Sitting of 19 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th July], That the Clause (FACILITIES FOR CONSULTATION AT CERTAIN AERODROMES) proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: I have posted up, as is my custom, the selected Amendments on this and the next Bill.
  11.6 a.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: It might be for the convenience of the House if, rather than picking up the threads of my speech where they were snatched from me a fortnight ago, I were to recapitulate the questions I put on this new Clause. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, I believe, welcome it, originating as it did from the proposition put forward by the Opposition and incorporating in its new form certain drafting improvements which we do not wish to oppose.
  I ask the Minister, in regard to the interpretation he would seek to put on the new Clause, two questions. The first is, what type of airfield he thinks would qualify for the designation. Secondly, how would he define adequate facilities? I think we recognise that there are throughout the country a number of airfields where traffic is building up and where there is no statutory requirement for any form of consultation between the management of the airport and those living around it or making use of it whose interests are, or would be, affected. Some cases have already been instanced. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test
  1836
  (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) mentioned Southampton Airport and today we may hear mention of Luton Airport, Birmingham Airport and Abbotsinch Airport or a number of airfields where traffic is increasing, and as a result perhaps causing local residents to be somewhat more disturbed than in the past.
  In addition to airfields which one could call fairly definite future centres of internal and external traffic, there is a category which I should like the Minister to consider. It is airfields where the main activity is club flying. I have had some correspondence with him in the last few weeks in which I have put a particular case which affects my constituency. It is the possibility of future development at Fairoaks, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), but which affects a number of my constituents because the use made of it is thought by some of them to cause annoyance. In a case such as this, would the Minister make use of the designating powers which the new Clause will give him?
  If the Minister answers that this is very different from, say, Luton or Southampton airfields, I concede the point at once, but I would not necessarily agree that the facilities for consultation at this stage have to be precisely the same or have to be set up in precisely the same way as in other cases. I certainly would argue that if he is reluctant at this stage to extend very widely outside the more obvious cases the requirement for consultation under the Clause, there is at least an arguable case for running a number of pilot schemes. I should like him to give consideration to the possibility of applying this procedure to airfields where the main activity is not so much scheduled or charter jet services but other forms of activity which impinges on local residents.
  The second point concerns the definition of "adequate facilities". Perhaps this phrase will be reasonably defined only in the light of experience. Some of the experience we already have of similar provisions under the Airports Authority Act will be helpful. What has happened at Heathrow and Gatwick, and what we hope will happen at Stansted, sets a pattern as to what might be done in the case of the aerodromes we are now considering.

  1837
  It is important that an outline should be given of how the Minister sees these words being interpreted, both for the guidance of airport managements and for the information of those who would hope to have the opportunity of making use of facilities of this kind for consultation.
  I think that there is some anxiety on the part of some of the municipal airport operators that the provisions of the Clause may put them to some trouble and expense. I should have thought that these anxieties were exaggerated. I think it unlikely that any very considerable expense could result from setting up any sort of consultative machinery. I doubt very much whether it would be a major financial burden on their operations. It would be useful if the Minister could take this opportunity to reassure them on that point.
  What follows after consultation? When consultation has taken place through the facilities provided between the airport management and all the other parties who are entitled to be consulted, what does the Minister see as the logical consequence? Does he think that there should be an obligation upon the airport management to take account of representations made to it; and how far does he think it should go? I realise that these are very difficult questions for him to answer in abstract, but if he can give an indication of his thinking, it would be helpful because, valuable though the consultative facilities will be—I think that they will be valuable, not least to hon. Members, who would otherwise find the complaints coming straight to them—their value will depend largely on an understanding in the public mind that after consultation there will be action. If there are representations that the established flight-paths cause unnecessary annoyance to local residents, or if there are other consequences of the airport's operation and expansion which affect the interests of people living round about, they will need to know that there is some obligation upon the management to take account of these and to alter the way in which it has hitherto administered these aspects of its activities.
  I realise that it is difficult to go beyond that at this stage. Much will depend on how the Clause is operated in practice. We would certainly accept any declaration by the Minister that he would
  1838
  operate it in the most reasonable and sensible way. The problem is the impact of airfields on people, and we must all agree that it is very much in the public interest, and in the interest of the aviation industry, that the causes of friction should be removed so far as possible. Where they cannot be removed entirely, at least the reasons for their existence should be clearly understood and discussed, because my experience, and that of many other hon. Members, will probably serve to show that, unless there is some safety valve in an area like this, where grievances can quickly build up, there is a tendency for public reaction to become exaggerated and for people to take views about it which are not reasonable but which they can scarcely be blamed for holding and advancing when they have no opportunity to make their points, to discuss them, to have them answered, and to have the assurance that, where they have grievances, they have some expectation that action will be taken to put their grievances right.
  If I can leave it to the Minister to give as full an answer as he can to those words, I would simply reiterate that the Clause is a further improvement to a Bill which has been much improved in its passage through the House, and it is an improvement, I believe, for which many people throughout the country will in due course have reason to thank both sides of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with the new Clause we are discussing the two Amendments to the proposed Clause:
  a, in subsection (3) to leave out 'under this section' and insert:
  'made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament'.
  b, in subsection (3) at the end to add:
  'but any order varying or revoking a previous order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. W. Howie: I beg to move—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the proposed Clause. He cannot move it.
  Mr. Howie: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Amendment b, which stands in my name, arises from the Amendment which was tabled by Opposition Members. It appears that the Government were prepared to accept the spirit of that Amendment but that it did not follow the usual form of words which Parliamentary draftsmen use for specifying that an order should be subject to annulment by a negative resolution. I am a great believer in doing everything in the correct way. I have therefore been advised on what the correct words should be and I have tabled them, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. This is probably the only time in my life that I have ever had an Amendment on the Notice Paper which starts with a very good chance of being accepted.
  Much credit is due to the Opposition Front Bench, first because the Clause arises from one tabled by the Opposition in Committee, and secondly because of the Opposition Amendment to the proposed Clause, which was right in principle, if not in its drafting.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State's predecessor said this about the Opposition's new Clause:
  "… I begin to think of one local authority airport, which I shall not mention by name, where I am not absolutely satisfied in my own mind, in view of recent developments, that machinery for consultation is adequate." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G; 20th June, 1968, c. 312.]
  I have no idea which local authority my hon. Friend had in mind. Suffice it to say that, had he intended to speak of Luton Airport, this sentence would have applied absolutely accurately. I do not know if my hon. Friend was referring to Luton Airport. Obviously, I cannot say that he was. The consultation between the authorities at Luton and my constituents is not very good. It is suspected in Luton, and even more strongly in surrounding areas, that Luton Corporation intends to expand its airport considerably. The Corporation is thought to be intending to spend about £9 million to £10 million on it.
  I say that the Corporation is thought to be so intending, because nobody knows. The local auhority will not admit that it intends to expand. It is deduced that it intends to expand. The fact that nobody knows whether the Corporation intends to expand its airport is proof
  1840
  that the consultation is much less than adequate.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason) has devised a form of consultation which is very suitable. He receives letters from his constituents complaining about Luton Airport, and he sends them on to me. He deals with them as well, but sends them on to me, and I utter a shrill cry of pain and try to do something about it, but there is very little that can be done.
  The consultative body, whatever it turns out to be, is proved to be absolutely necessary in the Luton context, if in no other. Luton Airport is on the extreme edge of the borough. If the borough were a square, the airport would be in the bottom right-hand corner. The flight paths in and out of the airport fly over other contiguous local authorities, whether urban, rural district, or county council.
  The interesting point is that, in so far as there is direct profit to be gained from the airport, it goes to Luton, but in so far as there is a great deal of nuisance and annoyance derived from the airport, that is carried more heavily by the surrounding areas. Therefore, the obvious means of redress, namely, action through the local authority elections, is not very satisfactory in the Luton context [An HON. MEMBER: "Or in others."] That may be so, but particularly in Luton, since the major weight of pain is carried by people outside the borough, that means of redress is not really open to the people concerned. In any case, local authority elections and such matters are carried on in a rather wider context than just one specific quarrel. It is clear, therefore, that a consultative body is much needed.
  Now, the questions which arise from acceptance of the principle of a consultative body. First, what will it comprise? I dare say that the Minister has given thought to this, but the new Clause says little about it. Who would be represented on the consultative committee, assuming that it is to be a committee? For example, the Ratepayers Association of Luton has made representations. Would such an organisation be directly represented? I notice that the Amalgamated Engineering Union—I am not sure what its name is now, and I think I have it wrong; I seem to be very

  1841
  much tied up with unions nowadays— the Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry Workers Union has made direct representations to the Department of Employment and Productivity about the nuisance caused by Luton Airport. Would a trade union be an appropriate body for direct representation or, perhaps, through the trades council?
  Next, the question of facilities. What would the facilities be, and, more important, who would decide whether the facilities were adequate? Would the owner, the local authority operating the airport —in this case the Borough Council— which provided the facilities decide that they were adequate, or would the facilities be judged by, say, the Board of Trade or another Ministry? If they were thought adequate, what range of consultation would the Minister have in mind? I assume that the question would cover the physical expansion of an airport, as appears to be likely in Luton, but would it cover in addition what one might call the business expansion of an airport? If new operators came to the already thriving airport and proposed scheduled flights or charter flights, would that business decision be a matter upon which public consultation would be sought?
  Would the consultation cover certain basic matters as to whether jet aircraft were permitted to use the airport, and, more particularly, would the consultation cover the question of permission for night flights of jet aircraft? If such flights were permitted, would the number of night flights come into consideration? All these are matters for precise and close consultation.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer these questions. I strongly support the underlying principle of the new Clause, and I consider that my Amendment (a) will strengthen it substantially.
  Mr. James Allason: As the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has said, there is grave concern in our part of the country about the extension of flying at Luton Airport. This year, B.A.C. 111s started flying. I do not know where they make the most of their noise, but they certainly make a great deal over my cottage, which seems to be roughly in line with the runway, in the Hemel Hempstead Rural
  1842
  District Council area. This month, Boeing 737s started, and they also make a pretty foul noise and they seem to fly fairly low. Yet to come are the Convair Coronados which, I believe, are just about the noisiest aircraft likely to be found anywhere.
  It is not surprising, therefore, that there is concern not just in and around Luton at the way in which Luton Airport is operating. The hon. Member for Luton spoke of the possibility of doing away with night flights, but I understand that the difficulty here is that, unless jets are operated to full capacity, they are not really worth operating at all. It seems that there will have to be a certain number of night flights, but they should be strictly controlled, and controlled by the Government.
  The new Clause refers to the possibility of neighbouring local authorities being consulted. What is a neighbouring local authority? Clearly the Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council would be a neighbouring authority, being not far from the town of Luton, but the rest of my constituency is concerned, too. More distant district councils, for instance, Berkhamsted and St. Albans, are deeply concerned. So are the Harpenden and Tring Urban District Councils, for the noise goes on over a long distance. Would the term "neighbouring" cover a distance of up to, say, 10 miles?
  On 13th March I raised the question of noise with the Minister of State at the Board of Trade and he replied:
  "In my view, this is a matter for the airport owners, Luton Corporation, who are best placed to decide what restrictions are necessary."
  I responded that the Government had a duty to concern themselves in the matter, to which the Minister replied:
  "I fully agree that people must be protected, but this is a corporation of elected representatives. They are right on the spot and I think that they will watch the interests of their own people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1359–60.]
  I wonder what "the interests of their own people" are. I suppose that those interests are the welfare of Luton Corporation and of Luton Airport; they certainly do not cover an interest in the welfare of my constituents, yet my constituents ought to be consulted.

  1843
  We have formed a body known as the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which now has a good number of members and is very active in trying to induce Luton Corporation to do something about noise. But it does not seem to be having great success. We have noisier and noisier aircraft and more and more flights travelling over urban areas.
  Mr. John Rankin: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that we are producing noisier and noisier aircraft today?
  Mr. Allason: I gave the sequence in which aircraft had come to Luton, and I spoke finally of the Convair Coronado. I do not know exactly at what point this aircraft will arrive, but I am told that it is quite the noisiest. Luton Airport certainly is carrying noisier and noisier aircraft.
  I shall not weary the House with a series of examples, but here is one. It concerns Boeing 737s. This is one letter which I have received:
  "On Friday, 12th July, during the course of 25 minutes centred on 21.30 hours approximately, a Boeing 737 flew over five times emitting a trail of black smoke and disturbing by noise my concentration on my academic work. At this time the Control Tower had told my wife that the aircraft had been instructed to keep clear of Harpenden. This aircraft was at a very low altitude.
  (ii) Saturday, 13th July. My wife and I were both awakened at 06.30 hours by a very low-flying aircraft.
  (iii) During the course of Saturday, the Boeing 737 caused disturbance and emitted black smoke at very low altitude on numerous occasions.
  (iv) Sunday, 14th July, I was awakened by a low-flying aircraft at 02.00 hours, and just as I was settling down to sleep again I was disturbed further at 03.00 hours. Another low-flying jet at 03.30 also woke my wife, and removed any possibility of sleep that night for both of us.
  (v) As I am writing this letter on Sunday morning the Boeing 737 has again caused violent disturbance.
  We have now suffered considerable disturbance on an increasing basis for several months. (I would remind you of our previous worst night, 1st July, when we were both disturbed at the following times: 00.25, 00.45, 01.45. 02.30, 03.30 hours and had no sleep at all.)
  My wife and I are both professional people and we are finding it increasingly difficult to carry out our professional duties efficiently
  1844
  during the day because we are suffering from the lack of so much sleep. I wish you to bring this letter to the notice of the Airport Committee before it decides to spend £15,000 on a consultant's fee for the development of this airport."
  11.30 a.m.
  This letter has been sent to the President of the Board of Trade, and is one example of somebody living in a town being seriously upset by the present arrangements at Luton Airport. There is a possibility of extending the airport, and it is appalling that the Luton Airport authorities are apparently entitled to ride rough shod over the opinions, and to the detriment of the comfort, of those living nearby. I hope that the Clause is sufficiently strong to bring pressure upon Luton Airport to ensure that the lives of of those living around the airport are not made intolerable.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order. Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are getting a little wide of the Clause. A Clause which will be discussed later on deals specifically with the control of noise, and this matter could be discussed then.
  Mr. Speaker: Now that we have started in this way, it would be better if we carried on and restricted our debate on the later Clause. I hope that in arguing the need for this Clause hon. Members will not pursue examples in too much detail.
  Mr. Rankin: I take it that in discussing the Clause the House is meeting as a body of people primarily interested in one of the greatest industries owned by Britain, that is, the aircraft industry and all that is associated with it. There are employed in this industry 245,000 persons, doing a magnificent job and producing aircraft unequalled in the world. Although I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said, I cannot support his arguments.
  I travel in the Trident 3B and I have been travelling in that aircraft ever since it took the air. It is not unduly noisy. I would not support anyone who suggests that an aircraft is noisy, for this reason; whether we like it or not, people want to travel in aircraft at much greater speed than when I started to fly 20 years

  1845
  ago. In those days aircraft flew at 95 m.p.h. No one today would tolerate that, and no operator would dream of putting an aircraft of that type into the air.
  Mr. Speaker: We must come to the Clause.
  Mr. Philip Holland: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me—
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall get to the Clause itself when the hon. Gentleman has given way.
  Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman was referring to noise levels and the possibility of complaints under the consultation procedure. When he spoke of the noise level of the Trident, was he referring to the noise level when he is in the Trident as a passenger, with the engines behind him and in a sound-proof cabin, or was he referring to the noise made by the Trident in revving up on the ground and coming in to land, which affects people living below?
  Mr. Rankin: I hope that when we talk of noise during the debate we need not indulge in the process of dissection that the hon. Gentleman has just indicated. When we talk about the noise made by an aircraft, generally we mean the noise made by an aicraft flying in the air above us. That is the test. Hon. Members know that the aircraft noise is not heard to the same extent by the passengers. I hope that it will be understood that when we speak of noise we speak of the noise made by an aircraft flying overhead.
  I am either lucky or unlucky, but not only do I fly in the Trident 3B—and I hope to be flying in it tonight—but I also sleep in the aircraft—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must come to the Clause, which seeks to set up machinery for consultation.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: The Trident 3B has not yet been built.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman will have to wake up; the aircraft is flying.
  Mr. Corfield: Not the Trident 3B.
  Mr. Rankin: I do not know which aircraft the hon. Gentleman refers to;
  1846
  it may be one in his imagination. However, that aircraft was mentioned by his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Allason Mr. Allason rose—
  Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the debate.
  Mr. Rankin: The aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman referred is an aircraft which is now in general use and an aircraft which is not distinguished by its noise.
  I wish to refer specifically to the Clause before us. If it is understood that we are dealing only with the Clause and that ancillary matters can be dealt with later, then I am satisfied, but I understood that the debate would cover not only the wording of the Clause but the matters to which I referred, and that we would be able to discuss noise.
  Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing noise itself in this debate. It can be argued that one of the matters to which the machinery of consultation which the Clause seeks to set up might be referred is disturbance caused by noise.
  Mr. Rankin: I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and, if necessary, return later to the topic of noise. To deal specifically with the Clause, the Clause states:
  "This section applies to any aerodrome which is managed by a person other than the British Airports Authority…."
  I take it that, as worded, the Clause excludes from its effect the British Airports Authority, and that exclusion applies to any aerodrome managed by the Authority. The British Airports Authority manages Prestwick. Therefore, Prestwick would be excluded from the Clause—
  Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me? I may be able to clarify the position.
  Mr. Rankin: No. I am not giving way. Clarification will come from the Minister.
  As I was saying, Prestwick is excluded. Prestwick is within easy reach of Abbotsinch, yet Abbotsinch will come within the purview of the Clause. Gatwick will be excluded, according to the Clause. If these words do not mean what they say, I take it that my hon. Friend will say

  1847
  so in due course. In addition, Edinburgh has refused and still refuses to take over its own airport, and I understand that negotiations are proceeding whereby the airport there will be taken over by the British Airports Authority.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): Perhaps I might help my hon. Friend, though I had it in mind to wait until I replied to the general discussion. I think that he will recall that, in the British Airports Authority Act of 1965 there is provision for the consultative facilities. The purpose of the Clause is to extend the possibility of providing these facilities for all airports.
  Mr. Rankin: Very well. I take up that point, then, on the phrase which asks for
  "adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interest".
  Those are very wide powers, in my view. One wonders how the management of an airport will be affected by this arrangement. Here is a new committee ostensibly created for the purpose of dealing with the problem of noise, but which will also have some say in the management or administration of the airport concerned. If a company operating from that airport decides to have a particular aircraft, it will not be merely a matter of management and administration for the airport, but can come under the supervision of the committee created to deal with noise which, through that channel, can assume a position in management.
  As I indicated earlier, aircraft are getting bigger and bigger and flying faster and faster. One cannot by any conceivable means have more powerful aircraft travelling more quickly without having engines which make more noise. Noise is associated with power. However, thanks to the genius of our technologists, we are beginning to build engines which have power without necessarily increasing the noise. The best example of that was the BAC211—
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting again into a general debate on whether aeroplanes should be noisy. We must keep to the issue of whether we set up consultative committees.
  Mr. Rankin: I was merely illustrating this because of the phrase in the Clause allowing the proposed committees dealing with noise possibly to intervene in management and administration. It can be easily seen how that could happen.
  Design proposals for the Boeing 747 are now being reviewed. That aircraft might be one of the noisiest creatures that we have ever had in the air. If operators want to use that machine—and the demand today is for that type of machine—the problem of using it will come before the committees dealing with noise which will be operating at almost every airport in the United Kingdom. It follows that such a committee must have a voice, whether or not it is a deciding voice, in seeing what type of new aircraft will be flown from its airport. In my view, that is conferring powers on such a committee which it ought not to have.
  That does not mean to say that those of us who look at the problem in this light want to see noisy aircraft. No one does. Certainly I do not. But I know from experience that this talk about noise is very much overplayed. I say that because I have the experience in London of sleeping beneath the flight path of outgoing and incoming aircraft, and I have the same experience at Abbotsinch.
  In the Press yesterday, there was an indication that a committee would be formed in Renfrewshire on similar lines to those existing in several parts of England. That news item mentioned a town which is not near an airport. I lived in it for a number of years; the town of Barrhead. It is not near to any flight path; and it can hardly be said to be near any airport. Yet it is suffering from aircraft noise.
  I believe that the problem is exaggerated, and I am also firmly of the opinion that the men concerned with building aircraft and engines from design through all other stages are as much seized of the problems as any noise committee could be, and they are concerned with the production of good, fast, capable aircraft large enough to meet the demands of the age in which we live.
  In welcoming my hon. Friend to this job, and wishing him every success in it, I hope he will proceed very carefully in dealing with this Clause.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that we are on the first of a number of Amendments to the first of three Bills on the Order Paper. We have a lot of work to do.
  Mr. Burden: This is a very important Clause involving a number of issues which can be raised only at this time. I should like to express my pleasure at seeing the new Minister of State present, and I ask him to convey to his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) our appreciation of the wonderful help which he gave the Standing Committee.
  I find myself in some conflict with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who read out a whole catalogue of complaints, apparently from one person. The complaints would have had more validity if they had come from more than one person and they would have been even more valid if that person had resided near an aerodrome, or in any of the many London streets where lorries make so much noise.
  Mr. Anthony Royle: If my hon. Friend is in any need of a detailed catalogue of complaints about aircraft noise, I assure him that I get plenty from Richmond and Barnes in my constituency.
  Mr. Burden; Of course there is a problem, but it must also be accepted that many people take these matters to extremes.
  Mr. Allason: Really.
  Mr. Burden: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say, "Really!", but many people complain without proper justification. I must admit my interest in that I am a director of an airline, but I hope that that does not in any way obscure my judgment.
  Responsibility to civil aviation was placed on the Board of Trade in 1966 and this is one of the measures to regulate its position and enable it to carry out its duties. Under Section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, the Board of Trade is also charged with the general duty of organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for the development of civil aviation. The Bill is a move in that direction.
  1850
  I freely admit that the Board of Trade gets many complaints about jets flying at night, but the United Kingdom is the only country with regulations to the extent which we have them to control jet night flying. These proposals—and I am sure that this is one of the reasons for the consultation Clause—will interfere even more with flying, and I am sure that the Minister will be concerned to encourage co-operation and understanding among interested persons so that airports shall be used as much as is practicable.
  The only legislative obligation on the Board of Trade is that mentioned in Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, which requires the British Airport Authority, and which will now require others, to
  "take such measures as the Minister may direct for limiting noise and vibration or mitigating their affects and, in particular, in restricting their effects and for restricting the use of any aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority to aircraft and persons complying with the Minister's requirements in that behalf."
  The Minister, therefore, already has considerable power, and I presume that, under this new Clause, he will take the opportunity to widen his powers of designation to ensure the closest cooperation and discussion with interested parties.
  But it will be very difficult for him to decide where the restrictions on interests should be. Must it be a group of people? Should people organise themselves into groups in order to minimise the effects of noise? To what extent should interested parties group themselves together? What interests would be regarded as coming within the purview of the Clause? All these matters are left rather vague at the moment, and we should have some elucidation.
  In any event, the Government must hold a reasonable balance between the benefits of maximum operation of the great international and local authority airports and economic dividends. For every 1 million passengers who come into London Airport, £12 million accrue to this country, which shows the tremendous importance of ensuring the fullest possible use of our airports.
  Of course we want all the safeguards to limit vibration and noise and those of my hon. Friends who are worried

  1851
  about what may happen at Luton and other local authority airports should remember the example of London. In 1966, the number of jet night flights from London was fixed at 3,500. The total number then amounted to about 8,000 including also turbo-prop and propeller aircraft. There has been a steady diminution in numbers since then, because of the phasing out of propeller and turbo-prop aircraft. The Minister has power to ensure that there is no undue noise and that power has already been exercised.
  Sir George Sinclair: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the limitation on night flights at London Airport has had the result of diverting many of them to another London airport, Gatwick, in my constituency?
  Mr. Burden: I appreciate that, but the Minister has power to limit night flights from Gatwick if he thinks it right to do so.
  There will always be some nuisance from aircraft noise, but the aircraft industry is of tremendous importance to these islands and we have to try to strike a very delicate balance, I do not envy the Minister his job in this respect. I am sure that, when the consultative machinery is set up, the Minister will make use of the fact that considerable efforts are now being made to reduce the noise of aircraft—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a general discussion of noise. We are talking about machinery for consultation.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Burden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can deal with this point more fully on Third Reading.
  I know that the Minister is aware of the fact that very considerable measures are being taken, and in this context it is important that he should also ensure that there is considerable flexibility in the discussions with interested parties, because of the improvements and constant changes in circumstances that can influence judgment and consideration. In principle, we all welcome the broadest consultation, but it will be extremely difficult for the Minister to ensure that con-
  1852
  sultation is reasonable and proper and that it safeguards the rights of those who are interested in reducing noise and other matters that might arise. It is essential not only that the Minister should bear in mind the proper rights of the aircraft industry, including the operators, but that people who at times might find unpleasant the very considerable noise from aircraft should be brought to realise the enormous economic advantages that this industry brings to the country.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House for a misstatement. My reference should have been to the Trident 2B, not to the Trident 3B.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but it is a point of great interest.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Listening to this debate, it is astonishing to realise that on Second Reading this Bill contained no reference to or powers in relation to noise. What has happened to this Measure between that stage and this constitutes an enormous victory for the anti-noise lobby, and this should be generally realised. As it is, the Minister will have new powers. The new Clause gives the Minister powers in relation to local authority and other aerodromes that he already possesses in relation to British Airports Authority aerodromes.
  At the same time, one may well ask why the consultation powers that have existed for quite a long time in regard to Airports Authority aerodromes have been so ineffective—as, by and large, they have. The consultation that has taken place since 1965 has not reduced the general volume of aircraft noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has pointed out that in some respects successful attempts are being made to quieten the jet, but even he will not dispute that the totality of aircraft noise has increased in recent years, and is likely to go on increasing, and the invention of the jet has made the noise peculiarly irritating to people.
  Mr. Rankin: When my hon. Friend refers to the totality of noise, has he in mind the fact that so many aircraft are now flying and that few were flying before? Does he refer merely to their numbers?
  Mr. Jenkins: No, I refer not only to the number of aircraft but to the amount of noise they make, and to the fact that jet aircraft are noisier than their predecessors. The chief factor is the total quantity of noise. A limited amount of noise, whether from a local authority or other aerodrome can be tolerated, but if it occurs time and time again it becomes intolerable.
  The Clause constitutes a profound change. The reason why consultation has until now been unsatisfactory is that the Minister did not have specific powers in relation to noise. By Clause 18 the Minister acquires powers specifically related to noise, and that is why his responsibilities in relation to the whole process of consultation, not only with local authority aerodrome but with aerodromes generally, will acquire a reality and an effectiveness which until now they have not had.
  Sir G. Sinclair: It is important that there should be consultative machinery even in the airports outside the control of the British Airports Authority. I would not go so far as did the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who said that up to now these consultation powers had not been effective. I believe that they are becoming more effective. But it is important that they should be in the hands of local authorities, which have the capacity to deal with these problems at the right level.
  In the Gatwick area we have a consultative committee based on the county council. It has recently proved effective. But it has proved the more effective because there are also local and national protest groups which have organised themselves to put forward their grievances and requests in an orderly and disciplined manner. Such bodies are needed. They collaborate with and stimulate the consultative body, which covers many subjects apart from noise—as, for instance, the benefits to trade in the locality as the services grow up round the airport, and the economic growth points and the planning problems that the airports help to create. But the protest groups are important for the protection of ordinary people living in the area who are affected by the aircraft noise of landings, take-offs and stacking round the airports: they should have disciplined bodies which earn
  1854
  for themselves access either through consultative bodies or direct to the Minister to take up the subject of noise which can, if unchecked, be a great infringement of the personal liberty of people round the airports.
  All of us who look at this problem in the round want the air traffic to perform its quite wonderful function in opening up one country to another, and opening trade and ideas. We do not want that to be reduced, but we do want through well organised channels to be able to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear on the Ministry and through the Ministry to the aircraft industry to design quieter engines. This is a function of the consultative committees backed by protest movements.
  I pay my tribute to this combination in the Gatwick area in order to give heart to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who is hard by Luton. Recently, this consultative committee has worked closely with the Minister. It has had many meetings with him and with the Parliamentary Secretary. In the end, we have got noise levels established in that area which I do not think would have been established as early or as specifically without good and lively consultation machinery, backed by us the local Members of Parliament and a local protest group and the headquarters of the national protest group, which is the British Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which are becoming disciplined bodies working very closely with the consultative committee.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to some extent the excellent activity which has occurred at Gatwick has been necessary because of equally effective activity occurring round Heathrow, in the sense that we have succeeded in dispersing some noise to him? Does not he agree that what is needed is not specific activity in certain areas but the generalised activity which may stem from this Bill?
  Sir G. Sinclair: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. It is important that this should be treated as a national matter. There would be a great gap if the consultative bodies were prevented from taking action in connection with airports that, although small today, may be very crowded and noisy in a

  1855
  few years' time. People living round those airports should get into the habit of disciplined consultations early on, and should see that the airport authorities take the local populations into their confidence and tell them what they are trying to achieve and how they hope to mitigate noise and make life tolerable in the vicinity. This has been done to a great extent by the airport authority in the Gatwick area, which has gone out of its way to establish good relations with the people living round about.
  The Minister doubtless realises that he is dealing with more than a national protest about unchecked noise; it is an international matter. That is why various consultative and protest bodies are now organising internationally to deal with this problem. A noisy jet which starts its journey at Tokyo will be just as noisy when it takes off again from Heathrow or Gatwick. This must be controlled on an international basis. The consultative bodies and protest bodies working together should put pressure on the Minister and on the aircraft industry. This Clause is a welcome contribution to the adjustment that will have to take place between the needs of modern air travel and legitimate interests of those who are affected by aircraft noise.
  Mr. A. Royle: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said. I go further than he does in connection with the formation and membership of the new consultative bodies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who has been largely responsible for getting this Clause agreed by the Government. He has done a good job, not only in respect of the running of airports throughout the United Kingdom but also in respect of the people who are affected by aircraft noise.
  The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), whose constituency borders mine, has as much knowledge as I have of the subject, and his constituents suffer as much as mine do from the noise of aircraft approaching London Airport. He and I know how important the consultative machinery is. I go with him more than I go with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking in agree-
  1856
  ing that there is a lack of impact by these consultative committees. They meet regularly and have the benefits of the administration and organisation of great local authorities behind them, but in the consultations in which they have been concerned a real sense of urgency has been seen only when Members of Parliament representing areas round about, and associations such as the British Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, and the one in my constituency—the Kew Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—came on the scene.
  These bodies are not composed of cranks; their members want to see realistic proposals put forward, in cooperation with airport authorities. I hope that in the future, as a result of this sensible and realistic Clause, firm action will be taken in respect of other local aerodromes.
  I was a little concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) spoke earlier about the agreed 3,500 limit on night flights. This matter considerably affects the setting up of consultative committees. My hon. Friend was right in saying that the Minister agreed this limit in 1966. I detected that my hon. Friend welcomed it, but I also detected a hint in what he was saying that in view of the increase in aircraft movement since that time he might want the Minister to raise the limit. I hope that the Minister will disillusion my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Burden: The number of night flights has been reduced, and at a later stage I shall probably deal with the reasons why this limit should be looked at again. Future jets will be only half as noisy as the present ones.
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Royle: That is what worries me. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press that view too far—or, if he does, I hope that the Minister will not accept it. It will be a long time before the noise of a jet aircraft is halved. I hope that it will be in my lifetime, or in my hon. Friend's lifetime, but I have grave doubt whether it will come in either of our lifetimes. I know that the aircraft industry is working very hard to produce quieter aircraft. That is important, bearing in mind that the new consultative

  1857
  machinery will have to discuss with the owners and occupiers of airports the annoyance caused by aircraft coming in to land as well as taking off. In my view the fact that the aircraft industry is working hard to produce quieter jets will begin to take effect in six, seven or eight years' time. In the meantime it is important that there should be financial incentives to operators using aerodromes to make use of quieter aircraft.
  This has begun to be accepted internationally, as a result of the very good conference that the Minister of State's predecessor—the present Postmaster-General—instituted two or three years ago. This was a good move, and it has set up among international bodies a train of thought and co-operation concerning aircraft noise and the running of airports which will be very benficial to the nation. The Clause is extremely useful. It is appreciated by those hon. Members who represent constituents who are suffering an intolerable strain from the noise caused by aircraft.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that this noise is exaggerated. It may be exaggerated in his view, because he lives in the centre of London—perhaps somewhere that is not exactly under a glide path. He should spend a night at Richmond, Kew, or Barnes, where he will get very little sleep, and he will get very little pleasure during the day, if he sits in a deck chair in a garden in my constituency and sips a gin and tonic.
  Mr. Rankin: In addition to all those places I have been to Feltham and Datchet, and every one of the little villages round London Airport, to test for myself the extent of the noise.
  Mr. Royle: My invitation remains open in spite of that. I should love to entertain the hon. Member in my constituency, not only with sustenance for his internal enjoyment but also with the noise from the aircraft above.
  I wish the Clause a fair wind. It is an excellent one, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for bringing it forward and the Government for accepting it.
  Mr. Holland: Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken I have no points to raise concerning noise, but I am rather concerned about the sort of consultative machinery that the Minister has in mind.
  1858
  In Committee, we were a little vague, and rightly so, about the nature of the machinery which should be set up. We talked in very general terms about consultation and the facilities for it, but did not go so far as the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) who spoke about a formal committee, perhaps with trade union representation, or as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who also spoke in terms of formal machinery, perhaps with consultative bodies. We are concerned more with channels of communication for people whose interests may be affected than with formalised machinery to meet regularly and consult, whether or not there are particular matters to be considered.
  My reason for asking about the nature of the consultation and the consultative body which the Minister may have in mind, is that, unlike most hon. Members, I have not one airfield in my constituency or near it, but two, and of entirely different kinds. There is a private airfield managed by a private company for club flying, with an air taxi service, which has rather different connotations from the Airports Authority type of airport, with jets. But, just outside the constituency, is the Nottingham Municipal Airport, which effects my constituency.
  These are entirely different types of airfield with different management, and clearly the same machinery would not apply to both. So what we want from the Minister is not a specific, clearly defined body which will have a statutory obligation towards everyone, no matter what kind of airfield is involved, but a sort of maximum and minimum requirement facility. I do not know if this is what the Minister proposes, but I hope that he will tell us his thinking. A minimum requirement would be very simple, probably in the form of a channel of communication. The maximum requirement may be much more sophisticated, as would be needed, for instance, for Luton Airport.
  But we need some guidance on this point, because this is our last opportunity before the Bill becomes law. Although this was less important when we raised it in Committee, it is important now to know what it is in the Minister's mind and to have some idea of the variations in facilities which should be available for

  1859
  the different types of airfield and management.
  12.23 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should explain that I am a retired aviator— indeed I think that I am the only Member of this House who has bombed the Equator, without I hasten to add doing any injury to it. I am also interested, both financially and by temperament, in the manufacture of aircraft engines. I am anxious for the progress of aviation with the immense benefits which it brings to this country, not only through the aircraft industry itself, but through all the industries which are drawn up alongside it. The House might therefore think that both my interests and my inclinations would lead me to oppose the Clause, but in fact I support it.
  It provides for those who run aerodromes to consult those who live nearby. Although "consultation" is very much a depreciated word, and nowadays often means little more than an opportunity to let off steam or, worse, prior notice of a decision already taken, the Clause is nevertheless a welcome if halting step forward, because it is a step away from the old-fashioned attitudes which so damage the cause of aviation.
  Consultations under the Clause will be largely, but of course not exclusively, about noise. Our attitude to noise and particularly aircraft noise is old-fashioned. It is the same as the attitude of the Middle Ages to smells. This has been vividly illustrated today by hon. Members saying that they have got rid of the smell in their constituency, followed by other hon. Members saying, "But the smell has arrived in mine." Our descendants will think that our attitude to noise is just as extraordinary as we now think that the attitude of the Middle Ages was to smells. Indeed, noise, like smells, is a form of atmospheric pollution—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a philosophic discussion on noise; we must keep to the Clause.
  Mr. Smith: I know how strict you are, Mr. Speaker, but my point is this. Of course we can put up with noise, but should we? We can put up with
  1860
  smells, and disease, which noise may well cause—and with cruelty and slavery—but we do not. Should we put up with noise? A growing number of people do not put up with it and in my view—and this morning's speeches show this—noise is becoming an electoral issue.
  This Clause is a first step towards a modern approach to the problem. It is noise which holds back flying. Many people, like myself, are strongly in favour of flying but strongly against noise. The Clause, by enforcing consultation, will encourage the flying world to do more about noise, and moreover will encourage action about noise in just that part of the flying world where least is done about it but where most could be done.
  The Clause does not relate to aerodromes managed by the British Airports Authority. On those large aerodromes, noise from large aircraft is a very difficult problem which is being seriously tackled. This Clause will relate to smaller aircraft and smaller aerodromes, where too little is done about noise; where something could be done about it; but where the flying world is apt to use the size and difficulties of the noise problem at national airports as an excuse for inaction at their own airports. We heard this morning the excuse, which I detest on all subjects, that evil A is tolerable because it is less bad than evil B. By helping to divide the noise problem into an intractable part which is being tackled, and a tractable part which can and should be tackled, but is not being tackled properly, the Clause is welcome.
  I say again, it will help flying, and particularly smaller aircraft. Noise is the self-inflicted wound of light aviation. Many aircraft can be silenced but are not, and turn the friends of flying into its enemies. By enforcing consultation, the Clauses will help to wean the flying world from other old-fashioned attitudes which do so much harm to the cause of flying. It begins to get us away from the idea that everything must yield to the flier, just as everything yielded to the 19th Century fox hunter—the idea that there is something inherently noble about flying and that simply to take to the air is to become a knight of the air and in some way to help the country.
  But the days of Linbergh and Amy Johnson are, unfortunately long past.

