shall we say, peculiar. Following our discussion tonight, it may be that we shall better be able to discuss in full parliamentary debate the issues and judgments inevitably called into question. I am most grateful to those who are to take part in the

479
debate. It is quite obvious to anybody who knows anything about aviation that we are very fortunate in the speakers we are to hear tonight. They have a depth of experience which certainly could not be exceeded in another place.
The reasons why I have raised the matter as soon as possible are these. I was unhappy and disturbed by the White Paper on Airline Competition Policy published by the Government in reply to the report of the Civil Aviation Authority. To begin with, I was most concerned about the antagonism which surfaced in the period preceding the Government's decision, even allowing for the importance of the issues involved. This antagonism of course was not the fault of the Government: but for those of us, in this House and outside, who were deeply interested but not wishing to take sides with one airline against another and who saw the problem as greater than the attitude of any individual airline, it was a most disagreeable factor.
What has worried me throughout and what, I suggest, has worried many people has been the question of the airline industry itself. My major concern is that the Government have failed to grasp this opportunity to deal with the obvious imbalance in the United Kingdom aviation market. A restructuring could have brought in a new era for the industry lasting into the next century, and it seems unlikely that such an opportunity will recur for many years to come.
A second reason for concern is that the many complex questions and problems affecting the airline industry should not be dealt with piecemeal, on an ad hoc basis, but considered as a whole. This would have been possible by a general restructuring.
Take, for instance, the following examples—all of which are pending. There is the inspector's report on the Stansted/Heathrow issue for a third London Airport: the report of the Select Committee on transport dealing with the organisation, financing and control of airports in the United Kingdom; the consultation document on air transport movements at Heathrow Airport. To these must be added, I suppose, privatisation of the British Airports Authority and its airports.
My third major concern arises from my belief that the Government have erred in the weight they have given to Treasury opinion. I want to ask whether it really is for the good of the industry, the airlines and the passengers that all such considerations should be submerged under Treasury demands for the privatisation of British Airways in the spring of next year. Would it not have been better for all concerned—and perhaps even of long-term benefit to the Treasury itself—if these matters had been considered and dealt with as a whole, deferring any privatisation date for British Airways until this had been done?
The response of the Government in the White Paper is to state in their first two paragraphs, paragraphs 14 and 15, that:
"Uncertainties affecting the privatisation of British Airways must be resolved. The Government has decided that there will be no forced reduction in British Airways' size relative to the rest of the industry".
But is this the right decision? However fair and scrupulous British Airways may be in its dealings,
480
there can be no doubt that its high share of the airline market—namely, 65 per cent. of total United Kingdom airline output and 81 per cent. of output on scheduled services—presents a considerable imbalance.
In paragraph 15 the Government state:
"The independents have grown despite British Airways and should continue to be able to grow, given fair competition, provided sufficient opportunities are available to them and provided they have the resources to take advantage of these opportunities".
This same paragraph admits the imbalance in its last sentence, when it states:
"If these conditions can be met, the independents will be able to grow so as to reduce further the imbalance in the industry".
These are, of course, impeccable statements, or even judgments, but the imbalance is hereby admitted. There remains the crucial question: have we got these essential sufficient opportunities?
I, for one, have always recognised and agreed that British Airways must remain our dominant and major airline. But I confess that I find myself disturbed by the comments of Mr. Neil Forster, chairman of Air UK, that this White Paper had entirely confirmed a privatised British Airways in its overwhelmingly powerful position in the United Kingdom aviation scene. I am afraid that I accept that point of view.
If we are correct in this feeling, it means that we are to be faced with the prospect of the transition of a near public monopoly into a private monopoly. I myself regard any privatisation of British Airways in a purely pragmatic sense—in other words, what is best for all concerned, but not the transition of one type of monopoly into another.
At least I was heartened that the Government commit themselves to the principle of dual designation of many routes, but these rights (if that be the correct word) have to be negotiated with foreign governments, and that is a very different story. In the past foreign governments have been most uncooperative in granting rights to a second British airline. The noble Lord the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am correct in saying that BCal has licences to fly in competition with British Airways to Vienna, Milan and Helsinki but cannot do so because the countries concerned refuse to accept the dual designation principle.
There are other examples, as the Government know. Is it not true that the West German Government have blocked similar rights to Cologne, Hamburg, Hanover and Stuttgart, even though the Civil Aviation Authority has granted BCal the United Kingdom licences? Let us not run away with the idea that dual designation is an immediate panacea.
The House knows my views on Gatwick. Paragraph 17 of the White Paper mentions the development of Gatwick as a major centre of international operations. Certainly there is the space at Gatwick for this. For myself, I do not believe that Gatwick can be developed to its full potential without a second runway. I was glad to note that I was supported in this belief by the Civil Aviation Authority, when one of its senior figures stated in September that Gatwick must choose between a second runway or failing to reach its projected growth target. Of course, support from the Civil Aviation Authority may not count for much with the Government today, but many of us believe that the

481
authority is both experienced and well informed, and that its professional opinions are less prejudiced than many others.
What seems to me to be so utterly wrong (and it is why I keep on about this) is that decisions of this nature—a second runway—are taken not on the merits of the matter, but on the underground politics concerning Stansted and political considerations of voters around Gatwick, rather than on the future of the airport itself. It is so much wasted breath to talk about developing Gatwick as a hub-and-spoke airport of the future and to deny what is obviously necessary. Also, it is dishonest.
I have in my hands a copy of Airport News (the journal of the British Airports Authority) for 22nd October. The banner headline across the top of the front page reads, "Don't stifle success". The opening paragraph states:
"Any move to stifle the development of London's airports could jeopardise the successful privatisation of British Airways and put at risk the future of independent carriers like British Caledonian, BAA chairman Norman Payne told a meeting of Conservative MPs during their conference at Brighton".
Mr. Payne went on to say:
"Heathrow is already close to the ceiling of 275,000 movements due to be imposed by the Government next year and the Government has recently confirmed that Gatwick will remain a single runway airport, so there will be a capacity problem ahead".
I would ask your Lordships to note those words:
"Gatwick will remain a single runway airport, so there will be a capacity problem ahead".
Arising from this refusal to look at the future of Gatwick and this inability to develop its full potential is the question of what is to be the future position of European charters. This is a highly efficient sector of British air transport to which I paid tribute in our debate of 30th July. We were then discussing the report of the Civil Aviation Authority which, in its paragraph 12, spoke of the substantial demand for charter seats which was being satisfied from Gatwick. Furthermore, it went on to say that to rule that charters should increasingly be operated from some other airport was,
"to substitute the planner's judgment for the proper working of the market place".
It strengthened this point in paragraph 18 when it stated:
"The aim of Gatwick must be the development of a strong and sustainable network of scheduled services such as the Government and this Authority has striven to build and sustain over many years. If the price of developing the scheduled service network at Gatwick was progressively to squeeze charters out, this would be to render a major disservice to a substantial category of public demand".
Under present proposals in the White Paper, this is what I believe will happen. I think that the charters will indeed be squeezed out.
I wonder how many people read the letter in The Times on 31st August from Mr. Davison, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Britannia Airways, saying that in this year, 1984, some 8 million holiday makers would benefit from the low costs and high standards offered by charter flights. I think that I would be prepared to accept the point made by Mr. Davison that this social revolution by which ordinary people have benefited over the past 20 years would not have occurred under a one-airline policy, or even under a two-airline policy. The charter business
482
believes it happened because of intense competition in the private sector in a truly competitive market place.
Moving on to the problem of the regional airports, exemplified by Birmingham and Manchester, it must be obvious to all that this is difficult to solve on an ad hoc basis. Surely, and obviously, so much must depend on the decision relating to London's third airport. Are we to see Birmingham and Manchester emerge as more than what has been called tertiary international airports? In other words, might we have not a third London airport but one in the North? This is a further illustration of the Government's error in not embarking on major reconstruction embracing the many problems involved.
The point should be made that the proposals from the Civil Aviation Authority had Manchester very much in mind. In a letter to The Times on 28th August, Mr. Ray Colegate of the CAA stated that Manchester was an excellently run airport and a major hub which should be developed. The proposals of the CAA were intended to give the smaller operators the opportunity to develop their own European services at major provincial airports in competition with London. I think that few well-informed people would disagree with the fact that many of these routes are too thin to accommodate three airlines; that is, two British and one foreign.
As ever, tributes are paid to the consumer by the Government. The consumer is always in favour until he either wants something or attempts to remedy what he sees as an injustice to the consumer. Nobody knows that better than I do. So, in the White Paper a refusal to deal with the admitted imbalance in the airline industry is said to be of benefit to the consumer.
Concerning the role suggested for the Office of Fair Trading, we shall have to wait for the Government to lay the necessary statutory instruments before Parliament. Although I have the strongest admiration for the Office of Fair Trading and for its Director-General, Sir Gordon Borrie, I do not think that this is the way to deal with these problems. To begin with, cases can take a long time, inquiries can take longer still, while predatory pricing is most difficult to define. How does one distinguish between a predatory price and a tough business one? That would keep the lawyers occupied for years.
I have found all this tonight difficult. Probably others have, too. There has been a great deal of personal antagonism, as I said at the beginning of my speech, and it is not easy to avoid taking sides. We all know the old maxim that he who stands in the middle of the road gets run down. Well, on this aspect I shall just have to be run down. But making no commendations seems unappreciative—as though one did not realise all the effort put in by the industry. I do, indeed, appreciate the superhuman effort made by British Airways in pulling itself round; the superhuman effort made by British Caledonian which, over the last eight years, lost money in only one year; the superhuman effort made by the charter sector which accounts for 33 per cent. of all passenger miles flown by the independent airlines and British Airways put together.
Obviously, it is not possible to deal with all the points in the White Paper. Most of us still need time to reflect on what is suggested, and the outcome. But during the past waiting period, as we know from our