  1861
  Far from being a knight of the air, many a flier is regarded by the earthbound public beneath him as simply a road hog with his wheels off the ground. The ability to fly a small aircraft is exactly as useful to the country—no more and no less—as the ability to ride a horse. It is a sign of mildly adventurous temperament, which is to be encouraged, but which should not be given total priority. The Clause is a recognition of that.
  I hope that the Clause will make people ask why on earth, for example, small aircraft should be exempted from the law of nuisance as they are. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to drive an unsilenced, supercharged Bugatti to and fro past my door, I could sue you for nuisance; but if you affix wings and drive it to and fro over my head, I am powerless.
  12.30 p.m.
  I hope that the Clause will make people ask why lorries, buses and cars should now, very recently, be limited by law as to the amount of noise that they may make; but small aircraft are not. By law, a taxi must be effectively silenced; an air taxi need not be. There is very little difference nowadays between the two vehicles, either in the interior appearance, the mode of use or the way one dresses up to use them. They are entirely comparable vehicles. To treat them in any other way is absurdly old-fashioned.
  I hope that the consultations under the Clause will make people address themselves to the problem of selfishness. Because of the noise—only because of the noise—flying for pleasure is the most selfish of all pleasures. It is a pleasure which can be obtained only at the direct price of destroying other people's pleasure on the ground.
  It is because we have not paid enough attention to these matters that flying is so bitterly opposed by those to whom it is such a dreadful, and unnecessary, nuisance. By encouraging fliers to put their house in order, the Clause could be a great help to them as well as to local residents, in exactly the same way that trade union pressure through the years has, possibly, been regarded by some employers as a dreadful nuisance, but has nevertheless contributed enormously to the progress of their own industries.
  1862
  I want to see a flourishing aircraft industry, including a flourishing light aircraft industry and, most particularly, a flourishing aircraft engine industry. It can best flourish with the good will rather than the hostility of the public. Therefore, I earnestly support and commend the Clause to the House.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: There has been considerable concentration on noise, and with very good reason. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) intimated that he might save some of his remarks until we reach Clause 18, but under our procedure we might not discuss Clause 18. It is, therefore, important to thrash out the objectives of the Clause now.
  There are two aspects on which I should like to comment. To date, most of the flying referred to in the debate, except for what I call joy-ride or light aircraft flying, has, by implication, been concerned with either scheduled or charter flights. There is another type of flying which is absolutely necessary but which probably causes greater nuisance than any other type of flying to people living around an airport—that is, training flights.
  Very often the aircraft merely does circuits and bumps. It uses take-off or climb power for a large part of its flying time. We all realise that it is necessary, but it is not as necessary to do it in thickly inhabited areas as might sometimes be thought. Before introducing the Boeing 707, instead of submitting people living round London Airport to all this inconvenience, B.O.A.C. very wisely arranged to use a former Royal Air Force airfield in Cornwall so that the number of people annoyed by it were very much fewer. That was entirely commendable. One wonders, however, how many other airlines take the trouble to do that sort of thing. If there is sufficient protest about unnecessary training flights, airlines might at least be persuaded, even if it costs a little more money, to think whether they could not do their training elsewhere.
  Obviously, a certain amount of practice take-off and landing must be done before scheduled services commence at any airport, but the kind of arrangement to which I have referred is not always made unless there is an organised

  1863
  channel of local protest. To have an organised channel, which is what the new Clause suggests, is much more convenient to everybody, including the airport authority and the airlines, than having disorganised channels, which is the alternative.
  I expect that most hon. Members who are present will still be familiar with the Wilson Report on aircraft noise, which was a truly memorable step. However much effort was put into defining the degree of annoyance which noise causes, no satisfactory parameter has yet been established. One can talk about decibels and phons, but at the end of the day one comes back to Bonzo, who, when asked, "What noise annoys an oyster most", replied "A noisy noise annoys an oyster most".
  Noise, irritation and even psychotic or neurotic responses to noises are subjective. If, for example, a nursing home or an old people's home is closely adjacent to an airport, there are, naturally, considerations which should weigh and which might not otherwise need to be weighed.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be discussing Clause 18, which he, quite rightly, said that we could not discuss. We are talking about whether there should be consultative committees. Noise may be one of the factors about which they may consult.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker. The channel along which my thought was flowing, although it had not quite arrived at its destination, was that bodies of this kind should have a formal method of drawing to the attention of aerodrome authorities their anticipation as well as their experience.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I commend to the hon. Member's consideration a new index called "The Index of Community Nuisance", the details of which were given in Flight Engineering some time ago, which is of considerable interest in the question of measuring the amount of nuisance from noise over the whole community?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is entirely true. That index is an attempt to establish an objective parameter. If I recollect correctly, it includes a quantum of the number of people affected. I was allud-
  1864
  ing to the effect on an individual person, which is quite unconnected with the number of other people who are also annoyed.
  I do not think that we can do very much better than establish, as the Clause sets out to do, a channel for complaint and then cane the responsible Minister, of whichever party he may be at any given time, if, having established a vehicle for complaint and having endowed the Minister with powers, the Bill is simply allowed to pass off as one more piece of formal apparatus which is not used for the purpose for which the House wrote it into the legislation.
  With those brief observations, I warmly welcome the new Clause.
  Sir Eric Errington: I feel like tail-end Charlie in this debate, but I believe that I have something to contribute as I have had great experience of dealing with aircraft and airfield complaints. I suppose that the question would not apply to the major airfields, with which the new Clause does not deal.
  There have been a great number of speeches from my hon. Friends about the question of noise. Of course noise is an important factor, but it is not by any means the most important. I have files three feet high containing reports of discussions following complaints about the activities at a small airfield in my constituency. These complaints are of a varied type and on the various occasions when I have had an opportunity to both write to and speak with officials of the Ministry, considerable difficulties have arisen, which would not have done so if the local body visualised in this Clause had been in existence.
  I have been astonished to discover that if a licence is granted for a field to be used for aircraft purposes, there is at present no really effective control exercisable by the civil aviation authorities. I therefore strongly support the new Clause because it will provide an opportunity to canalise the complaints that are invariably made about the use of airfields.
  In the case I have in mind the matter was fortunately resolved as a result of the determination of Hampshire County Council to buy the land on which the airfield was situated. However, the difficulties were myriad. There was considerable dispute over the question of exactly

  1865
  what land comprised the airfield. These difficulties were accentuated by the problems surrounding common land. Not only the parish council but the rural district council endeavoured to move on these matters, but only when the Hampshire County Council decided to buy the land was the matter resolved. Had the sort of consultative body suggested in the new Clause existed at that time, there would probably have been little difficulty in convincing the civil aviation authorities that something should be done.
  Another example of difficulty is presented by those who practise parachuting. Constituents of mine had the privilege of parachutists landing in their back gardens instead of the airfield. We could not discover who was to blame and we could not get any satisfaction in the matter. The sort of consultative arrangement proposed in the new Clause will be of material help in such cases.
  Similar difficulties are raised by the problem of buildings close to airfields though not necessarily in the glide path. Many people feel that a greater demand than is necessary is made for the approach and take-off lines. We appreciate that these lines must be clearly but limitedly defined, but greater attention must be paid to this and other matters. For all these reasons —and not merely because of the noise difficulty, although I appreciate that it is considerable—it will be invaluable to have the sort of organisation proposed in the new Clause.
  12.45 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) spoke of the problem of training, particularly in areas which are becoming built up. I agree with him, and there should certainly be an effective arrangement whereby the times when aircraft may practice are laid down. When I approached the civil aviation authorities on these matters it was impossible for them to reach any decisions because of the difficulty of proof. I mention this in view of the remarks of an hon. Member earlier about it being easy for one to bring an action for nuisance if, for example, a Bugatti was driven past one's door at great speed and with much noise. The contrary is actually the case because it is not easy to succeed with a private action for
  1866
  nuisance, as it is an extremely technical matter.
  When I called the attention of the Ministry to the question of low flying aircraft, I was told to complain to the police. What is the use of doing that when one must identify the aircraft? Arrangements should be made for matters such as this to be resolved. The provisions governing small airfields are in a chaotic condition and the sooner this state of affairs is put right, the better. That is why I strongly support the new Clause.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: As a former Air Force flyer, though not a tail-end Charlie—I cannot claim, like the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), to have bombed the equator, although I have done some bombing—I hope that I will not be disqualified from making a brief contribution to the debate.
  First, however, I offer my congratulations to the Minister of State on his appointment and warmly welcome him to the aviation club which, as is well known, embraces both sides of the House. I assure him that there is no more impressive, hard-working, progressive and Godfearing a body of men and that it is nice to have him among us.
  I came here this morning not to speak but only to listen. I have been persuaded into action, however, by two remarks, one made from this side and the other from the benches opposite. The first was made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) who seemed to strike a complacent note, almost shrugging his shoulders over the treatment to which those living beneath glide paths are subjected during any 24 hours.
  Mr. Burden: That is not true. I had intended to point out—I would have been out of order had I done so—that greater efforts are being made to reduce noise and that new aircraft will be less than half as noisy as present ones.
  Mr. Kerr: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman's last observations and as long as he assures me that he was not yielding to complacency, I am happy to accept his intervention.
  The second observation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who said, in effect, that people in Feltham, my constituency,

  1867
  were virtually immune from this nuisance. I assure my hon. Friend that although it is true that the nuisance is unequally distributed, which is inevitable because the glide paths run in various directions in my constituency, many thousands of people in and around Feltham—notably in Cranford, Heston, West and Hounslow, West—regard this question of aircraft noise as the scourge of their lives.
  I shall not delay the House further, save to refer to what Professor Richards said to me a year or two back. Professor Richards, of the Institute of Noise and Vibration at Southampton, is by common consent the top expert in this country on matters of noise and noise control. He told me that there were probably about 10 per cent. of people affected by aircraft noise who suffered from it in a strictly medical sense. This is not merely a question of nuisance but of possible severe psychological or psychiatric damage being caused by the perpetuation of the noise nuisance.
  I warmly welcome the new Clause. In so far as it indicates a willingness on the part of the Ministry to seek the cooperation of all sorts of representative bodies—I hope that that is the intention —the Government are to be commended for showing a measure of understanding of this very real problem.
  Mr. Corfield: We have had an interesting and remarkably full debate on the subject of noise. I do not wish to add greatly to it at this moment, though I join in the welcome to our deliberations which has been extended to the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment.
  I thought that it might be helpful at this point if someone referred to the Amendment which we are discussing at the same time. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) was generous enough to give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for the initiative behind the new Clause and, more generally, to the Opposition for our Amendment (a), but neither he nor my hon. Friend referred to what it was all about. A brief word on the subject might not be out of place now.
  I do not object to the usual riposte of Governments to Oppositions when
  1868
  they tell us that we cannot draft Amendments because we have not been advised by the draftsman—it seems to be the tightest trade union in the world—but we are delighted that the Minister has accepted the spirit of our Amendment. The principle of it is simple. An Order imposing a duty on aerodrome owners to set up consultative bodies or provide facilities for consultation will create benefits and rights for the people who are thereby enabled to be consulted, and it seems to us that such rights having once been created, it would not be appropriate that they should be removed by an Order which did not come before Parliament. That is the basis of our Amendment. It is a sound principle, and I am glad that the Minister has accepted it.
  As for the substance of the new Clause, it is worth re-emphasising, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, that this can primarily be a matter only of helping to improve public relations. No one imagines that it gives a full answer to the noise problem. Nevertheless, we all welcome it as an essential step in that direction, however large or small we may each consider the step to be. I suggest that, when the Minister makes Orders under the new Clause, it might well be appropriate in certain cases to suggest, either directly or by circular, to the authorities concerned that they would be well advised to publish a report from time to time indicating the type of complaints which have been brought before the management authority and the action taken or decisions made, so that people may not only see that there is consultation in fact but also judge its effectiveness. The more publicity is given to the results of such consultations, the more likely are people to be determined that they are effective in the way they have not, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) suggested, been in the past.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) stressed the importance to this country of the aviation and aero-engine industries and of air transport. None of us is unaware of the immensely important contribution which those industries can make, but I should come down heavily

  1869
  on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) in saying that I do not believe that the interest of the aircraft and aero-engine industries and of air transport will be served unless it runs parallel with and becomes more and more acceptable to the general public interest in this country. This is of the utmost importance, and I am convinced that it is fully realised by those engaged in the manufacturing and air transport world.
  I want to see an enormous increase in the domestic use of aircraft in Britain as well as internationally. But we must not forget that even in the United States, a far more developed country from the point of view of air travel, only a small proportion of the population—about 8 per cent., I believe—ever set foot in an aircraft. The great majority of the people concerned with aeroplanes are concerned about the effect which they have on their lives on the ground. I know that the industry realises that, and I do not believe that we serve those industries well by belittling the problem of noise and its environmental effects.
  I hope that we shall not overstress the substantial advances which are being made in the quieting of engines. These advances are being made and we welcome them, but what is happening is that engines are being made quieter per lb. of thrust and not necessarily per aeroplane, because aeroplanes are getting bigger. Although we may well have immense improvements in the noise level of engines of the same power, we are demanding more and more power to put bigger and bigger aeroplanes into the air. These are not, therefore, matters about which we ought for a moment to be complacent or to appear complacent.
  I welcome the Clause, the Minister's acceptance of the spirit of our Amendment, and the assiduity of the hon. Member for Luton in working out in his Amendment the right form of wording.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): We have had two hours of thorough debate, with about 14 contributions from the back benches. It has all been most worth while. From my point of view—I thank those hon.
  1870
  Members who have welcomed me to what I gather is the rather particular and unusual club which I have now joined— I have found this morning's debate a helpful education for me in one part of my responsibilities. If I do not have time to touch on all the points raised, I assure the House that I shall bear them all in mind and reflect upon them in the time ahead.
  The new Clause deals with the question of consultation, and I shall not go wider or engage in a full discussion of all aspects of the problem of noise. It is a most important problem and one with which we must continue to deal. If there is time and opportunity on Third Reading, I may say a further word about it.
  On the question of consultation, it is clear that a balance must be struck. I have no doubt that there is a real and growing social problem with wide consequences flowing from the growth of air traffic, but I am equally certain that air traffic will continue to grow, and it is desirable in economic terms as well as, indirectly, in social terms that it should. We must, therefore, find a middle course. In my view, it is possible to reconcile the need for less noise and the control of the adverse effects of the growth of air traffic with the growth of air traffic itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that the Clause was an enormous victory for the anti-noise lobby. I am happy to acknowledge his own special rôle over some time now in drawing attention to the severity of the problem, and I am prepared also to acknowledge his description of the Clause. I put it in this way. In so far as the balance was not previously right, the Clause will help to redress it. A fortnight ago, when we first discussed the Clause, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) said that there was a real need for good public relations with the local communities. That sums it up. Without mentioning individual cases, one must concede that sometimes in the past public relations were not as good as they ought to be, sometimes airport operators did not explain what they were trying to do or the problems with which they were dealing, and sometimes they were reluctant to give an ear to those who complained.

  1871
  I was interested in the view of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) of the success of consultation at Gatwick. This is a very reassuring precedent. Although I cannot say that under the Clause there will be no conflict, everyone will be satisfied and Members of Parliament will not be troubled by letters—because they will, and no one is ever satisfied—once the Clause is through and the Bill becomes law so that airfields are designated, we shall have a much better chance of living together with this problem than in the past.
  1.0 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), who a fortnight ago pioneered the discussion which we have had today by making typically shrewd comments on the contents of the Clause, asked three questions. In answering them, I shall take up some of the points made this morning. My hon. Friend asked whether the method of consultation would, for example, include bringing in residents' associations of one kind or another. I think that was in the minds of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). The answer is of course, yes. Without wishing to lay down the form which consultation will take, I do not hold the view in this case or any other than the only legitimate expressions of public opinion can come from elected authorities. Often a voluntary group of people, a protest movement as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, can represent something of consequence and should be listened to. So I would not exclude residents' associations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, also asked what were adequate facilities for consultation. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who took up this point this morning, helped me in answering when he referred to maximum and minimum facilities. He made the point that it may be necessary to have machinery, but it should be machinery tailored for the purpose, neither more nor less. That is absolutely right because we do not want a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Although I am not prepared to say whether this will prove to be the case, it may often be that formal consultative
  1872
  machinery will be required. A committee which may serve that purpose, but on other occasions some other form of machinery, perhaps of a more informal kind, will meet the bill. We have to see how things go and to recognise that different circumstances may require a rather different response.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton asked who at the end of the day would decide whether the facilities for consultation were adequate. In all this we must recognise that common sense must prevail and there will be give-and-take in discussion with all sorts of people. Although the machinery cannot satisfy everyone in each case, I hope that it will go a long way towards doing so, but at the end of the day it will be for the courts to decide whether the form of consultation is adequate or not. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the possibility of trade unions being involved in consultation about whether facilities were adequate, what form they took, how frequently they operated, and who was involved in the whole process.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason), who apologised for not being able to be present now, raised an important point. As he made it well, I do not think I need take it much further. He made a point which gets to the root of the new Clause and consultation when he quite rightly said that Luton Airport is the responsibility of Luton Corporation whereas the local authorities in his area have no say in the management of that airport. He was making the case, as I think he intended, for this Clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, also asked what consultation would be on. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) to say that there would be a danger if consultative committees became responsible for supervision. Of course these committees can discuss a wide range of questions, certainly flight paths and new runways, because they would have a bearing on amenity in all its aspects. Again, we must ask for common sense in consultation because consultative committees cannot manage airports however wide their powers for consultation will be. I hope we shall find a middle, reasonable

  1873
  course in which those who have responsibility for management manage but those who are consulted are listened to.
  Mr. Rankin: If I follow my hon. Friend correctly, he is saying that these consultative committees will have some say in laying down runways—the direction and so on—which is sometimes challenged, and is now being challenged at Abbotsinch. If that function is recognised, is there not a danger that they will always try to employ it and therefore impinge on management?
  Mr. Rodgers: There is always the danger that they may assume responsibilities which they do not have. The management must lie with those who control the airport, but that does not preclude those who are consulted from expressing views on a wide range of subjects. I have never believed that there is one only one way of running things—that those who have the power should exercise it. Most of us listen and learn. An operator will find life a great deal more congenial in every way if the decisions he makes are decisions which take full cognizance of the views of others in the locality, which I interpret as a very wide area indeed in present circumstances.
  I cannot say this morning which airports may in due course be designated. It is better to say that we exclude none but will include none before we have considered it fully. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), in a very moderate, constructive and helpful speech, made the point well when he again drew attention to the need to devise machinery which was reasonable and sensible. He said that we might find where facilities were required even in the case of airfields used for club flying which could not be excluded although they would be rather different from airfields where there is a growing volume of jet traffic.
  I hope that I have covered the majority of points that have been made. If there are others which I have not fully dealt with, I shall take note of them. I commend the new Clause to the House. As the House understands, I cannot accept the Amendment in the name of the Opposition, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton has put forward an Amendment which embodies the spirit which I shall be happy to accept.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Amendment made to the proposed new Clause: In subsection (3), at the end add:
  'but any order varying or revoking a previous order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Howie.]
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 1

  CONTROL OF ROAD TRAFFIC AT BOARD OF TRADE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY AERODROMES
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'special'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 2, in page 2. line 23, leave out 'special'.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: An interesting point of principle is involved. In 1949 a previous Administration got a bit sloppy in drafting their legislation. I suspect that this is all that happened. Section 37 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949 at some stages uses the phrase "special constables" and at other stages refers to "constable". Subsection (1) reads:
  "Any two justices of the peace may appoint such persons as may be nominated for the purpose by the Minister to be special constables on any premises for the time being vested in the Minister or under his control."
  Subsection (2) says:
  "Every person so appointed shall be sworn in by the justices duly to execute the office of a constable on the premises aforesaid, and when so sworn in shall, on those premises, have the power and privileges and be liable to the duties and responsibilities of a constable."
  A point of principle is involved, because a special constable, as the expression is known to the public and, I hope, to us, is a member of the community who voluntarily gives his services to the community to assist the police in the office of special constable. It is an utter prostitution of the special constabulary that this term should also be applied to people who, by the nature of their employment —for instance, by an airport authority — are required by their employer to be sworn in with the powers of a constable. To confuse somebody, part of whose job is to exercise police powers, with somebody who voluntarily gives his services to

  1875
  the community is an abuse which we should not perpetuate. It crept into the 1949 Act. Fortunately, the phrase does not appear in Section 10 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965; only the word "constable" appears; there is no reference to special constabulary. It is apparent that by then this had been picked up. It is, therefore, a pity that it reappears in the Bill.
  I have discussed this with a number of police officers from the rank of constable up to the rank of chief constable. Everyone with whom I have discussed it has taken the same view as I do, that it is thoroughly undesirable to apply the term "special constable" to somebody who is a form of constable other than a regular police constable, merely for the want of a better phrase. There are a number of other types of constable. There are the British Transport Police and Her Majesty's Dockyard Police, all of whom are constables, but they are not special constables. There are also the Airports Authority police, set up under Section 10 of the 1965 Act.
  We are concerned now specifically with lines 20 and 23 on page 2. I am glad that the Minister of State signed our Amendment—that in page 2, line 23— after we had tabled it. For that reason, his name appears at the head of those sponsoring the Amendment on the Notice Paper. It is not the case, as somebody looking at the Notice Paper for the first time might think, that we have signed the Minister's Amendment. I understand that this is a not unusual practice when a Minister adds his name to an Opposition Amendment, but it is worth mentioning this for the record.
  I can only presume that the reason why the hon. Gentleman did not add his name to Amendment No. 1 is that line 20 refers to Section 37 of the 1949 Act, which sometimes uses the expression, "special constables" and sometimes refers to "constable". Perhaps the Minister wants to have a final fling at the word "constable" by leaving it in there and quite properly deleting it later. If this is the reason why he added his name to Amendment No. 2 but not to Amendment No. 1, this is something which we can quite happily let pass, because line 20 refers to the provisions of the offending Act passed
  1876
  by a previous Administration of his own political complexion, whereas line 23 has more to do with future appointments where this error is not perpetrated.
  With those introductory remarks, I commend these Amendments to the House. They should be agreed to so as to avoid unnecessary offence to the body of men and women who give their service voluntarily to the community.
  1.15 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: Under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, it is clear that these constables are special only in that they are engaged in duties connected with airports. They have duties which extend far beyond those of the ordinary special constable and the privileges and powers pertaining to those of the ordinary constable. I ask the Minister of State to give this matter his favourable consideration.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) said this:
  "On the point about special constables, these are not special constables in the ordinary sense but are part of a regular force which the airport authorities are entitled to maintain." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 16th May, 1968; c. 9.]
  That puts it succinctly and explains why we wish to have "special constable" removed. It would be very desirable if a designation such as "airport police" could be applied so as to make it clear what their duties and terms of employment are.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Just to get the facts correct, it was the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and his colleagues who added their names to my Amendment, but I do not think that we need to enter into any dispute about this matter. In Committee there was thorough discussion of this point and the point was well taken.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When I received the Notice Paper the only Amendments on this subject were the two signed by my hon. Friends and I. Subsequently, the Minister's name appeared on our Amendment. I inquired at the Table Office as to how this had come about and was informed that the Minister of State had subsequently added his name to our Amendment and that it was customary when this happened for the

  1877
  Minister's name to appear at the top of the list of sponsors.
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that this is a point worth disputing. I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We can resolve this afterwards. The Amendment was tabled because of the discussion in Committee, to which my predecessor was anxious to respond. I have sought to follow this through. I do not think that there can be any dispute about that Amendment.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a question of fact.
  Mr. Rodgers: On Amendment No. 1, there is a difference which the hon. Gentleman understands. He says that the phrase "special constables" crept into the 1949 Act. I would not wish to dispute that. It might well be that, if we were passing that Act today, we would not include the phrase "special constables".
  But as long as the term "special constables" is there in the Act we can do no more in this Bill than reproduce the phrase. While recognising the spirit of Amendment No. 1, I must therefore ask the House to reject it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 2 in page 2, line 23, leave out 'special'.—[Mr. Rodgers.]

Clause 2

  BYELAWS AT BOARD OF TRADE AERODROMES
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 28, at end insert:
  Provided that where any such representations are made—

  (a) by any person regularly operating aircraft into or out of any aerodrome to which this section applies and such representations relate to the provisions of any byelaw relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section; or

  (b) by any chief officer of police (including any chief officer of the constabulary of the aerodrome concerned) and such representations relate to the provision of any byelaw relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (1) of this section; or

  1878

  (c) by any local planning authority and such representations relate to the provisions of any byelaw relating to any of the matters metioned in paragraphs (e), (g) or (i) of subsection (1) of this section; or

  (d) by any local authority and such representations relate to the provisions of any byelaw relating to any matter mentioned in paragraph (i)of subsection (1) of this section.