483
own debates, different accountants, different airlines, different media all had different answers and interpretations to what were apparently the same facts and figures.
I submit that it is not for us to take sides—anyway, there are a great many sides. This is not just about British Airways and British Caledonian, but about all the airlines and all the passengers. Indeed, it is about the airline industry itself. My regret is that the Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, was unable to muster sufficient support for what I believe should have been done and what he himself wanted to do; namely, to restructure the airline industry in the United Kingdom.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the House and, I think, the civil aviation industry are both indebted, not for the first time, to the noble Baroness for raising this matter on an Unstarred Question this evening. Indeed, I hope I may be allowed to say, from some experience going back over a number of years of the work of the noble Baroness, that I know of no person who has done more for the airline traveller than the noble Baroness, going on from her indefatigable work years ago as a member of the Airline Users Committee, which I very well remember.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will not feel that this brief debate tonight is all that this House should contribute to discussion of this matter. I very much hope that in the new Session we shall have a full-scale debate on the very serious issues of policy which are raised both by the Civil Aviation Authority's report and by the Government's own equally interesting White Paper. I hope they will treat tonight's debate as what I used to call hors d'oeuvre but what now in most restaurants are referred to as starters.
There is a very big issue here, but the difference which exists between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Government seems to be one of emphasis and degree rather than of principle. As I understand it, both bodies accept the need for more competition in the British civil aviation industry. In parenthesis, those of your Lordships who use the shuttle services to Scotland will have already experienced one very substantial result of competition—the admirable breakfast now served on both airlines. In the days when only one airline operated the shuttle there was no breakfast at all. That is in every sense a very substantial argument in favour of competition, and of benefit to the airline traveller.
But, of course, the question of competition revolves around: competition between who? If one competitor is too big and too powerful, we can talk about competition until we have talked our heads off, but there will not be any, because one will dominate the market. What I think the Civil Aviation Authority was seeking to do, and what in more modest degree the Government, I think, were seeking to do, was to alter somewhat the balance between the two biggest British airlines so that competition should not be just a formula—not just a phrase—but a reality.
If one has to judge between the views of the Government and the department concerned—and in
484
parenthesis may I say how glad I am that that department is once again the Department of Transport and not, as it was unfortunately for some years, the Department of Trade—and the views of the Civil Aviation Authority, your Lordships will not perhaps be wholly surprised if my bias is in favour of the Civil Aviation Authority, where I had the honour to serve for its original five formative years.
But that is not sheer prejudice. Your Lordships will be aware that in the CAA there are concentrated most of the really experienced public experts on this industry, headed by a very distinguished and able chairman, with a fine industrial record, and with its economic division headed by Mr. Ray Colegate, to whom the noble Baroness referred and whose services to the British civil aviation industry over the years have been quite extraordinarily valuable and seem to me to merit considerable recognition. Comparisons, I know, are odious, but we have there far more expertise and knowledge on this difficult and highly complicated subject than in the department, or indeed anywhere else. Therefore if your Lordships are to be called upon to exercise a judgment between the decisions of the Government and the decisions of the CAA, I think that most people would be inclined to let their views go in favour of what is the more authoritative and the more expert body.
I appreciate that the Government have been in a difficulty over this—a difficulty of timing. The fact that this report, for which they called, should come forward in the period when they are proceeding, in my view very properly, with the privatisation of British Airways obviously creates a difficulty. If the Government were to proceed drastically to reduce the scale of British Airways' operations, they must necessarily prejudice in some degree the success of the privatisation operation and therefore the benefit which the British taxpayer can expect to obtain from it. I think that there is an inherent difficulty of timing here.
Therefore it is perhaps a very difficult exercise of judgment to decide how much more it is necessary to transfer to British Caledonian and to the rest of the independent sector from British Airways in order to make sure that there are strong enough competitors with British Airways for a reality of competition to be created, not merely on the shuttle but on international routes. This is the serious issue that lies behind this whole matter. It is obviously impossible to deal with it seriously and fully on an Unstarred Question, and that is the major reason why I have already appealed to my noble friends to see to it that this matter is fully debated early in the new Session, which is, after all, a period when your Lordships' House is more likely to have time available than our experience last summer suggests it is later in the Session.
That is the major issue, but there is one immediate question that I should like to direct to my noble friend. It deals directly with competition policy. British Airways, British Caledonian and the two major American airlines recently sought to make a substantial reduction—a reduction of about £40—on transatlantic fares, and they have been forbidden by the Government so to do. It seems difficult to reconcile that with the Government's general policy in favour of competition and the market. I know that there is a fear that the ridiculous excesses of the American anti-trust

485
legal system might be incensed by this; and that an equally ridiculous proceeding to that being instituted by the liquidator in the United States concerning Laker Airways might complicate the matter. But if we are really to allow reasonable commercial enterprise, of benefit to the consumer, to be restricted by those fears, it is difficult to see how one is pursuing a competitive and effective airline policy at all.
I should be particularly grateful to my noble friend if he would answer the question as to whether the suggestion made in the press that the 100,000 or so passengers who have already booked their passages across the North Atlantic on the four airlines concerned at the reduced price are to be surcharged on arrival at the airport on the instructions of the Government. If that were so, I think it would be a most inappropriate action and not least, of course, would cause great congestion, discomfort and hardship at the airport. I hope that at the outcome of this debate we may have an effective denial from my noble friend of that statement.
The only other matter that I want to raise relates to the airport facilities available. We cannot have competition, whether on internal or external routes, among British Airways, British Caledonian and the other airlines if insufficient facilities are available at the major airports which everyone wants to use. On this again I should like to press my noble friend about the proposed 275,000 movements a year restriction planned to be imposed on the operation of Heathrow. I know that this is argued on the grounds of aircraft noise and the nuisance to those who live near; but if people already live near an airport, with 275,000 movements a year—which, if my mathematics are right, which is highly unlikely, amounts to something like 750 movements a day—I cannot believe that it will make very much difference to their life if those movements go up to 350,000 or 400,000 a year. The noise, such as it is, is continuous.
There is, of course, a further fact, of which my noble friend is well aware, that because of international agreement on acceptable noise levels of aircraft from, I think, 1986 the noisier aircraft will be excluded from Heathrow, as indeed from all the other major international airports of the world. It would therefore seem, if the individual aircraft are to be quieter, and if the numbers are already to be at 275,000, that it really is a pity to cripple Britain's major airport, and the airport with more international movements than any other airport in the world, by a purely arbitrary, and it seems to me misconceived, restriction.
I was glad to hear the noble Baroness press a point which my noble friend knows that I have pressed on him so frequently as to try even his monumental patience; but it is nonsense to have mutilated the original plan for Gatwick by excluding the second runway. I have a bias here to declare. I was the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation who, as long ago as 1954, approved and started the Gatwick project. Like that of all airports planned to be a large airport, the plan allowed for two full-scale runways. A most unfortunate undertaking was given by the then chairman of the British Airports Authority to confine it to only one. Indeed, my noble friend will recall rebuking me in his usual charming way when I said that that undertaking was given to a pressure group.
486
He pointed out that it was given to the West Sussex County Council—who for the purposes of civil aviation policy are no more than a rather insignificant pressure group. My noble friend has made it clear that the Government have never accepted that they are bound by that foolish and uncalled-for undertaking.
My noble friend knows, because he answered the Question about it a few months ago, that, in the light of the planned capacity of Gatwick of 25 million movements a year, there is no other airport in the world which has anything like that number of movements and has only one runway. If therefore Gatwick is to be developed as a second hub airport—and indeed, I cannot see how effective airline competition can be developed in any other way—particularly with some restriction at Heathrow, then I hope the Government are going to be brave and point out to all concerned, including the West Sussex County Council, that the development of Gatwick Airport in a time of general depression and in employment has put wealth, full employment and great activity into the Gatwick area and that it would be a great mistake to cripple its further development.
In parenthesis, your Lordships may be interested to know, in these days of unemployment, that last year I was invited to open a housing development at Gatwick for the reason that there were more jobs available in the Gatwick area than there was accommodation for the workers to live. That is a healthy and cheering aspect of things to see in this day and age. It really would be a pity to spoil the concept because of an undertaking of this sort which does not bind the Government and which must cripple—as indeed the Civil Aviation Report indicates—the development of Gatwick.
Finally, relating to Stanstead, I should say this. I think the Stansted inquiry merits the description once given by a learned judge of certain proceedings which went beyond time and encroached upon eternity. It is 20 years since the Government of which I was a member approved the Stanstead project. We have gone from public inquiry to public inquiry, to the benefit of nobody except, if I may say so, members of my own profession who have been employed professionally almost continually over that period to take part in the inquiry. If the public system is not to be wholly discredited, it is necessary to bring the Stanstead decision to an early and effective end.
Those are simply short preliminary points on a subject which, as I have said, I hope your Lordships will have the opportunity of debating in full in the new session. However, I should like again to thank the noble Baroness for giving this opportunity at least to provide what I hope to my noble friend on the Front Bench are not unpalatable hors-d'oeuvres.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on two points. First, I agree with him when he says that it is quite absurd to have a one-runway limitation on a major London Airport. I accept everything that he says about that and will try to underline it. I have only one reservation. That is when he said that in his position as Minister of Transport in 1954 he agreed the two-runway principle at Gatwick. Looking back, I thought

487
that when I was at the Ministry of Civil Aviation in 12950–51 we agreed that we should have a two-runway airport there.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me? I think it is the fact that the wisdom which he left behind, in that respect at any rate, remained in the Ministry when we came to the moment of decision of 1954, and I am sure we were very indebted to him.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, then my desire to agree with the noble Lord is enhanced.
The other point on which I agree with the noble Lord is when he offered his very generous words of praise to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. The noble Baroness opened the discussion. She posed her Question in a typically informed, fair and balanced manner. I agree with the greater part, if not all, of what she has said. Certainly I agree with her that the Government's policy on civil air transport appears to revolve around, and to have to fit in with, the determination to sell off British Airways, rather than the sale (if so required) of that airline having to fit into an overall policy which includes a determination of the future of not only airlines but airports.
However, I am not going to go over the ground which the noble Baroness covered so well. I want to intervene very briefly. I intend to take a little further the question that I put forward yesterday. I then asked if British Airways was still asking that the Government should use taxpayers' money to write off all or part of British Airways' dollar loans. The answer that I was given by the noble Lord who now sits on the Front Bench was an absolute model of courtesy. However, it fell short of complete clarity. The first reply was that no recent proposals had been made. I suppose I was expected to understand from that that the possibility of payment had now been dropped. But then on further questioning it seemed that it was still a matter for decision. I want the Minister to tell me what are the principles involved in this consideration. On what criteria will a decision eventually be made?
I try to follow these matters, I hope without undue prejudice. But I find it difficult or impossible to justify any payment of my money or the money of other taxpayers as an inducement to the City to buy British Airways shares. Listening to Ministers so far, I hear them emphasise the merits of competition. While I have said on other occasions that deregulation and the open skies policy can be carried too far, and while I accept the merits of a breakfast on the Scottish shuttle, there are questions of air safety which should also come into these issues. While I accept also that there is some merit in competition, it does not necessarily improve the service, the reliability, the safety of the development of that air service.
However, the Government have stated that putting British Airways in the private sector will mean fair competition. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said last week that British Airways will be placed,
"on the same footing as private sector airlines".
But will this be true if the privately owned British Airways are operating aircraft which have been paid for by the taxpayer? Is that fair competition? I have
488
looked at this matter from the viewpoint of the present management of British Airways. I read very carefully what they have to say. It seems that they too applaud competition within the private sector. I read in last week's British Airways News that the new chief executive of British Airways was saying—and again I quote:
"Leaving the comfortable confines of Government and going into the hard world of commercial reality was probably the best thing that could ever happen to British Airways".
Those are very brave words. There are some who would agree with them. But I find it impossible to reconcile that apparently robust spirit with a plea that I and other taxpayers should pay for their aircraft before they try to compete in the hard commercial world about which they speak. Would the Minister not agree that there can be no question of any gifts to British Airways disguised as capital reconstruction if those words of the British Airways chief executive are to be taken seriously?
There is another factor involved in this. British Airways have sought, in their very expensive propaganda, to put over the idea that they are offering to help with finance any small airline that wishes to compete against them on the continental routes. But apart from the most practical questions of licences and traffic rights which would be involved in such competition, if this is a genuine offer, may I ask the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, who is to answer: whose money are British Airways going to use? Is it their own? Or, again, is it a matter of using taxpayers' money? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in his customary straightforward replies to those questions.
There are just two other points on which I should like some information. As I have said, I believe that de-regulation can be overdone in this business of air transport. But service to the passenger can be improved, and national resources can be more fully utilised by sensible encouragement of competition. That brings me to the future of Prestwick airport. I understand that the future of Prestwick has been considered doubtful. There is an argument—I have heard it over the years—for closing down Prestwick. But there is also a very good argument for maintaining it as an international airport and also as a manufacturing focus.
I am glad to think that there is a lot of activity now going on around Prestwick—making aeroplanes—with which I was at one time associated. But my understanding is that a new service out of Prestwick could tip the balance into profitability. There is apparently an operator, the Highland Express, prepared to operate a transatlantic service from Prestwick. Can the Minister tell me if a licence for such a service would meet with Government approval and be within the policy of competition that they have announced? I hope that he will say that all unnecessary delays in coming to a decision about that will be eliminated.
Similarly, I would have thought that the application of the People's Express airline to operate from Stansted would be in keeping with this need to develop the services out of that airport. Can the Minister tell me what is happening to that application? The airports authority, the Government, or, indeed. Britain as a