  The Board shall before making any byelaws to which such representations relate afford to any such person, chief officer of police, local planning authority or local authority, as the case may be, the opportunity of being heard by an officer appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for that purpose.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss the following three Amendments, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire South (Mr. Corfield) No. 4, in page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  (2) Byelaws made under this section shall not have effect until they are confirmed by the Board and the provisions of Schedule 6 to the Airports Authority Act 1965 (which govern the making and con on of byelaws by the Authority) shall apply also, subject to any necessary modifications, to byelaws made under this section.
  No. 5, in line 12 at end insert:
  'and subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act shall apply to the confirmation of byelaws by the Board under this section as it applies to the making of byelaws under section 2 of this Act aforesaid'.
  No. 32, in line 38, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 42 and insert:
  'and subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act shall apply to the confirmation of byelaws by the Board under this section as it applies to the making of byelaws under section 2 of this Act aforesaid'.
  Mr. Corfield: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that No. 4, No. 5 and No. 32 have very much to do with No. 3, but of course I will consider them together if that is your wish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr Speaker has indicated that they can go together if any hon. Member desires to discuss them with No. 3.
  Mr. Corfield: I think that it would be more convenient to take No. 4, No. 5 and No. 32 together but separately from No. 3.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: They cannot be taken separately now. If anyone wants to refer to them on Amendment No. 3,

  1879
  he can do so but they cannot be called separately now.
  Mr. Corfield: No. 3 deals with a different point. The House will observe that Clause 2(3) provides that, where the Board of Trade is making byelaws in respect of an aerodrome which it controls, it shall provide an opportunity for representations to be made and shall only finally make the byelaws when it has taken those representations into account. It seems to us that, where the byelaws affect persons or bodies with particular knowledge or responsibilities in relation to their subject matter, it is important that those persons should not only be able to make representations but that the decision of the Board of Trade should be seen to be taken on the merits as deployed by those who hold such responsibilities.
  This can only bin cases where the Board of Tra inclined to dismiss representations, it the persons concerned are given the opportunity of appearing before someone appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for the purpose of deploying the arguments, bearing in mind that it is not always easy—sometimes impossible—fully to deploy arguments in respect of representations if one does not know the grounds on which it is proposed to dismiss those representations or objections, whatever one may call them.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 3, therefore, is to ensure that people with special responsibilities have the right to appear before a person appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to argue their case when they are dissatisfied with the proposed byelaws. Subparagraph (a) of the Amendment deals with the operation of aircraft. Anyone operating aircraft from the aerodrome concerned would have the right to make his case orally if the Board of Trade was disposed to dismiss a written representation. Sub-paragraph (b) deals with matters which are particularly the responsibility of either the chief constable of the district or the chief of the constables appointed by the Airports Authority. This covers the prevention of obstruction within the aerodrome, the control of vehicular traffic, the control of waiting by hackney carriages, the preservation of order within the aerodrome and the prevention of
  1880
  damage to property and the regulation or restriction of advertising within, the aerodrome.
  Subparagraph (c) deals with matters which seem to us to be particularly within the interests and, indeed, within the powers of local planning authorities. It is surely right that, if a byelaw will affect matters on which the local planning authority has strong views, it should have the right to argue its case. The same applies to subparagraph (d), which is to restrict areas constituted as aerodromes for the purposes of byelaws. Again this is a matter on which the local authority might have views which it would be important for it to make known.
  The procedure we propose would have the great advantage that it would be seen beyond doubt that the President of the Board of Trade, in making the byelaws had taken account of the arguments put for by people with particular respon ties for carrying them out. This w be a major advantage to those concerned and also to this House in the sense that it would enable proper Parliamentary control to be exercised.
  I am afraid that Amendments No. 4, No. 5 and No. 32 constitute a wholly different argument, and I must refer back to subsection (3) of Clause 2. As I have pointed out, the Board of Trade, when making byelaws in respect of aerodromes which it controls, is obliged to afford an opportunity for representations to be made and to consider those representations before finally making the byelaws. In Clause 3, a similar set of powers is conferred upon the local authorities which own aerodromes. In their case, the confirming authority for byelaws is to be the Board of Trade. But there is no provision for a local authority to give an opportunity to people to make representations to it about its proposed byelaws, let alone any enjoining on the Board of Trade to take these representations into account before confirming those byelaws.
  In Clause 4, the Board of Trade may designate an aerodrome run by a private operator, and once there has been such designation the owner can make byelaws. Once again the confirming authority is to be the Board of Trade. This time, however,
  "Byelaws made under this section shall not have effect until they are confirmed by

  1881
  the Board, and the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Airports Authority Act 1965 … shall apply also, subject to any necessary modifications …"
  But Schedule 3 only requires that there shall be notice of the proposal to make the byelaws and a notice indicating where that notice and maps can be inspected. There is no provision in it for the making of representations, let alone for their being taken into account before the byelaws are confirmed. It would be sensible, therefore, to have a common requirement throughout Clauses 2, 3 and 4 in relation to the making and confirmation of bye-laws, and we suggest, first, that we should import the terms of Clause 2(3) into Clause 3 and 4 instead of the existing subsections (2) of Clauses 3 and 4. That is the purpose of Amendments No. 5 and 32. Amendment No. 4, on the other hand, produces uniformity in a different way by importing into Clause 3 the necessity of complying with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Airports Act, 1965, thereby obtaining uniformity of Clauses 3 and 4, where the Board of Trade is purely a confirming authority, but leaving a slightly different approach in Clause 2(3) where the Board of Trade is not only a confirming authority but a making authority. It seemed to us that it would be simpler and more sensible to have a uniform approach.
  1.30 p.m.
  I stress that it is odd that where the President of the Board of Trade, who is directly answerable to the House, makes byelaws in respect of airports under his control and is therefore subject to question and answer in this House, there is a tighter requirement than where he is confirming byelaws made by private individuals and local authorities. It does not make much sense, and even at this late stage I think it would be right to change the drafting of the Bill so as to introduce uniformity, at any rate into Clauses 3 and 4, and preferably into Clauses 2, 3 and 4.
  Mr. A. Royle: I rise to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend and to raise one particular aspect of the Amendment and of the Clause.
  I do not know whether the Minister of State, since he has not been in his present position for long, is aware of the scandalous situation now obtaining
  1882
  at London Airport in the hiring of taxis. I am anxious that the situation which arises at London Airport today should not arise at any other Board of Trade or local authority aerodrome. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment provides for control:
  " (b) by any chief officer of police (including any chief officer of the constabulary of the aerodrome concerned) and such representations relate to the provision of any byelaw relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (1) of this section;"
  Clause 2(1) of the Bill provides in paragraph (d):
  "for prohibiting waiting by hackney carriages except at standings appointed by such person as may be specified in the byelaws;"
  This refers to the standing and waiting of hackney carriages at any airport which will come under the control of the Board of Trade. The situation at London Airport is so grave and so scandalous that I would like an assurance from the Minister that this provision will empower him to deal with hackney carriages in other aerodromes in such a way that the situation now obtaining at Heathrow will not obtain elsewhere.
  I will briefly give the Minister of State an example of what I mean. On Sunday night I returned with a friend on a flight from the Continent to London Airport, and I left the airport building in order to obtain a taxi to convey me to London. On leaving the airport building accompanied by a porter carrying my baggage, I was surrounded by a mob—there is no other word for it—of taxi drivers who were shouting, remonstrating, pushing and jostling amongst themselves in order to obtain my fare to London. The baggage was taken from the hands of the porter and was put into a taxi. The driver inquired my destination in central London. I told the driver that I wished to go to an address in Chelsea and an address near Oxford Street in order to drop my friend. He said that the charge for the trip would be £4. I remonstrated with him, as this seemed to be an absurd amount. However, he insisted, and I allowed him to put my bag in his cab. No sooner had I sat down in the cab when altercations started between him and other taxi-drivers in the vicinity who apparently wanted to take me to London. This was finally concluded and the driver opened

  1883
  the door of my cab to ask me whether I wished to go first to Chelsea or to Oxford Street. I told him I wished to go first to Oxford Street, and he said, "That will be an extra 10s. on your fare". I was then faced with getting out of the cab, removing my baggage and starting an altercation with another driver and embarking on a major negotiation to get myself to London.
  We set off and went first to Oxford Street and then to Cadogan Place in Chelsea, where I was finally dropped by the taxi-driver. The amount showing on the clock at the end of the journey was 39s. 6d. In the dispute that had taken place at the airport my porter had not been tipped and the driver informed me that he would subtract 5s. from my total fare to tip the porter. The net cost of my trip, according to the driver, was therefore £4 5s. for a journey that should have cost 39s. 6d. I am aware that under the byelaws of the Metropolitan area a driver is entitled to negotiate a fare outside a six-mile limit, and that is why I paid the fare as requested, but this scandalous state of affairs could follow in other parts of the country in other aerodromes which might be run by the Board of Trade.
  Whilst I found the incident annoying enough, and indeed I have sent the details, including the number of the driver and his licence number to the Home Secretary, what can foreigners coming into the country think when this sort of incident occurs on their arrival at Heathrow? I am an Englishman and have some knowledge of the currency used in this country, but what can foreigners who do not understand the currency think when they are greeted by these extraordinary mob tactics by tough and angry drivers right outside the airport buildings, with the constables at London Airport apparently totally unable to control the situation? On the occasion of which I was speaking there were several policemen walking past who did not in any way try to get order into the taxi rank or amongst the drivers who were jostling and pushing for fares.
  I know that this subject has been raised in the House many times, but it seems to me that the time has come for action to be taken, either by the Home Office or by the Minister's Department, to deal with
  1884
  the situation at London Airport. Whilst I realise that he may not be able to give an answer today, I hope that now I have given him a first-hand example of the scandalous situation which now obtains at London Airport outside the European Building at Heathrow, he will take action to deal with it.
  I am most anxious that he should give us an assurance today that chief constables and officers responsible in other airports in the country will have the powers, which apparently they do not have at the moment at Heathrow, to enable them to stop this sort of behaviour. I apologise to the Minister of State if I am not here during the whole of his reply, but I have to leave, and I would be most grateful if he would look into this for me.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I am fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman has described as the scandalous state of affairs about taxis at London Airport at the present time. I regard it as disgraceful and damaging to the country in a number of ways. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to take the necessary steps which I hope in due course will remedy the situation.
  The hon. Gentleman was more temperate in his behaviour than I would have been. I have always regarded him as a fairly tough customer, but perhaps his proper sense of responsibility and his desire to draw the matter to the attention of Ministers led him on this occasion to be less determined than I would have been in a similar situation; I would have been greatly provoked. I take note of what he says, and I can assure the House that those responsible will ensure that never again will a comparable situation arise in any other airport in the country. I am grateful to him for drawing attention once again to the situation, though I am sure that many visitors to this country will know that there are other ways of getting to Central London than by taxi, and the attractions of being here are very much greater than such inconvenience as is caused in the way that he suggests.
  I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for the very reasonable way in which he explained this complicated matter. I can see his argument that some

  1885
  uniformity Would seem to be necessary. But we are dealing with a situation which is anything but uniform, bearing in mind the ownership of the separate airports, and also the existing legislation to which this legislation refers from time to time.
  I have been looking into the matter very closely because I have much sympathy with the Amendments in the first instance. However, I am satisfied that the Bill provides the necessary guarantees. Rather than detain the House too long, I will mention only that, on Amendment No. 3, the proposal would introduce a new principle into the byelaw-making procedure, and the principle would be extended by Amendments Nos. 5 and 32 to the confirmation of aerodrome byelaws by the Board at local authority and private airports.
  Very careful consideration is given by the Board of Trade to representations which we receive in our capacity as bye-law makers or as a confirming authority, and there is nothing at present to preclude a hearing if it should be considered necessary, which is not usually the case.
  Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not realise it, the Amendments would have the effect of subjecting the procedure of consultation to a set of formal rules which might limit the right to a hearing to a specific category of persons and authorities. It would restrict the present position and have the reverse effect to that which he has in mind.
  Bearing in mind the way in which the Act will be administered and the element of consultation which must come in, though I can see why the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to put down these Amendments and to raise the point, the Bill as it stands will meet the needs that he sees.
  I ought to make the further point in advising the House to reject the Amendments that none of them could be accepted in the form in which they have been tabled.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

  BYELAWS: PENALTIES
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 7, after 'but', insert:
  1886
  'except in the case of byelaws made for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment No. 8, in line 8, at end insert:
  'and in the case of byelaws made for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act no amount so specified shall exceed £500'.
  Mr. Corfield: The purpose of the Amendment is very simple. It is to express the view that, where there is a breach of a byelaw dealing with safety regulations, a maximum penalty of £25 does not seem to be adequate. The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is to substitute a much higher maximum for breaches of such byelaws.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell me this time that the drafting is wrong. Quite honestly, I thought that his interpretation of my former Amendment was itself erroneous. However, I will not dwell on that.
  I believe that these Amendments would have the effect for which they are designed, namely, to enable a much higher penalty to be imposed in cases of the breach of byelaws affecting matters of safety. This seems to us to be important.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I do not think that there is any fault in drafting in this case, and certainly I would not propose the rejection of the Amendment on that ground.
  It is very reasonable to draw attention to the fact that, from many points of view, £25 appears to be a low figure when we are dealing with matters of safety. However, the House will remember that the figure of £25 was approved by the Home Office and the House in the case of the British Airports Authority in 1965, and it is the figure which has appeared in private Acts since then. Though I would not argue on this or any other occasion that precedent is overwhelming, it would be unreasonable to substitute £500 for £25 when the lower figure was fixed after very proper consideration such a short time ago. It would also be unreasonable to introduce a figure of £500 that would have no bearing on the position at airports managed by the British Airports

  1887
  Authority, which are not covered by the Amendment.
  1.45 p.m.
  We have received no evidence that increasing the penalties for contraventions of the byelaws would improve the safety of operations at aerodromes. For those reasons, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot accept £500 in place of £25.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am intrigued by the Minister's observation, which causes me to wonder what sort of evidence he could possibly receive in advance of the penalty being increased. He has not received evidence about the results of an event which has not happened. Is that surprising? The penalty has not been increased to £500, and the Minister has not received evidence of what would have happend if it had been so increased.
  Is he saying that he is completely satisfied with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws? That must necessarily follow from what he says. If he is happy with the £25 penalty, he is happy with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws, not only now but projected. It seems to me improbable that the Minister can be so satisfied. If he is satisfied with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws, a lot of this Bill is quite unnecessary, because a lot of it has to do with increasing the number of byelaws and increasing the regulation of everything going on within airports.
  The Minister is a man of commendable faith but less commendable judgment if he thinks that he can multiply the regulations and controls and leave the tiny sum of £25 as the maximum penalty for breaches of byelaws which are specifically brought in to promote safety. I do not think that he has given the matter the thought that he would have wished to if he had focused his attention on it.
  I hope that he will notice that these two Amendments do not affect the minimum penalty. They do not cause any unnatural burden to fall upon people who, through negligence or carelessness or because they are hard pressed and busy, happen to infringe a byelaw. All that they do is give power to the court
  1888
  trying a case, if it decides that there has been a deliberate flouting of a byelaw brought in to promote safety on an airport, to impose a penalty which is much more in line with the possible consequences. The potential effect of breaking byelaws brought in to promote safety can be the extensive loss of human life and damage to aircraft involving millions of pounds. Looked at in that perspective, the proposition that £25 is a reasonable maximum and that £500 is an unreasonably high figure cannot be justified.
  I ask the Minister to think again about this. When does he next expect legislation on the subject? With the £ depreciating at the rate that it has over the last few years, is he confident that in five years £25 will be an adequate maximum, even assuming that it is at the moment? Does he seriously expect the House to have to consume its time again in the next few years by increasing the maximum penalties? I doubt whether he thinks that that is a reasonable course of action.
  For heavens sake let us adopt this very small maximum—£500 is still a very small maximum fine when considering the potential consequences of deliberately breaking regulations of this kind. Obviously, no reasonable magistrates' or other court would fine someone £500 for accidentally breaking the regulations, but, equally, to restrict the maximum penalty to £25 for a deliberate flouting, possibly followed by the consequences which I have endeavoured to illustrate, would result in the court finding itself with its hands tied. The Minister might find it very embarrassing to have to explain to public opinion why deliberate flouting of a regulation, resulting in loss of life, should be punished by a fine of only £25 notwithstanding that a few months previously he had been in charge of what in effect is a consolidation Measure on aviation law and had turned down this Amendment on the ground that he was satisfied that there would be compliance with existing and projected byelaws and that £500 was an unreasonable maximum— not an average or minimum—figure.
  I hope that in the course of the debate on this matter, which should be fairly extensive, the Minister will find time to reconsider, because I do not

  1889
  expect that, which ever party is in office next year, it will have time to legislate again on matters of general consolidation of civil aviation law for a number of years. We are consuming enough time doing it, so let us do the job properly. This is one of those comparatively minor aspects in which it is much better to be realistic than to do half a job and then have to get into the endless Ministerial queue for legislation to amend what may now seem a comparatively trivial provision which, however, unamended will hamstring the courts from imposing a reasonable penalty in the light of the possible consequences of breaking regulations of this kind which are specifically passed to promote the safety and convenience of operations by air.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

  PROVISION OF FACILITIES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AT AERODROMES NOT ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED BY THEM
  Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'that section' and insert:
  'section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949'.
  This is a drafting Amendment which the House will fully understand and which I need not explain.
  Mr. Burden: Can the Minister clarify one point? Under Clause 7, it is the intention to give rural authorities the right to construct aerodromes, but Section 19(9) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, says:
  "In this section the expression 'local authority' does not include the council of a rural district in England or Wales, and the expression 'land' includes any right in or over land."
  I hope that by introducing this provision without removing that subsection the Minister will not hamstring the Bill from giving a rural authority power to construct an aerodrome or to deal in aerodromes.
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that that is the effect. As I understand it, this is a minor drafting Amendment concerned only with the language of the Bill and not with any point of substance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
  Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply where that other aerodrome is either owned or managed by some other local authority or is a designated aerodrome in respect of which byelaws have been made in accordance with section 4 of this Act.
  This is another byelaw Amendment and it is aimed at a somewhat similar problem. It is clear from Clause 6(3) that a local authority which happens to own buildings on any aerodrome which is owned by itself, or some other local authority, or by a person subject to a designation order under Clause 4, can make byelaws in respect of those buildings on the aerodrome. In both cases, if the aerodrome is owned by another local authority, or is a designated aerodrome, it will be a byelaw-making authority for that aerodrome. On the fact of it, it seems to be introducing unnecessary confusion to have two local authorities making byelaws in respect of the same aerodrome in the one case, or, in the other case, having the person who is the manager of the designated aerodrome making byelaws for part of the aerodrome while the local authority makes them for another part. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which to go about any form of legislation.
  I hope that the Minister will not reply that everything is all right in the best of all possible worlds because we are drafting by reference to other legislation and that this is how it all fits in, which is the only answer he has given on the other byelaw Amendments. This is not legislation by reference and nor is there anything in Clause 3(2) to suggest that we are referring to other legislation. Nor, as I recollect the Local Government Act, 1933, an Act with which I used to be fairly familiar, is there anything which automatically brings in the byelaw provisions of that Act when a local authority is given power to make byelaws for purposes which are not covered by that Act. Clause 3(3) expressly excludes certain provisions of the 1933 Act, but there may be some implication that the rest of the Act implicitly applies. It is not clear and I am not in the least convinced that we have these byelaw-making powers right in the Bill, or in a form in which they will be readily accepted and understood by the public.

  1891
  It is a great pity that the Board of Trade has not been prepared. It has had two and a half weeks to study the Amendments to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. I do not blame the Minister, who has arrived very recently and who obviously has a brief. But at least the Board of Trade should have been able to produce something convincing and I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman has something convincing on his pad. I do not profess to be the world's greatest draftsman, but I think that I do at least as well as the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Burden: I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend. The Clause says in effect that a local authority shall have power to make byelaws in respect of any aerodromes owned or managed by it and shall also be given power to make byelaws in respect of so much of any other aerodromes as consists of buildings or other works provided by it. This could lead to much confusion. Perhaps the Minister can devise some words so that the authority owning the buildings on an aerodrome belonging to another authority will consult that other authority before drafting any byelaws.
  At the same time, it seems to me to be quite wrong that two separate authorities should have power to make entirely different sets of byelaws for one aerodrome. If my reading of the Bill is correct, I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there should be some system of consultation whereby the two authorities could get together in order to avoid producing conflicting byelaws.
  2.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Rodgers: This, again, is an Amendment which, on the face of it, is very reasonable. I can appreciate the difficulty that might be likely to result from their being two different sets of byelaws for different parts of an aerodrome. I grasp the point, and I will not rest on the precedent of the 1933 Act.
  The real difficulty—and this is a matter of judgment, and one has to come down one way or the other—is whether, on the whole, a local authority should be entitled to make byelaws relating to property within its charge or which it owns, or whether that responsibility
  1892
  should rest with someone else. I think that, on the whole, it is sensible to say that if an authority has responsibilities for or possesses certain buildings or properties, or whatever it may be, it should have the power of byelaw making over them.
  A conflict would be most undesirable. I can see that in the Bill as it stands it can have occurred to hon. Gentlemen that conflict might result but, generally speaking, I believe that we may assume that authorities will consult together; and that if they have this power they will not act in such a way as to bring them into conflict.
  At the end there is one sure means of avoiding this happening, and I think that this is the answer to what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) had in mind. The Board of Trade is a confirming authority, and we will certainly ensure that no overlapping takes place. There is, therefore, a provision which satisfies the spirit of an Amendment which, in any case, I cannot accept.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 34, leave out from 'aerodrome' to 'as' in line 35.
  This is really a probing Amendment. The purpose of the words enclosed in the brackets is not apparent to us. To explain the matter it is necessary to go back to the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, because the present subsection (4) refers to paragraph (o) of Section 8(2) of that Act. The Act of 1949 followed the Chicago Convention with which I hope everyone present will be familiar—if they are not, the assumption that they are will save valuable time.
  Section 8(2) deals with certain provisions in respect of aerodromes which may be made by Order in Council, and paragraph (o) reads:
  "— for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of aerodromes licensed under the Order and for services provided at such aerodromes —"
  Subsection (4) of the Bill reads:
  "Provision may be made under paragraph (o) of section 8(2) of the said Act of 1949 for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of, and for services provided at, so much of any aerodrome (whether or not licensed as mentioned in that paragraph) as

  1893
  consists of buildings or other works provided as aforesaid by a local authority."
  So far, in what might fairly be described as lengthy and adequate discussions, no argument has been advanced for extending the powers to non-licensed aerodromes and it is with that aspect that the Amendment deals. There may be good reasons for that omission, but it is not something that one knows intuitively. In the absence of adequate explanation, it needs to be made explicit. I think that it would be much better to provide the additional powers necessary, but to confine them as they were confined in the original enabling Act of 1949.
  I do not think that we lose anything we seek to achieve by deleting the brackets and the words contained within them. Apart from anything else, once we go outside the provisions of any licensed premises—and in this connection "licensed premises" do not have the meaning they have in other contexts—the Minister may have a very great difficulty in defining in any given case the extent of the territory to which regulation of charges apply. If the airport is licensed, there is a proper definition in a visible document of the extent of the airport, but once we include
  "…(whether or not licensed as mentioned in that paragraph) …"
  we shall find it very difficult to operate. What are the buildings or other works provided by a local authority?
  In subsection (1) we have the words
  "… and the power of a local authority under that section to provide and maintain roads, approaches, apparatus, equipment, buildings and other accommodation shall be exercisable in connection with any aerodrome in respect of which the local authority has made such an arrangement."
  Where do the approach roads to London Airport at Heathrow really start? Is it at Hyde Park Corner? The airport can be approached from that point, and from a number of other directions. What about "apparatus"? The wording is so wide that it can mean anything or nothing, and is therefore bad law. Ill-defined law is bad law, and no one knows that better than those who are not lawyers, who do quite well out of ill-
  1894
  defined law. This is another example of a last opportunity we have to make sure that we do not legislate in a woolly and unspecific manner when actually it is not the intention so to do.
  In the absence of any adequate explanation from the Minister as to the circumstances in which he envisages extending the regulation of charges to unlicensed premises and attributes of this kind
  "… approach roads, apparatus, equipment, buildings and other accommodation …"
  I believe that it will be very much better to leave out the brackets and the words they enclose, and keep in the Bill what could otherwise be quite a useful subsection.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Member said that this was a probing operation. Having carried it out, I hope that he will feel reasonably satisfied. It is simply a matter of his not fully understanding the burden of the words in the brackets. The words are necessary because buildings and other facilities provided by a local authority could be on a Government aerodrome—an aerodrome owned by the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Technology, for instance—which was not licensed. It is clearly desirable that this provision should exist, and it would be damaging to the overall effectiveness of the Bill, certainly in this respect, if the words were removed.
  I hope that the hon. Member will accept that, because for that clear reason I am bound to ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that explanation. It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not have in mind applying it to aerodromes not owned by such bodies as the Armed Forces of the Crown or the Minister of Technology; it is not intended to apply to private airstrips which are not licensed. That is what I had in mind. If the Minister can assure the House that that is what he has in mind I shall be satisfied.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I can give that assurance.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

  FUNCTIONS OF BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY AS RESPECTS ABANDONED VEHICLES
  Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 37, at end insert:
  Provided that the British Airports Authority shall not dispose of any vehicle until they have taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the name of the owner, whether he has left the United Kingdom in an aircraft operating out of the aerodrome concerned and if that be the case whether there is any reason to believe that he has died or been unavoidably prevented both from returning to the United Kingdom and from communicating with the British Airports Authority in regard to the disposal of the said vehicle
  This is self-explanatory and it may also come into the probing category. The Minister will by now know that in Committee it was argued that if somebody had been unavoidably detained abroad, or had died or been killed while travelling abroad, leaving his car behind at a British Airports Authority airport— possibly in a multi-storey car park— there was a duty imposed upon the Authority to make sure precisely in what circumstances the vehicle had come to be apparently abandoned on its property, and to make the necessary searches to establish the ownership and to enable the owner's representatives or heirs to reclaim possession before putting it up for sale.
  The Minister may say that the words
  "subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as appear to him necessary".
  will cover the point. If so, I do not wish to press the Amendment. But it is important to draw a distinction between the situation, which is covered by legislation, in which old motor cars are abandoned in the countryside or in the streets and the situation—which is much more likely to arise with the British Airports Authority—in which quite valuable motor cars are lodged in its care and parked under arrangements provided at aiports and when, for some reason, they are not reclaimed within a certain period.
  It is not necessary to cite the case of the aircraft which was detained overseas for a considerable period, the pilots— although they had committed no offence —being incarcerated for a considerable time before being able to get back to this country. If those pilots had found
  1896
  that in addition to the restraints to which they had been subjected they had suffered the indignity of having their motor cars sold it would not be a happy state of affairs.
  I hope that the Minister can assure us that the purpose of the Amendment is covered by the Clause, or will tell us that he can accept the Amendment.
  2.15 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: The Clause deals with abandoned vehicles. It is interesting to note that in Committee the Minister's predecessor said:
  "I fully agree with the points about abandonment of cars through no fault of the owners—when it is not genuine abandonment. I cannot define 'abandoment' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 13th June, 1968; c. 198.]
  This underlines the tremendous care that must be taken before assuming that any car left on an aerodrome has been abandoned.
  I hope that the Minister will take that remark of his hon. Friend very much to heart. There is always considerable pressure on an aerodrome to get cars moving and to make sure that they are not left too long, but it is essential that every step should be taken to ensure that a car is abandoned, and has been left for a considerable time, and also that every effort should be made to discover the whereabouts of the owner and whether he is in this country or has been detained abroad on business, or through an accident, or has even died abroad.
  I ask the Minister to consider this point carefully. My hon. Friend and I will be happy if the Minister can assure us that every precaution will be taken to make sure, before any car is taken away or disposed of, that the owner has left it at the airport with no intention of reclaiming it.
  Mr. Holland: I should like to have a specific definition of an abandoned car. Is it abandoned after a specific period? It must be remembered that we are responsible only for framing the law; we do not have to interpret it. We must therefore find wording so conclusive that its interpretation is exactly what we intend.
  Is a car said to be abandoned after it has remained in the car park for a

  1897
  specific period, or is it after so many attempts have been made, without success, to persuade the owner to remove it, or after so many attempts have been made to find the owner, whose identity may not be known? I do not know where we begin or end, or whether we are to take a combination of all three possibilities. Whatever power we intend to give to an airport authority we must carefully define the circumstances under which that power shall be used.
  Unless we do this the Clause might be interpreted in a way that we would not wish it to be interpreted. If we cannot have a legal definition of the term "abandon" in this context, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. This, at least, makes an attempt to restrict the activity of the airport authority in this respect.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We went into this matter fairly thoroughly in Committee. One point that was raised concerned the position of executors. A car may not have been moved because the person who deposited the car in the airport garage has been killed in an aircraft accident, or has died abroad. It is possible that his executors; will not have been able to discover the whereabouts of the car. There does not seem to be any duty laid upon an airport authority to contact executors.
  This point was drawn forcibly to the attention of the then Minister of State, who responded by saying:
  "The executor point is one that I had not thought of. I will certainly look at that. Something, clearly, will have to be done on that point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 13th June, 1968; c. 198.]
  What I want to ask his successor is, what has been done? There is no Government Amendment to cover the point, so in what way is that undertaking to be honoured? We are entitled to insist on this, because debate is always curtailed and Amendments withdrawn when the Minister in charge of a Bill gives a specific commitment to do something later.
  What do the Government propose to do? In our usual helpful way, we have tabled Amendment No. 12, which largely covers this point. The Minister has, in honour, only one of two alternatives—to accept our Amendment, or to offer one of his own. He has not offered one of his own, unless there has been a manuscript Amendment handed in in the last few
  1898
  minutes—which I doubt—so we must call on him to honour his predecessor's cheque.
  Two weeks ago, at the beginning of the Committee stage, we drew to his attention the fact that his predecessor had given 23 commitments, which were recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He has now had plenty of time to read through them, to find out what they were and to honour them. In the absence of any Government Amendment on this commitment, the least he can do is welcome our Amendment and advise the House to accept it.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I welcome this further airing of a proper problem, although it is possible to argue that, while the circumstances of cars parked at airports are in some respects peculiar, one cannot exclude the possibility of someone parking a car elsewhere, then flying to Majorca and staying for three weeks instead of two. Therefore, even if it were decided to amend the Bill, the man who left his Jaguar at London Airport and then flew out might be provided for, whereas the man who left his Jaguar elsewhere, under the Civic Amenities Act of 1966, would not be provided for.
  Although I recognise that there is a point here which must properly be considered, one cannot say that it is exclusively a problem of cars left at airports. Equally, under legislation of this kind, it is conceivable that someone who left his car on the street might fall sick, be incarcerated somewhere and might suffer a similar fate, if a fate is to be suffered at all—
  Mr. Burden: The point is that, if that happened in this country, it would be much easier to establish whether a man was in hospital or had been killed in an accident than if it happened abroad. This is where care is necessary.
  Mr. Rodgers: We are on the same wavelength. My point was that it is possible to park a car and fly in an aircraft without having parked the car at an airport—and someone who had done so would be in the same condition.
  I am saying two things which appear to be contradictory but which must be considered. First, it is more likely in the case of an airport that this may

  1899
  arise and I am therefore grateful to hon. Gentlemen for having drawn attention to it. On the other hand, if we are to be logical, we must recognise that the same circumstances could prevail with a car parked outside an airport, in which case the present provisions of the Civic Amenities Act would apply—
  Mr. Holland: What we are discussing is disposal of the vehicle by the Airports Authority, which would not be concerned with vehicles parked outside but only with vehicles parked on its property.
  Mr. Rodgers: I take the point, but the argument is that there are special circumstances about flight and people travelling abroad which therefore apply to cars which may or may not have been abandoned. I am saying that those special circumstances could apply to the person who has gone abroad but not left his car at the airport.
  Therefore, I would argue that it is not right to amend the Bill and that it is much better that its provisions should remain in line with the Civic Amenities Act. I wholly understand that there is a special point here. I have been considering how best I could meet the wishes of the House, bearing in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). What I propose to do is this. As the House knows, Regulations in this respect are made by the Minister of Transport. I intend to write to my right hon. Friend, who will be drafting the Regulations, drawing his attention to these discussions and those in Committee, and to say that I am sure that he will bear in mind the points which have been made.
  Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the Minister of State is doing his best, but there is a real difference between the powers conferred on the Airports Authority and the powers which may or may not apply where a motor car is abandoned, or appears to be abandoned, somewhere else. In the fortnight which has elapsed since we began this Report stage, my recollection of the Civic Amenities Act may have suffered, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me. I seem to recall that the Act does not give local authorities power to enter a private garage, that is a com-
  1900
  mercial garage, and remove someone's car because the proprietor complains that it has been there a long time.
  If one goes abroad in an aeroplane and does not leave one's motor car in a garage which is part of the aerodrome, the probability is that one leaves it at a commercial garage. If it is left in the street, of course, one must "lump it", whether or not one falls out of the aeroplane. But most people leave their cars in a commercial garage or car park. I understand that if that garage is privately-owned, the Civic Amenities Act does not entitle the local authority to remove the car.
  We are dealing with the situation when a car is left on the property of the Airports Authority. After all, one function of its car parks is to enable people using aeroplanes to leave their cars there. This provision puts them in a special position to dispose of cars which may have been there for a long time, when the logical thing is that the special position should be in favour of the car owner rather than the garage owner.
  With respect to the Minister, to say that he is grateful to us for having drawn this to his attention is not enough. The attention was drawn by my hon. Friends, who were remarkably assiduous in Committee, and the Minister has had more than enough time to consider this and ensure that the pledge given by his predecessor is fulfilled. It is not good enough to say that attention has been drawn to it, without giving reasons why the words of his predecessor, who clearly said that something needed to be done, are no longer applicable.
  2.30 p.m.
  This is not the way to treat the House. This is one of the reasons why, on the second day of the Report stage of this relatively small Bill, we are still here at half-past two and will probably still be here at four o'clock. It does not help when the Minister—I do not blame him—is not provided with a sensible brief. We are just as anxious as he is to get to our constituencies, but we will not let this sort of thing go through.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has lost his spirit of sweet reasonableness. I want to make it clear that if there is any fault, which I do not acknowledge, it lies with me and

  1901
  not with anybody else. I know that the hon. Member, with his great sense of responsibility and Ministerial experience, does not seek to blame others who cannot be held to be responsible.
  I thought that I had been fairminded. We have considered this matter fully and I acknowledge that there is an important point. I hoped that I was speeding the Bill forward in its improved form and taking note of all that had been said when I offered to write to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. If the House does not wish me to do that, I shall be glad to be saved the trouble, although it is within my proper responsibilities, even if the hon. Gentleman does not find it satisfactory, to do so.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 26, at end insert:
  (4) The British Airports Authority shall include in their Annual Report a statement indicating the number of occasions on which a note as to the circumstances in which they have availed themselves of the powers accorded to them by any Order made by the Minister under this section.
  This Amendment is self-explanatory and its purpose obvious. When the British Airports Authority gets powers by courtesy of the Ministry of Transport and with the advice of the President of the Board of Trade, it should be obliged to account to Parliament for their use. It is a matter of general interest that Parliament should have knowledge of the effects of legislation which it passes. If motor cars are deemed to have been abandoned and are disposed of by sale by the Airports Authority under the Clause, the House should know and should be in a position to judge whether the legislation is effective.
  The obvious method for a report on the use of these powers to be rendered annually to Parliament would seem to me to be by inclusion in the annual report of the British Airports Authority. I hope that we can persuade the Minister of this.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Alas, I am not persuaded. As, I think, the hon. Member knows, if it was considered essential to have this information the Board of Trade already has power to direct the Authority to provide it in its annual report. Whether at some stage we might
  1902
  choose to give such a direction is not for me at present to say.
  Again, we must have a sense of proportion. I do not minimise the importance of the issue when I say that, at the moment, I do not think that such a direction need be given. Obviously, however, if circumsances prove otherwise, as we have power we can certainly exercise it. I am sure that the hon. Member and the House as a whole will remind us if we fall short.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN AERODROMES
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 4, after '1965', insert:
  'or which have subsequently been transferred'.
  This is to some extent a probing Amendment. I fail to understand why airports which may in future be transferred to the British Airports Authority should be treated differently in this respect from those that were transferred to the Authority under the 1965 Act. Section 4 of that Act deals with the capital structure of the Authority, and any assets which are handed over to it are regarded as a capital debt. That is the way in which the four aerodromes which were handed over to the Authority by the Act—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and, I think, Prestwick, although I am not sure whether that is the complete list—were dealt with.
  The British Airports Authority was thereafter given borrowing powers to raise money for capital improvements at any of those four aerodomes. If it should happen that another aerodrome is transferred to the Authority—I do not pretend to have any foresight, but let us suppose hypothetically that Luton was selected as the third London Airport and was put under the British Airports Authority—why should not the Authority be left to raise any capital sums which it requires in exactly the same way as it will, presumably, have to raise it to put down, say, a second runway at Gatwick or whatever other improvements it has in mind to its existing airports?