489
whole, are going to have problems with the forthcoming saturation of Heathrow and Gatwick. Those problems would be set back, if not eliminated, if we could have a proper runway system at Gatwick—two parallel runways at that airport. But if we cannot have that, any encouragement of services at Stansted or Prestwick would, I think, fit into a rational air transport policy. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that he will accede to my request that unnecessary delays are cut out.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, it is rather intimidating to attempt to follow the three previous speakers: a former Minister with responsibility in this field, not to mention an erstwhile aviator himself; a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority; and, of course, that doughtiest of champions of the travelling public, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, to whom we are deeply indebted for raising this subject once again. I hope that your Lordships will not take it amiss if, by and large, I support practically all that they have said. I have no doubt that before the debate is over there will be an opportunity for some contrary views.
When we last debated this subject on 30th July, much of this ground was covered at great length. But the Government were inhibited in their reply because they were clearly in a dilemma, knowing that they had a tiger by the tail and not knowing quite in what direction to get rid of it. Since then, we have had the White Paper which we are talking about. I must say that it seems to me that it is a smack in the face for the Civil Aviation Authority and nearly an insult to the Minister who commissioned it and who, I am sure, must have fought hard to get it accepted. It is sad, I think, that when such an experienced body as the Civil Aviation Authority came up with a new pattern of unblemished pedigree in direct descent from the Edwards report of 1969, the Government chose finally merely to throw a few morsels to the independents rather than to seize a great opportunity to increase competition in the interests of the traveller.
Admittedly, there have been some switches. British Caledonian have been given a swap of some currently profitable routes in place of some currently unprofitable ones. This will, indeed, help their profits to the tune of some £18 million a year. We have this remarkable arrangement by which British Airways are supposed to shell out £450,000 to anyone wanting to open up a route from a provincial airport, whether or not in competition with them. It raises some most intriguing possibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has referred to this. We shall watch with great interest to see how it evolves. However, these are very small steps towards giving the independents a broad and strong enough base to compete with what remains an immensely powerful organisation, one soon to be freed of some of the restraints inherent in Government ownership.
It is this question of the breadth of base and the strength of base that is much more important than any question of direct competition on individual routes. David has fought Goliath, and this time divine intervention in the form of the Government has not been on David's side. The battle has gone to the strong, at any rate so far, thanks undoubtedly to the
490
Treasury's determination to get its spoils and (one must pay him tribute) to the heavyweight in-fighting of the noble Lord, Lord King, backed, we are told, by threats of resignation. I do not blame him. I think that he would not have been doing his job if he had not done precisely that. But if the Government are not susceptible to further argument, we must face the future as it is. We are told that British Airways and British Caledonian have agreed to the route transfers proposed, although one is bound to suspect that it was a case of, "Agree or else".
I hope that the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority will do all in their power to help speed this process of transfer with a view to the new operators being in place, at the latest, in time for the summer schedules next spring. There will be a lot to be done: new links and loyalties to be forged in the respective territories, and staff to be transferred and looked after. I hope that our official representatives in those countries will give every possible help to both airlines in establishing themselves in their new roles. At least I think we can be thankful that the White Paper recognises the need for strengthening the safeguards against anti-competitive and predatory behaviour, although I tend to agree with one of the previous speakers that it is very difficult to define when behaviour does become predatory and it is very difficult to act speedily to deal with it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord King, would never dream of knowingly or intentionally indulging in such a thing. But size and strength cannot be other than they are. A predator, particularly a large and strong one, can easily create considerable havoc before it can be stopped. I hope, therefore, that those invested with the powers—the CAA and these other bodies which are to have a say in it—will be constantly watchful and will not hesitate to act effectively and speedily.
One word about airports. Already, we have had the subject of Gatwick raised. I make no apology for raising it myself. Heathrow, with all its facilities, remains British Airways' main preserve, with its monopoly of British overseas flights to and from it. Gatwick, by and large, will remain the home, and will become increasingly, we hope, the home and centre, of the independents. If they are to flourish and grow, as the Government say in the White Paper that they hope they will, then Gatwick must have facilities comparable with those at Heathrow. It has a number of advantages already—a terminal layout which is much less of a mess than Heathrow and much easier for the traveller to manoeuvre through, although I make a strong plea for travellators to the remoter gates. Sometimes I feel as if I am walking all the way to Edinburgh. The new train service to Victoria is a splendid piece of work—a great deal faster, more comfortable and more convenient than the Underground to Heathrow.
But its one great deficiency, as other noble Lords have said, is this lack of a second runway. I will not go into the details; other noble Lords have done that well and I strongly support them in the view that no truly major international airport can exist and develop on the basis of a single runway. No undertaking can be given for ever, and I am glad that the Government have not accepted that that is binding. I hope they will again look very seriously at this possibility.

491
In conclusion, I would simply say we must never forget that it is the traveller who must come first—the traveller and the shipper of goods by air. I was going to say that I speak only as the man on the Clapham omnibus, but I think it would be more correct to say the man on the Edinburgh Shuttle and the North Atlantic run. I do a very considerable mileage and go through a great many airports in the course of a year. It is for those of us who travel, and all the others for whom air travel is now becoming a possibility, although it was not in the past, that we must seek to ensure a prosperous and competitive air transport industry; and so I join my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in hoping that we have not had the last word but will have a further opportunity really to thresh out this extremely important subject.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the phrase "airline competition policy" is reasonably precise, and the report from the Civil Aviation Authority dealt substantially with a range of matters understood to be contained within that phrase. But, as has been demonstrated by previous speakers—notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who time after time serves the best interests not only of this House but of millions of other people who are the travelling public—it is not just a question of privatising or not, of route allocations, of market penetration, of predatory or monopolistic pricing. It is, in its effect, very much about the welfare of passengers—the consumers of airline services. Of all the groups or categories of air passengers carried by our airlines in both the domestic and international spheres, all of whom are entitled to protection and value for money, none stand in greater need of protection than those whose sole use of an aircraft is for their annual package holiday.
Of course, there are issues at stake within the covers of the report of the CAA, and the response by the Government, affecting substantial financial empires. I would not cavil at the Government's response. My contribution to the debate centres on appendix 4, at page 38 of the CAA Report—Competition policy in the United Kingdom—and in particular that section dealing with anti-competitive practices. I take this with the response by the Government to the references on page 10, paragraphs 28 and 29, to, "Safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour", which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth.
A key office in these matters is that of the Office of Fair Trading. A crucially important officer is the Director-General of Fair Trading. On page 39 the CAA Report spells out the enlarged powers given to the director under the competition Act 1980. It underlines that it is within his powers to initiate reviews of—and I quote:
"the carrying on of commercial activities in the United Kingdom, in relation to the supply of goods and services".
The Office of Fair Trading has the main initiating role within both the judicial system—in this case by taking cartel agreements to the court for judgment—and the discretionary system, in this case by taking monopoly and anti-competitive practice problems to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and advising Ministers on whether particular mergers should go to the MMC. In this context, I note with particular
492
interest a reference made in respect of holiday companies. I await with interest the outcome of that.
Further down on page 39 we are told that among areas of special concern to the Office of Fair Trading is that of potential monopoly situations. We are told that particular attention is paid to the economic performance of larger firms—I stress "larger"—together with information on price levels and movements, profits and market behaviour; I stress the words "market behaviour".
I noted with appreciation the definition, on page 40, of anti-competitive practices:
"An anti-competitive practice is the pursuit of a course of conduct in the course of business which has, or is intended to have, or is likely to have, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with the production, supply or acquisition of goods, or the supply of services in the United Kingdom or any part of it".
I am a firm believer in keeping as low as possible the cost to the consumer of travel and package holidays, consistent with business integrity and fair dealing. I trust that the Government are mindful of the need to see that anti-competitive practices, wherever they can be discerned and proved, are tackled with the utmost vigour. When all else fails, the last line of defence for the consumer must be a vigilant government and their regulatory agencies.
The package holiday business does not lack watchdogs set up by either the industry or governmental decisions. By chance, I listened to the chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents on the radio on Saturday morning. He impressed me with his views and with his authority as well as the good sense of what he said. He was commenting on the appalling and dreadful plight of many thousands of users of British aircraft companies. I recall his saying that the holiday package was a unique concept in that so many distinctive and separate businesses were elements within the package. Yet to the public, it is the travel agent who is seen as the front man—the body through whom they buy their holiday.
He told us that last year 10 travel companies had gone bust, and that already this year there were 13 who had gone the same way. I was particularly alert when I thought I heard him say that the CAA should be more concerned to ensure that the holiday business is better organised. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that this was said in the context of the distress caused to innocent working people who invest a fair amount of their savings to enjoy their holiday.
I ask the Minister the straight question: are the Government satisfied that the self-regulating machinery within the travel business is adequate to deal with the current disasters, and perhaps with others? Reputable and experienced travel operators can look after not only themselves but also their customers. They will take care to look at the choice by the main holiday companies of all the elements in the package—the contractors, the airlines, the hotels. But if the main spokesman for the travel agents—the chairman of ABTA—tells us that the CAA should ensure that the holiday business is better organised, what are the Government going to do about that?
So while I recognise the complex nature of the major issues within the covers of both the CAA report and the Government's response, and while I appreciate that the Government seem to have made proposals

493
with which all parties can live, I return to my main concern—that is, concern for the consumer. I echo the unease expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in an excellent speech that, as good as the Office of Fair Trading is—and I endorse her appreciation of the work of the Director General Sir Gordon Borrie—it is essential that it has the resources and the back-up to produce its reports in far quicker time than it is able at present. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, drew our attention to both time and the time that inquiries take. Surely these can be speeded up with more adequate financial support from the Government.
I also share the view of the noble Baroness that consumers are very often found to be in favour until they start to make demands and become nuisances by, for example, wanting protection from bad businesses and shady businessmen involved in the air-carrying business Caveat emptor may have been good enough as the basis for consumer protection once; it is not any more. We want stronger Government action, and we want it now.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, let me begin by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for not having heard the beginning of her remarks. I had been watching closely for the commencement of the debate, but nevertheless I am afraid that I managed to miss the beginning thereof and I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House. I should also like to join with all those who have complimented the noble Baroness on raising this subject tonight and on her own great personal record in the promotion of the interests of the travelling consumer.
It would be fair to say that the White Paper that we are discussing tonight has received what I might describe as mixed notices from both sides of the House. My noble friend Lord Polwarth described it as a smack in the face to the Civil Aviation Authority. I confess that I am less clear than some noble Lords that as regards this matter the Government faced a very wide choice of options. On the one hand, they were confronted by the threat, the possibility, of the resignation of the board of British Airways, at a rather crucial moment in the history of that institution, if they were to follow the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority. On the other hand, if they did not achieve some measure of satisfaction for the major independent airline, British Caledonian, there was the possibility of British Caledonian continuing to apply for routes which the Civil Aviation Authority in some cases would have recommended that it should have had and there would have been the prospect of continuous litigation, which equally would have interfered with the flotation of British Airways.
Therefore, it seems to me that my right honourable friends were caught in a rather narrow straitjacket. Under all the circumstances I suspect that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport extracted rather more crumbs from Lord King's table than perhaps my noble friend Lord King had originally intended to offer. However, I am not so sure, as my noble friend Lord Polwarth said, whether a great opportunity was thereby missed.
I venture to suggest that if one analyses the CAA report, one finds that, while the rhetoric of
494
competition is strongly present, in practice what the CAA was really talking about was a shuffling of the pack rather than the introduction of new cards. We were talking about the transfer of a monopoly service on one route from British Airways to a monopoly service to be provided by British Caledonian. In the international arena there was no actual enhancement offered in the CAA report as regards the broadening of competition to the end consumer, and, of course, that was for reasons which nobody knows better than my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The problem that arises is that so many of the international routes, particularly those to Western Europe, are governed by pooling arrangements between governments which are not within the power of the CAA or the British Government to abrogate unilaterally and yet which, of course, are a complete denial of the whole concept of competition.
Therefore, under those circumstances personally I do not feel convinced that there was a great opportunity lost. However, I wonder whether there might not have been something to be said for being prepared to witness some delay in the privatisation of British Airways to enable more progress to be made in the opening up in particular of the European routes to the forces of competition by dual designation, recognising that that could not come about except by international negotiation and that it would take time. I am delighted to see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has now embarked upon that task and has made headway with it. However, it is bound to take time before a major breakthrough is achieved because of the need for international agreement thereon. I am inclined to feel that there might have been something to be said for delaying the privatisation of British Airways until it could come to the market in a genuinely competitive environment.
That leads me to perhaps the one real anxiety I have about the White Paper; namely, I should have thought that there was something to be said for requiring British Airways to separate its air tours operation for separate flotation in order to make sure that within the arena of package tour operations—and as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has pointed out, it is highly competitive; indeed, one might almost say that it is a cut-price market—there could not be a legitimate claim by other operators that British Airways was indulging in cross-subsidisation.
The key to this seems to me to be a separate flotation for British Air Tours. It was my impression that that was a proposition upon which British Airways might have looked with, if not favour, at least some indulgence. Perhaps the reason such a proposition was not included in the White Paper was the fear that it might have diminished the "take" for the Treasury from the proceeds of privatisation. In that context—particularly if one considers the nature of the sources of finance for privatisation and bears in mind the importance of the institutions which might otherwise be buying Government gilts—the significance of the contribution which privatisation actually makes to reducing the public sector borrowing requirement seems to be, frankly, a somewhat secondary consideration. I venture to wonder whether the Treasury would not be well advised to be