  1903
  Under the Clause, we seem to have the situation that there is not much difference concerning loans, because in the one case the Authority has borrowing powers and in the Bill there are powers to make a loan for aerodromes which may be transferred later. In the case of grant, it seems peculiar that if, in future, other aerodromes are handed over to the Authority, they will continue to be eligible for grant under Clause 11 but none of the other aerodromes will be.
  As I understand it, if a fifth aerodrome is transferred to the Authority, legislation would be required. I do not think that there is any provision in the 1965 Act by which the four aerodromes which were transferred can be added to by order. Irrespective of that, there is bound to be some form of Statutory Instrument.
  In future, if other aerodromes are to be added, as undoubtedly they will be, it will almost certainly be necessary to legislate and probably to provide a new financial structure for the Authority if its liabilities increase. With these considerations in mind, I cannot see much point in subsection (2). I cannot follow the reason for the exclusion of airports which may in future be transferred to the British Airports Authority.
  Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member has said, this is a probing Amendment. The point turns on the fact that it is not necessary to legislate to transfer other airports to the Airports Authority. That being the case, whereas under the 1965 Act the Authority is disqualified from receiving grants or loans in respect of the existing airports, it seems to us reasonable to make sure in the Bill that it should be possible for airports transferred under the existing legislation to benefit from such grants and loans. This is a reasonable provision, although I fully understand why the hon. Member felt that he had to probe it.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 13

  DETENTION AND SALE OF AIRCRAFT FOR UNPAID AIRPORT CHARGES
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 22,
  1904
  leave out 'twenty-eight' and insert 'fifty-six'.
  The purpose of the Amendment is clear. It is designed to ensure that there is plenty of time between the impounding of aircraft and any question of sale. Twenty-eight days does not seem to us to be enough. I know that that is the sort of period which is specified in many Acts of Parliament, and one could argue till the cows come home whether it should be 21, 28 or 56 days. There can be no hard and fast right or wrong.
  Nevertheless, 28 days seems to us to be dangerously short, for a number of reasons. The chief reason is that I am not happy, nor are many people in the air transport world, that we have yet completely got the mechanism for ensuring that all possible rights in aircraft are registered and can be checked at any time and at short notice.
  If one is to exercise the power of sale, whether of land under a straightforward mortgage, or under a chattel mortgage such as that with which we are dealing, it is essential that one knows what prior interests there are in the chattel or land. This is tightly tied up in connection with land under the Land Registration Act. But we are here dealing with an entirely new provision and we must ensure that we have it right.
  I had tabled an Amendment to draw attention to the necessity of a claim being registered before it could be recovered and have priority over any of the debts in respect of which an aircraft might be sold, but that Amendment was not selected. Until we are absolutely certain that it is possible to ensure, at short notice, that all possible interests in the aeroplane are known before the question of its sale arises, we should extend the time. Aeroplanes are curious machines from the point of view of the number of interests that can exist—what with wet and dry leases, chattel mortgages and so on—and it is vital that we get this matter clear.
  Mr. Burden: I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment in view of the drastic action which is represented by this power to sell an aircraft in default of the payment of airport charges. This could involve the sale of an aircraft costing £2 million to £3 million for the default of airport charges worth, perhaps, several hundreds of £s or a few thousand.

  1905
  It is essential that, before any such action is taken, every effort is made to ensure that those who might have a claim on the aircraft, such as the lessors or mortgagors, have an opportunity of intervening. Extending the time scale from 28 days to 56 days would not cause undue hardship to an aerodrome authority, but it would ensure that no injustice was done to those who might have a vital interest in the aircraft.
  When the Minister considers this proposal I urge him to remember that, to ascertain the rights of people or companies in aircraft, it might be desirable to establish a register of British aircraft which would indicate whether any rights of ownership or proprietary rights existed.
  Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) pointed out, there is no hard and fast right or wrong in this matter. The question is to find the right number of days to serve the purpose we have in mind. On the clear understanding that no precedent is being set, and in a spirit of good will, I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  2.45 p.m.
  Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment 20, in line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
  Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the following Amendment-No. 21, in line 33, leave out from 'authority' to 'sufficient' in line 34—at the same time?
  Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.
  Mr. Onslow: Encouraged by the Minister's acceptance of the last Amendment, I move this one recalling that the point in question was argued at considerable length in Committee. It appears that, as drafted, the provision means that a man who wishes to recover an aircraft detained by an aerodrome authority must satisfy the two conditions set out in the Clause. They are, first, that he must
  "… dispute that the charges, or any of them, are due …"
  and, secondly, he must give
  "… to the authority, pending the determination of the dispute, sufficient security for the payment of the charges which are alleged to be due."
  1906
  I find it difficult to understand why these two conditions should be in the provision. I can envisage circumstances arising in which a man might find it impossible to satisfy one of them; somebody with an interest or claiming an interest in an aircraft might not be able to say to the aerodrome authority, "I dispute that the charges are due" because he might have no knowledge of the background to the charges. Indeed, he might not be interested in disputing the charges, accepting that they are due, since they may have been incurred by somebody else.
  It appears that, as drafted, the provision means that dispute is essential before deposit can be made. If this is not so, I fail to understand why the Clause is worded in this way. I also fail to see— anticipating the Minister's reply—why this series of Amendments would weaken the provision, since this part of the Clause would read, if my proposal were accepted:
  "An aerodrome authority shall not detain, or continue to detain, an aircraft under this section by reason of any alleged default in the payment of airport charges if the operator of the aircraft or any other person claiming an interest therein … gives to the authority … sufficient security for the payment of the charges which are alleged to be due."
  This is a crystally clear situation and does not involve the question of whether or not any charges are disputed. The charges can then be recovered. The words which I propose to leave out are an unnecessary barrier, remembering that people with interests in aircraft may not have been involved in the non-payment of charges which have been incurred, and not paid, by those responsible for their payment. I hope that, precedent or not, the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, this matter was fully discussed in Committee. I assure him that I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee discussion fully before approaching the subject today.
  As is fully understood, the Amendment would expressly prevent an aerodrome authority from taking action, even in cases where there was no dispute about the charges. The Bill, as drafted, appears to me to be adequate for any possible circumstances which one can envisage arising. The hon. Gentleman said that

  1907
  there should not be an unnecessary barrier. There is no such barrier. He said that dispute was essential before deposit may be made, but that is not the case.
  There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an owner or interested party from making a voluntary arrangement with the aerodrome authority for the release of an aircraft by the deposit of security, if the aerodrome authority is agreeable. We must have some sense of proportion in this matter or we will run into a situation of bureaucracy which I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not find acceptable. The aerodrome authority concerned will wish to get its charges. It will have no wish to detain aircraft unnecessarily. I believe that, in practice, agreement will be reached in any foreseeable circumstances. I must, therefore, resist the Amendment.
  Mr. Burden: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he can clarify one point. It might, in some circumstances, be desirable, without there being a dispute, to get a bond from, say, a small company which flies in and out of London Airport, in case there might be a default. In other words, cash on account. Would this provision stop such action being taken?
  Mr. Rodgers: I see no reason why any voluntary arrangement should not be reached. I am new to this subject and the hon. Gentleman is well experienced in it, but I assume that the great majority of those who own and operate aircraft are as responsible as anyone else and that reasonable men will get together and reach reasonable solutions.
  Mr. Corfield: That is not sufficient answer. We should be reasonable in this House in the first place. We have the curious situation that, in order to have the right to say to an aerodrome authority which is detaining one's aircraft, "You must release it", one not only has to put down adequate security but must dispute the charges.
  There can be a multitude of interests and rights in aircraft. Subsection (2) says:
  "An aerodrome authority shall not detain … an aircraft … if the operator of the aircraft or any other person claiming an interest therein …".
  1908
  Surely the hon. Gentleman can visualise the situation in which a person operating the aircraft under charter or some kind of lease owes money to the aerodrome authority in respect of landing charges. The aircraft is impounded. But then someone with some other interest in the aircraft decides that he wants to release it and he puts down a security. He may have no knowledge of the dealings between the charterer, the lessee and the aerodrome authority or of the grounds of the claim. Equally, when he goes to the aerodrome authority—and I agree that we would not expect it to be unreasonable—it might reasonably say, "What proof have we of your claim?" One could, therefore, have a long negotiation because the authority might reasonably say that it should not part with the aircraft on the basis of security given by the claimant until it is sure not merely that he has an interest but that it overrides the interests of the persons from whom the charges are due.
  This is an important point and it is no answer to say that we are relying on people behaving reasonably unless we show that we are behaving reasonably. The word "and" here is patently unreasonable. No case has been made out for making it obligatory, when enforcing a right against the aerodrome authority to release one's aircraft, that one should both dispute the charges and give reasonable security. We should be concerned with the rights of the individual as well as with the powers of the aerodrome authorities.
  The Minister of State is making the wrong approach and the word "and" has in no way been justified. If we must have paragraph (a), the word "or" should be substituted for "and". It is astonishing that the word "and" should still be retained after all the arguments put against it. I am not often conceited about my own arguments but the hon. Gentleman has not punched one single hole through them. Until he is able to, we cannot be happy with the situation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 15 after 'shall', insert:
  "be paid into court and provided the court is satisfied as to the accuracy of each of the amounts claimed shall'.

  1909
  The proceeds of a sale are to be paid out in the order set out in subsection (5). There are two objections to leaving this entirely to the selling authority, which is the aerodrome authority, and not to the courts. First, the aerodrome authority will probably have no means of judging the accurancy of the claim under the various headings of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (5). Secondly, it will certainly have no means of judging the priority of other interests. This is a matter very much for the courts.
  Since the aerodrome authority has to take the matter to the court before a sale can take place, it would be better if the purchase money were paid into the court. By all means let us have a directive in the Bill as to the order in which claims are to be met. But it is asking too much of the aerodrome authority to make it responsible for checking the amounts of the claims and their validity.
  This is not only putting an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the aerodrome authority. It is putting in the hands of a body which is not constituted for this purpose powers which could well have a very drastic and unjust effect on individuals with claims which perhaps should have been considered as priority or which have unjustifiably been cut down in amount by an authority not qualified to judge.
  Mr. Rodgers: I have looked at this. It is an awkward legal point but, after the full discussion in Standing Committee, which I have read, I am not satisfied that any change is required, bearing in mind all the factors involved and having consulted the judicial authorities.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not happy about this. This is properly a judicial function. We went into it at considerable length in Committee. It is not really for an aerodrome authority to determine priorities of this kind. It is established as an administrative unit and not as a judicial unit, and just to brush the matter off as something he has looked at does not get rid of the fact for the hon. Gentleman that this is a judicial rather than an administrative function. One wonders in what light he looked at it if he decided that it was an administrative rather than a judicial function. But
  1910
  this is typical of the rather superficial manner in which many points of principle put during the passage of the Bill have been brushed under the carpet.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 29, at end insert:
  (e) in payment of any other airport charges incurred at any other aerodrome in the United Kingdom in respect either of that aircraft or of any other aircraft of which the person in default is the operator and which the court, upon the application of the owner or manager of such other aerodrome, finds to be due.
  This is a small Amendment which covers a point which has not been previously discussed. Under subsection (5) of the Clause, certain priorities are laid down for disposing of the proceeds of a forced sale of an aircraft. One of the parties who has been omitted from the list—I suspect inadvertently—is the aerodrome authority other than the detaining authority where charges in respect of aircraft seized and detained may nevertheless be due.
  The Minister will probably readily take the point that, if it is right to seize and sell an aircraft at one airfield in respect of charges which have not been paid by the operator of that aircraft, there should be some means of safeguarding the position of other airport authorities which may suddenly be in the position of having no possibility of claiming money due as a result of the enforced sale although they may be owed more than the authority which has carried out the sale and recouped its losses.
  If the Minister concedes this point, it will be of some value in improving the Clause, although I admit that we have a long-stop operation because our Amendments may go back to the other House which may take another view if the Minister is not feeling very forthcoming over this matter.
  3.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Rodgers: This is a new point, but I am surprised that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who, with his colleagues, has been very concerned about the whole framework of the Clause, is anxious to extend the powers in it in such a wide way. The effect of the Amendment would be to give persons with no connection with the actual

  1911
  charges on the aircraft priority over other creditors. Even if the Amendment were not defective in its drafting, I would have to ask the House to reject it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Burden: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 11, line 34, after "extends", insert
  "(in so far as its sale is reasonably necessary either to cover the payments set out in the preceding subsection or to secure the best price that can reasonably be obtained in accordance with subsection (4) of this section) ".
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 26, in line 40, at end to insert:
  "but such equipment and stores shall be detained and sold only if the saleable value of the aircraft is likely to be less than the sum for which the operator is in default and if the removal of such equipment would affect the immediate operational efficiency of the impounded aircraft".
  Mr. Burden: Subsection (6) of this Clause extends power of detention and sale in respect of an aircraft to
  "any stores for use in connection with its operation (being equipment and stores carried in the aircraft) whether or not the property of the person who is its operator, and references to the aircraft in subsections (2) to (5) of this section include, except where the context otherwise requires, references to any such equipment and stores."
  The intention of these two Amendments is to ensure that the equipment and stores of the aircraft are necessary to ensure that sufficient money is available to cover the airport charges for which the aircraft is under disposal. When one takes into consideration the cost of most modern aircraft, there is no doubt that there would be available in the aircraft as it stands sufficient money to pay all reasonable charges. I am told that the usual accounting system of the airport authority ensures that payments of landing charges are made 30 days after they are incurred. In the disposal of an aircraft for payment of charges, very considerable sums are involved. There should be no powers given in the Bill which would enable moneys to be raised considerably in excess of the amount required for outstanding charges.
  If an aircraft carries equipment and stores and by disposal of them the amount is merely increased and eventu-
  1912
  ally part of it has to be handed back to the owners of the aircraft, this seems a stupid thing to do. The subsection says:
  "whether or not the property of the person who is its operator."
  It is provided that the authority may dispose, not only of the aircraft which is under the control of the operator, but of stores which may not be owned by the operator. This is a departure from English law which should be seriously considered.
  It is analogous to the Minister buying a car from a friend and some time later taking it into the garage at which his friend had previously garaged the car, his friend being in default of garage fees. The car is then taken over by the garage owner and disposed of. In addition, in the back of the car there is a mink coat—I am sure that any friends of the hon. Gentleman would have a nice mink coat—and this, too, is disposed of to settle the costs of the garaging which have not been paid. This is utterly wrong and Amendment No. 25 is intended to deal with it.
  It may be argued that there are certain equipment and stores aboard the aircraft which, if removed, would reduce its saleable value. It might be argued that the removal of an engine which was still on charge to one of the big engine manufacturers would immobilise the aircraft and considerably impair its sale-ability. It may be that this is why the Clause is so drafted.
  If this is so, the Minister might like to give consideration to accepting Amendment No. 26. I believe that the terms of this Amendment are reasonable. I hope that the Minister will give it his serious consideration, as it would remove from the Clause the very objectionable feature that the Bill confers the right to dispose of property belonging to someone other than the owner or operator of the aircraft to raise the wind to pay the airport authority. If there could be some moderation of this by tying it down in the way I have suggested, it would go a long way.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I have given these Amendments very serious consideration. I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has in mind. The procedure is

  1913
  already very complicated. When I referred earlier to common sense and reasonableness, it was suggested that these characteristics were not to be found in the world of business, but I refuse to believe it. Even were it not for this consideration, alas, the Amendments are defective and would not improve the Bill even if there were virtue in their content.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are cursory and abrupt. The House is entitled to a little more information as to why something cannot be done. The Bill will confer the right for an airport authority to sell something which does not belong to those who are in default.
  Mr. Corfield: I must press the Minister about this. It is easy enough to say that in any case our Amendments are not drafted well enough to go into the Bill. Why not? We have not been told. In all other branches of the law we take care not to give to people with liens, chattel mortgages or other rights in property power to sell more than is necessary to cover the account. It is not good enough simply to say that all this must be left to people's reasonableness. I have not for a moment suggested that people will not be reasonable in business, but it is for the House of Commons, and the Government in particular, to set an example when preparing Bills.
  It is not reasonable to give power to sell an aircraft and at the same time to sell whatever may be inside it, whether that be necessary to meet the account or not. It is not helping matters for the Minister to keep saying that he has given this or that matter consideration. He cannot have slept for weeks, judging by the amount of consideration which he tells us he has given to these questions. We have had no explanation of the reason why he has decided that he cannot accept the Amendment, either from a drafting point of view or from the legal point of view.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

  CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SUPERSONIC FLIGHT
  Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment 29, in page 17, line 14, leave out 'exceeding the speed of sound' and insert:
  'in excess of Flight Mach 1'.
  Mr. Speaker: We shall debate at the same time Amendment 28, in page 17, line 13, leave out from 'aircraft' to end of line 15 and insert:
  'in the airspace of the United Kingdom at speeds in excess of Flight Mach ·98 '.
  Mr. Rodgers: This Amendment deals with a matter which was much discussed in Committee. I found the debate most interesting in a field of which I had previously very limited experience. In the hope of meeting the wishes of the House, I have proposed Amendment 29. In Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made three points: first, that the reference to the speed of sound was not sufficiently definite as it did not make clear that the reference was to the speed of sound in the ambient conditions; second, that speed should be defined in terms of Mach numbers; third, that power should be taken to regulate speeds just below supersonic speeds.
  On the first point, the present drafting was adopted because it was considered to be sufficient for providing the vires, though it was always realised that it would be necessary to go into more precise detail in drafting Orders in Council. However—here I respond to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield)—there is no harm in being more precise, and for this reason I am happy to commend the Amendment to the House.
  I have considered the other points made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and have much sympathy with what I take to be the spirit of the Amendment standing in his name and those of his hon. Friends, to insert a reference to air space. However, having looked at it, and in the absence of further explanation at this stage, as there is no legal definition of air space, I feel that we meet the substance of his Amendment by our

  1915
  Amendment, whereas I should have to resist his.
  3.15 p.m.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Amendment covers some of the ground which I desire to see covered, but it does not cover nearly enough. The Minister has been quite persistent on one point without giving any explanation.
  This is an enabling Clause which enables the Minister to make regulations, not a mandatory Clause. By having as the lower limit Mach 1 he is tying his hands so that he cannot make regulations which will prevent aircraft inadvertently going through Mach 1. Hon. Members who have had the experience of complaining to Service Ministers about military aircraft exceeding Mach 1 and producing sonic boom, will know that more often than not the reply to that the pilot has done so accidentally in the course of avoiding action or a manoeuvre of some kind. He has accidentally gone through Mach 1 although he was intending to fly below it. That is why I pressed strongly in Committee that enabling powers should be taken at a lower limit, just below the speed of sound. I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will take this point.
  If the only enabling powers that the Minister takes have a lower limit of Flight Mach 1, in many cases that will be inadequate to deal with the situation we want to prevent, which is aircraft exceeding the speed of sound and producing serious sonic boom conditions over inhabited land masses. If the Minister would accept an Amendment to make it Mach 098 he would then have power to lay effective regulations, which he will not have if he sticks to Mach 1 for no good reasons. He does not gain anything by sticking to Mach 1. He is being obstinate, and there is no technical reason for sticking to Mach 1.
  The words used in the Bill are "over the United Kingdom". Clause 18(1) refers to:
  "… regulating or prohibiting the flight of aircraft over the United Kingdom at speeds exceeding the speed of sound".
  These are the words which the Minister proposes to amend, while still leaving the words "over the United Kingdom". This means, as I read it, that aircraft
  1916
  can fly supersonically a quarter of a mile off the coast, which is not "over the United Kingdom", and the Minister will be powerless by this Clause to make regulations controlling that.
  For Heaven's sake, if we are to have an enabling Act, we certainly need to control matters of this kind, let us make the enabling Act as wide as possible so that the Minister in making regulations can draw them as widely as is necessary to meet aspects of a problem which even he with his vast technical knowledge may not anticipate at this moment.
  Mr. Holland: Would my hon. Friend probe a little further and inquire whether "the United Kingdom" includes territorial waters which would cover a 12-mile limit?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes indeed, but the shape of the debate during the last three-quarters of an hour has been that the Minister does not attempt to answer points which have been brought up in debate.
  Mr. Rodgers: Yes.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister says yes. That is a good start. Perhaps on the remaining Amendments we will have a proper answer instead of being told that there is an unspecified drafting defect and leaving it at that. I certainly am not prepared to leave it at that.
  The matter was raised in Committee, and the Minister has had plenty of time to deal with it and to specify why he is tying his hands quite needlessly. As the Minister quite possibly is not aware, the speed of sound depends upon a number of conditions which are not under the control of the pilot of the aircraft. Ambient temperature is one of them. Although the pilot can very often but not invariably control the altitude at which the aircraft is flying, he cannot control the ambient temperature. As the Minister will now know if he has read the Official Report of the Committee Stage, the speed of sound under international standard atmosphere conditions, but only under those conditions, is 760 knots at sea level and 660 knots at the beginning of the tropopause. In other words, it is a varying speed. It is not the case that a pilot can accurately predict what temperature strata he will run into in the course of flying along a given flight path. It is

  1917
  because of that that a pilot can quite unintentionally exceed Mach 1 when he does not mean to and is not allowed to. The only way effectively of preventing it from happening is to start regulating the conditions under which pilots are flying at a speed below that which they must not attain. I would have thought that that followed as night follows day.
  That is why anyone who is interested in preventing civil aircraft flying super-sonically over inhabited land masses has a vested interest in seeing that the Minister gives himself adequate powers in the Bill, because there will not be another for a long time and, at the end of Report on this Amendment, this is the last occasion when he will have the opportunity to do so. When supersonic aircraft are in service, it will be too late for him to wish that he could take powers under the Act which he has deliberately denied himself, when the technical case has been explained at length in Committee and his predecessor showed a very receptive attitude towards it.
  There is nothing in the Amendment which forces the Minister to make recommendations which he does not want to make. It is purely enabling. If the Minister wished in another place to add a definition of "United Kingdom air space", may I remind him that it is generally accepted internationally that a county's air space is a theoretical column extending not only over its land frontiers but also over its territorial waters. This has been established for many years. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office, he will learn that complaints about the infringement of air space very often come when no land has been crossed but when foreign aircraft intrude into that portion of the air space which is inside the exterior limits of its territorial waters.
  By adopting the form of words that he has, he has restricted his power to aircraft which are flying physically over the United Kingdom. If, for example, they are flying up the Bristol Channel—
  Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has not got a point here. I answered yes to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland).
  1918
  I was seeking simply to help him. He made a fair point. I have considered it fully. But I have given a straightforward answer that the provisions of the 1949 Act deal wholly with the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is seeking to make in his Amendment.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unfortunately, the drafting which the Minister has adopted is not very helpful in that respect. But where he says "over the United Kingdom", he has not made it clear that those words include the United Kingdom air space outside the column of air space going vertically above the land masses.
  Mr. William Rodgers: It does.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It may be that there is a general definition in the 1949 Act which includes United Kingdom territorial waters external to the United Kingdom. That is possible, but it was not an explanation offered by his hon. Friend in Committee. If by any chance the 1949 Act covers that point, well and good, but certainly it does not cover the point about Mach ·98.
  I think that we can predict with reasonable accuracy, as it is logical to assume that the Minister is getting advice from the same quarter as his predecessor did, that when the debate on this subject is concluded—and I trust that he will not intervene before it is—he will say that he is advised—and, not being technically informed himself, he will not know whether it is good advice—that sonic boom is not produced until an aircraft is flying considerably in excess of an indicated Mach I, which is what his hon. Friend said previously. It will be just as irrelevant and significantly untrue as when his hon. Friend said it.
  Unfortunately, although it may be a defence to the Minister constitutionally to take bad advice, it does not make good law. His predecessor was good enough to invite me to discuss this with those who were advising him technically, although the present Minister thought that that was unnecessary. I can only assume therefore, that he has looked further afield for advice than did his predecessor, and, as a result, he has been able to have an independent check on the advice which

  1919
  was previously available to his predecessor. I should like to believe that was true, but I very much doubt that it is.
  So we come back to the situation in which, as drafted, what is now Clause 18 does not succeed in doing what every hon. Member seeks to do. The Minister has added a titbit. He has defined the speed of sound in a Mach number, the necessity for this having been explained at considerable length in Committee, but he has still stuck to Mach I and will not come down to Mach ·98. I end as I began by saying that if he accepts the starting point of Mach ·98, that will not force him to use that in his regulations. He will lose absolutely nothing. He does not believe me, but I am telling him that if he limits himself to a starting point of Mach I, he or his successors will regret not having the power which they will need, and many people who already suffer severe discomfort from aircraft noise will look back longingly to the days when it was only aircraft noise which distressed them and before they started getting pressure waves of the magnitude of up to 2 lbs. per square inch, as is possible, although the Minister has not experienced it, with supersonic flight by heavy aircraft, particularly when they are undertaking some fairly violent manoeuvre. I beg him to take the opportunity of listening to the points of view of other hon. Members and at the very least to say that there is a considerable doubt and that he will legislate for the benefit of that doubt at Mach 98 rather than Mach I.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: We are all anxious that the Government should get the Bill, including its Third Reading, this afternoon and, as is my normal custom, I shall intervene for only two minutes. I have intervened only once before today and that for only two minutes, and I shall do the same again. It is necessary for me to intervene because of what the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has been saying. The hon. Member was arguing that we have the bread and even that we recognise that there is a little jam, but that we do not like the colour of the jam. I am sorry
  1920
  that the general atmosphere of peace and harmony which prevailed when I was here earlier seems to have broken down and I am anxious to bring my beneficent presence to bear in order to bring us back to where we were.
  It is the manner in which the Minister interprets the regulations which he will issue under the Clause which will decide whether the fears of the hon. Member for Tiverton are justified. For my part, I am prepared to give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.
  3.30 p.m.
  What I think the Minister will do will be to issue regulations laying down the circumstances in which such flights may be undertaken, and if the regulations say that only in these circumstances may the speed of sound—to use the common usage—be exceeded, it seems to me that the object of the exercise is achieved. In the strictly technical sense, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I do not see why my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, but I may have given the explanation. It would be difficult to cast regulations saying, "Not only can you not exceed the speed of sound but you cannot nearly exceed the speed of sound". That being so, I think that my hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
  I pestered my hon. Friend's predecessor, a pestering which he met with very great courtesy, and finished up by accepting the point of the pestering by himself introducing an Amendment in Committee. That is something on which he is to be congratulated. We now have a Clause which, if the Minister wishes to lay regulations, may be of great benefit to us all. We shall need that benefit because, with the arrival of Concorde—and the Ministry has already paid out £150 in one case for damage to hearing—supersonic flying constitutes a very real threat to the community. It is essential that the Minister should exercise his right under the Bill and that the regulations should be firm, just and adequate to protect people from the consequences of supersonic flying.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

  POWER OF BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, B.E.A. AND B.O.A.C. TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
  Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 16, at end insert:
  'and they shall include in their respective annual reports a statement indicating how often and in what circumstances they have exercised these powers'.
  The Clause as it stands gives wide powers to the British Airports Authority, to B.E.A. and to B.O.A.C. to deal with matters at present not within their jurisdiction, but the merits or demerits of this have already been argued so I shall not rehearse them. This Amendment seeks to ensure that when these bodies make use of the powers, perhaps at the behest of the Board of Trade but most probably at that of the Ministry of Overseas Development or some other Department, they shall be obliged to publish that fact in their reports. I hope that we shall not be told that this is an appropriate matter for Ministerial direction. It could well be brought within the ambit of Statute, and this would be a convenient and necessary way of doing so.
  Mr. William Rodgers: As I explained on Amendment No. 13, powers exist for making a directive, but we are confident that the Corporations will use their commonsense and refer in their future reports to important cases of this kind. In practice, the burden of the hon. Gentleman's wish will be well met.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 27

  SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 21, line 22, leave out 'said' and insert 'British Airports'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]
  Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  3.35 p.m.
  Mr. Onslow: The Motion in the Order Paper, "That the Question be not put forthwith" is an unusual one, but this is an unusual Bill. One of its unusual features is that until now it has not come before the House for debate, because it received its Second Reading in Committee, after having been introduced in another place. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that it should receive its Third Reading, because there are important features in it which it was felt that hon. Members on both sides should be able to comment upon.
  The Bill has other unusual features. It was introduced as a standard Departmental rag-bag, but in the course of its passage it turned into something quite different. It became virtually a Private Member's Bill in Government time, and with very great help and co-operation from the Minister's predecessor and his understanding attitude in Committee, the Committee can claim to have succeeded greatly in improving and extending this legislation. That is not a claim which can often be made and supported by both sides of the House. The Bill's Committee stage was an enjoyable and instructive experience. Even our adjournments in confusion were put to profitable use. This might become a more common Parliamentary device, to the mutual benefit of us all.
  The Bill contains a number of welcome powers concerning consultative procedure and the control of noise and the sonic boom—which latter is very necessary, and in respect of which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is not the only person to have pestered the Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) put down the first Amendment on the subject. These powers will be of considerable value to the public.
  I do not wish to expound upon them because we have heard a good deal about them today. But serious though this problem is, and seriously though we can see it now being taken, there should not be any false hopes about it. The normal course of events is such that as older and quieter aircraft are phased out of operation and the quantity of air traffic increases there will be an increase in aircraft noise in the next 10 or 15 years.