495
somewhat less impatient to obtain the proceeds of privatisation than it has displayed itself to be as regards the last few cases and perhaps in the case of British Aerospace.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships because I want to make only a brief intervention. I rather doubt whether a major opportunity has been missed in this instance. It is so much more important that we should press ahead with the unscrambling of the pooling arrangements and establish dual designation routes which alone can offer the airline customer a real choice.
Before I sit down I want to reiterate the points so ably made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It would be very helpful at this juncture if my noble friend, in replying to the debate, could say something about the present battle that has apparently arisen between the Department of Transport and the American authorities. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I must say that the prospect of Her Majesty's Government being engaged in the business of surcharging passengers on the transatlantic routes is not one that should have a great appeal to your Lordships' House.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I speak from the Front Bench on behalf of the Opposition in the light of the experienced and well-informed persons who have taken part in this debate. However, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for giving us the opportunity not only to have a preliminary canter around the Government White Paper but also because this is the third opportunity which we have had in recent months to discuss the policy of civil aviation.
At the end of June we discussed the matter on the CAA's interim assessment before they issued their report. At the end of July we were discussing it on the CAA report in the absence of any policy direction from the Government. On that occasion I reiterated what the noble Baroness said—that it was a pity that we were not discussing the matter in the light of all the other reports, many of which are still awaited. Now we have the opportunity to discuss the matter as a preliminary canter with the Government White Paper on the CAA report. I, along with other noble Lords, wish to avoid going over the same arguments that we used on the previous occasions, but some points must be made.
Paragraph 3 of the Government White Paper points out that historically most sectors of air transport have been heavily regulated and protected by the state, and that that is still the position in many countries. It emphasises that the Government have to take account of that in bilateral relations. This was a point that some of us made in the previous debates, and one reason why some of us put forward the point that Britain's national flag carrier must not be weakened in any way because of this international situation.
Paragraph 5 of the White Paper states:
"The Edwards Committee report of 1969 set the pattern for Britain's airline industry over the last decade."
It points out that the committee supported the development of a competitive multi-airline industry,
496
but it is significant that there was one glaring omission, and a glaring omission to which I referred on the CAA report. I drew attention to the fact that not only did the Edwards Committee say what the Government have said but they also made clear that aviation policy must include a public sector; that there was no case whatever for denationalisation of BOAC and BEA, which were the then predecessors of British Airways. Edwards said that those publicly-owned airlines should be confirmed as the major operators. It is strange that the CAA made no reference to that. It is strange that, although the Government give an historical account, they leave out that important historical point.
The Labour Party policy remains as it was when the Edwards report was produced. There must be a strong public sector airline as the national flag carrier, and it is essential in Britain's interests that we should maintain that in order to keep our position in world aviation, and also that we accept the desirability of a smaller second force. So far as the opposition is concerned, we wish to retain BA as our pre-eminent airline but also to encourage the development of BCal as our second force.
We stand by the Edwards report. Everyone has given praise to the recent development of British Airways I would remind you—within the public sector. Without diverting too much, it is strange how the Government seem to look at various industries. There is BL, saved by the public sector; Rolls-Royce, which had to be brought into the public sector; British Telecom, one of the most successful industries in the world, and yet the Government are getting rid of it; Cable and Wireless, which was very successful. Transport Docks was one of the highly profitable industries, and the Government decided to get rid of it; the National Bus Company, which everybody admits is an efficient undertaking, and the Government now wish to dispose of under their buses White Paper. We have praise lavished on British Airways, and yet the Goverment wish to take it out of the public sector.
However by and large we welcome the decisions in the White Paper in so far as they affect British Airways. I should like to feel that those decisions were solely in the interests of civil aviation policy. However the CAA was not asked to review civil aviation policy, it was asked to review the implications of privatisation for competition and development of the British airline industry. It had to take the threatened privatisation into account.
Paragraph 14 of the Government's White Paper refers to the uncertainty of the industry about the outcome of that review. It says that,
"Uncertainties affecting the privatisation of British Airways must be resolved."
When we move to paragraph 24 we find that the White Paper observes that even the limited exchange of routes which has been agreed between BA and BCal will mean that the Exchequer will recieve less on privatisation of BA than would otherwise have been the case. It is clear that the Government were concerned that any major transfer of routes would seriously affect the future flotation of British Airways.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, referred to the conflicting aims of the Secretary of State. The

497
Times leader of 8th October said that the Secretary of State was,
"caught between conflicting demands for greater long-term competition and for speedy privatisation of British Airways at a good price".
Some of us have stressed throughout this controversy that it has little to do with competition. We have to take into consideration the effect of bilateral agreements; that there are few opportunities for multiple designation; that there is the important question of international agreements between governments; and that there is little opportunity for head-to-head competition. What the argument has been about has been the compulsory transfer of routes between what would be two private airlines. That has little to do with real competition as such.
We had the massive advertising campaign. We have heard talk of advertising campaigns of other public bodies, and we have had a massive advertising campaign. On 7th October the Sunday Times Business News in its Comment Column, referring to the CAA review, said:
"No one expected it to degenerate into the grubby horse trading of the past few weeks."
I agree with the noble Baroness that we have no desire to support a private monopoly, but we have to face the situation as it is and we must support the Government view that the CAA proposals could be disruptive of British Airways if carried out, and that there must be no weakening of Britain's national airline. I shall not go into all the arguments, but for all the international reasons it is important that there should be no weakening.
Therefore, we welcome the decision for no enforced reduction of British Airways' size and no compulsory transfer of routes, not in the interests of shareholders of the future privately-owned British Airways, but in Britain's interests as a leading aviation nation and also in the interests of passengers. We welcome also the decision of the Government published in the White Paper in favour of the continuation of British Airways' scheduled international services from Gatwick. That we believe is in the interests of our flag carrier as such, and also in the interests of the future development of Gatwick.
We have argued, especially in the last debate, that British Airways should retain its scheduled European services from Manchester and Birmingham Airports. I am pleased that the Government have decided to reject the CAA recommendation that those services should be given up by British Airways and transferred to independents. We welcome that decision, again in the interests of our national airline and also in the interests of the regional airports of Birmingham and Manchester. The airport authorities of both those airports expressed considerable concern about the CAA proposals and we are pleased that the Government have decided that BA should continue its European services from those airports.
We hope that that will be the final position because not only have those authorities faced that possibility in the CAA report, but they and other airports are being affected by the proposal for the abolition of the metropolitan counties, which will affect the airports under the control of some of the county councils.
498
I regret that there is nothing in the White Paper dealing with airport policy as such, except the one reference to the limit on flights out of Heathrow. Naturally, we shall await with keen interest the consultation which is taking place on the future of the Scottish lowland airports. We shall await with keen interest, as will every other noble Lord, the final report, when it comes, on Stanstead and the possible fifth terminal at Heathrow. I hope that the Government will be able to state quite categorically that they will not proceed with their threatened privatisation of the British Airports Authority. On the grounds of efficiency, there is no case whatever; it is an efficient public undertaking. On the grounds of meeting its financial targets, there is no argument; it is meeting what the Government require. What can be gained by taking the British Airports Authority out of the public sector? Nothing whatever except following Government political dogma.
We await not only the reports to which I have referred but the results of the consultation paper about the future of the permitted flights from and to Heathrow. I was concerned in the consultation paper to see that the view of the Department of Transport was given as favouring the maximum use of market mechanisms rather than regulatory intervention. Perhaps the Minister will tell me what that means. Does that mean that it will be determined by an increased price for the users of Heathrow? That will obviously have some effect upon the passengers. That is put in the consultation paper as being the view of the department.
I am not sure whether it is an offer, but reference has been made to British Airways giving financial support to the independents who may wish to have flights to the Continent from six of the regional airports. I wonder whether that was an offer or another piece of arm-twisting in this game which has been going on. One thing made quite clear in the White Paper is that, even if that proceeds and the Government go ahead with the comparative deregulation of domestic air services, the CAA will still have to continue to regulate an entry to most of the routes. It makes it quite clear that there can be no complete deregulation of domestic services because of the need to control access to practically all the British airports. That is a view that most of us would accept.
We are also pleased that the Government are not proposing any additional powers for the Civil Aviation Authority. We want it to remain, as I said on the last debate, as a regulatory body; that is its function and one which it does extremely well.
Before I close, I emphasise what other noble Lords have said about paragraphs 28 and 29—the safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. It is strange that those who want the utmost market competition suddenly get worried when a big fish comes among them. It is strange, also, as we found in the Financial Times of 24th October, that the public interest is likely to be damaged since a privatised concern would exploit its monopoly power more aggressively. That surely is another argument for leaving BA where it is, successfully within the public sector.
As some noble Lords have asked, and I shall ask the Minister again, what is "predatory competition"? When does competition become predatory? What is

499
"unfair competition"? The noble Baroness referred to a communication received from Britannia. I also received a communication. It said at one point that British Airways' use of spare planes on charter flights at week-ends is unfair. But, surely, is that not efficiency? If an undertaking has spare planes because they are not used at that particular time, surely using them on another section of the business is in the interests of passengers, is right and proper and should not be criticised. It is the same as the National Bus Company through its subsidiaries, using spare stage carriage vehicles on express coach services because it can use the interplay. Surely no one will say that that is unfair competition; yet at least one of the airlines is saying that it is.
The Government have endorsed the recommendations of the CAA that BA cannot be kept out of the charter industry. It would have been a travesty for those who have the pressure of market competition if the Government had not supported the CAA in that attitude. Incidentally, I remind noble Lords of what I said during the last debate. After the BAA's own air tours charter section, the other four mainline British charter airlines are not exactly independent. They are all owned by travel operators, which brings in the point that my noble friend Lord Graham raised.
The conclusion, paragraph 36 of the White Paper opens up a considerable argument. The Labour Party does not believe that simple reliance on competition and market forces will achieve a sensible distribution of air transport services. The CAA report was, in effect, an argument for "regulated " competition, not competition. If one reads the White Paper very carefully, despite its claim in a few lines in paragraph 36, it cannot be said that it is arguing for open competition.
I hope that the Government will take a careful look at the whole situation, decide not to proceed with damaging the British Airports Authority, and realise, when they have considered all the arguments that have been put forward, that British Airways might, in the interests of this country and its passengers be left where it is successfully in the public sector.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I think every noble Lord has rightly and properly said, we are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for giving us this early opportunity of considering the recent White Paper on airline competition policy. This debate has illustrated the wide interest in the Question and, dare I say, the widely differing views held about it. Ever since the CAA published its report in July, much—some might say too much—of the public discussion has focussed on the sensitive issue of route transfers. The White Paper rejected the idea of transfers and I shall deal with them later. But it is important to remember that the Authority's proposals for transfers where never an end in themselves. They were only the means to an end.
The CAA was concerned in its report to promote a strong and competitive multi-airline industry and the Government warmly endorse that basic strategy. The objectives set out in paragraph 4 of the White Paper make this abundantly clear. The cornerstone of our
500
airline policy, consistent with maintaining high safety standards, is the promotion of competition wherever it makes sense.
The White Paper also sets out three further objectives intended to ensure that competition really happens. A necessary pre-condition for true competition, but not a guarantee of it, is the privatisation of British Airways. We are still on target for privatisation in early 1985. For the first time since the pioneering days of the industry, now nearly half a century ago, all Britain's airlines will be competing on an equal footing and none will be insulated by the state from the rigours of the market place. But privatisation alone is not enough to guarantee competition. That is why the Government have also spelt out in the White Paper their commitment to a sound and competitive multi-airline industry, strong enough to compete wing tip to wing tip with foreign airlines. Finally, but no less important, competition must be fair, and I shall return to this in a moment.
I shall not dwell on the steps which the Government have taken since 1979 to promote competition. The record can speak for itself. Suffice it to say that those who travel regularly between Heathrow and Edinburgh, Glasgow and Belfast, between London and Hong Kong and, most recently, to the Netherlands can all testify to the improved levels of service which liberalisation and competition have brought about. We can expect further liberalisation both at home and abroad. The Government have already welcomed the CAAs proposals to introduce, as a two-year experiment, an area facility allowing airlines to serve any domestic routes except those to Heathrow and Gatwick, which have to be excluded for capacity reasons, and perhaps some life-line routes to remote communities. The authority is also proposing to cease regulating domestic air fares although they will still need to be filed so that the authority can intervene, where necessary, to prevent predatory or monopoly behaviour.
Internationally, most of the opportunities for competition between British airlines lie in the short-haul routes to Europe where traffic is sufficient enough to support a number of carriers. It is our belief that on many European routes it is not enough simply to have one British and one foreign airline. Without a second British carrier on the route, the vital irritant will be missing and it is all too easy for the incumbents to perpetuate a relationship which is cosy for them, if not for the consumer. Wherever we can negotiate suitable arrangements with European countries—or indeed, other countries overseas—we will designate any British airline willing and able to compete on a route.
Our intentions in respect of dual or even multiple designation are quite firm. What we must, of course, secure are adequate opportunities for competition. The best of them lie within the European Community. For that reason, we welcomed the Commission's modest proposals for a common policy earlier this year even though they do not go far enough. We very much hope that the high level group examining the case for liberalisation will recommend significant and rapid progress. Other member states, we believe, are beginning to recognise the advantages of such a liberal policy. Indeed, in the short term, perhaps the best

501
prospects for liberalisation lie in bilateral negotiations with other, like-minded member states. But opportunities for competition are not by themselves sufficient. Airlines must also be strong enough to take full advantage of them.
This brings me to what some have seen, I think mistakenly, as the core of the CAA's recommendations; namely, route transfers.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I wonder if I may intervene. The noble Lord has spoken a lot about liberalisation. As an airline pilot, he has not once mentioned the need to ensure air safety.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall be making a reference at least to that later. But the noble Lord knows, I am sure, the importance that the Government have always attached to that matter, as indeed have all previous governments. Nothing in our policy must be taken as in any way departing from that particular position. Of course, that is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and it is a matter that they take with the utmost seriousness.
The motive behind the proposal—and I am returning now to the route transfers proposal—was not simply that routes should be transferred for their own sake. In the authority's view, transfers were necessary to strengthen British Caledonian and other independent airlines so that they might then be able to compete more effectively with British Airways and foreign airlines.
The White Paper accepts both the motivation behind the CAA's proposals and their spirit. It is not some sort of victory for British Airways as the ill-informed have claimed. On our calculations, British Caledonian comes out of the bargain some £18 million a year better off in terms of pre-tax profits. That is more than the airline has ever earned in any year of its entire existence. The route exchange leaves British Caledonian financially stronger and far better placed to take advantage of dual designation opportunities in the future.
But as your Lordships have asked, why an exchange and not a simple transfer; and why £18 million? Why not more? There are several reasons why we decided against transfers and, let me be frank about one of them, transfers needed legislation. Not only would legislation have been contentious; it would have delayed the privatisation of British Airways, one of the foundations of our policy for greater competition. But there were other reasons for rejecting compulsory transfers. They would have been very disruptive to British Airways. Its network would have been dislocated and quite significant numbers of staff affected. Nor would there have been any stimulus to direct competition.
Furthermore, so far as British Caledonian is concerned, in our view the CAA's proposals went further than was necessary to build it up financially. We judged that £18 million is just about right and is sufficient for British Caledonian to take advantage of the opportunities likely to be available soon for new services in competition with British Airways. In a way, it was more difficult for the Government to decide on the CAA's recommendations for the transfer of British Airways' regional routes to Europe. As the White
502
Paper recognises, the CAA advanced some cogent arguments for such transfers. On the other hand, the airports concerned were bitterly opposed to the idea and saw the loss of Britain's largest carrier on European routes as potentially very damaging to their standing as alternatives to the London airports. On balance, we decided against transfers, particularly as they would have added nothing to direct competition. Instead of transfers, British Airways has offered to help the independents develop a limited number of new services from the regions to Europe with financial assistance and other support. The offer applies just as much to independents wanting to introduce services in competition with British Airways on its existing routes as to completely new services. We believe the offer will genuinely lead to new services which the independents would not otherwise be able to introduce because of their development costs.
I said at the beginning that it is essential that competition is fair. The White Paper fully recognises this fact. We considered very carefully whether the CAA's existing powers are adequate to promote competition and to act, if necessary, against anticompetitive or predatory behaviour. We concluded that they are and that the authority can attach suitable conditions to air transport licences and curb such behaviour where it can be demonstrated. The CAA is therefore to remain the principal agent for action against anti-competitive behaviour and should be able to act sufficiently quickly through the licensing system when called upon. At the same time, we plan to extend the Director-General of Fair Trading's role in relation to civil aviation. In addition to his present power to look at domestic services under the Competition Act 1980, he will also be empowered to look at charters under that Act and to refer monopoly questions concerning both domestic and charter services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The Government believe it right that as air transport is liberalised it should in this way be brought more into the mainstream of competition legislation as it applies to industry generally. The position with international scheduled services, however, is complicated by air services agreements, and consequently that is not to be brought within the Director-General's remit. But the Government will retain their present powers to refer monopoly questions concerning such services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
May I turn now to some of the points that have been raised during the course of this evening's debate? The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in her admirable opening speech, asked about the liberalisation of services to West Germany. We hope to announce before long progress towards more liberal air service arrangements with West Germany. Talks with the Germans are continuing, and we are encouraged by the agreement reached earlier this month on the introduction of new excursion fares for the winter. In many cases, these are 40 per cent. below those previously available.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about a number of matters, particularly about the North Atlantic winter fares, and my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne was concerned with that matter, too. The Department of Transport considered it necessary to