  1923
  Nobody should expect—however desirable he may find them—that these powers will lead to an immediate diminution in levels of aircraft noise. That is not necessarily something to be said against the Bill. The important point is that this is a first step forward, although not one on which we should base too extravagant hopes.
  The Bill provides for greater security of airfields, and contains powers to detain aircraft and enforce charges. One Clause contains powers to extend the facilities which can be provided by local authorities, while another will have the effect of widening the financial arrangements for the purchase of aircraft, thus doing much to stimulate the general development of the industry. The powers of Clause 22 should do much to increase safety in the air. These are all welcome provisions, and the Bill is one which the House as a whole has welcomed and done much to improve.
  It is a useful Bill, although some of its powers will depend for their value upon the way in which the Minister employes them. We want to get the Bill through today and there is not sufficient time for him to do so now, but on some other occasion I hope that the Minister will explain how he will seek to make use of Clauses 6 and 11, which refer to the question of extending facilities; how much money is likely to be made available for further expenditure on airports by local authorities, and whether he sees in this the roots of a national airport policy, which this country very much needs and which we shall have to debate increasingly in the years ahead.
  We are not sufficiently air-minded. There is insufficient awareness in transport and communication of what can be made of the potentialities of aviation. There needs to be a general pressing forward in this field. Clause 22, with its inclusion of near misses in the safety regulations, is obviously important. We can debate this at greater length when we have, as I hope we will, a full debate on air safety, but I hope that we can be assured that statistics on this subject will be collected and can be made available.
  1924
  Finally, we want some further indication of how the Minister will use the powers to control supersonic flight. Although the authority is an enabling one, much will depend upon how he uses it. Many people feel that we shall have to think very carefully before sanctioning supersonic flights over the United Kingdom at all. There may be circumstances in which they can be deemed to be tolerable. There is a distinction between over-flight by day and by night. There is need on all these matters for greater testing and knowledge, much of which can never be obtained until the aircraft have taken to the air and have flown at supersonic speeds. We will not know the final answers on much of this, therefore, until Concorde has been in action, if not fully in operation, but we need an assurance that, as soon as the point is reached at which decisions can be taken about the use of these powers, the Minister will be able to let the House know how he intends to use them.
  I see no part of the Bill as a victory for a particular lobby, although the anti-noise lobby can claim some credit for having softened up the Minister. I see the way in which the Bill has been improved and the powers it contains as a victory for common sense. All hon. Members must welcome this rare opportunity to see so much common sense in one piece of legislation. If there are still deficiencies, we can fall back on one consolation—that the Bill has been so radically altered since it came from another place that much of its contents will have to go back to another place as Amendments from this House. The enlightened other place being what it is, it may be possible to insert certain further improvements there. But all of us must share the hope that the Bill will become law before the end of this Session. It has been a most valuable exercise in legislation and I commend it heartily to the House.
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: When we began our proceedings on the Bill, it seemed that it would be a dull, simple and possibly dreary operation, but it has finished almost in a blaze of glory. I wish to speak only on two major matters which

  1925
  have thrust themselves into the Bill during our consideration of it.
  There is now included a new Clause which says that the person having the management of any aerodrome
  "… shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for any local authority … and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests"
  That is one of the most comprehensive Clauses which I have read in any Bill and the remarkable thing is that it has been inserted in one forenoon and inadequately debated.
  How are we to comprehend the phrase "users of the aerodrome", when we come to provide these facilities? Obviously, they could live in any part of the world. I am not condemning, but merely trying to show the comprehensive nature of this piece of legislation which has been inserted in the Bill, after we had sat for weeks dealing with it, upstairs, in two hours, as was noted at one o'clock today. For those people, for local authorities and for a variety of others, we are providing adequate facilities for consultation on matters concerning management or administration—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We debated the new Clause, as the hon. Member has pointed out, for two hours. We must not debate it again now.
  Mr. Rankin: I am merely trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, the things that are now in the Bill, to which we are giving a Third Reading. I regard this as an important addition. It raises matters of great interest for almost every airport in the United Kingdom. These are matters on which we have to focus our attention. The Bill makes provision for certain things and surely it is pertinent to ask at this point how we will met the obligations which are imposed upon Parliament in the Clause.
  The second important thing which the Bill does is to prohibit aircraft
  "from taking off or landing in the United Kingdom unless there are in force in respect of those aircraft such certificates of compliance with standards as to noise which may be specified in the Order",
  which has still to be delivered to us. This controls movements of aircraft and says
  1926
  that they may not be permitted to land in this country. This has been confused with a campaign; and it is a credit to some extent, that this campaign has helped to control noise.
  It is fair to point out that we all want to have aircraft which are as noiseless as their power will permit. I hope that in seeking to give force to this part of the Bill, we will assure every air traveller that safety in flight will not be endangered. That is one of the paramount jobs now laid upon the operator. If the Order concerning noise is to operate successfully and noise is to be controlled, since so much in an aircraft depends upon the engine assurance is necessary that there will be no danger to the safety of any passenger in any aircraft in seeking to comply with this part of the Bill.
  In view of the lack of time I limit myself to the two issues which I have raised. They are the most important additions to the legislation. I wish the Bill all success in fulfilling the job which Parliament has imposed upon it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House wants the Bill today, I remind hon. Members that only 10 minutes now remain to complete Third Reading.
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am glad of this opportunity to comment on the Bill and I wish particularly to refer to Clause 18, which is concerned with the control of aircraft noise and supersonic flights. I understand that this matter was raised in the discussion of earlier Amendments and that the Minister indicated then that it would be more appropriate to discuss the subject on Third Reading.
  Alas, noise is a matter which is of growing concern to my constituents, for reasons which I will mention. There is a considerable danger that we too readily accept the view that increasing aircraft noise is something about which we can do nothing. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that while an increasing level of noise is inevitable, that should not detract us from minimising it as much as possible.
  I am particularly concerned today with the question of consultation and the effect

  1927
  which minimum heights have on aircraft noise. Clause 18 gives the Minister enabling powers to control the level of aircraft noise. This is of particular interest to my constituents, partly because Worthing is a holiday town. People from other parts of the country who are more severely affected by aircraft noise may come to my constituency to escape the noise. It is no attraction for a holiday town to have a high level of aircraft noise. Many of my constituents are retired and it is now accepted that the retired population suffers greater misfortune in this respect than other sections of society.
  A new aircraft route has only recently been directed right through the middle of my constituency. People are bound to say, "Airplanes must fly over somebody's constituency. We must face up to that." However, one need only look at the map to see that the population is further out into the countryside of Worthing that it is almost anywhere, with the exception of Brighton. It seems ridiculous to have routed aircraft right through my constituency and a part of the coast where the population is most widespread. The fact that the route may be spread over a 10-mile lane does not justify the centre of the flight lane going right through the deepest part of the population in this area.
  I therefore doubt whether adequate consultation took place or sufficient consideration was given to this matter before the route was decided. It seems that the knowledge that the new air route was to go this way leapt into the Press almost by accident. I was, therefore, surprised, when I raised this matter in a Question on 3rd May last, that the Minister replied:
  "The new routing was fully discussed with representatives of all the flying interests concerned, and the noise implications were thoroughly examined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 262.]
  As far as I can ascertain, there was no attempt to take account of people's interests in this matter and no consultation took place.
  It is to be hoped that the Minister will make more Orders of the kind permitted by Clause 18 and that, in doing so, lie will take into account all the people over whom air routes are likely to pass. It is not good enough to say that aeroplanes
  1928
  must fly somewhere, over some people, so that nobody need be consulted.
  The question of minimum height comes into this and, in the case about which I have been speaking, the height set is 6,500 feet. What is taken into consideration when determining the minimum height? It seems that there are no technical reasons why aircraft should not fly above 6,500 feet. I assume, therefore, that the considerations that exist are economic ones. What are they? We must compare them with the plight of those over whom the aircraft are flying. I suspect that it is too easy for the Government to take the view, "Because it would increase aircraft costs a little if they were obliged to fly at a higher minimum height, we will take that aspect into account rather than the interests of the constituents concerned". I hope that the Minister will say clearly, when making Orders under Clause 18, what criteria he takes into account.
  Mr. Burden: All the aircraft operators want is to attain height as quickly as possible. The economics of the aircraft become more viable as it gains height.
  Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps—and I am not clear about this—this is why we should specify a greater height The Minister should spell it out. The general public is not aware of the considerations, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will agree that this is so. While I welcome Clause 18, I am concerned that sufficient Orders are not going to be made under it or under earlier legislation. I hope that the Minister will widen the scope of consultation in future and make greater use of the powers we propose to give him in Clause 18.
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There is only one noise which is the sort of noise which cannot be beaten by the place in which it is made. But this is a noise we could get over by having airports on the coast. Aircraft flying over the sea disturb no one. Supersonic noise over land effects the whole of the land area. In the generality of things, therefore, it is highly undesirable that supersonic flying should be permitted at all over the land mass of the United Kingdom, except in grave and exceptional circumstances.
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: I want to make a couple of quick observations in the time left. We feel that more time should have been given for Third Reading, particularly with regard to certain aspects of the Bill. When the Bill first arrived, we were told that it would probably be through in one sitting of the Standing Committee. In fact we sat for eight sittings in Committee and the Bill was considerably changed for the better.
  Under the Bill, a considerable number of byelaws will be made which will involve people in certain penalties if they break them. Nowhere in the Bill is there an indication of how and to what extent the byelaws will be made known to the ordinary public who visit airfields, and this is extremely important.
  I, too, want to make a point about noise. The Bill gives the Minister certain powers but it is in the interests of the public and of the Government that a distinct differentiation should be made between the problems of the sonic bang and of the ordinary noise of an operational aircraft which is not going through the bang. They are two inter-related but different problems. We should have been able to talk about them today. There is considerable interest in the subject and it is essential that it should be discussed.
  Because of the size of this country, there is no need at any time for our people to be subject to the problem of the sonic bang. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind and make it known that this is so. The aircraft constructors are engaged in the task of considerably reducing aircraft noise, and it is essential that, while this proceeds, the opportunity of extending the economic capabilities of airfields in this country at night and during the day should be given full scope.
  3.59 p.m.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The reasons why we need an extended and thorough Third Reading debate on this Bill were given fully by the Minister of State in Committee, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT at column 232. He was good enough to put his name to the Motion calling for more time. There are quite a number of definite factors which need to be ventilated during Third Reading—
  It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forth with pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  THEFT BILL [Lords]
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move,
That the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
These Regulations require the British Steel Corporation to pay compensation to those staff, or former staff, of the Iron and Steel Board and the nationalised companies who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of nationalisation or subsequent organisational changes giving effect to conclusions reported by the Corporation to the Minister in a report on organisation, or to a direction by the Minister to the Corporation on organisation. The pattern of compensation embodied in them is based on the pattern for statutory redundancy which, has been applied by successive Governments over the last twenty years. The most recent example is the Harbour Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1967.
As the Act requires, we have consulted the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions in the preparation of these Regulations. The Regulations will have effect from 28th July, 1967—that is, vesting day for the B.S.C. If the House

1931
wishes, I will gladly give a fuller explanation of the Regulations and answer points and questions asked by hon. Members, but, as they give effect to well established policy, what I have said may be sufficient.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The general level of compensation proposed in these Regulations is acceptable and so is the general tenor of the Regulations. There are points which one could make about them but, under the circumstances, they seem to be generally reasonable.
I make only one point in relation to the Regulations in general. That is the rather mean provision that income over £8,000 per annum should be disregarded. The Socialist Government have to get used to the fact that higher salaries will have to be paid because they themselves are beginning to turn to this in their own policies. The idea that they can keep salaries down by means of this sort of provision is hardly worthy of the Government.
The terms of the Regulations apply only to ex-members of the Iron and Steel Board or the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Authority or any of the scheduled companies which were nationalised. This leaves out those who worked in the Iron and Steel Federation. This matter was debated at length in Committee on the Bill and I have no intention of going over that ground again.
The reason why these people were excluded was the precedent that wherever a Measure of this sort was brought in, the provisions in relation to pensions and compensation related only to those directly affected and not to those indirectly affected, but the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) gave an assurance which I bring to the notice of the present Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman said:
"The whole question of the withdrawal of scheduled companies from the Federation is a complex matter, and the rôle of the staff is an integral part of it. If hon. Gentlemen think of the necessity of retaining the good will of the staff who will return to the Corporation, they will see that these negotiations are not likely to be in any way unfavourable to the staff of the Federation."
1932
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th December, 1966; c. 2266.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, provided that the negotiations were carried on in good faith and concluded satisfactorily, he saw no reason why the members of the staff of the Federation should not be treated just as well as anybody else concerned.
The negotiations over the ending of the Federation have been concluded. The Parliamentary Secretary said this last week in our debate on the Corporation's borrowing powers:
"The speedy success of these complicated negotiations is a tribute to the good sense of the leaders of the Federation in realising that nationalisation had now come to stay…."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July 1968; Vol. 768. c. 941.]
This being so, and there having been good sense and reasonableness in the negotiations, the position remains that members of the staff of the Federation are in a much less favourable position at law than members of the staffs of the Boards, the Holding and Realisation Authority, or of the companies. We realise that this not a deliberate attempt to exclude them from the provisions, but it puts them in the position where they, and they alone, are not able to claim compensation if they are dismissed, or if in any other way their employment prospects are impaired.
For instance, those who worked in the steel industry before nationalisation all found themselves in the Federation, in the Steel Board or in one of the companies. There were frequent changes of the higher members of the staff from one to another. It is palpably unfair that those who happened to be in the Steel Board or one of the companies at the time of nationalisation should be treated in an entirely different way from those who were in any of the other organisations.
The agreement has been made. The vast bulk of the members of the Federation have been taken on by the British Steel Corporation. So far, everything has gone well. All that I ask now from the Parliamentary Secretary is that he should give an undertaking, as far as he can, that it is the intention of the Corporation to treat those who were in the Federation on no less favourable terms, if it should come to compensation, than those who were in the Boards, or the companies, etc.

1933
Though there is no legal force to the hon. Gentleman's undertaking, I can assure him that to a very small, but quite important, number of people it will be valuable. Such an assurance would clear up the Opposition's few and remaining doubts about the whole subject. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give that undertaking, there would be no need to detain the House on these Regulations.
Mr. Freeson: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not think that I can give an undertaking in precisely the terms in which the question was put to me, I can say that all of the staff of the British Iron and Steel Federation were offered employment by the British Steel Corporation on the same terms as those employed directly by the Corporation. As I understand the position, those who accepted are being treated in precisely the same way as all the rest of the Corporation's employees.
I have no reason to doubt that the B.S.C. will treat this matter fairly and properly, but at the end of the day it must be recognised that the Corporation will not be judge in its own cause, although it will have to decide the compensation in the first instance, because there will be a right of appeal to the industrial tribunals set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity under the Industrial Training Act, 1964.
As I understand it, there will be cases where the position of some people might be uncertain; but, in so far as it is possible to be fair and just, the Corporation will do its duty properly. However, at the end of the day it will be possible for people to go to a form of arbitration to get their position clarified and, if they are entitled in the end to compensation, they will be granted it.
Question put and agreed to.

THAMESMEAD
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
4.10 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to certain problems connected with Thamesmead. As the House knows, this is a major construction project amounting in effect to a new town, the bulk of which will fall in my constituency of Woolwich, East. Over 15 years, Thamesmead will provide for 17,000 dwellings and about 60,000 residents. The first occupants moved in a week or two ago and are delighted by their accommodation and their prospects. The whole project receives the strongest support from Londoners and is wholeheartedly backed by all parties on the Greater London Council and by the Greenwich Borough Council.
The project was master-minded by the Labour administration on the G.L.C. and is now being vigorously carried forward by the G.L.C. under its Conservative leadership, including the Thamesmead Committee under its chairman Councillor Seaton Forbes Cockell.
The project is of vast importance to Londoners. It offers London's major prospect for new housing in the years ahead, easily the biggest construction project of its kind in the County of London. I am glad to know—I need not raise this with the Minister—that now, after an uncertain start, applications are coming in from industrialists who wish to move to the 170 acres of land allocated for industrial purposes in Thamesmead. I understand that 11 firm applications have been received. Far more are needed, but it is not a bad start in all the circumstances. I only wish that the industrial development in Thamesmead could take place soon enough and on a large enough scale to make a contribution towards solving the problem created by the sudden closure of the great A.E.I, factory which formerly employed 5,500 workers.
My purpose this afternoon is to raise a decision of the Ministry relating to the amount of shopping area to be provided in Thamesmead. As a result of building new towns and expanded towns over

1935
many years, we have great experience of how much shopping area is required for a given population. The amount varies according to the different circumstances of a new town, an expanded town or a magnificent great project like Thamesmead, but in general it can be said that the proper allocation, the normal routine allocation, of shopping area for a place the size of Thamesmead would be about 350,000 sq. ft. Nevertheless, when the plan came to be made by the G.L.C., bearing in mind the proximity of Thamesmead to Woolwich and to Erith, much less than that was scheduled in the plans-only 200,000 sq. ft. for a shopping centre and 40,000 sq. ft. for neighbourhood shopping. This at the time was a controversial decision, only 200,000 sq. ft. I had worries as to whether it would be enough, but now the position is that the Minister has amended the plan and actually halved the proposed allocation, and now imposes a ceiling, to last until 1978 at least, of only 100,000 sq. ft. This is a strange decision.
I recall the building of a large G.L.C. housing estate just south of the Thamesmead site, at Eynsham. I remember that the G.L.C. provided insufficient shopping facilities, and my constituents in Eynsham were constantly coming to me and criticising, quite rightly, the lack of provision for shopping in the G.L.C. estate. Now it seems that the Ministry will insist on a similar mistake being made on a far greater and more serious scale in Thamesmead.
Why is this? It is an extraordinary story. Some years ago, when Erith was an urban district council, there was a danger, partly because of its geographical location, of it becoming a backwater and the shoppers going off to Bexley. Erith decided to build a grand new shopping centre covering 210,000 sq. ft, with the idea of attracting back its own shoppers from Bexley. The St. Martins Property Company was given the job of planning and progressing this development. Later, the urban district council disappeared, it was merged with Bexley, and the head of steam went out of the project, and there was a serious danger of this vast shopping centre becoming a white elephant.
Fortunately, the G.L.C. put forward its great project for Thamesmead, a project
1936
involving 60,000 residents with a spending power of £10·8 million, of which it is estimated that £5 million will go to Woolwich and Erith. No matter how many shops Thamesmead had, the establishment of Thamesmead would still be a gain to the traders of Erith. There would still be more Thamesmead shoppers going to Erith than Erith shoppers going to Thamesmead. Nevertheless, obviously, the fewer shops there are in Thamesmead the greater the gain to Erith and the greater possibility of salvaging the Erith scheme. The Bexley Council began to exert strong pressure to deprive future Thamesmead citizens of their proper allocation of shopping facilities. What is surprising is that the Minister should have yielded and should have amended the plan to the ceiling of 100,000 sq. ft. only by 1978. That is two-thirds of the shopping area of Selfridge's store in Oxford Street, and that is for the whole of Thamesmead.
By 1978 there will already be 40,000 residents in Thamesmead. There will be too few shops for them, the shops will be too crowded and the matter has now been made uncertain by the Ministry. What happens after 1978? The Minister may say there should be more shops. How do we know? How does the developer know that he will be allowed to develop after 1978, and of course the big people want to go there with the prospect of expansion if they are sucessful. But the Minister has deprived them of this prospect of expansion.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I hestitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has used the word "deprived". I take it that he is aware that there was a three-week public inquiry into this scheme at which Greater London Council took the opportunity to present its case, and the Minister's proposed modifications are based on the outcome of that inquiry.
Mr. Mayhew: Certainly there was a public inquiry and, if the Minister does not alter his decision, there will be another, and I hope, as a result, this unfortunate decision will be reversed. But the effect is to deprive Thamesmead of its shopping, and that is what worries me.
However, I must be careful not to become entangled with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), and I must not encroach on

1937
his responsibilities. I am speaking, I hope, as the future hon. Member for Thamesmead.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Part of it.
Mr. Mayhew: Part of it, yes, and that is why I am speaking today.
If the Minister's plan is persisted in and survives a public inquiry, it will mean that the 60,000 inhabitants of Thamesmead get 100,000 sq. ft. of shopping space, and the 70,000 inhabitants of Erith get 210,000 sq. ft.
We should not try to solve this problem of the Erith shopping centre at the expense of Thamesmead. I do not want to say harsh things about Bexley. The inhabitants of Bexley are our neighbours and friends, but I feel obliged to say on (he subject of Thamesmead that I think that the Conservative leadership in Bexley has shewn itself to be extremely narrow-minded and short-sighted.
If Thamesmead people want to shop in Erith, that is well and good. But it would be monstrous to coerce them into doing so by depriving them of proper shopping facilities of their own. That would create strong and well-justified resentment in Thamesmead against Bexley Council which I know that Bexley people do not want. What is more, it is distressing to see some Conservatives in Bexley broadening an attack on Thamesmead's shopping facilities into an attack on the project itself. I have seen it described as a juggernaut. I have seen accusations about extravagant council house building. I implore them to cease their campaign of sniping and obstruction and co-operate with the overwhelming majority of local people, Tory, Labour, Liberal and non-party, who understand London's housing needs and want Thamesmead to succeed.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this. I understand that his mind is not closed, and this is evidenced by the fact that he has invited discussions from G.L.C. officials with his own officials. In any case, if he persists in this decision, there will be a public inquiry, and I think that none of those who have the welfare of Thamesmead at heart intend to let the matter rest.
There is a second worry which I wish to put to the Minister. There is the delay in his approval of the next
1938
stage of house building. A formal submission for the next stage involving 1,600 houses was made in January. There have been endless meetings since, but there has been no answer from the Ministry. I should like to ask why everything so far has been delay. The carefully phased construction plan has had to be put back because the Minister has not given his approval.
London's housing problem is an urgent one. Thamesmead is London's great opportunity to make an inroad into its housing lists, yet, instead of spurring on the G.L.C, the Ministry is holding it back. I should like to know the reason.
I would point out to the Minister that we have now a large industrial building factory in full operation. If it cannot erect the houses because the Ministry's Approval continues to be delayed, a serious crisis could arise in the whole construction plan.
A final problem which worries the supporters of Thamesmead is that the whole scheme was planned round the provision of a tunnel underneath the Thames. Now strong suggestions are being made that it would be cheaper and therefore better to build a bridge instead of a tunnel. The bridge would disrupt the whole Thamesmead plan. It would take hundreds of acres of building land. It would cut the principal residential area in two. It would ruin the main park planned for Thamesmead, dividing it in two, and it would overshadow hundreds of houses. It would create a noise nuisance for thousands of residents and it would seriously spoil the entire appearance of Thamesmead. If the Government were to use their financial powers to insist on a change from a tunnel to a bridge at this stage, it would be an outrageous act of bureaucracy and Philistinism.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.
I urge the Government to remember that we are here building for future generations, for people whose aspirations and living standards will be far above those of today. Let us therefore build a town at Thamesmead of which not only this generation but future generations may be proud.
4.26 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has taken this opportunity of drawing attention to some of the problems and some of the great potentialities which lie in Thamesmead. As everybody agrees, it is a remarkable undertaking for which everyone will wish the best possible future. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend record that the first people are now moving into the first stage of housing, that they are enjoying it and that the project is off to a good start. I shall therefore not waste the time of the House by saying anything about the points of agreement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that in general my right hon. Friend is anxious to see Thamesmead go on and wishes it well and wants to do all he can to help.
I shall direct my attention to the three matters on which there are differences of opinion, and the first of these is the shopping area. It is perfectly true that after a long and exhaustive inquiry—and this is the democratic method of sorting out these disputes—into the proposal to amend the development plan, the inspector made recommendations and the decision letter proposed to limit the shopping centre to 100,000 instead of 200,000 sq. ft. My hon. Friend's argument was impeccable up to that point. However, he rather glossed over another important matter when he said that there was no certainty about what would happen in 1978, but that what it amounted to was that the amount of land for the shopping centre was to be halved.
The point is that our proposal is not that the overall area should be halved, but only that in the immediate development we should start with a smaller area and go on with the larger area after 1978. It would be wrong for the House to get the impression, as my hon. Friend rather graphically implied, that this was all the shopping area which there was to be for this great population. We are talking about the shopping centre and there is no reason why neighbourhood shopping should not go on, the little shop at the corner, and all the other essential provisions which the Greater London Council, with its great experience
1940
in council house development, will ensure. That is not affected by the proposal for the provision of shopping areas to meet the immediate needs of the population. What is under argument is the rate of development of the shopping centre.
It is true that this is our present view and that it is up to others to put forward counter proposals, all to be thrashed out, if necessary, at a public inquiry. No final decision has been taken. There are two reasons why one has to think about this matter rather carefully, and one of them is the trend in other areas, such as Erith. It is not enough just to say, "Erith got themselves a white elephant, so let them go on with it—we will grab all the shopping." It will not work like that. With wise planning, we have tried to control shopping. Otherwise, one gets lack of development and lack of investing capital because each neutralises the other. One therefore has to look at the total position.
I do not think that it at all follows that because the Erith development has not gone with the momentum that was hoped for, it is due to incompetence; that, perhaps to mix my metaphors, Erith somehow got sold a pup. What has happened is that there has been generally in London and in the rest of the country a change in outlook on the commercial prospects of town centre development. There was a halcyon period of tremendous development, with developers going round anxious to get almost any site that they could develop. Now, the draught is being felt and there is much less certainty that these schemes will not cut into each other. It is, therefore, good economics, good finance and good planning to be cautious, and to watch the rate at which one gets development. That is why we are sounding this note of caution about the proposals, but we have not said in our decision letter that we want to cut down completely.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am rather worried lest my hon. Friend may inadvertently have given the impression that something was not quite right with the Erith town centre development. I would remind him that the Erith town centre development is itself unique, with the local authorities and the developer working together and the ratepayers sharing any surplus from the equity.

1941
Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the present council of the London Borough of Bexley fully continues the policy pursued by the previous council of supporting wholeheartedly the Minister's modifications at Thamesmead?
Mr. MacColl: I am sorry. I thought that I was supporting Erith and Crayford in saying that it was not its fault, but now I am being scolded for having apparently suggested that it was not a well planned scheme. I was not implying that. I was only implying that the economic climate has changed and that we have to condition ourselves to it. If the ratepayers may have a share in the equity we should watch all the more carefully to see that there is not a tug of war with nothing happening because all the resources are being utilised. We want to ensure that there is adequate shopping available where it is needed at the rate at which the population requires it.
I want to explain the position in respect of stage 2 housing. Stage I has been approved, and people are already moving in. That is so because that stage was designed and the whole layout done before any question of applying the cost yardstick arose. That is commonly agreed, and that stage has gone through. Similarly, there is common agreement that stage 3 and further stages should come under the normal tests of the cost yardstick.
Stage 2 is in a sort of no-man's-land where the rigidity of the cost yardstick does not apply, but it is still very necessary that my right hon. Friend should give careful scrutiny to the cost—not just to apply the yardstick in a sort of routine and blind way but in the general public interest, both from the point of view of the amount of subsidy involved and the total of the very limited amount of capital available for house building in the public sector, and making quite certain that all possible safeguards are being observed and that costs are being kept down.
To some extent it is true that there have been endless meetings and journeyings between the Greater London Council and my Department. We have not lost this proposal, or stuck it in a pigeon hole just to annoy my hon. Friend. Ever
1942
since the proposal first came in we have had a vigorous exchange of ideas about it and my right hon. Friend is hoping to be able to come to a conclusion about it quickly. But it would not help for a quick decision if I went into detail and explained some of the points at issue. The problem arises not over our desire to be difficult but because of our overwhelming responsibility to see that public money is spent wisely. In these days, above all, the public sector has to be kept carefully under financial control. We cannot afford to waste money doing something which will not provide full value for the expenditure of our resources.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the factory for industrialised buildings. We shall watch this carefully and make certain that we phase it in in such a way that it is fully occupied. We have a responsibility for maintaining the momentum.
As for the crossing of the river, the tunnel is much more expensive than the bridge. I gather that that is a hard fact. The Greater London Council— whose responsibility this is—is looking carefully into the problem of what is in the public interest and what it would be best to provide. In the last three days information has come in from the Greater London Council, which is providing us with particulars which will enable us, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the Council itself, to come to a decision. We all want something which is economical and, at the same time, worthy of Thames-mead.
Mr. Mayhew: Will my hon. Friend take a personal interest in this tunnel and bridge decision? I know that he has considerable interest in subjects of amenity as well as all the other factors that go into this decision.
Mr. MacColl: I assure my hon. Friend that as a general busybody I take a personal interest in these matters. I am aware of what is going on. My right hon. Friend is also aware of the point and will be discussing it with the Minister of Transport. It is a question of finding what is the best form of crossing.
I hope that I shall not sound complacent and pompous if I say that

1943
Thamesmead is a wonderful scheme, tremendously worth having, but that it will not benefit all the people living there, it will not benefit the people who have to pay rents and rates, it will not benefit my hon. Friend's future constituents, if it is extravagantly planned, without adequate scrutiny of the implications of all
1944
that is being done. Everybody in the partnership must treat it realistically and make certain that we get good value for money.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Former Colonies (Assistance)
  Former Colonies (Assistance)
TECHNOLOGY
  Engineering Industries (Orders)
  Engineering Industries (Orders)
  Aircraft Projects (Expenditure)
  Aircraft Projects (Expenditure)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong
  Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong
  River Arun, Littlehampton (Bailey Bridge)
  River Arun, Littlehampton (Bailey Bridge)
  Bahrain (Expenditure)
  Bahrain (Expenditure)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Assistants (Pay)
  Nursery Assistants (Pay)
TELEPHONE SERIVCE
  Trimphones
  Trimphones
  Cramlington New Town Northumberland
  Cramlington New Town Northumberland
POST OFFICE
  Submarine Cable Transistors
  Submarine Cable Transistors
BOARD OF TRADE
  Raspberry Pulp (Yugoslav Imports)
  Raspberry Pulp (Yugoslav Imports)
  Intertel (V.T.R. Services) Ltd.
  Intertel (V.T.R. Services) Ltd.
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rugby)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rugby)
  Bahrain and Kuwait (United Kingdom Trade)
  Bahrain and Kuwait (United Kingdom Trade)
  Inclusive Tour Licences
  Inclusive Tour Licences
  Small Businesses (Consultant Advice)
  Small Businesses (Consultant Advice)
SCOTLAND
  Road Bridge, Fochabers
  Road Bridge, Fochabers
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Lung Cancer (Deaths)
  Lung Cancer (Deaths)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Severely Disabled (Survey)
  Severely Disabled (Survey)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air-Raid Shelters (Kingsmead Estate)
  Air-Raid Shelters (Kingsmead Estate)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Departmental Employment)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Departmental Employment)
  Road Fund Licences (Prosecutions)
  Road Fund Licences (Prosecutions)
  Children In Trouble (White Paper Implementation)
  Children In Trouble (White Paper Implementation)
  CS Grenades (Police Issue)
  CS Grenades (Police Issue)
  Outstanding Fines
  Outstanding Fines
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Whips (Free Transport)
  Government Whips (Free Transport)
  Metric System (Building Industry)
  Metric System (Building Industry)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Phelps Brown Inquiry (Publication)
  Phelps Brown Inquiry (Publication)
  Steel Industry Employees (Wastage)
  Steel Industry Employees (Wastage)
  Disabled Miners (Redundancy)
  Disabled Miners (Redundancy)
ROADS
  Signposting
  Signposting
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dairy Cream (Bacteriological Content)
  Dairy Cream (Bacteriological Content)
  Wye River Authority (Flood Alleviation)
  Wye River Authority (Flood Alleviation)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Concessionary Coal (Redundant Mineworkers)
  Concessionary Coal (Redundant Mineworkers)
  Iron and Steel Industry
  Iron and Steel Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  P.A.Y.E. Scheme (Records)
  P.A.Y.E. Scheme (Records)
  Tax Allowances (Dependants)
  Tax Allowances (Dependants)
  Private Education (Taxation of Fees)
  Private Education (Taxation of Fees)
  Short-Term Debt
  Short-Term Debt
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Exports
  Exports
  Public Schools (Tax Dispensation)
  Public Schools (Tax Dispensation)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Defence Estimates
  Defence Estimates
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Small Businesses (Government Services)
  Small Businesses (Government Services)
  Import Substitution
  Import Substitution
  Private Expenditure
  Private Expenditure
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sale of Gardens (Betterment Levy)
  Sale of Gardens (Betterment Levy)
  Vacant Property (Rating)
  Vacant Property (Rating)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Public Schools (Rating)
  Public Schools (Rating)
  Common Land (Registration)
  Common Land (Registration)
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Standard Grants (Amenities)
  Standard Grants (Amenities)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

UNITED NATIONS AND WEALTH OF THE SEABED
11.5 a.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Questions was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what initiative they are taking at the United Nations to safeguard the extra-national wealth of the sea bottom for the benefit of all nations.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CARADON): My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the initiative in this important issue was taken at the last Assembly of the United Nations by the delegation of Malta. That led to the unanimous vote of 99 to nil in the General Assembly. The United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations supported the initiative of Malta and co-sponsored the resolution; and the United Kingdom is represented on the ad hoc Committee set up under that resolution, and on its Legal Working Group and Economic and Technical Working Group.
Her Majesty's Government are now engaged on a thorough study of all the complicated issues involved. This study is well under way, the aim being to give our delegation to the conference which is to take place in Rio de Janeiro next month full and positive instructions so that we may continue to play our full part in this important enterprise.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply and for his assurance that we are now doing something about this matter, may I ask him to look again at my Question and to notice two words especially? The first is "initiative". Is my noble friend aware that I followed his Answer, as well as the transcripts of
582
the speeches in the United Nations and its committees, and that while I cannot fault the sentiments I do not think that we have so far taken the kind of initiative one would expect from Britain as a great maritime nation, whose research ship "The Challenger" first brought up the metallic nodules a century ago? Then may I ask him to look at the word "extranational"? It does not mean international, and it does not mean sub-supranational. It means "beyond nations," and refers to the 60 per cent. of the earth's surface which is beyond the off-shore limits. Am I out of order?
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my noble friend, I know, has been very cooperative and turned his Unstarred Question into a Starred Question. I think the House is in a tolerant mood.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am asking for tolerance. What I am talking about here, "extranational", applies to the extension of something which does not—
LORD MOLSON: Question!
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: Is my noble friend aware that this tern does not apply to the continental shell or the off-shore limits or the continental rise; and is he aware that by no stretch of the law or of the imagination can there be an extension seawards of national boundaries? This is the question about which I feel we ought to have more reassurance at this time.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, certainly the comments of the noble Lord will be carefully borne in mind and I hope that we shall be able to enlist his continuing assistance in the enterprise on which we are engaged, which is of great consequence for the international community. I am most grateful to him for drawing attention to this important international issue, and I warmly welcome the assistance and interest which he has shown already. Indeed, I wish we had had an opportunity for a fuller discussion of this subject, which is of great interest to us in the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations. But, as I have said, a thorough study is being undertaken of all the very complicated issues involved, and that study is well under way. Until that study is complete it

583
would be difficult for me to say more, but I should like to say on behalf of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations that we have from the start shown keen interest and indeed have taken a leading part in dealing with this issue, and we shall most certainly continue to do so.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while in no way minimising the importance of safeguarding the wealth of the seabed for all nations, would not the noble Lord agree that perhaps one of the best contributions which this country can make to international oceanography is by having a strong national scientific base? In that connection, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me when he expects the next Report of the Natural Environmental Research Council to come out? The Report I have here is only up to March, 1966. I also wonder whether the noble Lord would not agree that when this Report, which seems rather overdue, comes out, we should have a debate on it.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to answer that the Report is expected within a month or two. I should also like to answer the principal question put, and to express my satisfaction that there is this keen interest in this subject in this House. I would certainly agree entirely with the noble Earl that this country, with its great maritime traditions, should take a prominent, leading initiative in this most important enterprise.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the study to which he has made reference refers to the report to be presented by the Secretary-General to the Economic and Social Conference, which was, as I understand, a survey of the known resources on the sea bed outside the continental shelf? And, if that be so, could I ask him whether, in view of the immense potentialities of the known resources on the sea bed, any discussions are to take place on the lines of the Antarctica Convention, so as to prevent an eventual international free-for-all?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, the noble Lord raises important issues which
584
are to be discussed next month at the full meeting of the Conference which is called in Rio de Janeiro. It is with that Conference in mind that the full review is being undertaken by Her Majesty's Government. I would agree that it is of the utmost necessity that we should study every aspect of this matter and be prepared to take our full part when the time comes.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether in the studies which are being made he will bear in mind that the advice which may be given, that this is not a matter of urgency, is, in fact, misleading advice? Taking lessons from the crash programmes of the last twenty years, one sees that technological development of the seabed is much nearer than some people think.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I anticipate that we shall receive sound advice and that we shall act on that advice in accordance with our own judgment.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the treaties in regard to outer space help in the resolution of this matter? Will they be taken into account?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, there are many precedents and previous decisions of the international community which should be taken into account. The principles laid down in respect of outer space led to the Treaty on Outer Space. It may be that we should follow the same practice in setting out principles in the first place and then proceeding to formal agreements. But it must take a considerable period of time. The issues involved are extremely complicated and difficult, and arouse intense interest on all those aspects, including the aspect of defence, which are to be discussed. The Antarctic Agreement, also has important lessons for us. We must take all these precedents into account.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, listening to these questions, I wonder whether perhaps we ought not to invent a new type of Question—a Semi-Starred Question.