503
seek reassurance from the United States Government that the proposed new fares would not be used as the basis for future anti-trust actions, even though we do not accept that such actions would be consistent with Bermuda 2. Since the United States Government did not provide that reassurance, the department, very reluctantly, turned down the filings from United States airlines for lower winter fares. As a result, I am afraid to say, tickets sold on the basis of these lower fares are not valid and passengers must therefore buy new tickets at the higher approved fares before they can travel. My noble friend——
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene before he leaves that point? Surely, as one understands, there are many tens of thousands of supposedly valid tickets which are in issue and in circulation. What happens about them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the position is—I am speaking from memory on these matters, and my noble friend will forgive me, therefore, if I do not get it quite right—that the tickets were sold, or should have been sold, subject to the condition that the fare had not yet been approved. The fact is, therefore, that those who seek to travel on those tickets will have to surrender them for new tickets and pay the additional element of the fare that is now required.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene on this point? Is he really saying that a person who turns up at the airport with a ticket bought in good faith at the lower rate will be told that that ticket is valueless unless he puts up another £40?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry to say that that is the case. My own view—and I am speaking personally here—is that the tickets should really not have been sold when there was some doubt as to whether the fare would be authorised, because that must have been clear to the airlines when they chose to sell the tickets at the lower fare for which they had not received approval. I hope your Lordships will allow me to emphasise that point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend is very good in giving way again. I hope that the Government will give further thought to this point. Accepting that, it may be, the airlines ought not to have sold the tickets, they were sold and they were purchased in good faith. Is it not really very serious indeed to face people, who may not have been able to afford any more, with the alternative of abandoning their tickets and what they have paid or paying more than they may be able to afford? Cannot the Government give further thought to this; and would even the American system cause any trouble if they were allowed to travel on the earlier fare, even if other people are not allowed later on?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can understand the concern which my noble friend expresses in this matter, and I am bound to say that I share that concern; but I have to say that the position is as I have described it. I very much regret that position, but it was not a position of the Government's making.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I follow this point a little further? The noble Lord has made it clear that the fault appears to be that of the airlines. Suppose the airlines said, "We have made a mistake. You will have to pay the proper fare, but we will advance you the difference between the fare you have paid and that which you will have to pay. We will pay that as compensation for our mistake". Would they then be contravening any regulation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to comment on the legal implications of a hypothetical situation. I hope he will forgive me if I do not do that. But, naturally, anything that can be done to relieve the distress of the would-be-travellers is something which I would welcome, provided that it fell within the ambit of the regulations.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also asked me about airport matters more generally, and some of these points were in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton and others as well. Your Lordships will wish to know that the inspector's report on the Stansted inquiry is now expected very shortly. I clearly cannot comment on the cases made at the public inquiry. I can also say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the response to consultations on how to implement the 275,000 ATM limit at Heathrow. I cannot yet say how it will be implemented, but I have to say that imposed it will be when Terminal 4 comes into use next year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? He said that his right honourable friend is considering how to implement the 275,000 limit. Does that mean that he has rejected entirely the proposal to increase it?
Lord Trefgarne:, My Lords, I have to say that the 275,000 ATM limit will be imposed at that level when Terminal 4 comes into use next year. That would be honouring previous undertakings, and not to impose it would certainly reopen the basis of the Stansted and Terminal 5 inquiries. But my right honourable friend has also said that he may be able to review the limit once we have experienced it in operation. With regard to the second runway at Gatwick, I doubt whether I have anything much to add to what I have said in the past on that matter on a large number of occasions. Suffice it to say that the Government's position has not changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked about licences for Highland Express at Prestwick. This is a matter, in the first place, for the Civil Aviation Authority. The Secretary of State would only become involved if there were an appeal. Because of the potential appellate role, I could not comment on the merits of the Highland Express application. My right honourable friend is also still considering an application from People's Express in connection with their service from Stansted.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the regulation of the holiday industry. This is a complex business, and is not one directly concerned with airline competition policy. There is an element of regulation via the Civil Aviation Authority; it is not just a self-regulating industry. There is a good deal of complicated stuff available on that. I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on the

505
matter, which I shall be very happy to do. It is certainly something which has most recently given rise to a great deal of thought.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to have left the question that I asked, Is he not going to give me any information about the moneys for which British Airways have asked to wipe out their outstanding loans for the American aircraft.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question on that yesterday and received what I consider was a very effectively delivered reply from my noble friend Lord Brabazon. But I think that the noble Lord is in something of a misunderstanding over all this, because in almost every case British Airways have bought their aeroplanes—I think this is the point he was making—on a commercial basis, the main exception to that being, of course, the Concorde purchase which was subsequently written-off, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, they borrowed money in the United States to buy American aircraft and they are asking the British Government for taxpayers' money to wipe out that loan. I am asking what criteria will be applied in making a decision as to whether or not they should be given this money.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware of any such request for taxpayers' money to wipe out the loan, as the noble Lord says. We are still thinking about the terms of the British Airways flotation and I really cannot add to what my noble friend had to say on this matter yesterday.
My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked about the possibility of a separate privatisation of British Air Tours, which is the main charter arm of British Airways. British Air Tours has only about 15 per cent. of the charter market, and so it is nowhere near even a statutory monopoly. Hiving it off, or even banning British Airways from whole plane charters, would not benefit competition, or the consumer. The solution is to ensure that there are adequate safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour in the charter market. I believe that the steps which we are proposing will achieve that aim.
Competition is the heart and soul of this Government's airline policy. That is why we asked the Civil Aviation Authority in the first place to review the implications of privatising British Airways for competition and the sound development of the industry. Far from rejecting the authority's report, we have warmly endorsed the steps it proposes to take to develop competition.
For the Government's part, the White Paper shows that much of the spirit of the authority's report has been met. Financially, British Caledonian will be a much healthier airline than hitherto and will be better able to compete with British Airways. The other independents now have a major opportunity to grow further in the regions, aided by British Airways, which is offering to help them to develop just about as many new regional services to Europe as it operates itself. We have made sure that the safeguards against anti-
506
competitive behaviour are adequate. Above all, we have reaffirmed in the White Paper the Government's commitment to competition and to getting the best possible deal for those who travel on Britain's airlines.

Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Leicestershire Bill [H.L.] Oxfordshire Bill [H.L.] Surrey County Council Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolutions of this House of yesterday.

Merseyside Development Corporation Bill Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that having considered so much of the Lords message of 29th October as relates to the Bills, they have come to the following resolutions:
That the Promoters of the Bills shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past seven o'clock.