ADOPTION BILL
11.14 a.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Blyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Restrictions on making of adoption orders]:
LORD BLYTONmoved, in subsection (4), after the first "subsection", to insert "consents may be proved in the prescribed manner and". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that where an infant who is not a United Kingdom national is adopted under the Bill the consents to the adoption required under the law of the country of which the infant is a national may be Droved in the prescribed manner. Clause 2(4) of the Bill provides that:
"Sections 4 to 6 of the Act of 1958 (which relate to consents) shall not apply to an adoption order proposed to he made in respect of an infant who is not a United Kingdom national".
Clause 3(3)(a) of the Bill provides that:
"An adoption order shall not be made in respect of an infant who is not a United Kingdom national—

(a) except in accordance with the provisions, if any, relating to consents and consultations of the internal law relating to adoption of the country of which the infant is a national;"

These provisions implement Article 5 of The Hague Convention which provides that "the national law of the child relating to consents" must be applied. This refers to the substantive law as to consents and not to the manner in which the giving of consent can he proved in the High Court or the Court of Session. The manner in which the giving of consent can be proved is a matter for our law. Section 6 of the 1958 Act deals with evidence of the consent of a parent or guardian whose consent is required.
586
As Clause 2(4) and Clause 3(3)(a) are at present drafted they may have the effect of preventing the application of Section 6 and prevent rules being made under Clause 12 of the Bill to achieve the same result as Section 6. There might then be argument as to how consent could be proved in our courts. The Amendment resolves the difficulty by authorising the making of rules under Clause 12 as to how consents may be proved. It is intended to make rules on the lines of Section 6—that is to say, a document giving consent shall be admissible if it is duly attested. In some cases a person may give oral evidence of consent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after ("subsection") insert ("consents may be proved in the prescribed manner and").—(Lord Blyton.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: All I want to do is to add my support to this humanitarian measure which is going to do away with some international and racial obstacles. I should like to repeat what I said on Second Reading, and as we have gathered from the speech of my noble friend, that this is a most complicated measure. I hope that when, ultimately, it reaches the Statute Books all those children's officers and voluntary societies who do such good work in the realm of adoption will be provided with a simplified version of the Act and its provisions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Registration]:
Lord Blyton moved, in subsection (4), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(bb) in subsection (2), for the words ' column 6 were headed ' there stall be substituted the words ' item 6 were entitled';".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper. Clause 8(5) of the Bill applies the previous subsections of Clause 8 to Scotland. This Amendment takes account of the fact that a different form of entry in the Adopted Children Register is prescribed for use in Scotland from that prescribed for use in England and Wales. For the form of entry set out in Schedule 2

587
to the Adoption Act 1958 there has been substituted a new form of entry set out in the Schedule to the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Adopted Children Register) (Scotland) Regulations 1965. This form is not divided into columns in the same way as the form prescribed for use in England in Schedule 1 of the 1958 Act. It is therefore not appropriate for the words "column 6 were headed" to refer to the Scottish form. This Amendment provides that instead of those words, the words, "item 6 were entitled" are substituted in the application of the subsection in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 44, after ("Act") insert the said new paragraph—(Lord Blyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Nationality]:
LORD BLYTONmoved, in subsection (2), after the first "Act", to insert "and subsection (2A) of this section". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name; and perhaps with it we might discuss Amendment No. 4 as one is consequential upon the other. Clause 9(2) deals with the problem of dual nationality and gives our courts the necessary guidance as to the rules to be applied in deciding which of two or more nationalities the person should be treated as having for the purpose of proceedings under the Bill. Although these rules serve a useful purpose in most cases, they may, in some cases where our court is concerned with an adoption made abroad, lead to undesirable consequences. For example, a foreign court may treat a person who possesses the nationality of country X and country Y as being a national of country X whereas our court might have to treat that person as a national of country Y by reason of the provisions in Clause 9(2). It is not thought that it would be right for our court to be prevented from treating an adoption as validly made on the ground only that the foreign court, for example, treated as one of its nationals a person who was a United Kingdom national and who would have to be treated as such in this country by virtue of Clause 9(2).
588
In general the problem will not arise because by the provisions of Clause 7(3) our courts will be bound by any finding of fact made by the court abroad for the purpose of determining whether it had jurisdiction. If, however, a question of nationality is decided by a foreign court without expressly making a finding of fact, our court would be free to come to a different decision, subject to the provisions of Clause 9(2). The question might arise in proceedings to annul a foreign adoption. Our court might think it right to support the foreign adoption because it agreed with the view as to nationality taken by the foreign court, but be unable to give effect to its views by reason of Clause 9(2).
The second Amendment creates a new subsection (3) of Clause 9 and provides that where proceedings are brought under Clause 6 the court may disregard the provisions of Clause 9(2) if it considers it appropriate to do so for the purposes of the proceedings in question. The purpose of the Amendment is to give a court a discretion so that it could uphold the validity of an adoption and refuse to annul it if it appeared appropriate to the court to do so. This Amendment does not affect Clause 7(3) of the Bill under which a court here is bound by any finding of fact made by the court abroad for the purpose of determining whether it had jurisdiction; the Amendment expressly provides for this. The Amendment to Clause 9(2) is consequential upon the new subsection. It provides that Clause 9(2) must be read subject to the new subsection (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("Act") insert ("and subsection (2A) of this section").—(Lord Blyton.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: All I want to say about this Amendment is that I hope my noble friend Lord Stonham, speaking for the Home Office, will be able to assure us that it will not lead us into any international complications. We all know that there are young ladies in the theatrical profession who wander from country to country, and who marry in one country and get divorced in another. Sometimes that procedure leads to complications so that the young lady does not know in law, even if she does in fact, whether or not she is married at a certain time to a certain person.

589
As a magistrate I preside over a court where sometimes we have to deal with adoptions. Here we are diving into a very complicated sea. If my noble friend Lord Stonham can assure us that this is quite all right—and I hope he can—I shall certainly support the Amendment.
11.36 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): Any Minister would be extremely rash to give an assurance that any action that anyone might take might not in some way lead to international complications, and I cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee on that point to my noble friend. But the Bill we are discussing, and in particular the Amendments, arise out of international agreements and they have been very carefully considered by international lawyers. This is the best guarantee we can have that the actions we are now taking, and which the Government firmly support, will in fact remove international difficulties and not add to them. I hope that my noble friend will accept that from me.
This gives me the opportunity to refer to the point my noble friend made in a discussion on an earlier Amendment about what he regarded as the complicated nature of this Bill. I agree with him that it is essential that the changes this Bill will bring about should be very clearly understood by the people likely to be concerned, and I will certainly bear in mind his suggestion that a statement about this Bill, which would be as simple and as easily understood as possible, should be published in due course.
LORD LEATIIERLAND: My noble friend Lord Stonham has satisfied me completely on both points.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLYTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
"(2A) A court in which proceedings are brought in pursuance of section 6 of this Act shall be entitled to disregard the provisions of subsection (2) of this section in so far as it appears to that court appropriate to do so for the purposes of those proceedings; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prejudicing the provisions of section 7(3) of this Act."—(Lord Blyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Supplemental]:
LORD BLYTON: moved to add,to subsection (3):
"; and in section 46(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 and section 99(2) of the Superannuation Act 1965 (which provide for the interpretation of references to adoption in those Acts) the references to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland corresponding to the Act of 1958 shall be construed as including references to an enactment of that Parliament corresponding to this Act, and in the said section 99(2) the reference to an adoption order within the meaning of the Act of 1958 shall be construed as including a reference to an adoption order made under an} enactment in force in any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and corresponding to section 1 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This Amendment amends two statutory provisions which provide for the interpretation of references to adoption in those Acts. The first statutory provision is Section 46(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 which provides:
"In this Act—
'adopted' … means adopted in pursuance of an adoption order made under the Adoption Act 1958, any previous enactment relating to the adoption of children or any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or made in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands."
As it stands, Section 46(2) will not cover an adoption made in Northern Ireland under an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland which corresponds to the Bill. This Amendment provides that the reference to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland corresponding to the Adoption Act 1958 shall be construed as including a reference to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland corresponding to the Bill.
The result of this Amendment is that when Northern Ireland pass legislation similar to the Bill so that they can ratify the Convention and grant adoptions under the Convention in Northern Ireland, such adoptions will be within Section 46(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. Section 46(2) is drafted in such a way that if the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man ratify the Convention and grant adoption orders under the Convention, such orders will be included in Section 46(2) and no amendment to that section is needed.

591
The second statutory provision is Section 99(2) of the Superannuation Act 1965 which provides:
"Any reference in this Act to an adopted child of a person shall be construed as a reference to a child adopted by him (whether alone or jointly with any other person) in pursuance of an adoption order made under the Adoption of Children Act 1926, the Adoption Act 1950, the Adoption Act 1958, or the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act 1930, or any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or adopted by him (whether alone or jointly with any other person) in accordance with the law of the place where he was domiciled at the time of the adoption, and references to a person by whom another person has been adopted shall be construed accordingly".
The proposed Amendment will extend the meaning of adopted child within Section 99(2) to include a child adopted under any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland corresponding to the Bill. The Amendment will also extend Section 99(2) to include a child adopted under an adoption order made under any enactment in force in the Channel Islands or Isle of Man and corresponding to Clause 1 of the Bill. By reason of the different wording in Section 99(2) of the 1965 Act it is necessary to refer expressly to adoption orders that may be made in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man under the Convention if they ratify it. Internal adoptions in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man are already covered by Section 99(2) as it stands because their adoption laws are based on domicile. It is necessary to have the extension to Convention adoptions because under the Convention jurisdiction can be based on nationality.
So far as concerns the application of these and other enactments to adoptions granted abroad, whether jurisdiction is based on domicile or nationality, Clause 4 of the Bill has the effect of applying the enactments to such adoptions. Clause 4, however, will not apply to adoptions in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man because the Adoption Act 1964 already applies to those adoptions. The Adoption Act 1964 will not apply to these two Acts of 1965 because the Act of 1964 applied only to previous Acts and the Acts of 1965 were subsequent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Blyton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Rules and orders etc.]:
LORD BLYTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is a very small Amendment. It amends a reference to England so as to include Wales. By reason of Section 4 of the Welsh Language Act 1967, references to England in any Act do not now include Wales and it is therefore necessary to refer expressly to Wales in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 14, at end insert ("and Wales"). —(Lord Blyton.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: I think we had better rush this through as quickly as we can while we still have power to legislate for Wales.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Report received; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THEATRES BILL
11.40 a.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Prohibition of presentation of obscene performances of plays]:
LORD STOW HILLmoved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (c):
"and no person shall be proceeded against for an offence at common law of conspiring to corrupt public morals, or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency, in respect of an agreement to present or give a performance of a play, or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such a performance."

593
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. The object of this Bill is as follows. When, at an earlier stage of the proceedings upon this Bill, Clause 2 was being discussed, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead pointed out what seemed, prima facie at any rate, to be an accidental omission from section (4). He called attention to the fact that although subsection (4) prevented the institution of certain criminal proceedings in respect of what I think can be broadly called offences analogous to those covered by Clause 2(1), which defines obscenity, there was no exclusion of the prosecution for conspiracy to do precisely the same thing.
My Lords, I and others who have studied the Bill have given most careful consideration to that point, and we cannot help thinking that there is an omission, and, I should have thought, probably an accidental omission. A conspiracy, after all, is an agreement to do something. The thing that is to be done in pursuance of the agreement need not in fact be carried out for an offence to be committed. It would be a most unfortunate consequence of the drafting of Clause 2 of the Bill if, although a person could no longer be prosecuted for actually putting upon the stage something which offended against the existing Common Law as to decency and so on, he could nevertheless be prosecuted for agreeing with somebody else to do precisely that same thing. If it is no longer the policy of Parliament that prosecution for the actual act should be allowed, the prosecution for obscenity having been substituted, it surely is logically reasonable that there should no longer be a prosecution for an agreement to do that act although the act itself is not carried out.
The words which I ask the House to include at the end of line 34 on page 2 are designed to prevent prosecutions for that sort of conspiracy: conspiracy, in other words, which is broadly coterminous with the description of offences set out in Clause 2(4)(a). This is designed to rectify what I think can be only an accidental omission, and I hope your Lordships will feel that the words should be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 2, line 34, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Stow Hill.)
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to express to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill my appreciation of the way in which he ha s dealt with this matter, which arises out of an Amendment that I put forward on the Committee stage aimed at eliminating the rather unfortunate bogey of the so-called Ladies' Directory case—Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions. I express the hope that the House will accept this Amendment in the more satisfactory form, if I may say so, in which it is now drafted, at the instance of my noble friend. One might also perhaps express the hope that if this Amendment is included in the Bill it may provide a useful precedent when the time comes—which I hope may be in the not too distant future—for the general revision of the Obscene Publications Act itself, where this omission still exists, since the Ladies' Directory case occurred after that Act and thereby drew attention to this unfortunate lacuna in the law.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of law of defamation]:
11.45 a.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to add to the clause:
"( ) It shall be lawful for the widow, child or personal representative of any dead person to bring within ten years of the date of the death proceedings for an injunction to restrain the publication of any words concerning the said person spoken in the course of any play which, if the said person were still alive, would give rise to an action for defamation at the suit of the said person, provided that no such injunction shall be granted unless the Court is satisfied that an injunction would have been granted if the said action had been brought during his lifetime by the said person. If the defendant in such an action pleads justification, then the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover damages (which may be punitive) in the event of that plea not succeeding."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 standing in my name. We had a discussion in the course of the Committee stage on the question raised by this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, I think, first drew attention to the position under this Bill, as contrasted with the present position, in the course

595
of his speech on Second Reading. He has made it clear that the Lord Chamberlain, in the exercise of his functions at the present time, does not permit the production of a play or parts of a play which consist of defamation of the dead. That, I think, is most desirable.
Under this Bill, with the abolition of the functions of the Lord Chamberlain, that protection of the reputation of a dead man will be destroyed, and nothing is being put in its place. I feel that there is a real need to put something in its place, and that is why I tabled an Amendment on the Committee stage to seek to do so. It met with general support, I think, from all sides of the Committee, and there was a powerful speech in support from the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich. But it was criticised in two respects. In one respect it was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on a technical and rather legal point. The point was (and the noble Lord was quite right) that if you seek to obtain an interlocutory injunction—which in most cases will be the most appropriate remedy—the court will not grant an interlocutory injunction if there is a plea of justification. I have sought to meet that point in this Amendment by providing that damages will be obtainable only if the plea of justification is put forward and fails. The purpose of that is to operate as a deterrent against the plea of justification being put forward frivolously. Otherwise, apart from that particular feature, there will be no right, if this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, for the widow, the children and personal representatives of the deceased to obtain damages on account of the defamation of the dead man.
The second objection was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who pointed out, again quite rightly, that in the clause as drawn there was no time limit. I thought that there was force in that objection, too. I think that in the course of the debate in Committee it was suggested that there ought to be a time limit of something like 20 years. I should have thought that 10 years was long enough. Therefore, I have put in this Amendment the provision that this right of action by the widow, children and personal representatives of the deceased shall enure only
596
for 10 years after the death. Surely it is during that period that particular grief and hurt can be done to the family of the dead man.
I have dealt with those points first because I have in that way endeavoured to meet the two technical and valid objections raised with regard to the Amendment that we considered in Committee. At the end of the Committee stage I said that I would give consideration to this, and that I would endeavour to meet it and put down an Amendment on Report. That is what I have done.
I come now to what is really the main issue behind this Amendment. It surely is that in this Bill dealing with theatres we cannot make a general amendment of the law of libel. We are, however, altering the present position because, although in speech and in writing a person can now, if he chooses, defame the dead with impunity, he cannot do it on the stage by the writing of a play or the production of a play, because he will not get permission to do so. If this Bill is passed in its present form he will be able to do so.
The argument against this Amendment, I think, is this. Although in this Bill we make, in Clause 4, some amendment of the law relating to defamation, this particular change ought to be left to the alteration of the general law of libel. It will, I expect, be argued by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, with all the eloquence at his command, that if this Amendment is carried it will still be possible for him, or the noble Lord, Lord Soper, or anyone else, to get up at Hyde Park Corner and, if he so chooses, to defame the dead; it will still be possible for those who like to try to make money by writing books which defame the dead to do so with impunity.
My Lords, I recognise that, but when one comes to examine it, is that really a reason for resisting this Amendment? It is surely rather an argument for extending what is proposed in this provision to the general law of libel and slander. Here, as I say, we are not creating an anomaly if we pass this Amendment. The anomaly already exists. You can defame the dead in speech and writing, but at the present moment you cannot do it on the stage. And I want to secure that there is some remedy if in

597
the future it is done on the stage, because all we are dealing with in this Bill is the production of plays and the performance of plays on the stage or television.
Is there a real need for this protection? Well, we have had a recent instance in relation to Sir Winston Churchill. I know that in many cases it is perhaps wisest not to institute proceedings, but in other cases it may be extremely desirable to do so. But if this Bill is passed in its present form, however grave the defamation, there is no redress available to the family and to the relations, who may be bitterly hurt and bitterly affected by what is produced for the purpose of earning money. I must admit that I feel pretty strongly about this matter, and I hope that the House will agree with me that we should not pass this Bill without some provision replacing the protection that now exists against defamation of the dead upon the stage. I do not myself think that the argument that there is no protection against speech and writing is really a valid argument for resisting this proposal. If this proposal operates and is right, it may be validly argued that it should extend to a wider field, but that does not seem to me to be a reason for resisting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
11.54 a.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount speaks always with the very greatest authority in this House, but I would, if I might respectfully do so, put before the House another view: because, although I always listen with the greatest interest to what the noble Viscount says, and am spellbound by his oratory, on this occasion, while spellbound, I am not convinced. The noble and learned Viscount told your Lordships that there was general assent for the proposal in a slightly different form which your Lordships considered in Committee. General assent, certainly, in disliking attacks upon the dead—people who cannot defend themselves; not general assent, if I may submit to the House, upon the proposal which the noble and learned Viscount put upon the Order Paper to remedy that.
598
He implied in his speech that there were really only two substantial defects in the Amendment which he previously put upon the Order Paper—one, that which was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the other, the time limit—and that he has got over both of those hurdles and now presents to the House an Amendment which is altogether without fault. What really is the position with regard to this? In the speech that I made on that occasion I put what I still think is the main objection to the Amendment now on the Order Paper. The noble and learned Viscount rather skated over it, I thought. He said that no doubt it was true that I could join my noble friend Lord Soper and that we could go to Hyde Park Corner anti abuse the dead if we wanted to. That may be the case—though I am quite sure we should not want to. But it is very much of an under-statement. What the noble and learned Viscount seeks to do now is to pick the theatre, out of all manner of other publications, and to submit, on grounds which I should have thought were wholly inadequate, that we should single the theatre out and say that in the theatre you must not do this although in every other type of publication, written and spoken, there is absolutely no prohibition under the existing law. What logical justification can there be for that?
No doubt it is undesirable that the dead should be attacked when they cannot resist. Certainly that is undesirable, and we all dislike that sort of behaviour, as we dislike any other caddish behaviour. But if the law of defamation is inadequate at the moment, in that it does not stop that sort of caddish behaviour, well then, let the law of defamation as a whole be reconsidered and amended so as to fill up that gap which at present exists, if it is a gap.
I would submit to your Lordships that there is absolutely no ground whatsoever for saying that this should be done only in the case of the theatre. It really is no answer to say that it is a good thing to make a beginning with the theatre. It is the worst thing possible, or one of the worst things, I should have thought, to have a patchwork legislation which one cannot justify on any logical principle. It is not only a case of my noble friend Lord Soper and myself going to Hyde Park Corner; it is very far from

599
that. Anybody can write a book which may be a best seller and may sell all over the world in hundreds of thousands of copies or even millions of copies. The writer can make any disgraceful allegation against a dead person which he chooses to do, and at the moment the law provides no remedy. A book, after all, may not only be a trashy best-seller; it may be a book which will last for generations and centuries, and which will enshrine in its pages the reputation, damaged as it may be, of the dead person referred to by the writer. A book is a far more permanent form than the theatre, which may involve a performance lasting for three months, six months, or a week. A book may influence public opinion and smirch the reputation of a person who has died infinitely more than any play can possibly do.
Supposing one takes a play and finds that it refers in defamatory terms to a dead person, there is nothing whatever to stop a person under the existing law, or even if the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is carried, from taking just precisely the script on which that play was based, printing it in a book of plays, distributing that book of plays in millions, and leaving that as a permanent record of what has been said. At the moment, the law is quite impotent. Is it not really quite absurd (I hope I do not speak in hyperbolic language) to say that you must not do that for a week or a fortnight or six months on the stage, but that if you like to print precisely the same words in a book, you can do that just as much as you like, and in as many copies as you like, and in a form which will be as permanent as you like? It seems to me, with great respect, that no logic can possibly justify a point of view of that kind.
If I am asked: "Has this problem been considered before?" I reply that it has. It was considered no earlier than 1948, when the Committee over which the late Lord Porter presided expressed a view precisely on this point. The Porter Committee on libel dealt with this matter and reported against any proposal to give a right of action to the estate of a deceased person. The Committee were not dealing particularly with plays, and I accept that the reference is primarily to historians and biographers, but in the
600
relevant passage the Committee decided that it is undesirable in the public interest that historians and biographers should he inhibited in expressing views about deceased persons.
It is a question of balance. Some writers of plays, some speakers, some orators at Hyde Park Corner, will abuse; but the great majority do not. They express freely and without inhibition such facts as they may be able to find on the existing evidence available. I commend the view of the Porter Committee. It really would be unfortunate if we amended the law generally as to defamation, and in particular the law of defamation as it affected the theatre, in such a way that a playwright, or writer, or orator, or pamphleteer, or writer of an article in a newspaper was prohibited from saying, for example, about a deceased politician that he was very lazy and negligent and inefficient; or of a doctor that he was a lazy doctor. All those things are defamatory. But if the Amendment which we are contemplating is applied to the theatre, then in the theatre they could not be said. In a book they could still be said.
But if the law of defamation is amended in general so as to prevent anyone saying such things, writers will not be able to criticise a person even on those modest lines. It was against that limitation on freedom of expression and criticism that the Porter Committee reported. Therefore, if we were discussing the question of defamation in a wider context, I think that your Lordships might well come down in favour of the view that the Porter Committee expressed. Whether your Lordships would or would not, I respectfully press upon your Lordships that it cannot conceivably be valid in argument to single out the theatre—the instrument of expression that is the least capable of doing permanent harm to the reputation of a deceased person—for this one purpose.
That is the general objection in principle which I have to the Amendment before the House, but I submit that there are also objections in detail. The noble and learned Viscount sought to answer the difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, by putting in the last sentence of his Amendment which gives the plaintiff the right to damages—and indeed to punitive damages—if there is

601
a defence raised on the score of justification. But there are other defences that can be raised in a libel action: the defence of qualified privilege or of absolute privilege; or the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest. In those cases, probably by implication, the defence is agreeing that it cannot justify the alleged defamatory statement on the ground that it is true, but is raising another and more technical defence. On what basis of justice could it be said that a defendant should pay damages if he claims that what was written is true but should be immune from the risk of paying damages, possibly punitive damages, if he raises another and more technical defence? For that reason it seems to me a bad Amendment, and unfair.
Incidentally, I do not see how it could be accepted in its present form. For some reason on which the noble and learned Viscount will be able to inform your Lordships better than I can, he has omitted a widower. Why a widower should not be allowed to sue and a widow can, I do not know. That is a small point, but I put it before the House to show that the Amendment is technically incomplete and inadequately drafted. It is unfair in that it singles out the defence of justification, in which at least a person who has committed himself to a defamatory statement has the courage to try to show that it is true, and gives an advantage to those who hide behind more technical defences. Not only is it badly and unfairly drafted, but it is wrong in principle to single out the theatre for this visitation and leave all other people free as they are at the moment to disseminate libels on deceased persons.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the widower would not come under "personal representative"?
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the widower may not be the personal representative. An aunt, a brother, a sister, or even a complete stranger, might be the personal representative. May I say with great respect to the noble Baroness, that the answer is in the negative.
The concluding observation I want to put before your Lordships is that we have to measure the need for an Amend-
602
ment like this by the likely extent of the mischief against which it is to operate. We can test it only by reference to writings other than plays. How far Jo we find, as a matter of actual experience, that there are constant scurrilous and caddish attacks on deceased persons? There is plenty of criticism of an unfavourable character about deceased persons, based on research, the expression of genuine opinion by writers, historians and biographers. No doubt if there is freedom there must be the same sort of thing on the stage. Why should there not be? Provided there is an attempt to express a bona fide view, even if a wrong one, it is in the interests of the general extension of knowledge and the general exploration of ideas that that should be permitted.
The noble and learned Viscount is seeking to inhibit it on the stage only. For those reasons, I would sincerely hope that the noble and learned Viscount, on reflection, will not think it right to press this Amendment to a Division, and, if he does, that noble Lords in all parts of the House may think that the case for the Amendment is not made out.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, we have heard two speeches of great ability and force from two of the greatest advocates in the House, both feeling, I am sure, equally sincerely the rightness of their points of view. I should like, as a common man, if I may say so, to put one or two considerations to the House, which I hope may lead them to support my noble friend Lord Dilhorne. We have been told by the noble Lord who was Lord Chamberlain that when he was censor of plays—and he was an extraordinarily good censor—he made it a rule to disallow libels on the dead such as would be prevented by this Amendment. He had power to do that, he did it and it was generally accepted by everybody concerned. I think it was absolutely right. One remembers the case of Peter Wright who was sued for libelling Lord Gladstone—I beg your Lordships' pardon, Mr. Gladstone; he always refused to be elevated—and the extraordinarily effective defence that was put up. That action failed.
It is said that we ought not to deal with this here, though it is an admitted evil, and that we ought to wait for the whole law of libel to be reformed. When

603
is that going to be done? Nobody knows. The Government surely have a sufficiently large programme in front of them not to promise to saddle themselves with a Bill for reforming the law of libel. It may never be produced, or may certainly not be produced in the lifetime of this Parliament.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I interrupt to say that I understood from the speech made by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill that the law of libel was reformed under the chairmanship of Lord Porter.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, my Lords, that is not the case.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I speak subject to correction but, after all, here are two great lawyers who have spoken on the subject. The law certainly was not reformed in the way proposed by my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, which is being opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. If the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will forgive me saying so, his intervention is completely irrelevant, because I am addressing myself to the present proposal. If this matter had been considered in another place and turned down there I should not be supporting it to-day. As I understand the position, it was never considered when the Bill was in another place and it is certainly right that we should consider it here. I would venture to say that although there may be all the anomalies which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said—that it would not apply to the published book but it would apply to the play—nevertheless if you right a certain wrong to a certain extent that surely is better than not righting the wrong at all.
Why should we wait? Why should we not now pass this Amendment? I most sincerely hope that the noble Lord will accept it. Indeed I go so far as to say that although there are all these anomalies, if this Amendment is put into the Bill I think it may be an incentive to make the general reform which everyone agrees should come forward. Therefore, as a plain man who was once a lawyer and made his living by it, but who does not profess to deal with the niceties of the legal profession, dealing with it merely from the practical common sense
604
point of view, and basing myself on the great experience of the Lord Chamberlain when he was Censor, I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
12.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, in advising the House on what course to take with regard to this Amendment the Government have had to consider two questions. First, this being part of the law of defamation, if this was a general proposal of the law of defamation would the Government advise the House to pass or to reject such legislation? If the advice is to reject it, ought some exception to be made in the case of the theatre?
On the first point, about every 25 years there is a case of something being said about a dead man which is untrue and very wounding, and as a result of that there is a demand that there should be a law under which near relatives could clear the dead man's reputation. I remember the Gladstone case very well, because I was devilling as a young barrister for one of the barristers in the case. But as soon as this has been carefully considered the general opinion has always been against it. There are many difficulties: which relatives? For how long after a man's death?
As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has said, it was carefully considered by the Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, was the chairman, and they said this:
"The essence of civil proceedings for defamation is the damage caused to the reputation of the plaintiff. It is, therefore, difficult to see any logical basis upon which to found a proposal that the relatives of a deceased person should be entitled to bring an action for statements defamatory of the deceased alone. If such statements are also defamatory of the living, they are, of course, actionable under existing law. It would be equally difficult to find any sufficient justification for granting such right of action to the personal representatives of the deceased. The basis for a right of action on the part of personal representatives is the injury suffered by the estate of the deceased: and his estate cannot normally be damaged by defamatory statements made after his death.
"The essentially personal character of a man's right to his good reputation and of the action for defamation which exists for its protection was recognised in 1934 in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. which excepted actions for defamation from those categories of personal actions which survive for the benefit of the estate of the

605
plaintiff. We do not think that a sufficient case has been made out for a departure from this principle."
The Committee then ended by saying:
"Historians and biographers should be free to set out facts as they see them and to make their comment and criticisms upon the events which they have chronicled. But to produce the strict proof of the statements contained in their writings which the English law of evidence requires becomes increasingly difficult with the lapse of time. If those engaged in writing history were compelled, for fear of proceedings for libel, to limit themselves to events of which they could provide proof acceptable to a court of law, records of the past would, we think, be unduly and undesirably curtailed."
It is the view of the Government that nothing has happened since the Report of the Porter Committee which ought to lead Parliament to take a different view. But then it is said, "Oh yes, but the theatre is a special case". Of course the whole of the controversy about theatre censorship is based entirely on a difference of view as to whether the theatre ought to be a special case. This is the whole controversy. I remember saying, in the debate which led up to the appointment of a Select Committee, that if there was to be pre-censorship I would much sooner have the Lord Chamberlain, who did it so well, than anybody else. Of course the noble and learned Viscount, in the letter which he wrote to the Committee, made it plain that he was in favour of pre-censorship.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has referred to my letter. I have not got a copy of it with me, because I did not know it was going to be referred to. I wrote it on the invitation of the chairman, and I can speak only from recollection. My recollection is that I did not speak against the whole Bill. I thought that the choice was between letting the ordinary law take its course or pre-censorship, and that some might prefer to know where they stood before they produced a play. I do not think the noble and learned Lord has done justice to my letter, which he is now referring to without giving me any notice in order that I may refresh my memory.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the letter written by the noble and learned Viscount is published at page 159 of the Committee's Report. I should not have thought that he would
606
want notice of his own letter to the Committee. He says in that letter:
"'Censorship' is a dirty word, but provided that a satisfactory system of censorship can be devised it has, to my mind, very considerable advantages over relying upon the enforcement of the law."
Then he gives the various reasons why he takes that view, and it is a view which many people take in favour of pre-censorship. He says:
"Film censorship works very well. I do not think there has ever been a prosecution in respect of a film that has passed the censor."
Then he deals with standards to be applied and various defects which he thinks would arise if the matter was left to the law:
"I do not think a satisfactory system could be devised whereby the producer could find out in advance that there had not been a prosecution."
He goes on:
"Such a system would in effect amount to censorship by those responsible for the initiation of prosecutions. I do not think they are best qualified to act as censors."
I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree, if he will re-read the letter, that the view which he was putting forward was plainly that the advantages of pre-censorship were greater than the advantages of the alternative. But this is the controversy which has run right through—why pick out the theatre?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again, but I have been handed a copy of the Report, for which I am grateful. It will be seen that I said:
"My conclusion is that if it is accepted that there must be some form of control it is better that that control should be exercised before the production of the play."
That does not really justify the remark that I am completely opposed to this Bill, because I am not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad to hear that; but the noble and learned Viscount was, I think, clearly in support of some form of pre-censorship, as are many. This has been the controversy and not all of the many—16, I think—members of the Select Committee started off opposed to pre-censorship. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I remember, made it plain in the House that he was not then of that opinion. But in the end, having considered the whole thing, the Committee

607
unanimously came down in favour of the main principle underlying this reform; namely, that if newspapers, books and all forms of art are left to the general law of the land and are not censored in advance, there cannot be any case why the theatre, and the theatre alone, should be differently treated. It is this principle which the Committee have applied throughout.
Ought there not to be a special law to protect the Royal Family? Well, there is a lot to be said for that, and for protecting people who cannot answer back. But so long as weekly newspapers can contain cartoons and lampoons which some of us may resent, and so long as certain newspapers can spend a great deal of their time attacking the Royal Family, what case is there for picking on the theatre and making some special law for the theatre? On this general question the Committee in their Report said:
"The question of a play representing in an invidious manner a living person or a person recently dead is more difficult. Although the Committee appreciate the force of the argument that distress might be given to the relatives of someone recently dead if his character is blackened in a stage presentation, they consider that it would be unjustifiable to legislate on this matter while no legislative restrictions apply to television, newspapers or books. They believe that the laws of libel and defamation will be sufficient to protect living persons."
They go on to recommend that just as on television and the wireless words spoken are in law libel, so that should apply to plays; and that has been done, obviously quite reasonably. But otherwise, they say, the law should be the same for theatres as it is for all other forms of art.
There would, I think, in any case be practical difficulties about this Amendment in operation, but those were spoken to in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and have been to-day by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. The Government would ask the House to reject this Amendment, therefore, on those two grounds; namely, first, that if it were proposed as a general amendment to our law of defamation nothing has really happened since the Porter Committee to invalidate the conclusions to which they came; and, secondly, that it is wrong to say that there ought to be a special law which penalises the theatre in a different way from those who write
608
books or newspaper articles. After all, a book is a permanent record, and one might have thought that if there were to be such a reform it should apply first and foremost to books which lie around for years, rather than to a rather more ephemeral art. There is no reason why we should pick out the theatre and treat it differently, as this Amendment does.
12.23 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, while I feel some sympathy for the underlying purposes of this Amendment, it seems to me, with respect, that there are difficulties which are not dispelled even in the revised form of this Amendment. The fundamental question is whether this does not create an anomaly. I drew attention to the Porter Committee on the Committee stage, and there may be an argument for reconsidering the view expressed by the Committee in their Report in regard to this matter. After all, there is nothing final and definitive about that view, because although Parliament accepted it at the time there is no reason why it should not be reconsidered. But simply to change the law in relation to the theatre, this one special branch, and not to consider it in regard to the whole context of the law of defamation would surely be a most extraordinary kind of law reform—simply to deal with it piecemeal in that way.
One must bear in mind that the arguments in favour of the present law are fairly strong. So far as I am aware, all the Commonwealth countries and also the United States still adhere to the view that is maintained in this country. I believe that in France the matter, strangely enough, is still the subject of dispute as to whether the heirs can bring proceedings in regard to defamation in relation to a deceased parent or something of that kind. There the law even to this day apparently is not quite settled. So there is no consensus of opinion among civilised nations that this is an appropriate form of action.
Apart from that, there are features of this actual Amendment which, with respect, seem to me to create considerable difficulty, and some of them make it difficult for one to see why the Amendment is framed in this particular form. For instance, why should this right of

609
action be given to personal representatives? Presumably the only object of that is to benefit the estate. One would have thought that provision to be much too wide. Again, no limitation is imposed on the court in regard to the injunction that it can grant. It can therefore grant a perpetual injunction, which would mean that for ever after it would be impossible to re-present this particular episode or play on the stage. That would surely go far beyond the ten-year conception for which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was arguing, and would indeed constitute a grave restriction on the drama.
Then the matter of damages appears to raise quite difficult questions. After all, as the Porter Committee pointed out, it is the deceased's reputation which is affected, not the plaintiff's in the particular case. Therefore there is a strange anomaly in allowing a person to bring an action for damages in respect of somebody else's reputation. How would you assess the damages in such a case? The noble and learned Viscount seeks to deal with the difficulty raised by my noble friend, Lord Goodman, in regard to an interlocutory case by suggesting the possible grant of punitive damages. But here again one seems to be creating anomalies. To begin with, the whole question of punitive damages has been severely restricted by a recent decision of the House of Lords in Lewis v. The Daily Telegraph, which has laid down that punitive damages cannot normally be obtained in an action for defamation, but only in two special sets of circumstances which I need not trouble to mention in detail.
This provision, on the other hand, simply opens the door in this one particular branch of defamation to general orders for punitive damages. Indeed, it may be that the object is rather undesirable, because it is really a provision being put in in terrorem, to try to discourage people from putting into plays facts relating to deceased persons which they may know to be true and feel are true, but may have some possible doubts whether they could prove them for the purposes of a court of law. This punitive deterrent is held over their heads; whereas if they wanted to write the same facts in a biography or an article in the newspaper there would be no such deterrent.
610
I find it difficult to see how anybody can say that this is not a singularly anomalous situation, and not one which one would want to countenance by provision of this kind. Therefore I would urge upon the House that the appropriate way to deal with this matter, if there is a problem which deserves serious consideration, is for the Law Commission or some other suitable body in the course of its examination of the general proposals relating to the law of defamation to consider this question, to reconsider what the Porter Committee said upon it, if there is strong feeling upon the matter, and decide whether there ought to be some general change. But to alter it simply in relation to the theatre in this way would, I venture to submit, create so many anomalies that it cannot be rationally justified.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I would support what my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead has just suggested that this matter should be referred to the Law Commission. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, and if it were not for the fact that it raises these anomalies I should be very tempted to support the noble and learned Viscount, if he decided to divide about it. I always thought that the view of the Porter Committee was, as it were, brought within a much too narrow conception of what the law of defamation ought to be in cases of this kind. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill, I think very properly, used the word "caddish" for this type of libel. It really is one of the most caddish things one can imagine, and it should be possible for one to deal with it. It might be that in some of these cases the matter could be dealt with as a criminal libel, because it might give rise to a breach of the peace and in that way come within the criminal law.
Nevertheless, this problem of defamation of the dead is a very special problem. I do not think it is met by damages. I quite accept the view that it is absurd. On the other hand, it ought to be possible to stop it by means of an injunction. That is the obvious way, as the noble and learned Viscount said. But do not all these problems mean that this whole question should be looked at again in a wider context than the rather narrow legalistic one which I feel the Porter Committee brought to bear upon

611
it? Would not the new Law Commission—which is the body set up to look at the law in the context of the requirements of the modern world—be the right organisation to look at it? I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who is in charge of matters of that sort, may decide to refer it to the Law Commission, and that until that has been done the noble and learned Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, if it were simply a question of the principle of this Amendment, I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House would fail to support the noble and learned Viscount in this proposal. But virtuous indignation is not a wise counsellor and the fact that people are doing things which are caddish, disagreeable, objectionable, or abominable, is often the test of a true and free society to permit them to do them. I believe that this is a matter that must be left to a healthy climate of public opinion. I do not believe this can be, or ought to be, dealt with by legislation. I believe that, in the end, if wrongs are done in this way posterity will redress them; but I believe that once a man has died his reputation must remain in the hands of history.
There are, it seems to me, insuperable objections to trying to deal with a matter of this kind. I may say that I greatly respect the motivation of this particular Amendment, and I realise why, on the contemporary scene, it has been brought about. I feel that it is based on a principle which might involve a very dangerous erosion of one of our most valuable liberties. I think the right to say what we want about people, and to say it with the utmost freedom, is something that has been arrived at after a most careful determination through history and through precedent of the area of control or regulation that ought to exist.
If I may venture to say so to the noble Viscount, the whole of this Amendment bristles with virtuous indignation. The anomalies and errors in the Amendment suffered, I thought, rather an unduly severe castigation at the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. Nevertheless, it is unworkable because it has not been thought out. A principal objection, in my view, is the identity of the persons
612
who are to have the relief—widows, children and personal representatives. To provide for relief to personal representatives might well be an absurdity. A personal representative may be a man representing the creditors of the deceased. It is very difficult to regard as other-wise than an absurdity a situation in which a man's creditors are seeking to obtain damages in order to pay his debts through a vindication of his reputation. With the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead I think that the personal representative is a very strange choice of a plaintiff in such cases.
As to widows and children, may I say, after too long an experience as a libel lawyer, that I have frequently found that a deceased person suffers worst at the hands of his own relatives, and some of the most extreme cases of defamation of the dead that I have come across have come precisely from the widows and children of the deceased. We are asked to envisage a situation in which a child or widow is busily defaming the deceased and the unfortunate personal representative is trying to restrain them. This is unworkable. I should not like to give instances in the House of innumerable cases of books and articles published by widows and children of deceased persons which have been thoroughly defamatory and objectionable. One cannot, unhappily, say that the reputation of a man is safe in the hands of his family. Monetary rewards, motivations of jealousy and hatred, and so forth emerge after death. This list of persons who might bring an action is thoroughly unselective and unconsidered. On that ground alone I would say that this Amendment must be regarded as unworkable.
There are other objections, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, has pointed out in relation to damages. Why should damages in this instance be punitive? One is here apparently imposing a special threat to prevent people from saying something about the dead when it would not necessarily exist if that person were living. I think the fact of the matter is that we must leave these questions to be dealt with on a basis that decent people will behave in a decent fashion. On the whole, we believe that we live in a decent society, and I believe that to attempt to legislate for matters of good taste and social conformity is a great mistake. I think

613
it would be an error for this House to seek to do so, and, sympathising as one must with the spirit of this Amendment and the motivation behind it, I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press it to a Division.
12.37 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount is rather attractive to me personally. We all know what happens after the first wave of generous obituaries, whether they come from those who genuinely admired the dead man or woman or from those who had attacked him meanly or underrated him and were making reparation. There is a great wave of generous comment. But gradually this wave subsides, and the small meannesses, perhaps the false comments, creep in. During my husband's lifetime I often longed to leap into litigation. I was always feeling indignant about something or other that somebody had said—something with which I disagreed, or which I felt was utterly false; but in politics one has to take all, both during a man's lifetime and after his death. I was very moved by the dignified detached attitude of the Churchill family when they took no action against that play by a Swiss playwright—who persistently seems to go in for dredging up the basest motives of human actions. And the play was finally put on, I believe.
On balance, therefore, I am against this Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, although I still hope that one day I shall vote for one of his Amendments. I am against it because I believe that it leaves out 90 per cent. of the fields in which this kind of defamation occurs—that is to say, in articles, in newspapers, and in books. I feel that I must come down on the side of defending the right to express an opinion, however much I personally disagree with that opinion.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with the speech of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, which moved us all. Like my noble friend, I have every sympathy with the families concerned, but the needs of historical objectivity should be paramount. As my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said, why single out the theatre
614
when books or newspaper articles are not included? If something inaccurate is written, it is up to someone else, if they wish, to write another play or book, giving an opposing view. The truth comes out in the end.
One of the reasons why I have, supported this Bill all through, and why I spoke upon it when it was originally introduced to the House was 'that I strongly disagree with the pre-censorship responsibilities which were carried out by the Lord Chamberlain; although I have every respect for the way they were carried out. I objected strongly then, and still do, to the action which was taken over The Representative, which was a play about a dead figure, under which the theatre was required to put into its programme a long foreword giving an opposing point of view, although that did not have to be included in the book which appeared later on the same subject. In fact, the book carried a completely different, long, historical introduction about the Nazi period which was even more horrifying than the play itself. The families of well-known people have advantages and disadvantages. They are in a special position. It is sometimes difficult and impossible for them to feel detached. But the reputation of a dead person belongs, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, to history, and the families of the deceased must learn to take the rough will the smooth.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. The argument against this Amendment appears to have two principal tenets: first, that we ought not in general to amend the law of defamation as it at present stands; and that, even if we do alter the law of defamation, there is no case for singling out the theatre to bear the first spearhead of our attack. But is there not a case for singling out the theatre at this time? As I see it, the function of the theatre is far more to entertain than to inform. We do not go to the theatre to listen to the latest news or to hear the latest information, unless we go to see Mrs. Wilson's Diary. We go to be entertained and possibly to observe art form, if you like, as put forward by the playwright. It seems to me that the playwright has particular responsibilities

615
not to tread on the sensibilities of persons long or recently dead, but more particularly recently dead. For that reason I support the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his Amendment because I believe that it is motivated by his gallantry. He has on other occasions in this House shown that he has rather a warm corner in his heart for women. I cannot help recalling that some years ago he helped me to introduce a Bill into this House; but I will not go into details on that. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount is very concerned with the feelings of the widow and the children. He must be particularly concerned with this, because he is limiting his Amendment to ten years. I should say that he is particularly concerned with the widow, because after ten years there could obviously be surviving children.
May I remind him that the woman he is seeking to protect probably has been the wife of what is known as a public man? She has been exposed to the limelight for many years. She has read and heard perhaps the cruellest criticism of her husband and has undoubtedly become pachydermatous. In order to survive, she must have developed some kind of resistance to these constant attacks. She has become philosophical and also, if she is a wise and loving wife, she is always quite certain that her husband is right, and after his death she is equally certain and is equally protected by this confidence in her husband. Though the noble Viscount has been motivated by gallantry, as I am sure he has in seeking to protect a certain woman, this woman, I am sure, is not as sensitive as he might think, because she has had to endure criticisms over many years. Therefore I feel that this Amendment should not be supported for the reason that it introduces an anomaly which can never be justified.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness think that, if the widow is so pathologically pachydermatous, she would in any case be unlikely to bring an action?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I agree that she may be unlikely to bring an action.
12.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that I am in agreement with all your Lordships in being in sympathy with the intentions of this Amendment. I seem to be in a minority in also agreeing with what it seeks to do, in spite of the extremely lucid fire which has been poured upon it from all quarters. Without going into the question of gallantry to pachyderms, I feel that the important point is whether it is strictly correct to say, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, and as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, also said that we are making an exception in the case of the theatre or whether we are busy keeping an exception. It may be quite wrong to keep an exception, but the point which influences me is that if we have an anomaly, however absurd, which gives protection which many people think would be introduced, though we do not know when, in a general view of the law of libel, is it not a rather different matter to preserve, in this particular Bill, only one of the good functions which the Lord Chamberlain, under somebody like the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and others, was able to carry out, and which now nobody will be able to do?
If I may improvise an analogy, if one is carrying on a policy of de-afforestation in this country in the hope of replanting shortly or later on, to keep an occasional green belt or an occasional tree which gives some protection to somebody is better than to say, "We must be fair. Large parts of Surrey have been ruined and raped. We must allow others to be ruined and raped. We must have justice in the sense of equality, and therefore if we cannot at the moment even up we shall even down." That seems to me to be the principal argument which, with great respect, I do not believe has been answered to my satisfaction by any of the noble Lords who have spoken.
I shall not go into such details. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, suggested that it would be an anomaly for a play not to be allowed to be acted, because it could then be printed. I do not think many of us read plays which are printed but which have not been acted. It has also been suggested that a play can do very much less harm to a reputation than anything else. In view of Shakespeare's play about Richard III, I am

617
not sure that I agree with that suggestion. I have tried to state the reason why, if this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall still feel inclined to support it, subject to anything the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, may say.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I as a layman, but one of those laymen who as a newspaperman has had much to do with the law of libel in his lifetime, utter just three sentences? I think there is a tendency during a man's life to paint a picture of all his virtues, and the truth comes out only after his death. Of course, we get that one-sided picture painted in our publications largely because of the fear of the law of libel which hangs over every author and every newspaper producer.
The only instance I want to mention is that of Joseph Stalin. During the lifetime of Joseph Stalin, we were told that he was a great man, a great patriot: that he embodied practically all the virtues as a Russian is inclined to see them. It was not until after his death, when the freedom to utter became absolutely unfettered, that we learned the real truth about him. I think freedom has to prevail, and I think there is still a role in the world for the iconoclast.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I give one instance, before the noble and learned Viscount replies on his Amendment, to show why I feel with reluctance that we should not agree to accept it? The reason is that when we see an Amendment of this kind put down, it is our natural instinct to think of the most slanderous and unpleasant things that can be said about the dead and to feel that these should not be allowed. But, of course, if this Amendment were to be passed it would also include those things said about the dead which are not gross at all, but which stem from a difference of opinion; and a difference of opinion which, in the man's lifetime, might well have been held to be libellous.
If one thinks of Lytton Strachey's four famous portraits of Cardinal Manning, Dr. Arnold, Florence Nightingale and General Gordon, those would undoubtedly have been libellous in the lifetime of those people, and yet would it really be to the advantage of this country had we not had that remarkable book written? In the course of time no one
618
accepts Strachey's estimate of those four great figures, but this is something which comes out in the course of time. As regards a play, a play is not merely an entertainment. It can also be a passionate vision of life and of the injustices in life; and in putting forward the vision of an injustice it may well be that somebody who is dead is libelled in the technical sense. But I very much hope that we shall bear in mind that if we pass this Amendment we shall be inhibiting playwrights from a very legitimate form of expression.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, with that last observation of the noble Lord I simply cannot agree. We should not be permanently inhibiting them, and it is not the case that every publication of a libel leads to a libel action; otherwise, the courts would be even more congested than they are at present. I think it is true to say that every possible argument, be it small or be it large, has been advanced against this Amendment. But I should like in commencing my reply to say something, first of all, about the letter I wrote, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred. I was surprised that he did so, because it did not seem to me to have any relevance at all to this Amendment. I there expressed a preference for pre-censorship, as it is called, or control in advance, because I thought that the advantages lay with the producers in knowing where they stood before they produced with the risk of prosecution. But I did not feel that at all strongly and in that letter I indicated, I think quite clearly, that it depended upon whether a satisfactory system could be devised—and of that I have very considerable doubts.
It is not right to say that I am wholly against this Bill—I am not. But I cannot help thinking that perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that letter because he was under the impression, or had the suspicion, that this might be an attempt by me in some way to filibuster this Bill. This is no such thing. I put down this Amendment because, as a result of the change that is being made, I think a gap is left that we ought to fill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, said some very nice things to me, which was very remarkable, and I shall

619
treasure them. It is an unusual experience. But I was not thinking so much of the sensitive woman. I quite agree that the wife, and indeed the widow and family of a person prominent in public life, all have to develop a fairly thick skin, and what can be said during the lifetime about a man may be very wounding to the feelings of his family. I am not really concerned with that. I am concerned with this case of the publication of something—if I may put the extreme case to the noble Baroness—which is so grossly defamatory that if published during a man's lifetime he would have sued, and with the people who try to make money by publishing defamatory things saying to themselves: "Now he is dead we can publish this. We can have this play. We can put it on, grossly defamatory as it is, without regard to the feelings of the family, and we can do it with complete impunity." That is what I should like to try to remedy; and I am particularly concerned with the feelings of the family in the years immediately after the death.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said that a book can do much more permanent harm. That may be so, but it is the period immediately after the death, when a play will probably draw a bigger audience than it would draw ten years or more after the death, that I am concerned with. That is why I have limited the period in my Amendment to ten years. Despite all that has been said, I feel that if we let this Bill go forward—and we are not singling out the theatre for special treatment different from what it has to-day—we are giving the theatre a liberty to defame the dead which it does not enjoy at present. That is the change that we are making, and I do not think we ought to give—at least for a limited period—liberty to defame the dead, because of the injury that will be inflicted and which can be extremely wounding on members of the deceased's family.
Great weight has been placed in argument on the Porter Report, dealing with the law of libel generally, and I agree very much with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to the effect that that was rather a narrow approach. I must confess that I have not refreshed my memory of it, but I rather
620
doubt whether that Committee applied its mind to this particular problem, bearing in mind that at the time the Committee sat there was no question, with the Lord Chamberlain exercising his powers, of this particular problem arising. I should hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the whole position would be reviewed by the Law Commission. I must confess that I was rather disappointed by the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because although he told us what the Government's views were, he never told us that this problem, which is to a great extent a legal problem, had been or was going to be considered by the Law Commission. I myself hope that one result at least will flow from this debate: that this will be one of the topics which they will be asked to consider in relation to the whole field.
My Lords, I want to make this point. I am not seeking to provide for a permanent ban on the production of a play. Nor would I seek to provide for a permanent ban on the publication of a book. I am trying to deal solely with the short period—it may be that ten years is too long; I am not wedded to that—immediately after death, when the feelings of the family may be exacerbated by what is produced upon the stage. Indeed, exacerbated they can be by what appears in the Press and what appears in books; but for that, my Lords, there is at present no remedy. The question before this House today, as I see it, is whether we feel that there should be some right of action for the members of the family in relation to the production of plays. I feel that there should.
Technical objections have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said that we must leave it to decent people to behave in a decent way. That, if I understand it correctly, is an observation which is very much against the interests of all lawyers, because really it is a claim for the complete abolition of the law of libel and slander. It is only because not all people behave decently, and not all people are decent people, that we need these laws at all. Although this Amendment may have defects in form, I myself feel that it would be an improvement to make this limited change in the law.

621
May I say one or two more words about the technical criticisms which have been advanced? The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred to a case against the Daily Telegraph, and to the award of punitive damages. I will not enter into a discussion with him now as to the whole effect of that judgment, whatever it may be, but Parliament can say that punitive damages may be awarded. I thought the high-water mark—or perhaps the low-water mark—of the criticism was a suggestion that creditors would sue for damages for the benefit of the deceased's estate. Under the clause as it stands it is impossible to sue for damages at all unless there is a plea of justification put forward, and in this context a plea of justification stands on a very different footing from a plea of privilege or of qualified privilege, because here a defendant is saying, "However defamatory it is, what I am saying is true, and therefore you cannot grant an interlocutory injunction". If he likes to do that, then he ought to stand or fall upon whether he can justify; and if he cannot justify, having avoided the interlocutory injunction by putting forward that plea, it seems to me that there is a strong case for saying that the court should have power to award punitive damages.
Another objection was that if an injunction was granted it would be permanent. I do not accept that for one moment, because any court would see that the period within which such proceedings may be brought is a period of ten years, and I doubt very much whether any court would grant an injunction for longer than that period. Then, perhaps even more astonishing, there came the objection that I had not inserted the word "widower". I did not. I had not got it in mind myself that the possibility that a widower would fight a case was ever likely to arise, that he would want to bring such proceedings; but that is an amendment which could easily be made hereafter.
Then it was said that it is odd that the personal representatives should be given the right to sue. They are the personal representatives of the deceased, and cases may exist, it seems to me, where they would think that for the protection of the deceased's reputation and memory—the widow perhaps still living; it may be old and in ill-health—it would be better for them to be the plaintiffs on the record rather than the widow herself. It is simply for that reason that personal representatives are included: there is nothing sinister about it.
Whatever may be the technical objections—and there may be some; (I still await the day when the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, will join me in the Division Lobby; and I still await the day when I am told that an Amendment I have drafted is perfect. Both things may happen simultaneously and they will be very enjoyable when they do)—I am not deterred by those criticisms. Because if we move an Amendment into the Bill it can if necessary be altered at a later stage, or even by a short amending Bill. But this Amendment raises a real principle.
I will conclude by saying just this. In my belief, this Amendment is necessary, in view of what is done is this Bill. It is not picking out the theatre for special treatment. It is saying that now we are abolishing censorship which protects the family of the deceased we should not remove, in relation to plays, all the protection which now eixsts, and that we should replace it by giving this right to the family which the deceased had up to the moment of his death to protect himself from gross defamation.
1.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Audley, Bs.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sempill, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Silkin, L.

Barrington, V.

Iddesleigh, E. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilford, L.

Swinton, E.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison, L.

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Amherst, E.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Norwich, V.

Annan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Goodman, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Greenway, L.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Rusholme, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Burden, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sorensen, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Restriction on institution of proceedings]:
1.15 p.m.
EARL AMHERST EARL AMHERST moved to add to the clause:
"( ) On receipt of a complaint in respect of the publication of defamatory matter in the course of a performance of a play, the Attorney-General shall forthwith cause to be served on the persons presenting the performance of the play out of which the complaint arises a notice stating that he has received such a complaint and specifying the words or other part or parts of the play which are the subject of the complaint."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as the Bill stands, it seems to me that the first time that a manager, an author or a director will know that a complaint has been registered against the play he is producing is when the Attorney General has decided to institute legal proceedings, which, I assume, means the issue of a writ. Before doing so, no doubt the Attorney General will have to make comprehensive inquiries, not least of which will be to determine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or, indeed, worthy of proceedings. That must take a certain period of time. On most occasions during this period the people concerned with producing the play will doubtless enter into various commitments, financial, in terms of work and in terms of advertising. They will be doing this not knowing that possibly the Sword of Damocles may be hanging over their heads. For example, let us suppose that the play is being tried out in the Provinces. It is a public performance and anybody witnessing that performance can register a complaint against the play or part of it, or a scene in it. Meanwhile the management may well be
624
entering into any sort of commitment, changing the cast, repainting the scenery, building stage properties, renting a London theatre, and so on.
I put down this Amendment with the object of closing this gap, so as to give the Attorney General the chance, as soon as he has received a complaint, to inform immediately the people complained against of the nature of the complaint and the details of it. That will give them the opportunity of meeting the complaint by perhaps amending the offending passage, scene or script, of rewriting it or, if they do not choose to do that, of proceeding at their own risk and awaiting the outcome of the prosecution. I am sure that your Lordships all know that the production of a play is expensive and risky and that you would not wish to do anything to increase that risk unless there was a good reason for it. I think there is a kind of precedent for the sort of notice that I am asking, for in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961. Section 11(1) of that Act reads as follows:
"… proceedings … shall not be taken until the expiration of one month after the notice has been given to the offender that the taking of such proceedings is being considered."
I hope, therefore, that my Amendment will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Amherst.)
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the advice I would offer to the House is, I am sorry to say, not to accept this Amendment. I do not wish to speak in pejorative or disrespectful terms, but I think it fair to say that all that the Amendment requires the Attorney General to do is to serve as a post office.

625
It does not require him to decide whether to prosecute before he has to send on notice of the complaint. The Amendment says that when he gets a complaint he is "forthwith" to send that on to the person against whom the complaint is made
"specifying the words — which are the subject of the complaint".
I should have thought that this proposal has several objections in its way. May I first state what I think is a major objection? When one looks at the definition of "obscenity" contained in Clause 2 of the Bill one finds—and this is, after all, crucial to the whole structure of the definition—that a play is only obscene if
"taken as a whole, its effect was such as to tend to deprave and corrupt …".
It does not depend on the use of a particular word or passage or scene. It means that when you consider it as a whole it has the tendency "to deprave and corrupt" which is required for the offence to be committed. In those circumstances, I do not quite see what is meant by notice of the particular words complained of. The only notice that could have any meaning in the terms of the Bill is a notice that the play as a whole is regarded as an obscene play. Suppose an objectionable word is used in the course of it. It would be of no service to say that that objectionable word had been the subject of a complaint. The relevant test in that case is if you add all the words, all the passages, all the scenes together, and the effect produced by the play, has the play the tendency which is described? Therefore, I should have thought that, to begin with, the notice would be meaningless.
Secondly, I would ask the noble Earl: is it realistic? is it really the case that a playwright, or a person who produces and presents a play, could be in any real doubt as to what may form the basis of the complaint that the play is an obscene play? I do not wish to descend into details, but suppose, for example, there is a representation on the stage of particular behaviour which is obviously possibly likely to offend against notions of decency. Can a playwright really be in any doubt that that is the passage in the play which could conceivably cause the play as a whole to
626
have the tendency objected to? suppose he represents a love scene between two people in the first scene of the second act, and that all the rest of the play is not such as could give rise to objection. Is it really realistic to think that he could have the least doubt in his own mind that if the play as a whole is to be regarded as having the tendency in question, it must be because there is that love scene in the first scene of the second act?
I should have thought, therefore, that the second objection which could be urged against the proposal is that it assumes an unreality. It assumes that the person against whom the complaint is made could be in real doubt as to what it is that he has put into his play which gave rise to complaint. So in the event I think there is not much point in the proposal. As I said, it can only refer to the play as a whole because that is the relevant question; and, secondly, it would be a notice passed on by the Attorney General to a person who does not need it because he almost certainly knows already. I should have thought it wholly unrealistic to think of a playwright or producer, if he is told that his play is disliked on the ground that it infringes the provisions in Clause 2, wondering what it is that has claused that to be said. He will know better than anybody else. There may be the very rare case in which he will not know, because he is singularly insensitive or singularly unable to discriminate between what could and what could not give rise to complaint against him. But in 999 cases out of a 1,000 the playwright will not want particulars of the matter complained of; he will be fully cognisant of it without any such particulars.
My third objection is that it is wholly contrary to precedent, and wholly contrary to accepted notions of the Attorney General's Office, to expect him to act, as I said, as a post box. All that the Amendment requires him to do is, I suppose, to say to his Permanent Secretary: "Open the mail in the morning, and if you find a complaint against a particular play put it back in the envelope and re-address it to the person who directed or produced the play." That is all the Amendment requires. I cannot, with respect to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, see any real advantage in asking for that purely

627
mechanical process, the forwarding on of letters, to be erected into a duty incumbent upon the Attorney General. For those reasons, I would ask the House to say that there is no adequate case made out for this Amendment.
I suppose one could go a little further. I could, perhaps, also raise the objection Which I raised on a not wholly dissimilar Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. In the case of Lord Goodman's Amendment, the proposal was that notice of the complaint should be given after the Attorney General had considered (I think I am roughly paraphrasing his proposal) and had made up his mind that this was a case in which he ought seriously to consider a prosecution. That was Lord Goodman's proposal. That element in Lord Goodman's proposal is lacking in the proposal at present before the House. Lord Goodman's proposal, after all, was one designed to give the playwright, may I call it a locus pœnitentiœ. I objected to it rightly or wrongly on the ground that it was not right if the playwright had committed the offence that he should have that locus pœnitentiœ. He was guilty or he was not guilty. That was the argument I used. The noble Lord did not accept it and it may be right or it may be wrong, but this Amendment has not even got that—may I use the word with all respect?—utility about it.
All the Amendment does it to make the Attorney General's office a post box. If this Amendment were accepted, the Attorney General would have to readdress the letters. He would not have to form a judgment on the nature of the complaint and would have to do nothing whatever about it. It might be a most ridiculous and scurrilous complaint which normally would be thrown straight into the waste paper basket. But I suppose it would have to be put into another envelope, marked "On Her Majesty's Service" and forwarded to the person against whom the complaint had been made.
In a word, I submit to your Lordships that no case has been made out for any Amendment in this form. As I say, it is cognate to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which this House has not accepted, and I submit it has very much less to sup-
628
port it than, if I may say so without arrogance, the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I therefore advise the House to reject it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, did not deal with the part of the argument of my noble friend that people going through the expensive business of putting on plays deserve to be given some sort of "red light" when there is the prospect that they are going to fall within the mischief of the Bill if they proceed. It is a very expensive business to put on plays, and the moment there is some likelihood of proceedings being taken under this Bill surely it is only fair that the person having all this financial expense before him should be given some sort of red light, because otherwise, as my noble friend said, it would be extremely unfair to people putting on plays.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I believe in your Lordships' House it is customary for a speaker to ask permission to speak again during the Report stage. If I may, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I answered what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just said. The point I was seeking to make was that there is no requirement in the Amendment that there should be the least likelihood of a prosecution. There could be the most utterly frivolous and absurd complaint about a play, which anybody who read it would throw in the waste paper basket at once. There might be hundreds of complaints to which no one with the least common sense would pay the least attention. Nevertheless, the effect of the Amendment is that all the complaints would have to be solemnly re-addressed and forwarded on to the playwright. That is why I submitted to the House that there was little purpose to be served in accepting the Amendment.
1.29 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am puzzled about the course this discussion is taking. It seems to be on the basis that this Amendment is dealing with obscenity, but if one reads the Amendment one finds that it concerns a complaint in respect of the publication of defamatory matter. I do not know whether that was intended by the

629
noble Earl who moved the Amendment, but in taking it on its face value this Amendment asks that the Attorney General should deal with complaints relating to allegations of defamation which I should have thought are clearly a private matter, and that it would be for private persons who feel that they are defamed by something in a play to take such action as they saw fit. It would be an extraordinary thing, I should have thought, if the Attorney General was asked to tell people whether they had been privately defamed and whether they ought to engage in litigation as a result. It may well be that this is a misconception and that it was really intended to say obscene matter, and it is on that basis, I believe, that my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has dealt with the matter. On that aspect I would only add this: that while the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and myself attempted to deal with the problem of giving notice in relation to a threatened prosecution, it does not seem to me, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, that this Amendmentt, even if it used the word "obscene" instead of "defamatory", would meet that sort of situation.
LORD MITCHISON: I rise to defend the common postcard. No doubt it is going to be enlarged, but to suggest that all the parts of a play which are obscene can be put on the back of one postcard seems to me to be demanding a bit much from the usual handwriting. I could not get it on in my handwriting. The play is presumably like the curate's egg, bad in parts. The whole may be obscene and the complaint may be about the whole, and undoubtedly it has to be looked at as a whole. But supposing the complaint is about Act 2 and Acts 1, 3 and 4 are all right. How are we going to get Act 2 on a postcard?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I think we may be doing a slight injustice to the Amendment, because I think that perhaps its intentions are superior to its expression. From what I gathered from the speeches of the mover and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, it has a rather similar intention to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and I sought to move on Committee stage. And with Lord Airedale's remark I have total sympathy,
630
which was whether it is not possible to find some means of enabling the management or producers of a play to put the matter right before they suffer an irreparable loss. That is the real point of the Amendment.
I would venture to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. There was never any suggestion in my Amendment that the fact that this locus pœnitentiae should be provided would in any way absolve the management from liability to prosecution. If they had in fact perpetrated an obscenity they would be prosecuted for that. All this would do would be to give them an opportunity to continue to produce the play concerned by removing the offensive elements. I should have thought that for a skilled Parliamentary draftsman—and I am sure the noble Lord will remember that we private Members do our drafting in our spare time, and with the exercise of rudimentary talents—it would be possible to evolve a scheme of that kind which world be wholeheartedly welcomed by the theatrical profession. It would be a great reassurance to management. It would not compromise the principle of the Bill, and it would make it possible for the theatrical investor to feel a goof deal safer.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I am most grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said. He has put into far better words exactly what I intended. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I appreciate the trouble he has taken. In view of everything, I think I had better leave it to the discretion of the House whether to accept the Amendment or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 [Script as evidence of what was performed]:
1.35 p.m.
LORD FARINGDONmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and the next following section" and insert "Act". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to deal with all three of my Amendments on the Marshalled List, the first in Clause 9 and the last in Clause 17. The first and third Amendments are consequential, and the "meat" of my business is in my proposed new clause after

631
Clause 10. With your Lordships' permission, I will deal now with this Amendment. I can deal with it very briefly because it is now the third time that it has come up before your Lordships' House, and on the last occasion, your Lordships may remember, I expressed the hope, and almost expectation, that I should be able to produce, with the help of draftsmen of the Home Office, some formula which would do what both I and, I think, everybody else who is aware of the circumstances really wanted, but recognising that there were great difficulties which crop up in the way of drafting. I have received valuable assistance, and I think that most of the points of criticism have now been met. I therefore hope that my noble friend will find it possible to accept these Amendments.
I would point out the differences between these Amendments and the earlier Amendments which I moved at Committee stage. The first addition is that any new editions of the script, which must still be surrendered to the British Museum, should no longer be counted. The script to be delivered to the British Museum will consist of the script of the first and unique first-night performance of the play. Again in order to limit the scope, in the present Amendment I am moving that only public performances should be considered in this connection. It also excludes printed and published plays from scripts and a new play is defined here as a play new in this country and performed in England for the first time. The amount of the maximum penalty fine for failing to carry out the provisions of what will be the Act has been reduced to £5. This is intended to bring it into line with the Copyright Act, where the fine is of the same amount. As I have said, the other two Amendments are purely definitions of terms in this Amendment. I think I have missed nothing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("and the next following section") and insert ("Act").—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Faringdon said this was the third time we had discussed this particular subject. I should like to take
632
the opportunity to correct a slip which I made when talking on this particular subject in Committee, when I said that I understood that the Society for Theatre Research would be willing to help operate a voluntary system. I knew of their interest in the preservation of this material but I want to make it clear that it has been their contention that there should be a statutory obligation in the matter. What I said arose from information that I had about the interests of the Theatres National Committee in keeping this material together and from a suggestion made to the Society of West End Theatre Managers that it should make itself responsible for asking its members to send scripts to the British Museum or any other chosen body. I would express the hope that, whether we are to have a statutory or a voluntary arrangement, all theatrical organisations will play a full part in whatever system may be introduced.
In this connection I am happy to be able to make reference to correspondence which I have had with Mr. Emile Littler, the Chairman of the Theatres National Committee. He was first kind enough to send me a copy of a letter which he had sent on June 7 to my noble friend Lord Goodman, and in his covering letter to me he said:
"The Theatres National Committee are anxious that a complete record of all scripts played in the British Isles will continue to be available for reference and for posterity. During my career I have on a number of occasions been able to refer to the Lord Chamberlain for missing pages of dialogue in scripts of the past. It will be invaluable if the suggested Amendment after Clause 16 can be moved in the House."
That, of course, was my noble friend's Amendment which was moved in Committee.
In a later letter of July 5, Mr. Emile Littler said:
"The Society of West End Theatre Managers has deferred taking any steps about making itself responsible for its members to send scripts of new plays to the British Museum pending the outcome of Lord Faringdon's Amendment. But I am sure that in any event managers will be happy to co-operate in this respect so that this valuable record of the living theatre is retained for posterity."
It is my understanding, much as I welcome Mr. Littler's views and feelings in this matter, that the Society of West End Theatre Managers would prefer, as it were, compulsion in well doing.

633
I think it has been clear from the start that we have all been anxious and willing to support any reasonable arrangement that could be made to ensure, so far as we can, that the scripts of plays should be sent to the British Museum, but there have been a great many technical and other difficulties which I sought to point out when my noble friend moved his previous Amendment in Committee. I am bound to say that this new version of the old Amendment meets most of the practical objections that were raised when we discussed my noble friend's last Amendment—for instance, as to the actual nature of the obligation that it imposes. As I emphasised in Committee, if statutory obligations are to be imposed, carrying criminal sanctions, it is essential that those who are liable should be in a position to know exactly what the obligation amounts to. Here it seems to me that in limiting the obligation to—in effect—the script of the first night performance, we have a workable requirement, and one moreover that I do not think could be said to impose an unreasonable burden on the presenter.
For my part, as your Lordships know, I have been inclined to think that one would have to do without a statutory obligation at all. There is a good deal to be said for the view that the preservation of the raw material of theatrical history should be left in the hands of the theatres' own research societies. Nevertheless, on studying this Amendment I have reached the conclusion that it is one I can recommend to the House, if your Lordships are in agreement with the principle behind it.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I should just like to say a word or two to convey the gratitude of many people to the Government for what has been said, and particularly to convey gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for the resolute moderation with which he has persisted in what I think is an absolutely admirable cause, with this happy result.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, perhaps I can say on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for having, in a sense, fought the battle of the British Museum on this particular Amendment, and to convey our gratitude to the Government for providing those
634
facilities without which one cannot get an Amendment on a matter of this kind into the proper shape. We are deeply gratified that such help has been given to the Museum.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I do not want to strike a discordant note, because I have every sympathy with the motive behind the Amendment. However, I feel it my duty to point out that some practical difficulties may arise. The clause applies where there is a public performance of a new play. What I wish to put before the House for consideration is this. I suppose that this provision would include plays performed up and down the country in school halls and in halls of various sorts in villages and small towns. I should have thought that it would be extremedy difficult to see that in respect of those the law was obeyed. It may be asked, for example, of a performance in a school hall, "Is it a public performance?". Well, if parents are allowed to attend and bring their friends—possibly there may be a charitable motive and tickets may be sold to all corners for some useful purpose like rebuilding a school hall or providing funds for a church, or something of that sort—then I should have thought that in most cases that would be a public performance of the play. If that is the case, then I feel that this provision would be virtually unenforceable. And realty it does not mend matters to say that the penalty is only £5. I should have Thought it was not in the interests of good legislation to put criminal provisions on the Statute Book and to say: "True, they will not be enforced, but still the penalty is a very small one." That is not the way to draft criminal legislation.
However, my noble friend Lord Stonham seems to be content. It is largely the responsibility of the Government to decide whether this sort of legislation can be enforced. I certainly should not in those circumstances seek to stand in the way of any view which your Lordships may have formed in favour of the Amendment and the favourable view expressed by the Government.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, may I venture one further comment, to say that if this is legislated it will be the most beneficial piece of bad legislation which has been enacted for centuries, and we should all welcome it.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I, in spite of my blushes, express my gratitude for the encomiums which have been so lavishly bestowed upon me. I only regret that they are almost wholly undeserved. I wish that they were deserved. They are deserved by others, to whom I can only convey your Lordships' thanks. I believe my noble friend Lord Stow-Hill is unduly pessimistic. This system has worked under the Lord Chamberlain for a couple of hundred years and I think that, with any luck, we can make it work for another couple of hundred years without any gross lapse from good form or good practice.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause:
Delivery of scripts of new plays to British Museum
(".—(1) Where after the coming into force of this section there is given in Great Britain a public performance of a new play, being a performance based on a script, a copy of the actual script on which that performance was based shall be delivered to the Trustees of the British Museum free of charge within the period of one month beginning with the date of the performance; and the Trustees shall give a written receipt for every script delivered to them pursuant to this section.
(2) If the requirements of subsection (1) above are not complied with in the case of any performance to which that subsection applies, any person who presented that performance shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5.
(3) In this section 'public performance of a new play' means a public performance of a play of which no previous public performance has ever been given in Great Britain, but does not include a public performance of a play which—

(a) is based on a script substantially the same as that on which a previous public performance of a play given there was based; or

(b) is based substantially on a text of the play which has been published in the United Kingdom.

(4) For the purposes of this section a performance of a play given solely or primarily for one or more of the purposes mentioned in section 7(2)(a) and (b) of this Act shall be disregarded.")—(Lord Faringdon.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
".Nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the law of sedition."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to bring into this Bill a reference to sedition because I thought it was important, if one could, to bring it to the attention of those responsible for producing plays that that law continued to exist. It is quite true that this Bill does not affect the law of sedition at all, but I thought there was a danger that with this new change a lot of people would think that they had only to look at this Bill when it had become an Act to find out what they could or could not do. Of course, that view, if they held it, would be quite mistaken. The ordinary law of blasphemy will continue to apply, and, I think I am right in saying, other branches of the law. But in particular I thought it was desirable to have some reference to the law of sedition.
We discussed this matter on Committee, when I withdrew the Amendment I then tabled, and I tabled this Amendment just to act as a signpost to indicate that the law of sedition is unaffected. But since I tabled this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has very kindly written me a letter in which he has explained that he does not think, and the Government do not think, that it is desirable to put this kind of provision in this Bill when in fact there is nothing in the Bill that could possibly affect the law of sedition. But he has said that when this Bill becomes an Act, as it shortly will, it is proposed to send out some kind of circular in which attention will be drawn to the fact that the law of sedition remains unaffected by this Bill. If that circular goes, as I imagine it is intended to go, to those in the theatrical profession I am perfectly content and satisfied with that; and though I formally move this Amendment to enable the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to say whether I have it right, if I have it right I shall immediately rise and ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilborne, in speaking on an earlier Amendment to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, said that he hoped one day he would draft an Amendment absolutely right. I forbore from getting up to interrupt to tell him that he had done so some time ago on the Theft Bill. It was to remove the word "and"; and, as I then told him, it was completely and absolutely and technically right. So although this is not the first occasion, I assure the noble and learned Viscount that again this particular Amendment is technically perfect.
However, I am glad that he accepts the view that this Bill affects the law of sedition in no way whatsoever. I am sure he will also accept that it is not good practice to add words unnecessarily to a Bill; that sometimes causes trouble. But I very gladly assure him and confirm what I said in my letter. We do not in fact have it in mind to send out what he described as a circular, but rather more than that. We have it in mind to circulate a small publication dealing with the Bill as a whole, and hope even dealing with some of the points raised just now by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, but saying in terms precisely in relation to the law of sedition what the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment says. And this I will do.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am very content with that and thank the noble Lord. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
1.54 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved to add to subsection (1):
"public performance' includes any performance in a public place within the meaning of the Public Order Act 1936 and any performance which the public or any section thereof are permitted to attend, whether on payment or otherwise."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilborne, drew attention to the fact on an earlier occasion that there was no definition in the Bill of the words "public performance". If I may respectfully say so to him, he was perfectly right
638
and I am very much indebted to him for calling attention to the point. We have now tried to remedy this by embodying part of the definition in the Public Order Act 1936; that is to say, that part which relates to the place at which a performance may take place, and adding also:
"any performance which the public or any section thereof are permitted to attend, whether on payment or otherwise."
As noble Lords will know, the only places in which the expression "public performance" appears are Clause 5, which relates to racial incitement, and Clause 6, which relates to an intention to create a breach of the peace, and also in some of the licensing provisions. I would put it to the House that it is a very great improvement to know exactly what we mean by a public performance". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, at end insert the said definition.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord for meeting the point I raised. I agree with him that it leads to a more easy understanding of the scope of this Bill.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, at end insert—
"'script' has the meaning assigned by section 9(2) of this Act."—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Theatres Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15):
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I desire to raise one small point, which I hope is now in Order. It arose out of Amendment No. 3 to Clause 8. I am not seeking to go back on the discussion about the Amendment in any way, but I think that what was intended by the Amendment was quite clear; whether or not it was quite met by its form I do not know. But the point surely is that if the Attorney General is asked—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can give me some guidance on this point. We have no Amendment under consideration, and I am not quite clear how this point could be raised on Third Reading.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not set myself up as an authority on the procedure of the House and if I cannot raise it, I cannot. I do not know who decides or what I should do. I am entirely in the hands of the House. I am not going to take long about it, but if my noble friend objects, and if that is the opinion of the House, I will sit down again. It is a very small matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as I understand it, my noble friend is perfectly free within the Rules of the House to say exactly what he likes on Third Reading. That was not my point. My noble friend referred to Amendment No. 3 to Clause 8, which of course we have passed long since. I am not clear as to the point he has in mind.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, with respect, what I said was that the point arose within the Amendment. I am not going back on the discussion about the Amendment itself. If I may have the leave of the House to raise the matter quite shortly, and if my noble friend does not object too strongly, I should like to continue. All I was saying was this. What is intended is that when a complaint is made to the Attorney General, and his fiat is practical, since he sometimes takes quite a long time to decide what he is going to do the person concerned should have notice or it so as not to go on incurring further expenditure.
All I rise to say is this. I do not know whether there is a relevant rule-making power or whether this point can be met by a notice or some such thing,
640
but it would seem reasonable that a copy of the complaint should be sent by someone, the complainant or somebody else, to the person affected so as to avoid further expenditure. I do not know what power there is to do it, and I do not ask for an answer now. But the mischief aimed at was quite a real one, and I hope the Government might consider, not in the terms of this Bill, but what is done under it, or in the practice of the Attorney General's Office, whether it would not be possible to meet it.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, on the occasion of the Third Reading may I, in one sentence, express my sincere gratitude to the House for the care and patience with which your Lordships have examined the provisions of this Bill and the indulgence you have shown to me when I have sought to deal with the difficulties which have arisen.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FRIENDLY AND INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
2.2 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peddie, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Mitchison.)
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CARAVAN SITES BILL
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Amherst.)
Clause 3 [Protection of occupiers against eviction and harassment]:
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, this Amendment is the result of a general

641
agreement that the original wording was a little harsh, and this is a more humane way of dealing with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("conviction") to end of line 11 and insert—

"(a) in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding £100;

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both."—(Earl Amherst.)

LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I should like just to say a word to the sponsors of the Bill on this Amendment. This Amendment meets the point which I particularly had in mind, that there should be no imprisonment for a first offence. It does not go the whole way that my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal and I had in mind, to take out imprisonment altogether. I cannot pretend to be entirely happy about the insertion of the words "or to both" at the end, but equally I cannot pretend to get exceedingly worked up about it. So I will just thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and his friends for meeting this point.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass I should like to express, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade and my colleagues on these Benches, our thanks for the courteous consideration and help which we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Amherst.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, before the Question is put, I should just like to answer on behalf of the Government and to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and those who have been helping him, for introducing what the Government are convinced is a useful little measure for the protection of caravan dwellers, and an important and larger measure for achieving that reconciliation
642
between gipsies and the larger number of the population which it is the purpose of us all to achieve.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EUROPEAN AIR-BUS PROJECT
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans for discontinuing their participation in the European A.300 Airbus project and offering, instead, launching aid to the BAC 2–11 or other national projects. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising at five minutes to two o'clock on a Friday afternoon I am conscious of the need for brevity, and I will do my best to meet that need, so that at least the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can get away for his lunch.
The issue before us was brought at into sharp focus a week or so ago when it was announced in another place, in answer to a Question from the honourable Member for Woking, that the Anglo-European air-bus project has now suffered an escalation in its estimated launching costs of no less than 50 per cent., and that we are now, jointly with our European partners, faced with a bill of something approaching £250 million. No doubt, judging by the previous rate of escalation, since that Question was answered there has been a further rise, but that question is not on the Order Paper to-day, and I will not labour it further.
The airbus project was, we were originally told, to be finalised in its design and other criteria by the end of the present month; indeed, it was originally hoped that by that time the principal airlines involved, that is to say, B.E.A., for Great Britain, Lufthansa, for Germany, and Air France and Air-Inter, for France, would have been able to reach a decision and the total option book—if not the order book—would stand at about 75 aeroplanes before the project received its final "go ahead". Alas! this has not happened. First, as a result, no doubt, among other things, of this recent almost shattering increase in R. & D. costs for the project, and for other reasons, the airlines (except, I understand, Air Inter, which is the French domestic airline) have said they are not yet in a position

643
to reach a decision on their requirement for this aeroplane, and indeed I understand that only a week or so ago the aircraft design was altered fairly substantially, which of course produced a new set of circumstances for the airlines to consider.
The other difficulty that faces the project, if, as we are given to understand, there are options on 75 aeroplanes before the project proceeds, is that the interested airlines (if they can be so termed, although perhaps "interested" is a strong word in the case of some of them) have been unable to agree among themselves upon a specification for this aeroplane. I suggest that this is unfortunate, because no doubt the airlines do not always know what is best for themselves, but as a result of this the manufacturers are obliged to incorporate modifications in the aircraft for each different customer; and this of course has of itself tended to increase the R. & D. costs and, ultimately, the purchase price of the aeroplane. This increase in R. & D. costs, and thus the purchase price of the aeroplane will of course be finally reflected in the ultimate operating costs of the aeroplane, and no doubt this has further aggravated the difficulties facing the airline in reaching their decision.
The third difficulty is that after the first two difficulties, the reluctance of the airlines to commit themselves and the undoubted very substantial increase in costs, many people, again including the airlines—who are, after all, the ultimate customers—have considerable doubts about the ultimate wisdom of the design philosophy behind the aeroplane. No doubt, of course, a twin-engine aeroplane, such as has hitherto been put forward—that is to say with two large engines, which in the present design are to be mounted under the wings—has many economic advantages. But there are a number of difficulties alongside the advantages.
First, because we shall be using only two engines it will be necessary for an entirely new engine to be developed. This is to be designated the RB 207. which is an engine beyond the stage of the RB 211 and which recently was successful in achieving an order from the Lockheed Company for fitting to the Lockheed 1011 air-bus. Thus we are
644
developing, no doubt at considerable expense (I understand the figure is to be around £70 million), an entirely new engine for this airframe, for which, at this stage at least, no other project is foreseen. There was, I understand, a proposed aeroplane in America for RB 207 engine but that project has since been abandoned.
Although the under-wing engine layout for a twin-engine aeroplane has considerable economic advantages, the disadvantages, apart from the fact that the engine itself must be a new one, are very serious when considered in the light of the recent accident at London Airport when, your Lordships will recall, a B.O.A.C. 707 had an engine disintegrate during the take-off phase of the flight and, as a result, an emergency landing had to be made. The aircraft took fire, and only by the skill of the pilot and a considerable amount of good luck was the death roll kept down to six.
In this new aircraft we are considering, if a similar accident occurred, if one of the engines—and it should be borne in mind that this is an entirely new engine—disintegrated at the same stage of the flight, the pilot would be faced with far more serious isometric problems, as they are called, than was the pilot of the Boeing 707 at London Airport. If the engine disintegrated to the same extent as the 707 engine did, and caused the same damage to systems as that accident caused, I think it would be fair to say that the entire passenger load of the aircraft would be placed in serious jeopardy. Indeed, I do not think it is overstating the case to say that the accident would be catastrophic.
If we accept the objection to fitting the RB 207 and seek to fit the RB 211, we must remember that for a 300-seater aircraft the RB 211 engine is not big enough if only two of them are fitted, and it is necessary to fit a third. But if we do this, if we evolve a tri-jet design, we shall be overcoming, even if we retain the under-wing conception for the two principal engines, the principal objection to the isometric difficulties that are envisaged in a simple two-engine design.
Finally, there is a fourth reason why we should take an early decision on this Anglo-European A-300 project. That is that, as I am advised, in connection

645
with certain offset purchases that are proposed by the Lockheed company in regard to their 1011 project, the company take the view that if the A-300 project goes ahead this to some extent will reduce the potential sales of the 1011 project. This would mean that they would not be prepared to go ahead with certain offset purchase agreements they are proposing to enter into in the event of the A-300 not proceeding. I do not suggest that that of itself is a reason for abandoning or otherwise the A-300 project; but at least it is a reason for an early decision, one way or the other.
The objections to the A-300 are, in a nutshell, first, that the aircraft appears to be too expensive, although it may be possible for further cost-effectiveness studies to be carried out, and perhaps the price could be kept down or the efficiency of the aircraft could be increased. Secondly, there is no unanimity of requirements among airlines for the particular perimeters that shall be applied to the aircraft's performance. Thirdly, the aircraft is not using the RB 211 engine but the entirely new RB 207, which will need additional expenditure of, we are told, some £70 million for development, bearing in mind that the RB 211, a smaller engine, is already paid for R. and D-wise by the American order for the 1011 air-bus.
Fourthly, the danger that I and others see in the basic design philosophy of this aircraft is that it is fitted with only two engines and, furthermore, they are under-wing engines, which cause considerable isometric difficulties to pilots in certain disadvantageous circumstances. Fifthly, we need to have a decision, and I imagine that if it is to be early it must be a cancellation decision, so that the proposed offset purchases that it is hoped that certain American firms will place may go ahead without delay.
My Lords, if the A 300 is to go—and rumour has it that in fact it has already been cancelled by the Government, though they have not yet announced it—what are we to do in its place? I would submit that the answer is to appoint a requirements committee, including, but not ruled by, the airlines, to finalise a specification and to make it a general specification from which departure could be made only at the expense of the par-
646
ticular customer. I would submit, secondly, that this national project should be fitted not with two RB 207 engines, the design philosophy of which is at best suspect, but three RB 211 engines, because they have already been r aid for R. and D.-wise. I have no doubt that this aircraft would be similar to the L. 1011 project, but there would be a number of differences, because the requirements of the A-300 replacement, as this would be, would not be by any means the same as those for the L. 1011, principally because it would be a shorter-range aircraft.
Perhaps in considering the finance of this project, the Government could well offer, say, 50 per cent. of the airframe launching costs and at the same time direct B.E.A. to purchase the aircraft or prevent them, if need be, from too radically altering the specification, except at their own expense.
There remains the suggestion that B.E.A. should then be subsidised to operate this aircraft. I submit that if the specification has been settled by the committee of airlines, on which the B.E.A. would have a voice—but not an overriding one—there is no reason why they, along with the other airlines, should not be able to operate the aircraft economically. We are led to believe that B.E.A. have recently been offered a £27 million subsidy (I think that was the figure) to operate the Trident 3B, which they were directed to purchase. But some of us believe that that was entirely unjustified. B.E.A. ought to be able to operate the Trident without any subsidy, because there is nothing the matter with that, or with any of the Trident variations, as an airplane, whether economicaly or from any other point of view. It may be that the Committee which look into this matter will consider that the BAC 3–11 will be the right aeroplane, though I imagine that they will find it too small. In passing, the BAC 3–11 was announced only after I had put my Question down on the Order Paper, and clearly it is now superseded by this aircraft which my Question specifically mentions. At all events, cancellation of the A-300 project must not mean a substantial sum of money lost to the British aircraft industry, because I feel that it is essential for the wellbeing of that industry and of the

647
airlines, that a new generation of aeroplanes should be produced, if not through Anglo-European co-operation then nationally; and I believe that our British aircraft industry is fully capable and willing to produce a national viable alternative.
2.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINN OULL: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for raising this Question on the future of the European Airbus. I do not see that he has any reason to apologise to the House for raising it at this hour, and I am sorry that the attendance of the House is not perhaps worthy of the Question. It gives us a valuable opportunity of probing the Government on their plans and contingency plans if the European Airbus does not proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has, in his usual crisp manner, presented and painted a fairly black picture about the future of the European Airbus project. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know, my noble friend is one of the few Members of this House who has built up a considerable reputation in the aviation world and can speak with considerable practical knowledge and authority on aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, himself has a reputation as a former pilot and one who was in the aviation world, and I hope he will be able to match up today and answer, and not avoid, the searching and penetrating argument that my noble friend has put forward.
The timing of my noble friend's Question is, I believe, apt, because we are all aware that at the end of this month the consortium of the three countries, Germany, France and ourselves, will be engaged in trying to reach a final decision on whether or not to go ahead with the European project. By that time one presumes they will have before them information on the agreed specification, on the launching costs, on the production costs and, of course, on the market potential. We understand that with this information before them they will be in a position to come to a decision. Having said that, and having read an undertaking given in another place on June 24, that a final decision would be made at this meeting, I think it is worth asking the
648
noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to-day to confirm the Government's intention that this meeting is to be the deadline and that the final judgment to remove all these uncertainties on whether or not the project proceeds will be settled.
I believe that a firm decision is essential now, not only for the good of the European Airbus project but also for the good of an alternative project should the original be cancelled. We are told that the American Airbus, the Lockheed, already has a lead of about a year over the European Airbus project. As the gap widens, the difficulty must be for the European Airbus to come into the market and compete with the Lockheed Airbus. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick would agree that the European Airbus project has been surrounded over the last few months with a continual volume of conflicting and confusing rumours as to how the airline operators themselves view the project. From the point of view of the airline operators, their judgment must of course rest with the aircraft's cost, with the time of delivery and with the operating performance in comparison with other aircraft available at the time of purchase. On all these points I find it difficult to see how any airline operator at present can make a proper judgment on the European Airbus project.
But, having said that, we find that the consortium engaged in this project said some months ago, that before coming to their final conclusion they would require a support order of not less than 75 aircraft from the home national airline operators. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will to-day take the opportunity, which in fact we invite him to take, of clearing away the clouds of uninformed opinion and rumour surrounding the proposed order, and will tell us the answer to three points. First, are the consortium sticking definitely to this requirement of 75 aircraft? Secondly, can he confirm the newspaper comment we have all seen that at present only about 40 aircraft have been suggested as being required by the national airlines? Thirdly, does he agree that it is perhaps still too early for airline operators to commit themselves? If he does agree with that, are the consortium prepared to press ahead with a project before a final commitment?

649
One of the main purposes of my noble friend's Question to-day, on which I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply, is what is the Government's contingency planning on the European Airbus project should it be cancelled? In view of the widespread doubts that have been expressed within the past few months, not only by noble friend but even by former colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—Mr. Douglas Jay in particular, and others—I think we are entitled to an undertaking by the Government to-day that they are prepared to invest an equivalent sum of money into a British Airbus project should their investment in a European project be frustrated by cancellation?
My noble friend has dealt fully with the question of the engine of the proposed Airbus project, and I think most convincingly on the technical reasons against the use of the RB.207 engine. I should like to support his argument, not so much on the technical grounds, on which I have no qualifications to speak, but more on what I consider the practical grounds of cost and production. As my noble friend has said, we were told on June 24 in another place that the launching costs of the RB.207 had risen to over £70 million. This, in our calculation, appears to amount to about 25 per cent. of the total launching costs of the European project. The wisdom of proceeding with the RB.207 engine in the European Airbus project—and I assume here that we are talking about the British engine going into the European aircraft project; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be able to confirm that, in the end, it will not be an American Pratt and Whitney engine—appears suspect on three grounds.
The first ground is the airline operators' obvious dislike, certainly in America, of having only two engines in the aircraft. My noble friend has dealt with this fully. The second ground is the obvious one of the cost of launching. Of course, we have the RB.211 engine mentioned already with substantial orders in America which could be fitted into the project so long as the design of the project at present was altered. Finally, we have a real problem in regard to production, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government are quite cer-
650
tain that Rolls Royce, being fully stretched with the American order for the RB.211 and with the stringent conditions of delivery of this engine, will be capable of producing a second major new technology engine at the time required.
My Lords, I conclude by hoping that the Government will reach a firm decision by the end of this month on whether or not the European Airbus project goes ahead. The struggle between the American aircraft industry and the industries in Britain and in Europe seems to intensify year by year, and the requirement of a clear Government lead to safeguard the future of the British aircraft industry, perhaps the European aircraft industry, is vital to its future. The world market for the airbus project we all know is large. I hope the Government, by lack of a decision, will not miss the bus.
2.31 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as etas said by his noble colleague the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a very searching analysis of some very important problems that face the European and British aircraft industry. I only wish that the very straightforward and piercing questions that were put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, were capable of similarly straightforward answers, but I fear that in this field of aircraft production, which is so tied up with national politics and national economies and international politics and international economies, it is just not feasible to give absolutely straightforward answers. But I will do my best to say how the situation appears to Her Majesty's Government at this point of time.
As we are talking about the possibility of Government subvention of British aircraft manufacturers, probably it will be useful if I state in the first place the two basic criteria which Her Majesty's Government apply when deciding whether or not to support financially a new civil aircraft project. I stress this because I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he put forward his idea of some committee which was going to recommend something and on the basis of its recommendation Her Majesty's Government would provide 50 per cent. of the cost of it, was I fear being a little bit

651
starry-eyed as far as practical politics are concerned. First of all, we have to decide what the numbers of the designed aircraft are likely to be. Secondly, will there be a sufficient margin between the production costs and the selling price to enable the Government to recover their investment over a reasonable number of sales. Those are the two basic criteria which we have applied to the proposed projects we are considering. With these criteria in mind, it is up to the manufacturer to make the best proposition he can. In parallel, the Ministry of Technology carries out its own studies of the proposed design and its estimated development and production cost, makes its own market evaluation and discusses with the company concerned the possible terms of a launching aid agreement.
This process of decision was applied when the British Aircraft Corporation proposed development of the BAC 2–11. Since a lot was said about the BAC 2–11, even though the noble Lord himself is now agreeing we have moved on a little, possibly I can say something about what happened when this proposal was put forward. There is no doubt that the aircraft would have been attractive at that time for some airlines. One airline has continued to be interested, I understand, and B.E.A. certainly had an interest in it at the time of the recent controversy.
But the risk investment was large: it was some £120 million. The financial terms proposed by B.A.C. left the Government carrying a very large part of the total risk and dependent on sales of some 300 BAC 2–11s to recover their investment, without interest, in the airframe. The prospects in that case were just not judged sufficiently favourable to warrant Her Majesty's Government taking a risk. There was no question on that occasion of the British Aircraft Corporation putting up 50 per cent. They did eventually come forward with a proposal, but even then it was far below the 50 per cent. figure.
The BAC 2–11 had the attraction of promising to be the first 200-seater on the market and it had, as the noble Lord himself said, these new technology engines, the RB211. But this advantage in time was to be gained by drawing largely on existing airframe technology, which the Government judged likely to
652
be outdated not so very long after the aircraft went into service. The selection of the RB211 engine to power the Lockheed 1011 aircraft, though an event of great significance in its own right, did not dramatically change the picture of the BAC 2–11. Even with the engine launched for another application, there remained the requirement of £80 million risk investment in an airframe which, in the judgment of the Government, was not ideally matched to the commercial requirements of the 1970s.
When I dealt with this matter in answer to a Question in this House only a few weeks ago I was severely criticised. I am not sure whether the noble Lord himself did not join in the criticism certainly put by another noble Lord on a Bench further along, but I think he will probably agree that in this case Her Majesty's Government were proven correct: we were right in our decision about the BAC 2–11.
I understand it is fair to say that there has since been an evolution of thinking, along these lines, by the British Aircraft Corporation. The Corporation have come to consider the requirement for a civil transport aircraft of about 200 seats in the 1970s and have just announced their latest ideas in the Press. These ideas differ from the BAC 2–11 in important respects. In particular, the BAC 3–11, as it has been named, does away with the long narrow body of the BAC 2–11 in favour of a more spacious fuselage capable of seating seven or eight abreast. This appears to be more consistent with the standards set by the Boeing 747, Lockheed 1011 and Douglas DC 10.
The Government have not yet been approached about the BAC 3–11 proposal. B.A.C. rightly say that they must take their studies further before committing themselves to the necessary large private risk investment and recognise that the Government are likely to be more responsive to an application for launching aid which is backed by a firm intention to buy on the part of two or three airlines.
Now about the European airbus. The decision to seek a collaborative basis for this project was taken in the knowledge that it would be costly to develop. Sharing the cost and widening the "home" market makes a lot of sense, as I know the noble Lords opposite will agree.

653
The first year's work on this basis has shown that the industries of the United Kingdom, France and Germany can collaborate together. Moreover, the passage of time confirms that the basic concept of the aircraft is right. I was asked by the noble Earl whether I could confirm or deny that the 75 aircraft requirement still stands. As I understand it, it does still stand.
Air France certainly maintain their interest in it. Although there is a good deal of argument whether Lufthansa want it, I am assured that the German Federal Government say that, if a decision is made, Lufthansa will honour their obligation. B.E.A. have said that they would want 19 of these aircraft, provided that the price and performance specifications are right, by 1980. But there has been controversy about this. The decision by the two American manufacturers to concentrate on a rather longer range market, for which a three-engined aircraft is better suited, kept us away from a head-on collision with the Americans on this requirement. It seemed to suggest that the complimentary shorter-range aircraft, with a twin-engine concept, was justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said something about the safety factor. I understand why he said it I know that there is concern by a number of people. Possibly in that connection it would be fair to give him this extract from one report.
"Initial tests on the R.A.E. flight simulator have given very encouraging results with regard to ease of handling when an engine fails, despite the higher yawing moment which occurs. With regard to the engine-cut climb gradient, which is at least as important as the handling aspect, the European airbus is being designed, to be better than current aircraft with either two, three or four engines, and there is therefore no cause for concern on this score."
As the noble Lord said, there have been apprehensions by some pilots on this matter, but I would draw his attention to what was said at a meeting of European pilots' association organised by BALPA in 1966:
"Provided a two-engined aircraft could be shown to meet the standard laid down for one having four engines, and provided that pilots could be satisfied that the work load in both the normal and emergency case was not excessive, then a two-engine/2 crew concept might be acceptable."
So much for the safety factor.
654
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, had something to say about the cost of the A 300. He was absolutely right. Costs have risen. Airfame development and tooling costs are now estimated by Sud Aviation, the leading company on he airframe, at not less than £215 million. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that they had escalated to £250 million. This was a figure which was floated by Sud Aviation. They were told to go away and have another look at it, and they came back with something rather lower, and the figure I am now giving is £215 million.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, does the figure of £215 million include the development of the RB 207?
LORD BESWICK: No; I am talking now about the airframe only; that is to say, £215 million by Sud Aviation, the firm which is leading the airframe side of the project. But this compares, I readily agree, with a pre-devaluation figure of £130 million. So there has been escalation, although not as much as the noble Lord indicated. Similarly engine launching costs have increased, with a requirement for increased thrust, to over £70 million. The manufacturers have to show that these costs can be recovered over a reasonable number of aircraft in a highly competitive market. This involves a high standard of production efficiency. The standards the manufacturers felt they could achieve were set out in their reports on the results of their first year's work submitted in May.
Officials from the three countries concerned have been jointly evaluating these reports and exploring their implications with the companies wherever necessary. They have concluded their analysts only this week and have prepared a report to put before the three responsible Ministers of the three countries concerned. They will meet later this month or at the latest on August 1, when some conclusion should be reached. The noble Lord said that a final decision ought to be made whether to stop the project or go on with it. A conclusion will be reached, but again I say that on these matters it is not always as simple as that. But some decision will certainly have to he reached, and it is expected at the meeting later this month. Whatever the decision on the A-300, I foresee a

655
requirement for a 200-seater as a complement to the higher capacity airbus. This could provide an alternative application for the RB 211 engine.
I was asked by the noble Lord about the costs involved here for the RB 211 now that it is applied to the Lockheed project. As I understand it, the United Kingdom Government are investing, or have invested, something of the order of £46 million in the development of the RB 211 for the American market. I am sure we all agree that it will be a very good investment, but that is for a particular application. There would still be further development costs. If it were put into another British or European aircraft, I am advised it would cost something of the order of £10 million more for that engine. In addition, there would be development costs for the airframe. In the case of the BAC 2–11 they would be of the order of £80 million, and for the rather larger machine, they would be of the order of £100 million. Therefore a lot of money is involved, and some care has to be exercised before any decision can be made. But one hopes that an application of this kind can profitably be found for this fine new British engine. I end by saying that any proposal for Government assistance for a new civil aircraft of this type—or any other—will be given careful consideration, within the limits dictated by the need to contain increases in public expenditure.

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
  QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER