Sitting of 31 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

LORD CROWTHER
Sir Geoffrey Crowther, Knight, having been created Baron Crowther, of Headingley in the West Riding in the County of York, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Plowden and the Lord Robbins.

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY
2.46 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether as a result of public revulsion from his first thoughts, the Postmaster General has had any second thoughts regarding the future make up of the London Telephone Directory.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my right honourable friend is considering the views, both favourable and unfavourable, which have been expressed and will make a statement in due course.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very informative statement. Would he ask his right honourable friend whether it would not be possible to decrease the area covered by the four inner directories to make space for more lines, inasmuch as the area is very enormous indeed—unnecessarily so?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I will certainly bring the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government undertake to decide this matter before the Post Office becomes a corporation and therefore before Ministerial responsibility for such a matter ceases?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, did the noble Lord ask me when a statement would be made? I did not quite hear.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I asked whether Her Majesty's Government could undertake that the matter of the directories would be decided before the Post Office becomes a corporation and therefore while the decision can still be questioned in Parliament.
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether more favourable criticisms or more unfavourable criticisms of the scheme have been received?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, as a matter of fact there has been a considerable amount of unfavourable criticism from people who do not know what it is about. The position is this. In the London area alone 40 million inquiries are made to Directory Inquiries, and 16 million of the answers are already in the telephone subscribers' books. That shows that the books, even the four of them, are not clear enough or used enough by the subscribers, and therefore they go to the extent of making 40 million inquiries. That costs a lot of money, which is not now paid by subscribers.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether those 40 million inquiries originate in the area where there would be access to these books, or do they originate outside the area by people who have not the books?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, they are in the areas covered by the books.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, could the Minister say whether these inquiries have increased because we have now gone on to a dial? It takes people a good while to get used to it.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the dial has been in use for a quite long time.

303
I do not know why they have to call Directory Inquiries because they cannot dial a number. With great respect, I think that has nothing to do with it.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the great increase in illiteracy to which the noble Lord calls attention any ground for penalising the literate?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I do not think anybody would be able to curb the literate noble Lord.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that if there are 40 million inquiries with only four books, there might be several more million inquiries when there are 36 books?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the point is—and it may not be obvious to the noble Baroness—that if we have a book for, let us say, the Borough of Kensington, that will cover not only the people who live in the Borough of Kensington but also every subscriber within an area of 100 square miles. Also there will be added 5,000 numbers of places like hospitals, stations, major places of entertainment and departmental stores throughout London. The Kensington Borough Directory will cover every subscriber from Harlesden to Battersea and from St. John's Wood to Fulham. Therefore, with one book the subscriber has a much wider number of people whom he can look up without having to go through four books or nine books, as the case may be.

PRICE OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
2.50 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to stabilise the price of milk to producers and of milk products to manufacturers.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the level of return to milk producers is a matter for the Farm Price Review. The guaranteed price fixed at the Review is, of
304
course, for the standard quantity. The standard quantity includes a substantial proportion of milk which goes to the manufacture of milk products. The price at which milk is sold to manufacturers of milk products is settled by negotiation between them and the Milk Marketing Board.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord not to pass too lightly over the first part of my Question, because the hopeful words in this year's Price Review, indicating that producers were to receive 1·2d., on average, more per gallon, for their milk, have not been borne out. In fact, in June, which was last month, the rate per gallon was actually less than it was in the previous year.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his figures. Of course, the reduction to which he refers arises from the fact that the amount of milk being offered is far greater than the standard quantity. But there is a problem here and, of course, the question of price dilution is taken into account when the Review takes place each year.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, following the noble Lord's reply, the question of dilution is to some extent inevitable, bearing in mind the Government's expansion programme for the dairy industry in the interests of the beef industry. As a supplementary on the second part of my original Question, does the noble Lord appreciate that the market in this country both for dried milk and for cheese is in danger of collapse, owing to the quantities of both of those commodities being offered from abroad at very low prices? I use the term "dump" prices without any fear of correction.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. Again the noble Lord is on to a very serious problem, and it is one of which the Government are aware. My right honourable friend said in another place that he was giving this matter—I think he used the old words— "close and careful attention". I hope myself that another statement can be made on this in the very near future, in a matter of days.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is rather strange that those people who support the

305
competition of capitalism are also demanding stabilisation?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on this matter the Government's good faith is at stake? They made an award of an extra 1·2d. per gallon for producers at the last Price Review on the basis of the higher cost of producing milk. Therefore, the Government have an overriding obligation to see that something like that price is achieved.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on the other hand, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will agree that the Government are honouring their obligation in this matter. They agreed to pay a certain price, a stabilised price, a guaranteed price—and in this matter a guaranteed price is very necessary—but it was for a standard quantity. Over and above that standard quantity, there is, of course, this dilution of price. But the amount of the dilution will be taken into account each year when the Review is discussed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the farmers have had a much more rigid and severe incomes policy imposed on them for a very much longer time, than any other industry in the country?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, could the noble Lord give me some information as to whether, in view of this serious situation, the Government are considering the possibility of putting import levies on to the manufactured milk products that are now being dumped in this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the Ministry of Agriculture were the only Department in Whitehall it would be a comparatively simple matter. If Britain were the only country in the world concerned with these difficulties, then again it would be simple. But we have to take into account international obligations. This we are doing, and I hope that before very long a statement can be made.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask one last supplementary question? If the statement which the noble Lord hopes will be made in a few days follows
306
the example of many other agricultural statements—that is, that some form of voluntary agreement between suppliers is to be entered into—may I ask him to pay particular attention to price as well as to quantity? I ask that because dried milk is being offered from Belgium to this country at the present time at 50s. to 60s. a cwt. when what is called the "threshold price" in the E.E.C. is 227s.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said, without adding to what I said.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when milk was put into cartons we were told that it was because bottles were too expensive? Is he further aware that this does not alter the price?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that this makes any difference to the price which the farmer receives.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could my noble friend say why it is that, while the opposite Benches argue that free competition is the greatest thing in the economic life of this country, they then argue that protection is important?

LAND REGISTRATION
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why it has been necessary to suspend the extension of land registration, and how long this suspension is likely to last.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, in spite of increased efficiency and productivity, the introduction of new areas of compulsory registration of title to land inevitably leads to the need for more staff in Her Majesty's Land Registry. In consequence of the Government's; decision not to increase the number of civil servants during the present financial year, as announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on January 16, Her Majesty's Land Registry have been unable to recruit more staff and have thus been unable to accept

307
further areas of compulsory registration of title to land. I hope that before very long it will be possible to continue with the plan to extend the compulsory registration system throughout the country.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that this registration is self-supporting from the fees of registration, and that the last five years have shown a surplus of some £1,250,000? In these circumstances, does this really constitute a charge on the public purse, and could this registration not be proceeded with rather more quickly or more steadily than in the past?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should be very glad if it could; but many civil servants are, of course, associated with increases in revenue. When, some eight days, I think, after my right honourable friend had spoken, I was speaking in this House on the economic situation and referred to this pledge, I pointed out that we cannot have it both ways; that cutting down the number of civil servants is always popular, but that it was going to mean inconveniences to the public. I think the two examples I then took were, first, delay in getting back one's motor-car registration licence; and, secondly, the fact that it was bound to slow down my programme for extending compulsory registration of title to land.
LORD WADE: My Lords, if, as I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree, land registration results in a reduction in the costs incurred in buying and selling houses, it is surely in the interests of the overall economy of the country to permit and encourage its extension rather than to delay it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should be very glad if we could. Of course, there are a number of civil servants who earn their keep—for instance, those, I suppose, who issue motor-car licences and collect the money. But the pledge was an overall pledge: that in this financial year the total number of civil servants would not be increased.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord further aware that the civil engineering E.D.C.
308
have asked for registration to be speeded up, to save expense and delay in acquiring property for roads? Does the noble and learned Lord really feel that such reductions and economies which could be obtained by increasing the speed of registration are rendered impossible for the reason that he has stated? Could not some special case be made for getting some increase in the civil servants allowed for that purpose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid not. The pledge that the number of civil servants would not be increased this year was favourably received by everybody. As I have said, in this field I, personally, should be glad to see this work done, but it cannot be done without an increase in civil servants.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, while welcoming the noble and learned Lord's fulfilment of the intention to limit the number of civil servants, may I ask whether he is aware that it is well known that there is a large professional staff in the Land Commission with not very much to do? Is it possible that they could help with this matter of land registration?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is a very happy thought which I will certainly pursue.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, further to that supplementary question, may I ask whether the noble and learned Lord would consider putting out a White Paper or some statement showing where the shoe is pinching—what people are short in numbers and where the money is short—in order that we may consider, if possible, where priorities ought to lie, whether with land registration on the one hand, or with the Land Commission on the other? I feel that even within the target of the number of civil servants, it should be possible, if one has the information to see that resources are better used.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Chief Land Registrar has been into this matter exhaustively. He was getting on extremely well in what was our six-year "crash" programme to extend compulsory registration of title to all the built-up areas of the country. He was absolutely on time. He is all ready, when the word "Go"

309
is given, to proceed further, and he has published statements showing exactly where compulsory title has slowed down. They would have been during 1968–69, Nottingham, Liverpool, Luton, Dunstable, Bedford and Kempston, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Cardiff and Newport, having in all a total population of just over two million, and I think everybody concerned knows that those are the areas which have unfortunately been affected.

EDINBURGH—CARLISLE RAIL CLOSURE, AND BUS SERVICES
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what additional bus services are to be provided before their agreement to the closing of the railway line connecting Edinburgh, Galashiels and Carlisle to passenger traffic, is implemented.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, these services are listed in Part 2 of the Annex to the letter to the Chief Secretary of the British Railways Board conveying my right honourable friend's consent to the with-drawal of rail passenger services from the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line. As the list is a rather long one, I will, with permission, arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that reply and I have no supplementaries to ask.
Following is the list of services referred to in Lord Shepherd's Answer:
Additional and revised services

(i) The existing bus services between Edinburgh, Hawick and Carlisle to be augmented to provide the following additional journeys:—

(a) Edinburgh—Hawick via Selkirk

Winter

Edinburgh—Hawick: 11 additional journeys each day on Mondays to Saturdays, 8 additional journeys on Sundays.

Hawick—Edinburgh: 9 additional journeys each day on Mondays to Saturdays, 7 additional journeys on Sundays.

310

Summer

Edinburgh—Hawick: 10 additional journeys each day on Mondays to Fridays, 11 on Saturdays, 8 on Sundays.

Hawick—Edinburgh: 8 additional journeys each day on Mondays to Saturdays, 6 on Sundays.

(b) Edinburgh—Carlisle (via Selkirk and Hawick)

3 additional journeys each way on Mondays to Saturdays;

2 additional journeys each way on Sundays.

(ii)Newton—Galashiels via Melrose

Monday to Saturday

ex Newton 06.45.

ex Galashiels 19.30.

These journeys to provide connections at Galashiels with buses to or from Edinburgh.

(iii) Melrose—Hawick via Newton

ex Melrose 07.45.

ex Hawick 17.30.

(iv) Newcastleton—Carlisle via Longtown

Monday to Friday

ex Newcastleton 07.15, 18.45 (to Longtown only).

ex Carlisle 06.10, 17.40.

Wednesday only

ex Newcastleton 09.55.

ex Longtown 09.07.

(v) Newcastleton—Hawick

2 journeys each way on Saturdays and Public Holidays.

MUNICIPAL BUSMEN'S PAY
3.3 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,
"To ask Her Majesty Government whether in view of the apparent breakdown in negotiatons on the municipal busmen's pay claim they will make a statement".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my right honourable friends the First Secretary and the Minister of Transport have spared no effort to find a basis for settlement consistent with the Government's policy for productivity, prices and incomes. Last week they hoped that such a basis had been found, but the proposals submitted included a provision that the 10s. bonus to be paid for the acceptance of one-man operation should be backdated to December 14, 1967. As the agreement on this matter was not reached by the National Joint Industrial Council until

311
June 13 of this year, the Government could not agree to a retrospective payment which would be so clearly inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The employers and the unions were so informed. But they were also informed that the Government were prepared to accept all the other provisions of the proposed settlement.
This proposed settlement would give all busmen covered by the National Joint Industrial Council an immediate increase of £1 a week within a framework providing for acceptance of one-man operation and the negotiation at national level of guidelines for local productivity agreements. The £1 would be made up of 10s. on the basic rate payable from December, 1967, and a 10s. bonus payable from June 13 which would be consolidated into the basic rate at the end of the year. In addition, the premium rates paid to drivers of one-man buses would be increased to the levels recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
My right honourable friends and I deeply regret that the unions have so far not been prepared to accept these proposals and that the Government therefore had no alternative but to extend the standstill by Order on July 26. Since then the Executive Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union has given authority for a strike of municipal busmen from August 12. An agreement on the lines suggested would bring immediate and substantial benefits to the busmen; and by encouraging genuine increases in productivity it would also be in the interest of the fare-paying public. My right honourable friend the First Secretary has made it clear that she will raise the standstill immediately an agreement acceptable to the Government is reached. I join with her in appealing to the trade unions to reconsider their position and to avoid plunging this industry into a damaging strike.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his considered statement, I should like to ask the following supplementary question. Is the noble Lord aware that on December 26 this money will become payable retrospective to December of last year? There-
312
fore, what is the point of withholding the increase now except for the purposes of saving the face of the Prices and Incomes Board, and in the meantime causing a strike which would be utterly disastrous to the country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what happens in December will have to be faced when December comes. In the meantime, it is, I would hope the noble Lord would agree, intolerable to breach the policy to the extent that would be involved if the backdating of a productivity agreement for the future went back to December of last year.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the refusal of the Prices and Incomes Board to recognise that this is a low-paid industry, in view of the very long hours which municipal busmen work in order to accrue sufficient earnings to attain a reasonable standard of living?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the fact that it is in the lower paid reaches of industry is all the more reason, I should have thought, for the busmen to accept the very reasonable offer which is now being made.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, confirm that the first supplementary question put by my noble friend is correct: that in fact these increases will be automatically paid next December, and retrospective to last December? If so, is the noble Lord aware that this seems a very surprising result of the existing prices and incomes policy?
LORD BESWICK:My Lords, there is nothing in the law, as it now stands, about retrospection. The question of retrospection will, of course, have to be considered when it arises.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have considered the proposal of the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board; namely, that incomes should be frozen and funded where it is not in the public interest that they should be paid?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is a very interesting proposal, but does not arise immediately out of this Question.

NIGERIA AND BIAFRA RELIEF
3.8 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
"Whether they will make a statement about the present state of relief to Biafra and Nigeria."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the report of the Relief Advisory Mission which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, leads is being published as a White Paper. Meanwhile, I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. Part 6 of the report contained detailed recommendations of the most effective ways of spending the grant of £250,000 announced by Her Majesty's Government. We have followed up these recommendations with all possible speed, with the result that we have already spent or firmly committed approximately £200,000. Three R.A.F. airlifts, carrying the medical supplies and special foods most urgently recommended by Lord Hunt, have already taken place. Forty-five trucks and 5 Land Rovers have been purchased and shipped, and 25 of these vehicles are already in Nigeria. Six Land Rover ambulances have also been purchased and despatched. Of the four medico-social teams recommended by Lord Hunt, two have been recruited by the Save-the-Children Fund and are already at work in Nigeria. Two further teams are being assembled and will be ready for despatch as soon as the International Red Cross calls for them. Transport for these teams has been provided, and a self-contained team of drivers and mechanics has been recruited for despatch to Nigeria subject to International Red Cross approval.
At this point, I deeply regret to have to report a tragic accident which has befallen an earlier medico-social team, paid for by the Save-the-Children Fund, which has been operating in the area of Awgu. Two members of this team, Father M. Riddle and Mr. J. Ambache, were killed when their Land Rover ran over a land mine on a hush track. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I wish to pay respectful tribute to the work and memory of these two dedicated men,
314
who sought to alleviate the sufferings of others at such tragic cost to themselves. I know that your Lordships will wish to join with me in expressing deep sympathy to the next of kin and to their colleagues, who have all been informed.
One of Lord Hunt's recommendations concerned the provision of alternative types of river craft. It has been a matter of some difficulty to determine the types likely to be most useful and most rapidly obtainable; but I have this morning received firm recommendations about routes and craft from the Committee of British Businessmen in Lagos, which was set up by Lord Hunt and which is now doing most valuable work. Action on these new recommendations for getting supplies across the Niger is already in hand.
It has been recommended by Lord Hunt and agreed by all concerned, including the Federal Government, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the O.A.U., that all international relief should be co-ordinated through the International Committee of the Red Cross. To make easier this liaison with the International Red Cross, our efforts are much directed. Two members of Lord Hunt's team, Sir Colin Thornley of the Save-the-Children Fund and Mr. Hodgson of the British Red Cross paid a visit to Geneva last Friday, July 26, where they had useful conversations with International Red Cross officials. Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that the most urgent question of relief supplies into the territory still controlled by Colonel Ojukwu formed a principal part of the discussions under the auspices of the O.A.U. which have just taken place in Niamey, Niger. I understand that although some progress was made on the question which would govern the use of the land route to Awgu, the two parties failed to reach final agreement. As a result, the question of relief supplies has been transferred to the agenda of the further talks which are to take place in Addis Ababa beginning on Monday, August 5. I should like to pay tribute to the statesmanship of the Emperor of Ethiopia, President Diori of Nigeria and the other Heads of State who are members of the O.A.U. Commission on Nigeria. It is the sincere hope of Her Majesty's Government that their further efforts at Addis Ababa will lead not only

315
to an early understanding about channels of relief but also to a political settlement and the ending of the war.
Your Lordships will also be aware that the Executive Director of UNICEF has recommended 1 million dollars of emergency aid for starving children in all regions of Nigeria. The House will also know that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has received a welcome from the Federal Government for his proposal to send a personal representative to Nigeria to discuss the relief problems on his behalf. I am sure that the House will welcome all these initiatives.
My Lords, I should not wish to end this Statement without expressing the thanks of Her Majesty's Government and, I believe, of all Members of this House, to Lord Hunt and his colleagues for the dedicated and thorough work they have done. As a result of their efforts, aid is flowing into Nigeria and into the distressed areas more effectively and in greater volume than would otherwise have been the case.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the full Statement he has made, and I should like to join with him in the tribute he has paid to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues. I think the fact that the Statement is a good deal more satisfactory than the Government have been able to make previously is due almost entirely to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and that we should be most grateful to him.
There is one area which I must confess worries me. It is no doubt true that "aid is flowing into Nigeria"; but the conclusion I draw from what the noble Lord has said is that there is as yet no aid flowing into Biafra because the routes into Biafra have not been settled with Colonel Ojukwu. Is this the case? And, if so, are we content just to wait until August 5 and to do nothing more at all to seek a settlement? —for if the figures we have been given are true there are hundreds of people dying every day of starvation.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, may I thank the noble Lord for his Statement? I should like
316
to join in expressing our great regret at this tragic accident and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the splendid work that he is doing. May I ask one or two questions? The noble Lord referred to the R.A.F. air-lifts. What is the destination of those air-lifts? Is it Federal territory? I presume that it is. Is the noble Lord aware of a statement in The Times this morning from which it would seem that relief is not getting through to those people in territories formerly held by Biafrans and now under Federal control? If that is so, what can be done about it? Finally, may I welcome the reference to UNICEF. I know that they have worked for a very long time and have experience particularly with the problem of the children in Nigeria.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Wade, have joined with Her Majesty's Government in expressing thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues. I am bound to say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was less than generous over the activities of Her Majesty's Government in the field of relief to Nigeria. I would remind your Lordships that I saw Sir Louis Mbanafo who was the representative of Biafra in London; and I asked him to return to London not only to discuss a long-term peace solution, but, above all, to see how we could get relief supplies into Biafra. We also asked whether it would be possible for Lord Hunt to go to Biafra. Both these requests were refused by Colonel Ojukwu. So far as Lord Hunt was concerned, Colonel Ojukwu said that a visit would be of no use, of no benefit.
Therefore, we have done our best. It is true that only limited supplies are getting into Biafra. The International Red Cross chartered five aircraft for flights into Biafra during the month of June. To the best of my knowledge, up to July 20 only three flights took place, and one of those aircraft crashed with loss of life to the crew. It is not for want on our part that relief supplies are not getting into Biafra, nor do I believe it is from the Federal Government. They have offered land routes into Biafra and if only we could get a response from Colonel Ojukwu and the Biafran authorities, the tremendous supplies now building

317
up at the very perimeter of Biafra could go in and many thousands of lives could well be saved.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how he reconciles this Statement on relief with the fact that we are still sending arms to Nigeria for the purpose of destroying yet more Biafrans? In view of this, why is he surprised that the authorities in Biafra regard us with some contempt and even cynicism?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said on many occasions about Her Majesty's Government's supply of limited arms to the Nigerian authorities. It certainly did not prevent Sir Louis Mbanafo, the chief representative of the Biafran authorities, from meeting me on various occasions in London when we sought to find a solution at a table.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether Britain will restrain the Federal Government from advancing into the Ibo heartland if the Addis Ababa talks break down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, our views are well known to the Federal Government. I would wish to pay a tribute to General Gowon for the restraint he has shown. I hope that this will continue. When I was in Lagos, General Gowon told me that he would avoid going into the East Central State for as long as he could. But he asked me what alternative he would have ultimately if the Ibos were still unwilling to negotiate flexibly and take the place left open for them in a unified Nigeria. While I sympathise with his dilemma, I still want desperately to see a negotiated conclusion to the hostilities. I therefore hope sincerely that Colonel Ojukwu will draw the necessary conclusions. It seems to me vital that at Addis Ababa he should instruct his delegation to negotiate much more flexibly and realistically than was foreshadowed in the statement made by Mr. Mojekwu in London this week. This statement had little or no relation to the realities of the situation and it is therefore alarming that he should have made it in those terms.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the question of Colonel Ojukwu allowing aid into Biafra, have
318
Her Majesty's Government approached the Heads of State of those countries which have recognised Biafra and who, for that reason, might be able to put pressure on Colonel Ojukwu to allow aid to come into the country?
LORD SHEPHERD: We have made approaches to those States, to the O.A.U., the United Nations and the International Red Cross, all of whom seem to have played a part in trying to persuade Colonel Ojukwu to allow supplies to come in; but so far, I regret, with no success.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Wade. We quite understand why aid cannot at the moment go into Biafra proper, because Colonel Ojukwu will not let it in; but why should it not be, possible to send aid into the districts which were Biatra and have now been liberated, as the word goes, by the Federal authorities?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, aid is going in. The International Red Cross have teams and there are vehicles which we have now sent. But, as I said in an earlier Statement, it was largely a question of transport and the ability to move goods. The relief supplies are now moving in in increasing quantities into the recaptured areas.
LORD WADE: My Lords, is the report in The Times this morning correct, or is it out of date? Or has the noble Lord not yet had an opportunity to read it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there were one or two reports and the one in The Times was rather lengthy. Which was the point the noble Lord had in mind?
LORD WADE: The lengthy one which indicated that relief was not getting through to those territories formerly under Biafran control.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, relief is getting in there. I know that there has been certain grounds for criticism. In fact, I think that is healthy, because when things are moving people suddenly see the glaring points and seek to criticise. There have been criticisms and I think they were genuine criticisms, but there is

319
a considerable improvement in this area and I think that a great deal of the tribute for it must be paid to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what is the position of private individuals and organisations who have volunteered aircraft for an airlift?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am aware that there are a number of individuals and organisations who are chartering or even purchasing aircraft, hoping to fly them out to Fernando Po and other places with the object of getting food into Biafra in particular. I hope that the House and those who want to do so much to help will see that there must be a co-ordinating body in this matter. The International Red Cross is now very active in the field. It has been accepted as the authority by the Federal Government and I hope that any individual or organisation wishing to help in this matter will, before committing themselves perhaps to considerable expenditure, consult the International Red Cross, from whom I am sure there will be a ready response.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, in view of the cause of the tragic accident, will Her Majesty's Government indicate whether minesweeping equipment is available for the routes along the land corridor and also for the rivers which it is hoped to use during the relief operations?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is the first incident of which I am aware, and certainly of which my Department is aware, of the use of land mines. Whether there is landmine detection equipment available in the Federation I could not say without notice; but clearly there would not be sufficient, at this stage certainly, to be able to deal with all the bush roads that these relief organisations will have to use to get the aid to the starving people.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any information regarding any attempt to bring children out of what is called Biafra to this country, and if so, how many have come and whether facilities are being granted for that purpose?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there will certainly be no hindrance if people were to bring children to this country. I have seen the reports but I am not aware of any children actually being brought to this country yet.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, can my noble friend say who was responsible for placing the landmine which was responsible for this accident—which side?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware, if he has been a soldier, that often you do not know who places landmines.

CIVIL SERVICE MANNING
3.25 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SIIACKLETON): My Lords, in announcing the Government's acceptance of the main recommendations of the Fulton Committee in the House of Commons on June 26, the Prime Minister said that further measures were being prepared to ensure the fullest scrutiny and control of Civil Service manning. With your Lordships' permission I should now like to inform the House of two measures to this end which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is announcing in a Statement to-day. First, the Prime Minister has asked Sir Robert Bellinger to become Chairman of a panel of businessmen and industrialists who will, in the light of their industrial and business experience, guide and assist a number of inquiries into particular areas of work in the non-industrial Civil Service. The main purpose of these inquiries will be to scrutinise staff complements, and, if appropriate, the need for undertaking certain tasks, with a view to finding immediate and progressive savings in manpower. Sir Robert and his colleagues will not be given detailed terms of reference, nor is it envisaged that they will act as a conventional Committee of Inquiry. They will be left to develop their own procedures and to carry out their task, in conjunction with Departments, in whatever manner seems to them most appropriate.
Second, the Prime Minister has asked Mr. J. F. Mallabar to conduct an inquiry into Government industrial establishments with the following terms of reference:
"To examine whether the existing organisation and systems of control and accountability

321
of large-scale establishments in the Ministries of Defence and Technology engaged in production offer impediments to the achievement of full efficiency; and to recommend how such impediments should be removed".
The Prime Minister is grateful to both Sir Robert Bellinger and Mr. Mallabar for their ready acceptance of the tasks they have been invited to undertake. It is hoped that the names of their colleagues can be announced soon. The National Staff Side have already been made aware of what is proposed, and Departments will in due course be discussing the individual reviews with their own Staff Sides.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think that this double anouncement will be welcome not only to your Lordships but to the public generally. May I ask three questions arising out of it? First, the noble Lord has said that the National Staff Side have been made aware of what is proposed. Can he tell us whether the Staff Side have expressed agreement or have expressed any other views on the matter? Secondly, he has said that the task would be carried out in conjunction with Departments. Can he say who is really in charge in each Department and what will be the position of the Minister and the Permanent Secretary while these outside investigations are going on? Thirdly, is it quite clear that the remit on the non-industrial side extends not only to recommending possible savings of manpower by applying new techniques and modern methods but also to suggesting that some functions now peformed by Departments may no longer be necessary and could be altogether terminated?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I also, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, welcome the prompt establishment of these two commissions? May I put basically the same questions as have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor; namely, would it be within the terms of reference of these commissions at least to consider questions of manpower and indeed the questions of redundancy and would they be in order to report on and recommend whether there is any possibility of running the institutions concerned with equal efficiency with a smaller staff?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that I have the noble Lord's question correctly. First of all, the Staff Side
322
has been made aware in advance of what is intended, and we shall carefully consider any representations that they may have to make. It certainly is the wish of the Government—indeed, it would be very unwise if it were not—and I know it is Sir Robert Bellinger's wish, to proceed with the full understanding and co-operation of the staff at every stage, and that does imply that in regard to particular inquiries made it will be appropriate to consult the Staff Side.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked me about the relationship between the businessmen conducting the inquiry and Departments. Of course, each individual review of a Department will be instituted by the Minister and the Permanent Secretary. Obviously, they will discuss it together. The businessmen to be associated with it will be chosen by the Department after consultation with Sir Robert Bellinger, and in due course the conclusions of the review will be reported to the Minister and the Permanent Secretary.
The range of these inquiries certainly presupposes that it may be possible to find certain tasks which can be dispensed with. Whether it is a total task or merely an aspect of a bigger task, it would be quite wrong just to cut the Civil Service and leave the task, and there is no proposal to do so. Indeed, it is unlikely that there will be any cut. There is the need to contain the manpower against the background of the extra demands put upon it, and we may even in the end be able to make my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor happy if successful inquiries are carried out elsewhere.
The inquiries will not be directly concerned with working methods to improve productivity and efficiency, although it is quite likely that they may trigger off investigations of that kind. I think it is difficult to separate it off entirely. However, that will be a matter very much for the existing management. I hope that the streamlining of existing management structure and organisation will give greater scope for improvements in working methods; and, of course, a lot of action has already been taken on these lines. But my own experience in working in the O. and M. field tells m that it is at times difficult to draw a hard line between organisation and methods.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, since these are really inquiries into the machinery of government, will my noble friend, and possibly the commissions themselves, consider the growing variety of these governmental auxiliaries and their relation to the Civil Service side, the strict governmental side, of the machinery?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend's question contains a great profundity, but I am afraid it rather escapes me. I do not think that this is directly concerned with what might be called machinery of Government, although again it is one of these omnibus expressions, like "amateur" and "generalist", which can mean a number of different things. I take the noble Lord's point that there is perhaps, as he suggests, a proliferation of ancillaries to Government. But I believe he is falling into error in confusing inquiries conducted by outsiders, whether Royal Commissions or any other form of inquiry, with the Government itself.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I express the hope that this is the kind of departmental commission that the Government will not forget all about?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I hope that my question will not be too profound. I should like to ask my noble friend in what way the new proposals that he has outlined will tie in with the responsibilities of the new Civil Service Department.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that perhaps this answer will help to relieve my noble friend Lord Mitchison's mind. He is afraid that perhaps these inquiries will be forgotten. I can assure him that they will not be forgotten. Although I must stress that the responsibility will rest with the Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, there is a central co-ordinating role which at the present moment falls to the pay and management side of the Treasury under my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should point out that the new department has not yet been set up, but that when it is it will take over this work. This is the normal development of Civil Service management. What is now proposed is separate from, but I think very much in tune with, the Fulton proposals. It shows, incidentally,
324
that contrary to some fears the Civil Service Department will start off with a firm orientation in the direction of economy and better management.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether at the same time he would consider and constantly keep in mind the possibility of simplifying existing and future legislation so that its demands on the Civil Service can be kept to a minimum. I should like the noble Lord's confirmation that this point will not be overlooked.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is such an interesting question, and so pregnant with possible points, that I think I will only say that I have noted what the noble Lord has said.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, perhaps I might ask one more question. At the conclusion of these inquiries by these businessmen and industrialists, is it intended that their findings shall be made public?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should have thought not. It seems to me that this is a form of management inquiry. If you call in a consultant, you do not necessarily publish his results. It may be interesting to the noble Lord to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposes to discuss the procedure for the control of expenditure in Departments with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to see whether any arrangements can be made for associating the Committee with the inquiries, with the object of advancing their knowledge of Department procedures for expenditure control. But I should not have thought that in a matter where you call in consultants to advise you, which is in effect what is being done, their reports would necessarily be in a form appropriate for publication. Indeed, to undertake that in advance—and I know that the noble Lord with his great experience will appreciate this—might hamper their work.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, while I should not wish to press that every word that the consultants might wish to convey to the Ministers or to the Government should he made public, nevertheless, will the noble Lord

325
bear in mind that this is an important matter to Parliament, and that it is desirable that some means should be worked out for keeping Parliament informed as to progress?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would only say that there is a great deal of other work going on in different fields. There are a large number of surveys which are being conducted, so to speak, within the house. I think there are some interesting ideas in what the noble Lord has said. Whether there is a possibility —and I certainly cannot give an undertaking—of general reforms which might pick out certain aspects so that Parliament can be informed is an interesting idea, but I should not wish to guarantee that a particular inquiry would necessarily be reported upon. However, I note what the noble Lord has said.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government have yet taken any decision about the establishment of a Civil Service College?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government have already twice announced their intention to establish a Civil Service College.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to whom the inquiries will be reported—whether to the Prime Minister, the Departmental Ministers concerned or to the noble Lord himself? Secondly, will the reports be available to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons concerned with the Department that is under inquiry?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must be being singularly obscure to-day. I thought I had already answered all those questions. If the noble Lord will look at what I said, he will see that, in effect, the reports will go to the Minister and the Permanent Secretary who will be in charge; and I had made a reference to the possibility of discussions between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, with a view to seeing whether some association could be achieved.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. —HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised the employment of temporary Reporters and Typists for the Committee on the Gaming Bill and also temporary Reporters for assisting in the editing and reporting of Debates.
The Committee sanctioned special payments to the permanent Hansard Editor; and Reporters in respect of additional duty performed during the period to the end of the present Session. The Committee also authorised the payment of an allowance to Mr. C. E. Evans, a Clerical Officer, personally, with effect from the 1st July, 1968.
2.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 11—Special Increases;

(b) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 13—Executive Officer grades and Higher Clerical Officers—Revised Scales of Pay;

(c) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 14—Pr ncipals etc.—Revised Scales of Pay;

(d) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 16—Clerical Classes and certain related grades—Revised Scales of Pay;

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee also authorised the payment of a non-pensionable annual gratuity to Mr. H. A. M. Kemp, a Doorkeeper, for extra time on Judicial Duties with effect from the 11th June, 1968.
3.—POLICE
The Committee authorised the additional payment for Police required for the sittings of the House of Lords on days when the House of Commons is in recess.
4.—COLUMN PRINTER NEWS SERVICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a change in the arrangements for supplying both Houses of Parliament wish teleprinter news service. The Committee authorised the payment of the House of Lords' share of the increased rental from 1st July, 1968.
5.—DEPARTMENT OF THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN AND SERJEANT-AT-ARMS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a special allowance to Miss R. C. Eardley, personally, with effect from the 1st April, 1968.
6.—SUPLRANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation awards, under the Superannuation Act, 1965:—

(a) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. William John Baines, a Doorkeeper, on his retirement on the grounds of ill-health from the 1st August, 1968.

(b) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Stanley Cole, an Attendant, on his retirement from the 14th October, 1968, after extention of service.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MEDICINES BILL
3.41 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that consideration of this Report be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD had given notice of his intention to move a Manuscript Amendment on Clause 66. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of difficulties have arisen on this Bill since the Government tabled seventeen Amendments the night before the Bill was to be considered on Report and to go through all its stages. Not the least of these difficulties has been how to get a proper discussion of all the issues that were raised by those Amendments—how to get a discussion in the twenty-four hours that the Government have now allowed the House by the decision to continue the Report stage, and to take the remaining stages of the Bill, to-day. But I understand that, after further consultation through the usual channels and with the Table, it would be better to have a wide-ranging debate on the Amendment to Clause 107, to include some reference to Clause 66, which is closely linked with Clause 107, rather than for me to move my Manuscript Amendment. Therefore I shall not move this Amendment.
Clause 107 [Enforcement in England and Wales]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 102, line 27, after ("of") insert ("any order made under paragraph (a) of section 62(1) of this Act and of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the group of Amendments which the House last night agreed to defer until to-day. All the Amendments in my name hang together, with the exception of Amendment No. 51. That also was deferred yesterday because it happened to come in the middle of a block that we wished to defer. It is on a separate point, so I shall explain that Amendment separately when we come to it. I will speak now, if I may, about all the remaining Government Amendments that is, the block of 16 Amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 38, and the last Amendment. No. 79, at the very end, which is an Amendment to Schedule 3. In the middle of that block of Amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has down an Amendment to Clause 45A, which is an Amendment to one of my Amendments, and to which we shall come in due course.
The major block of Government Amendments alters the provisions in Clause 107 about enforcement responsibilities. As drafted, these enforcement responsibilities lie mainly on the Pharmaceutical Society, but in some respects they lie also on local authorities. The Amendments are the result of a thorough review of Clause 107 which has been carried out by the Government in an attempt to meet criticisms voiced in the House of Commons and also in this House on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. As the Bill stands, it places on the Pharmaceutical Society the duty of enforcing regulations about the dispensing of prescriptions and about the sale of general sales list drugs, including veterinary general sales list drugs, anywhere. I draw attention to the word "anywhere"—not only in pharmacies but also in other places. The main grounds of criticism have been, first, that the Society has only about fifteen qualified inspectors—a small number compared with the total number of retail outlets where general sales list medicines

329
can be sold; and, second, that as pharmacists are in competition with ordinary shops and health food stores, and are alleged to be unsympathetic to the techniques and activities of the herbalists, in particular, it would be wrong for the Society, the pharmacists' professional body, to have this enforcement function.
The critics of the original clause therefore suggested that local authorities or food and drug authorities should be brought in instead, notwithstanding the fact that the function would be quite new to them; they have no experience in this field, while the Pharmaceutical Society has. Certain pronouncements by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society that drugs ought only to be sold to the public by retail pharmacists have also been quoted, and evidently with some reason, as indicating how difficult it would be for the Society's authorised officers to show a due understanding and fairness towards the operations of other sectors of the retail trade. Moreover, the clause as it is drafted does not provide for enforcement of the regulations in question in places other than premises—that is to say, places like street stalls, travelling shops, and even on ships, where one can imagine general sales list products being sold.
There is also the difficulty of foretelling at this point the range of variations in the requirements in relation to different persons and places; for instance, pharmacies, ordinary shops, other places, vehicles, ships, and so on. In each case the appropriate enforcement authority could vary according to whether the products are on the general sales list or not; whether they are human or veterinary medicines or herbal remedies, or, in future, medical or veterinary devices. In some cases the Pharmaceutical Society would obviously be the appropriate body; in others it might be the local authority or the food and drugs authority. It will be much easier to decide this when the requirements concerned are known and when consultations have taken place about the enforcement.
There is a precedent for the arrangement introduced by these clauses. I refer to the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which enables regulations to specify the relevant enforcement authorities. This is what the Amendment does. The effect of the Amendments is as follows. They
330
delete the original Clause 107, subsections (4) and (5)(a) and the references to Clauses 53 and 54 in subsection (5)(b), and enable the Health and Agriculture Ministers to make regulations specifying the appropriate enforcement authorities for specified regulations under Clause 66 and for the Clause 53 and Clause 54 provisions. The enforcement body will have to be chosen from the Pharmaceutical Society, the food and drugs authorities and the local authorities as public health authorities as may be appropriate in each case. The Ministers have concurrent powers throughout. The ministerial concurrent power is also precedented in the Food and Drugs Act 1955.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 42 touch on another point. They transfer a reference from one part of the Bill to another, and the orders covered by that transfer are those prohibiting on safety grounds the sale or importation of medicinal products or classes of products, whether they are the subject of a product licence or not. These orders are a sort of emergency orders: they can be made when it is known that a specific danger is likely to crop up. It is the duty of the Pharmaceutical Society to enforce these orders in any retail premises, the Ministers being responsible elsewhere—that is, as the clause is drafted. The effect of the transfer under the Amendment is to enable the appropriate Minister to make arrangements with, or to give directions to, either the food and drugs authorities or the Pharmaceutical Society, or both, about this class of orders. In fact, his intention is to make use of both. Safety considerations might demand the utmost speed in enforcing the prohibition of sales from retail outlets; and the food and drugs authorities, who are already mentioned in connection with the composition and adulteration of medicines, could be a most valuable means of obtaining this speed in an emergency.
Continuing with the enforcement regulations under subsections (4) and (4)(a) of the new subsection after subsection (5), they will be made in England and Wales by the Health and Agriculture Ministers jointly under the Amendment. Their making must be preceded by consultation with organisations appearing to represent the interests of those likely to be affected. This is the normal provision which runs throughout the Bill.

331
Corresponding Amendments to Clauses 108 and 109 make the relevant provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
That is the detailed account of what is done. To sum it up in a nutshell, as the Bill left the House of Commons it provided that the Pharmaceutical Society should enforce various classes of the regulations right across the board, although they had never done so in the past. That was criticised, and the Government think the criticism was justified. They therefore introduce an Amendment which allows the Minister to say whether it shall be the Pharmaceutical Society or the food and drugs authorities or the local authority, as public health authority, or himself, as Minister with concurrent powers, who shall enforce the regulations in any given circumstances. All these arrangements are to be made only after the fullest consultation with all concerned. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38, and I shall move the others in this series formally when we reach them.
3.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are all grateful to Her Majesty's Government for deferring for 24 hours consideration of these Amendments, and I should like to suggest that my Amendment, No. 45A, which is new, should be considered at the same time as we are discussing this batch of Government Amendments.
This deferment has given us a little time, though not much, to ascertain the reactions of the outside bodies whose interests appeared to us to be at stake and who would not otherwise have had an opportunity to see them, let alone to express an opinion upon them. I would add now our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the explanation that he has given us. These changes are no doubt acceptable and very welcome to the herbalists, on behalf of whose interests the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was speaking during the Committee stage of this Bill. The herbalists did not particularly want their premises to be laid open, as they would have been by the clause as drafted, to inspection by the Pharmaceutical Society, but owing presumably to lack of consultation, lack of time or poor communications, other bodies whose interests were safeguarded by Clause 107 as it is at present drafted
332
felt themselves to be threatened by these Amendments.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to tell the House what those other bodies were.
LORD SANDFORD: The bodies that seemed to be concerned were the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, and British Drug Houses, in particular, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was speaking last night. These are the only ones with whom I have been able to have any consultation to any extent. I think the acceptance of my Amendment No. 45A would go a long way towards meeting these misgivings, as I am sure the explanation given by the noble Lord has already done, apart from the further explanation for which I shall ask him, about the way the regulations made under Clause 66 will be drafted.
In the light of the consultations that I have been able to have so far, 1 had it in mind to table a further Amendment to Clause 66, to help make it correspond more closely to what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had in mind when he was speaking last night—and I refer to his remarks at column 275 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. If we were not taking this Bill through all its stages to-day I should have tabled that Amendment for Third Reading. but I am now debarred from doing that. Perhaps in the circumstances the House would allow me to revert briefly to Clause 66. Last night the noble Lord made a distinction—I thought a sensible distinction—between the various matters contained in the separate paragraphs under it, and he distinguished between the purposes which are, I take it, those set out in subsection (1), and the requirements as to space. layout, and so on, set out in subsection (2). It seems to me that the matters contained in the paragraphs that make up his Amendment No. 30 of last night fall into the category, not of purposes but into the same category as the items in subsection (2). They are more akin to those, and that is why I drafted my Manuscript Amendment to transfer the substance of his Amendment No. 30 from subsection (1) to subsection (2). If this were done (which is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was

333
really describing last night), then the aim that he set before us would be achieved, and the regulations about these requirements as to space, and so on could be drafted only in so far as they related to the purposes of the subsection above. This is one point which I think has caused a certain amount of disquiet.
Over and above this rather technical point, however, I hope the noble Lord will be able to explain a little more fully than he has done the way in which regulations under this Clause 66 will be drawn up. Until this moment it has appeared from Clause 107(4) and Clause 107(5)(a), which are about to be changed by Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, that regulations would be drawn covering items (a) to (f) in subsection (1) which would have been enforceable by the Pharmaceutical Society in registered pharmacies and other premises where medicinal products are to be sold, and that regulations covering (g) to (h) of subsection (1), and (a) to (c) of subsection (2), would have been enforceable by local authorities. Under the Amendments which we shall be discussing, and particularly No. 39, this division of these categories will disappear, and I suggest it will be helpful to know, before we consider the enforcement of the regulations, what alternatives will replace this division. This is one of the points on which assurances would be welcomed. I hope that the Minister can give them, and that he will also indicate whether he can accept my Amendment No. 45A, when I come to move it.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this matter. I very much welcome the steps taken by the Government to protect the interests of people like the medical herbalists and health food stores, and others, who under the Bill as originally drafted had been put (at any rate as they thought) very much at the mercy of the Pharmaceutical Society. It appears to me that the importance and number of herbalists and others engaged in what is often called "Nature cure" up and down the country had been rather overlooked in the Ministry. Obviously the Bill did not provide proper safeguards for them, and this was brought to the attention of the Ministry in the House of Commons by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, which I think made the
334
Ministry realise how important an interest had in fact been offended by the Bill as originally drafted. The Government were quick to appreciate that that had happened, and important Amendments, for which at any rate the medical herbalists were grateful, were introduced and put into the Bill before it left the other place. However, the point about enforcement and the inspection of the premises was clearly in a most unsatisfactory state when the Bill reached your Lordships' House, and it was on that basis that I moved the Amendments which were discussed at some length at Committee Stage.
I can quite see that this is an intractable problem, and although I complained that nothing had in fact been done, I appreciate that those concerned about the matter had been faced with a difficult task. The Bill came quickly from the other place to your Lordships' House, and obviously the correct solution to the problem has not yet been found. It is not altogether to be wondered at, but in the circumstances I think the method chosen to deal with this matter, which is to deal with it by regulation after full consultation with the various interests concerned, is very much the best way of handling it. At any rate, the National Institute of Medical Herbalists, with whom I had the advantage of a considerable discussion yesterday afternoon, are very satisfied.
It is quite reasonable that, so far as ordinary pharmacists' shops are concerned, the Pharmaceutical Society should be given the job of regulating its own people that is, to pursue a policy which certainly in the legal profession has been the case for a long time. The job of looking after solicitors is done by the Law Society, and that of looking after barristers is done by the Inns of Court. This is a similar sort of system, if I may say so. It seems to be rather unfortunate (because there are a very large number of these herbalists' shops and consulting herbalists up and down the country) that their own organisations were not brought in in the way the Pharmaceutical Society was brought in. I can quite see that at this stage it would be difficult to do that, although I should be grateful if the Government could consider the possibility that a rather more close association, of the kind which the

335
Ministry obviously has with the Pharmaceutical Society, could be opened up and regularised in connection with the herbalists' organisations.
But, of course the herbalists, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has in effect indicated, are not the only other interests involved in this matter, and that is a point the noble Lord opposite brought out. All these other interests are entitled to the same consideration, and this is where I think these proposals are so valuable; that is to say that all the interests in question are to be properly consulted before the regulations are drawn up and brought into force. On that basis, the herbalists certainly are very happy to go along with the Government, and I warmly support these proposals.
4.4 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and also the noble Lord the Leader of the House, for their consideration to the House in adjourning the Report stage last night, thus giving an opportunity for those who wished to do so to consult any interests affected, and also giving an opportunity to those who wished to speak on Third Reading to do so after the Report stage is concluded. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for meeting the point—I thought a very valid point—of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. on the Committee stage, a matter which has been taken a little further to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. If the noble Lord can meet the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on Amendment No. 45A, I think that will be a very convenient thing to do. So far as I am concerned, I am happy with the situation, subject to anything the noble Lord can do to satisfy Lord Sandford.
I would ask one question purely for information. It is not a question, such as we sometimes ask, to put a point of view; this is merely for information. In Amendment No. 39, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has spoken about, there is a rather odd provision. It is said that the bodies who are to enforce these regulations are to be specified by the Minister. That is right and proper. I am sorry that "the Minister" in this respect does not carry out the electoral promise of the Labour Party and include
336
the Secretary of State for Wales. I raised that point on Committee stage and was answered rather inadequately—but as it was late at night I did not pursue the matter—by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I do not intend to pursue the Secretary of State for Wales to-day; he has plenty of troubles on his plate at the moment and I do not want to add to them.
The question I would ask is this. These people to whom the Minister can delegate his responsibility naturally include the Pharmaceutical Society. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, they are experts in this field, and one would accept that. Then there is "any food and drugs authority". I do not know who are included in that phrase, but I presume it would be county councils and people of that kind. There is also "the council of any county district which is not a food and drugs authority". That again is an elected body.
Then we come to the odd one, "the overseers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple". This is a body of distinguished gentlemen, all of whom, as far as I am aware, are practising lawyers, apart from the judges. The Benchers of the two Inns presumably appoint the overseers—or perhaps they are the overseers. Why are they intended to have this great responsibility? I was for years a ratepayer in the Inner Temple. I never had a vote to elect anybody to the Bench. I had a vote, so far as I remember, to the City Council, the Corporation of the City of London. Obviously they have some responsibilities in the Inner and Middle Temples. Therefore, I should have thought that, knowing how anxious the Labour Government are to be democratic, they would more willingly allow the Corporation of the City of London to handle these problems—it is, after all, a big and important and efficient food and drugs authority—rather than the overseers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple.
It may be that these overseers are not appointed by and responsible to the Benchers at all; they may be responsible to the Corporation of the City of London. In that case, it is rather odd that they should be singled out, because presumably the Corporation of the City of

337
London is a food and drugs authority. At first sight it seems to me that it is no more sensible to allow these highly distinguished gentlemen who arc all lawyers, Benchers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, to be responsible for these functions than it would be to ask the members of the Council of the Law Society to be responsible for what goes on in Chancery Lane; or for the surgeons and physicians who are all eminent gentlemen, members of the General Medical Council, to be responsible for what goes on in Cavendish Square or wherever their headquarters may be. I think we ought to have some information on this point.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not want to follow the references which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has made to the Labour Government—he seems to me to be very eager to give them a few jabs with his hypodermic needle occasionally. But when people are urgently needing a packet of aspirin or a box of Beecham's pills I do not think they trouble very much about what the Labour Party said in its Manifesto about the Secretary of State for Wales.
I want to take this opportunity of saying that I think the changes my noble friend is putting forward are excellent. They improve the Bill and the administration of the measure very considerably indeed. I have always felt that the Pharmaceutical Society was hardly the body to be an all-powerful inspector, not merely inspecting the way in which the Act was being carried out in chemists' shops owned or managed by its own members, but also herbalists' establishments, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned, and the various supermarkets and little shops around the corner where the harmless type of drug and embrocation is regularly sold.
Now that we have new bodies brought into the administration, the food and drugs organisation and the public health departments of local authorities, I am wondering whether my noble friend has yet approached these bodies and acquainted them with the additional responsibilities that are to fall upon them and the additional expenditure which they will undoubtedly have to raise from their ratepayers because of the additional staffs that they will have to engage. I
338
am directly interested in the Association of Public Health Inspectors, a very admirable body of men, hard-working, conscientious, faithful to the very highest demands that are made upon them. I happen to be a Vice-President of the Public Health Inspectors Association. Perhaps I can hardly pay a higher tribute to their respectability than to mention that. But I do not want them suddenly to find that this quite onerous extra duty has been imposed upon them, and I have risen merely to ask my noble friend whether he has approached them or whether he will be doing so in the near future?
4.10 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before anything else, may I remind the House that Lord Sandford said that his noble friend Lord Coleraine last night spoke on behalf of British Drug Houses I see that the noble Lord is not here. I am sure the whole House would agree that no noble Lord ever speaks on behalf of a commercial interest, that this is a Chamber of entirely independent legislators who declare their interest but in no way further that by their presence in this House.
Lord Sandford suggested that we should discuss his Amendment No. 45A, being an Amendment to one of mine at the same time. I entirely agree that we should do that, and I will now proceed to do so. The effect of his Amendment, I would remind the House, is to prevent the proposed regulations from specifying the Pharmaceutical Society as the enforcing body in regard to enforceme it anywhere else except in registered pharmacies. So far as I can sec at then moment, this is close to the probable way in which the regulations in question will deal with this matter; and had Lord Sardford's Amendment been technically acceptable from a drafting point of view I should have advised the House to accept it. Unfortunately, it is not, because it would be a proviso to the provision defining the "appropriate Minister", and a better place to have put it would have been to amend Amendment No. 39. But this is just a drafting technicality. It is perfectly "O.K." so far as the substance goes and I on behalf of the Government willingly accept the substance and assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health expects to

339
assign the enforcement functions in question in the way that the noble Lord likes —or rather, my right honourable friend expects not to assign them in the way that the noble Lord does not want. I hope that with that assurance he may be content to withdraw his Amendment to my Amendment when we come to that point.
As to Clause 66, I do not think that this is the right time to go into detail on a clause upon which discussion has already taken place. Yesterday was the time to do it. I take the point of the noble Lord about the shortness of discussion. I do not want to be at all procrustean about this, but simply because I believe we might be doing too much on the Floor of the House, going too far into detail, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he might remember that Clause 66 can be amended in another place because it has been amended here. There is a peg for the Commons to hang Amendments on. He has friends there, and if between now and then I or officials from the Ministry of Health can be of any help to him in private conversations by which any improvement can be made by agreement on both sides, then we shall be happy to do so. I think that is a better way of proceeding than going into detail here and now.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Chorley is broadly content with what is proposed for the herbalists. I can assure him that the Minister will consult about the regulations not only with the National Association of Herbal Medicine but also with the other two herbalist organisations who are in the field. My heart was warmed through and through by the cordial remarks from the Liberal Front Bench about the timing of this matter. I am surprised and delighted.
The question was raised about the overseers in the Inner and Middle Temples. Why are they mentioned in the Amendment? They are there because they are the public health authority for the Inner and the Middle Temple. The City of London is not mentioned because it is a food and drugs authority and therefore comes under the generality of "food and drugs authority" in the phrase immediately before that, and the City is the food and drugs authority for the Inner and Middle Temples. So if anybody were to take the unlikely course
340
of setting up a mixed drug store or other type of shop in the Temples, he might be liable to be controlled either by the City as the food and drugs authority or by the Inner or the Middle Temple overseers as the public health authority—or, indeed, by the Minister as concurrent authority. And if any prescriptions were to be made up there they could be controlled by the Pharmaceutical Society in that respect. But this is a matter which no doubt can be left for detailed consideration at a later stage.
I think that concludes the points that I was asked to answer, except that of my noble friend Lord Leatherland, who asked about local authority associations. The answer is that they were approached about the original Clause 107(4). There has not been time to approach them on the actual Amendments now before the House, but the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association have let us know that they would not object to powers being taken to make these regulations—this after they had heard the criticisms in the Commons. Of course, as to what the regulations themselves should specify, we shall be in touch with the associations in consultation in the usual way, as we shall with other bodies concerned.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my noble friend gave a most satisfactory answer about the Association of Local Authorities, but perhaps he forgot that I also referred to the Public Health Inspectors' Association who are the people who will do the job. Have they been approached? If not, will he approach them? That is all.
LORD KENNET: I understand that they have not yet been approached, but it is clear that their opinion will have to be taken, either directly or conceivably through one of the local authority associations. I am not sure which will be best.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I make one or two remarks? I would first of all say that throughout this Bill everybody has been profoundly struck by the extent to which the noble Lord's right honourable friend has been willing to listen to representations that have been made to him, both inside and outside the House. I think that as a consequence the Bill is now much more

341
widely acceptable than it was when it was first introduced. We are all conscious of that. At the same time, it seems rather odd that matters of this kind, as to where responsibility should be laid, should not have been worked out fully before the Bill is finally completed. It is only fair to say that, because, while fully realising the burden that has been placed upon the Minister by what is, after all, a heavy Bill with a great many ramifications and there being a lot of people to see about it, one would have liked to see a completely definite laying of responsibility in the Bill itself. That is a much better way of dealing with things, although we appreciate the Minister's willingness to decide these matters after consultation, particularly in regard to enforcement.
I would mention one other point. In this Bill we are dealing with Scottish problems at the same time as with English and Welsh, and some of the Amendments that the noble Lord is moving concern Scotland. I must confess that I am not very well aware to what extent negotiations have been going on in Scotland, what bodies have been negotiating in Scotland, or whether on these matters it has been sufficient to negotiate with the Minister and subsequently those negotiations have been discussed between the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In particular, in view of the differing situation in Scotland so far as administration and enforcement are concerned, I am not sure what are the proper means of carrying out the negotiations or how the consultations will be carried out in Scotland on the particular point of enforcement. I do not know whether the noble Lord can help us on that. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in the Chamber a short time ago but he does not seem to be available at the moment. I would only express the hope that in those circumstances the assurances that the noble Lord has given that consultations as to enforcement will take place for England and Wales will also apply to Scotland.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that virtually all the consultations that I have been talking about and giving assurances about are statutorily bound to take place under, I think, Clause 126, and where the consultation cannot be held with a
342
national body as well as a separate Scottish body, that is as binding as it is in the case of the English body.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.22 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 to 45 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 103, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Regulations made jointly by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may provide that any such body to which this subsection applies as may be specified in the regulations shall, to such extent as in the case of that body may be so specified, and either—

(a)in respect of England and Walcs generally, or

(b)in respect of such area in England or Wales as may be so specified,

have power concurrently with the appropriate Minister, or be under a duty concurrently with him, to enforce any regulations made; under section 66 of this Act.
(4A) Subsection (4) of this section applies to the following bodies, that is to say, the Pharmaceutical Society, any food and drugs authority, the council of any county district which is not a food and drugs author ty, and the overseers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple.")
Page 103,line 38, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 104, line 1, leave out from ("52") to ("58") in line 3 and insert ("and")
Page 104,line 6, leave out from ("Act") to first ("in") in line 8.
Page 104,line 14, at end insert—
("() Regulations made jointly by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may provide that, in respect of each area in England or Wales for which there is a food and drugs authority, the Pharmaceutical Society, or the food and drugs authority for that area, or both the Society and that authority, to such extent as, in the case of that Society or authority, the regulations may provide, shall have power concurrently with the appropriate Minister, or shall be under a duty concurrently with him, to enforce the provisions of sections 53 and 54 of this Act")
Page 104, line 24, after ("power") insert ("conferred or imposed by or")
Page 104, line 36, after ("by") insert ("or under").—(Lord Kennel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD had given Notice of an Amendment, No. 45A:
Page 105, line 4, at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in this section or in any regulations made thereunder shall

343
place the Pharmaceutical Society under a duty to enforce, or empower them to enforce, the provisions of section 66 of this Act except in the application of those provisions to registered Pharmacies.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance in principle of this Amendment. Do I understand from what he said that Her Majesty's Government will incorporate it as a further Amendment to their Amendments in another place? Perhaps he could answer that question in a moment. I agree that this is not the moment to discuss Clause 66 in detail, but as we are near the final stages of this Bill could he say at this moment whether he takes my point about putting the contents of what was his Amendment No. 30 yesterday in subsection (2), rather than in subsection (1), or will he write to me and say in a letter what he would have said if I had moved my manuscript Amendment?
The noble Lord invited me to withdraw my Amendment 45A in the light of his assurance, but of course I have not actually moved it. If I had moved it, or had been going to move it, I would have pointed out that there is a misprint in it, and that the last line or so should read "except in the application of these provisions to registered pharmacies". Perhaps the noble Lord would just answer those two points before I say formally that I will not move the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should hope that the assurance I have given the noble Lord, that the situation which would have been achieved by Amendment 45A is that which the Minister will achieve under the regulations, would suffice without my having to give him a further assurance that the Government will move its own Amendment in the House of Commons in order to achieve that. Of course, if it does not suffice, Amendments may be moved from either side of the House of Commons. On the question of Clause 66 I should prefer, if the noble Lord agrees, to pursue this extremely abstruse point in correspondence, simply for the sake of other noble Lords.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask, on the point of Scotland, whether what he has said will apply to
344
Scotland so far as this particular matter is concerned? Can he give exactly the same assurance so far as Scotland is concerned as he has given in regard to England and Wales.
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 45A not moved.
Clause 108 [Enforcement in Scotland]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 105, line 9, after ("(2)") insert ("and (3) and (5)").
Page 105, line 11, after ("Minister") insert ("or to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly").
Page 105, line 15, leave out from ("authority") to ("or") in line 17.
Page 105, line 22, at end insert—
("() Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide that, to such extent as may be specified in the regulations—

(a) the Pharmaceutical Society, in respect of Scotland generally, or in respect of such area in Scotland as may be so specified,

(b) a local authority within the meaning of section 26(4) of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, in respect of their area,

shall have power concurrently with the Secretary of State, or be under a duty concurrently with him, to enforce any regulations made under section 66 of this Act.')
Clause 109, page 105, line 43, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("() For the purpose of performing that duty in relation to the provisions of sections 53 and 54 of this Act and any regulations made under section 66 of this Act within the area of any health authority, the Minister may make arrangements or give directions whereby the health authority, to such extent as the arrangements or directions may provide, shall have power concurrently with the Minister, or shall be under a duty concurrently with him, to enforce those provisions and regulations.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is a Northern Ireland drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 109, page 106, line 24, leave out from ("(8)") to ("and") in line 25, and insert ("any reference to the appropriate Minister were a reference to the Minister

345
within the meaning of this section").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would beg to move Amendments 52 to 54 inclusive and Amendment No. 79.
Amendments moved—
Clause 110, page 107, line 6, leave out ("in accordance with") and insert ("by or under any provisions of").
Clause 110, page 107, line 19, leave out ("in accordance with") and insert ("by or under any provisions of").
Clause 1l1, page 108, line 32, leave out from ("which") to end of line 33 and insert ("by or under any provisions of sections 107 to 109 of this Act an enforcement authority is required or empowered").
Schedule 3, page 136, line 37, leave out ("in accordance with") and insert ("by or under any provisions of").—(LordKennet.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15):
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Kennet.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before we give this Bill a Third Reading I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, one question. It concerns the section of the Bill from Clause 32 to Clause 39 which deals with experiments on animals. I am not one of those who considers that all experiments on animals are wrong. I do not suppose there are many of us who like them but, on the other hand, if they give better health to human beings then I think there are not many of us who would deny that they are necessary. In the past, of course, the great evil has been that there has not been a great deal of control over such experiments, and I am very happy to see that in this Bill there is much more provision for control. What I want to ask the noble Lord is whether there is any provision for the enforcement of that control, whether there are inspectors who are able to enter laboratories where tests are going on, or whether any provision has been made for enforcement in that way, because I feel that it is only in that way we shall ever see enforcement taking place.
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, there is provision for enforcement.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if there is going to be no discussion on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, there are just one or two things that I should like to say on Third Reading. If, however, we are to have a discussion on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass I will reserve what I was going to say. Does the Minister propose to say anything on the final Motion?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have no more to say.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords. I should just like to say, as this is the final stage of this Bill, that I am sure those of us who have been connected in any way with Sir Derrick Dunlop's Committee would wish to thank him, and the members of his Committee, for the excellent work they have done during the time the Committee has been in being. As your Lordships will know, the Committee had the closest co-operation with the pharmaceutical industry under a voluntary arrangement, which is now being superseded by the compulsory arrangement in this Bill. Mention of this voluntary co-operation was made in the recent Annual Report of the Ministry of Health (Cmnd. 3702), presented to Parliament in July, 1968, but certainly, so far as the section I have referred to is concerned, no mention was made by the Minister of the work, in a complimentary manner, of the Committee of Sir Derrick Dunlop or of the industry. I feel that as this voluntary arrangement is now to be superseded by the new methods set out in this Dill it would be a good thing to give a word of thanks to those who carried out this procedure so well over the last few years.
The other point is that in all discussions on pharmaceutical products during the last few years there has been a treat concentration—and one can understand why—upon the products sold to the National Health Service. But in fact the National Health Service takes up something like 39 per cent. of the actual value of the pharmaceutical produces as a whole produced in this country, some 27 per cent. go to export, the veterinary medicine side amounts to 17 per cent.,

347
and then there are private sales. The total expenditure on medicines in the United Kingdom in 1966, which are the latest figures I have, was £267 million. Of that figure, £188 million was for medicines prescribed for the National Health Service, and the other £79 million was spent by the public mainly on medicines bought without a doctor's prescription. One sees the importance of some of the provisions in this Bill when one realises that £79 million of pharmaceutical products are sold over the counter to the public—that is, for self-medication or medication without prescription.
It is surprising that two out of every three ailments suffered by the public are not treated by a doctor. So even in this Welfare State, at a time when we have this enormous machinery to help people, apparently two out of three who suffer from some kind of illness do not consult a doctor. Of course, in many cases the illnesses are mild. Perhaps it is a good thing that the public do not always consult a doctor. If they did, then the general practitioner service, and possibly the Hospital Service, would be completely submerged and those who were really seriously ill could never be treated in time. The increasing number of people who do not take advantage of the National Health Service and who are outside its scope is a matter which should be investigated. I wonder whether the Minister has read an interesting publication from the Office of Health Economics called Without Prescription—A Study of the Role of Self Medication.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I am in order. I should like to support what my noble friend opposite has said, but I am not quite clear whether the Minister wishes to reply to that point now, or on Third Reading.
LORD KENNET: We are now on Third Reading.
LORD BROCKWAY: Then I should like to say a word or two in support of what was said by my noble friend opposite. Here we have the difficulty of some contradiction of intellect and emotion. We all recognise that experiments on animals have been of value in the treatment of human beings, and that therefore
348
one places human beings first. On the other hand, it is not only a matter of emotion. There are those of us who take the view that all life is a spiritual unity, and that this extends to animals as well as human beings. One sometimes wonders, when one sees television programmes or reads about experiments on animals, whether they are justified from a philosophic point of view and whether we have the right to exploit them and to make them suffer for our purposes.
I do not pretend that we can resolve the problem now, but a case has been put by my noble friend for very careful supervision of the experiments which are being made. I should like to support him in asking whether there is in the Bill sufficient inspection and supervision to satisfy those of us who have rather uneasy consciences on this point.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, since this is the last opportunity we shall have to discuss this large and important Bill, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his noble friend for the co-operation which they have shown in the Bill, particularly on my Amendment to Clause 5. There is one question I should like to ask the Minister. Can he say how soon the Medicines Commission will be set up? This legislation is most important and far-reaching, and whatever views may be held about a Medicines Commission they will have a great deal to do and it is vital for them to get on with the job. Fortunately, their terms of reference seem to be rather easier and more specified than they were when the Bill started out. We all wish this measure well. I hope it will not sound churlish if I say that we would have welcomed rather more time to discuss it in detail, particularly in view of the large number of new Amendments which have been moved, but that now is past history. I wish the Bill a successful passage.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as I personally am interested in the last Bill which appears on the Order Paper for to-day, I shall not waste any time. Nevertheless, as one who has observed the progress of this Bill from the Government Back Benches, I should like to pay a well deserved tribute to the high standard of ability which has been shown by my noble friends Lord Kennet and

349
Lady Serota, both of whom must have put in an enormous amount of study on these intricate matters. They have been able to handle nearly every question as it has come up without any delay, and whenever there has been need for delay they have promised to inquire into matters which have been raised.
I have two questions to ask. When will the Ministry be issuing a general list of drugs and medicaments which can be sold in supermarkets and in the little shop round the corner? I do not expect my noble friend to give that list now—aspirins, alkaseltzer, and that kind of thing—but can he indicate in general terms whether the little shops and the supermarkets will lose much of the trade which they have been carrying on up to the present? If they are going to lose only a few things which are regarded to be on the borderline and fit only for sale by properly qualified pharmacists, they will have no cause for complaint. But if half their shelves are going to be stripped, then they may have a good reason for complaint.
The other point relates to paragraph (c) of Clause 52. It appears from that provision that medicaments of the kind which are on the non-general list, that is to say the more perilous ones, can be served by an unqualified person so long as he is under the supervision of a qualified pharmacist. Those of us who know anything about chemists' shops know that the qualified pharmacist is usually in a back room busy with his National Health prescriptions and has not his eye continually upon the bonny young girl who happens to be serving these things over the counter. I am wondering whether this is a little risky. I have had some personal experience of this. At the age of 12 I was an odd job boy in a chemist's shop. I was put into that position because my parents had been planning to apprentice me to pharmacy. Unfortunately, the family had not enough money to carry that scheme through, so here am I to-day, my Lords, instead of serving face powder and lipsticks over the counter. One of my jobs in the lunch hour used to be to weigh up epsom salts in quarter pound packets—a pretty harmless task. But I also used to weigh up quarter pound packets of oxalic acid. If any of your
350
Lordships have also been chemists' errand boys, you will realise that epsom salts and oxalic acid are both colourless or whitish crystals, and mistakes could easily be made. So if, under paragraph (c) of Clause 52, there is to be a possibility of non-qualified people serving anything which has an element of danger about it, then I hope that the Department will have a look at it again before they issue any regulations.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, when I saw the noble Lord and the reader of the House and the Chief Whip dancing around each other just now, I thought we were going to have some terrible last minute hitch. I am sure that all we wish to do now is to send this Bill on its way with our best wishes.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have been asked a number of questions which I shall try to answer as quickly as I can. I have already mentioned the Dunlop Committee and I said on Second Reading what a good job it has done. I do so again, and I thank Sir Derrick Dunlop on behalf of the Government. But I think it would be wrong to say that it had not been done before. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would not want his remarks in Hansard taken to mean that people should medicate themselves and not go to doctors. I know that was not his intention.
To my noble friend Lord Brockway, I would say that the Ministry of Agriculture supervise experiments on animals. They have been doing some of this in past, and they will be doing more of it in the future. I do not know of any evidence that this supervision is insufficient and I am not sure that my noble friend does, either. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked when the Medicines Commission will be set up. I would say that this will be the very first task as soon as the Bill becomes law.
To my noble friend Lord Leatherland, I would say that I cannot put a date on when the general list will be ready, because it has to be the fruit of discussions with the Commission, the expert committees and all the interests concerned. But it will be one of the first tasks undertaken by the Commission and the committees when they are set up. On the question as to loss of trade, I do not think any trader need fear that

351
his shelves are going to be stripped by the coming into force of this general sales list. It will probably very largely sanctify the present custom and get it on to a statutory basis. Having said that, let me join with all noble Lords who agree that this is a good Bill, and wish it God speed in its passage back to the House of Commons, and a swift passage from there back to us and thence into law for the general good of the people of this country.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.42 p.m.
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 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 8 [Rule requiring corroboration not to apply in certain civil proceedings]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 8, at beginning insert—
("() This section applies to any action of damages where the damages claimed consist of, or include, damages or solatium in respect
352
of personal injuries (including any disease, and any impairment of physical or mental condition) sustained by the pursuer or any other person.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that Clause 8 originally applied to most civil actions, but in Committee, on the Motion of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Guest, the clause was restricted "to actions of damages for personal injury". In past legislation it has been thought desirable to have a rather tighter definition than just those words, and it appears desirable in this case also. My right honourable friend the Lord Advocate has spoken to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Guest, about this. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that they agree both with the need to tighten up the definition, and with the Amendments which I now put before your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like simply to say that we welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out (action of damages for personal injury") and insert ("proceedings").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, after ("effect") insert ("in relation to any action to which this section applies").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1968
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I beg to move that the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968 be approved. I should like to describe briefly the background to the subsidies provided in this scheme. In 1967 the deep sea catch was maintained at the average level of about 520,000 tons achieved in 1965 and 1966. But the value declined from £412 million in 1966 to £39.4 million in 1967. Inshore landings of white fish declined from the peak of over 270,000 tons in 1966 to 230,000 tons in 1967, owing to a reduction in Scottish landings. The value of the catch however was unchanged at about £15 million. Herring landings declined slightly in quantity and value but shellfish landings increased substantially from £3.6 million in 1966 to £4 million in 1967. In the first five months of 1968 landings have continued to increase, but the average value of white fish has declined still further. Your Lordships will recall that my noble friend announced on July 8 a new subsidy policy for the deep sea fleet for which legislation will be introduced early next Session. He also outlined the arrangements proposed for subsidies under existing legislation to the deep sea, inshore and herring fleets in the year commencing August 1. These arrangements are set out in the Scheme now before the House.
I will deal first with the inshore and herring fleets. In recent years the increasing profitability of this section of the industry has enabled us to reduce the subsidies. In 1967 the overall profitability of the fleet declined slightly from a little over £2 million in 1966 to a little under £2 million. This is still a reasonably good level of profit, and of course much better than that of the trawler fleet. In these circumstances we have thought it right to maintain the subsidies at their existing level to encourage the further development of the fleet that we want to see.
For the deep sea trawler fleet the basic rates for the coming year are the maximum rates permitted by the 1962 Act.
354
In addition the maximum special rates of subsidy that can be paid within the limit of £350,000 permitted by the Act will be payable for the first six months of the year at rates proportionate to the basic rates, to all deep sea trawlers. By the early part of 1969 we hope to be in a position to make payments under the new system to which I have referred. The payments the House is now invited to approve will be set against the total sum payable to the industry under this new system for the year beginning August 1 next.
The distribution of the new subsidy will be related to the operating efficiency of vessels, and this principle has been welcomed by the industry. The detailed arrangements for measuring efficiency for this purpose and for the payment of the subsidy are now being discussed with the industry, and we shall be able to give your Lordships a fuller account of what is proposed when we come to fresh legislation. Meanwhile, I commend the present Scheme to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968, be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for her words in introducing this Scheme and say that we welcome it as a short-term measure? The subject was thoroughly debated in another place, and I therefore do not think it needs much from me to-day. There are just one or two points I should like to make and one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Baroness. It will be common knowledge to your Lordships that the fishing industry, other than the inshore fishing industry, is in a very shaky condition and poses some serious problems for the future. It really poses the question: how much do we want to have a domestic, national fishing industry supplying our own fish? The real difficulty is that the British market is pretty well the only open market for fish in the world. The U.S.A. market is still to some extent open, but limited. I do not think there is any other European country where there is an open market; and the result is that fish comes here from everywhere. It hits hardest the distant-water fleets, with their bulk landings;

355
and despite the best efforts of everybody with the various subsidy schemes, there is no doubt that the distant-water fleets have taken a pretty heavy caning in the last twelve months and that they could not go on like that indefinitely.
I do not want to rehearse the whole of this situation, which must be common knowledge to your Lordships, but what I am anxious to avoid is that we should get further and further into the position of competition in fishing subsidies with the other European countries—and that is what we have been doing for the last 15 or 20 years. I took part in it as much as anybody else. In fact, I can remember putting on the Statute Book the 1952 Fishery Act, which started it all; and gradually, year by year, we have been going from bad to worse. When one sees a country like Norway, with its immensely strong fishery, putting up the value of its subsidies this year from £7 million a year to £14 million a year, one realises just how this competition is going and what a complete nonsense it all is at the end of the day. The surplus fish all comes in here—the surplus fish from Iceland, from Denmark, from Greenland and all the other places. This is really the problem: to what extent is this market going to be open to imports of fish from everybody else?
The questions I should like to ask the noble Baroness are these. I understand there is to be a meeting with our EFTA partners in the near future to discuss, I suppose, the level of imports. I should be interested to know whether the noble Baroness can tell us what line the Government are going to take. Is it possible to negotiate a minimum import price; some arrangement which would be more effective than the present arrangement, which really is not effective? The volume of imports has grown, and fish comes in here at absolutely "knock-out" prices. That must be bad for everybody at the end of the day.
The second question I want to ask the noble Baroness is this. I understand the E.E.C. has now evolved a new fishery policy. I do not know the details of it; but can the noble Baroness tell us how this will affect the United Kingdom market, and whether this will help to stabilise matters at all, or what its effect will be? These are major questions, and I
356
realise that the Scheme moved by the noble Baroness is only a short-term measure and that we can perhaps look to more permanent arrangements under the new legislation, but it would be interesting to hear whether she can throw any light on these two particular points.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, this Scheme is a Statutory Instrument, and it therefore has to set forth the enactments which empower the Minister to make such a Scheme. Accordingly, one reads at the beginning of the Scheme that it is made
"in exercise of the powers conferred … by section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953 (as amended by section 2 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957 and by section 37 of, and paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to, the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962), section 3 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957 (as amended by section 37 of, and paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to, the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962) and sections 1 and 2 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962, …"
On two previous occasions when Schemes of this kind have been brought forward I have expressed the view that there is urgent need for all this mass of recent fishery legislation to be consolidated into a single Act of Parliament, and on each occasion I have been told, "Yes, there is need for consolidation, but …". My Lords, I hope that this afternoon we shall be told that there is going to be consolidation.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like first of all to tell the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that I have great sympathy with him, as a Junior Minister having to struggle with "the Act which refers to the previous Act which refers to the principal Act ". It certainly makes life much more difficult. He will be happy to know that a Bill to consolidate all the fishing subsidy legislation has been drafted by the Law Commission and will be introduced next Session. Perhaps this is in some measure due to the assiduous activities of the noble Lord. I only hope that the word "deeming" will not be included in the Bill, as I feel the noble Lord will be rather distressed if it is. At any rate, he can draw some consolation from the fact that a piece of consolidating legislation is to be introduced.
To the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I would say that I agree that he has raised a very big question regarding the amount of food generally—fish, after all, is only

357
one part of it. We hope this will be something we can discuss when the new legislation is before the House in the autumn. On the question of our EFTA partners, the noble Lord was there referring, I take it, to the question particularly of fish fillets; and discussion is going on at this time. How far the question of minimum import price is included in these discussions I am not able to tell the noble Lord now. I am sorry that neither can I give him the answer to the question about the fishery policy of the E.E.C., but I will take this matter forward, and if I can produce an answer to it before we have the discussion in the autumn, I will do so. I should like to thank the noble Lord for welcoming this measure. Her Majesty's Government appreciate that a subsidy of this kind is in fact a continuation and a short-term measure, but we look forward to a full discussion on the legislation in the next Session.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
4.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15):
LORD BROWN: My Lords. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, may I thank the House for the expeditious way in which it has been dealt with, and partilarly thank the Members opposite for their contribution to the speed? I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to say on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has handled this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendmendments be now considered.—(Lord Beswick.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 64 as first printed for the Commons.]
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out (including the Greater London Council)".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I hope it will be to the convenience of the House to speak also to Amendments 25, 26 and 27 in Clause 1, since they arc related to the Amendment I am now moving. The purpose of these Amendments is to bring the Greater London Council within the definition of "local authority" for the purposes of the Bill and of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 except where the context otherwise requires. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot put to the House Amendments which are not consecutive in number.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.1).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation. I assume that helicopter space is one of the purposes for which the Greater London Council requires to be in the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to be quite frank with the noble Earl, I am not sure whether a heliport is included within

359
the definition of "aerodrome". But certainly on most of the aerodromes, including Heathrow, a space on which helicopters could land is included.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3]
Clause 1, page 1, line 20. leave out from beginning to "functions" in line 22 and insert—
"(b) on the chief officer of any aerodrome constabulary."
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
"'aerodrome constabulary' means, in relation to an aerodrome owned or managed by the Board of Trade, the special constables appointed under section 37 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 and, in relation to an aerodrome owned or managed by a local authority, any body of constables which the authority have power to maintain at that aerodrome."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I hope it will be to the convenience of the House if we take Amendments 2 and 3 together. They meet a point brought forward by the Opposition in another place: namely, to avoid a confusion about the use of the wordspecial "in relation to constables, and in order to make absolutely certain that, for example, the Manchester Corporation, who have a force of special constables (under Section 18 of the Manchester Corporation Act 1954) would be able to appoint suitable aerodrome constabulary who would not be special constables, in the ordinary meaning of the word. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments (Nos. 2 and 3). (Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
Clause 2, page 3, line 36, after "paragraph" insert "(including any byelaw so made by virtue of section 3(1) or 4(1) of this Act)"
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This is a drafting Amendment. The explanation given to me is that this Amendment makes it clear that the reference in the last part of subsection (5) to by-laws made by virtue of paragraph (h) of Section 2(1) included a reference
360
to by-laws so made by virtue of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) which incorporate paragraphs (a) to (i) of Section 2(1). Strangely enough, this is held to be a clarifying Amendment, and I offer it to your Lordships on that understanding. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.4).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I was hoping to be able to congratulate the noble Lord on a clearer explanation than has been given before, but in fact he has only read the words used in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5–7]
Clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out from "authority" to "may" in line 2.
Clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out "that section" and insert "section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949"
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Powers of rural district councils as respects aerodromes
". Section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 (power of local authorities to provide aerodromes) shall have effect in relation to councils of rural districts as it has effect in relation to other local authorities, and accordingly in subsection (91 of that section the words the expression "local authority" does not include the council of a rural district in England or Wales, and' are hereby repealed."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5. 6 and 7. Section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, which empowers local authorities, with the consent of the Board of Trade, to provide and maintain aerodromes, does not apply to rural district councils. Although we do not normally think of rural district councils as bodies concerned with the building of aerodromes, nevertheless the Association of Rural District Councils have asked to be put on the same basis as other local authorities. These Amendments make that provision. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments (Nos. 5, 6 and 7).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

361
I should like to ask one question on Amendment No. 7. Did the Rural District Councils Association, when they approached the Government to be included in the Bill, declare that they were intending either to build or maintain an aerodrome.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there was no indication that they had any immediate plans to do so, but they pointed out that certain rural district councils are now almost as large as other local authorities and therefore they thought it appropriate, as the Bill was going through the House, to be put on the same basis as other local authorities.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I supplement what my noble friend has said? If Stansted were moved to one of the sites which has been suggested, that site would be in the area of a rural district council.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, although we have discussed this subject at great length, I do not believe that anyone has suggested that the local authority concerned should be responsible for Stansted aerodrome. It will, unfortunately, be the responsibility of the British Airports Authority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8]
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Facilities for consultation at certain aerodromes
".—(1) This section applies to any aerodrome which is managed by a person other than the British Airports Authority and is designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Board of Trade.
(2) The person having the management of any aerodrome to which this section applies shall provide for users of the areodrome, for any local authority (or, if the person having the management of the aerodrome is a local authority, for any other local authority) in whose area the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated or whose area is in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome 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.
(3) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under this section, but any order varying or revok
362
ing a previous order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This Amendment makes provision for facilities for consultation at certair aerodromes. Under Section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 the Board of Trade must make such provision as the Board thinks necessary to ensure that adequate facilities are provided for consulation in respect of Board of Trade aerodromes. There is a similar statutory requirement on the British Airports Authority; but there are other aerodromes in the country where there is not such a statutory obligation upon those who administer them. In order to meet the request put forward in another place, this Amendment has been included. I hope that it will be agreed by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.8).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation by the noble Lord of this new clause, which of course we have not discussed before. As the noble Lord said, it was included largely due to pressure from the Opposition in another place. There are three questions that I should like to ask. First, for what type of airfield is it intended that this clause will qualify? Second, what do the words in subsection (2). "adequate facilities for consultation", really mean?—and here I am thinking of future guidance for airport managers and for the public. Thirdly, what, in fact, in practice is intended will happen after consultations have taken place? For instance, will at be the duty of the airport manager, having consulted the public, the residents and the users of the airfields, to see that their views are taken into account? There does not seem to be a safeguard for that in this clause. Otherwise, my Loris, I welcome the clause and its purpose, which is to keep people generally informed.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am asked what type of airfield or airport is likely to be designated by the President

363
for the purpose of this clause. It would be an airport on which there is a considerable amount of traffic. It would be an airport on which there is likely to be generated a certain amount of noise; and generally, one in which there would be an interest by the surrounding cornmunities. If there were clearly a demand for consultative provisions by the surrounding local authorities or residential associations, that would be the kind of airport which the President would be likely to designate for this purpose.
I was asked by the noble Earl what was meant by "adequate facilities". He would require that in these designated airports there should be adequate facilities for consultation. I take the point of the noble Earl that "adequate" may be stretched or concentrated hut, by and large, what is in mind is the sort of facility which is enjoyed by the consultative councils now attached under the Statute to the airports administered by the British Airports Authority. The noble Earl also asked what would be the effect of the consultations; whether the recommendations of the consultative councils or committees that were set up be mandatory on the airport managing authority. The answer to that is, "No". There would be no question, of course, of the consultative committee managing the airport, but if recommendations by the the consultative body were not satisfactorily attended to by the airport manager. if the body felt that their representations were not being properly listened to they would be able to go to the Board of Trade in exactly the same way as the consultative committee or councils now attached to Heathrow can, and make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. But generally speaking I should not have thought that this would arise.
What is wanted here, and what I should think the noble Earl would agree would be useful, in the interests of the airport managers as well as those in the residential areas, is good community relations. It is in the best interests of all concerned that there should be this understanding of one another's problems, and it is hoped that the arrangements which will be set up under this provision will enable the best type of
364
public relations or community relations, to be enjoyed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Appointment of traffic wardens by British Airports Authority
".—(1) For the purpose of enabling persons appointed by the British Airports Authority to discharge in relation to the aerodromes owned or managed by the Authority functions discharged elsewhere by traffic wardens appointed by police authorities, the Board of Trade may by order apply in relation to the Authority, subject to such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Board to be necessary or expedient, any enactment relating to traffic wardens which is for the time being in force (whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act) and any order or other instrument having effect by virtue of any such enactment.
(2) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under this section."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This Amendment provides for the appointment of traffic wardens by the British Airports Authority. As the House will know, the Authority now has its own police constabulary, but it is not a police authority and therefore there is no power to appoint traffic wardens. At the same time the traffic problems, especially at Heathrow, are growing considerably, and it is thought that traffic wardens, at Heathrow, for example, would satisfactorily solve, or help to solve, some of the traffic problems experienced on the airport, which are similar to those encountered in the streets of London. Under this power the Authority would be able to appoint such traffic wardens. I hope that this will be acceptable.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.9).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful again to the noble Lord for explaining yet another new clause. In fact, since the Bill left this House eight new clauses have been inserted and two of the old clauses have been struck

365
out. I would again generally welcome this additional power for the British Airports Authority. I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord. One assumes that the Airports Authority put their case for being given this power. Did they state that they intended to use traffic wardens at all four of the airports which they at present manage?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my understanding is that Heathrow is the problem, and it is Heathrow that the Airports Authority have in mind. These powers will, however, enable them to set up a similar corps of traffic wardens elsewhere if the need arises.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10.]
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Functions of British Airports Authority as respects abandoned vehicles
".—(1) The Minister of Transport may by order direct that in their application to land in any aerodrome owned or managed by the British Airports Authority, the provisions of—

(a) section 20, section 21 and section 22 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (powers and duties of local authorities to remove and dispose of vehicles abandoned on land in their area) and section 28 of that Act (powers of entry etc.) so far as relating to the said section 20; and

(b) any regulations for the time being in force under any of those sections,

shall have effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as appear to him necessary or expedient for the purpose or in consequence of transferring to the Authority the powers and duties conferred or imposed by those provisions on local authorities or local authorities of any description.
(2) In relation to the provisions of—

(a) sections 20, 52 and 53 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (removal of vehicles from roads, if illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked or broken down and from roads or open land if abandoned); and

(b) any regulations for the time being in force under any of those sections,

the powers of the Ministry of Transport under section 12(2) of the Airports Authority Act 1965 (which enable him to adapt the road traffic enactments in their application to roads within aerodromes owned or managed by the Authority for the purpose of conferring on the Authority and the chief officer of its constabulary functions of local authorities and chief officers of police) shall be exercisable not only as respects the application of those provisions to roads within those aerodromes but also as respects their application to other land within those aerodromes.
(3) Where the provisions of—

(a) section 20 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967;

(b) section 20 or 52 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967; or

(c) any regulations for the time being in force under any of those sections,

apply to land in any aerodrome in accordance with an order made under or by virtue of this section, those provisions shall have effect in relation to vehicles in a building on that land which is used for providing facilities for the parking of vehicles as they have effect in relation to vehicles on land in the open air.
(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) of this section the Minister of Transport shall consult the British Airports Authority; and any such order shall he made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order.
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, for any reference to the Minister of Transport there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State; and for the purposes of this subsection Monmouthshire shall be treated as forming part of Wales."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree, with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is a very formidable-looking Amendment. It gives powers to the British Airports Authority to deal with vehicles abandoned at aerodromes in the same way as the local authorities can now deal with abandoned vehicles under the Civic Amenities Act 1967 and under Sections 20, 52 and 53 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that there is such a problem on the airports, and again especially at Heathrow, and I should have thought it would be useful for the Airports Authority to have these powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.10).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful again to the noble Lord for explaining yet another new clause. I am sure we generally welcome these new powers to allow the Authority to carry out their duties, but there are just one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. First, I wonder whether he can explain—again this is for information purposes—how big a problem is posed by these abandoned vehicles at London Airport. Secondly, can he give further guidance on the definition of the word abandoned"?

367
is particularly important in the case of the multi-storey car park which this clause is intended to cover. One can understand a case where a pilot, or a crew member, or a member of the public, goes abroad and, either through illness or some other reason is delayed, with the result that his car is left in the multistorey car park for some time. One wonders whether such people will find their cars still at the car park when they get back. There is also the question of a person who dies while abroad, and of the executor who may be delayed in obtaining letters of administration and—indeed, may not even know that the car is in the car park. I think the definition of the word "abandoned" is very important, and I hope that the noble Lord can give us some explanation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord asks about the size of the problem. I am afraid that I cannot give him any figures. I know from past experience that it is surprising how many people take a car to one of the car parks and forget all about it. All I can say, in answer to the noble Earl's question, is that the Airports Authority have been able to convince the President of the Board of Trade that there is a problem here and that they require powers to be able to deal with it satisfactorily.
The noble Earl has made some cogent points about the safeguards here, and clearly there must be safeguards. But all that is being done here is to give the Airports Authority the same kind of powers as are now vested in local authorities; and as the noble Earl and the House will know, there are a number of safeguards about the necessity of giving notice before the vehicle is moved. These will apply in this case. I think I can give the noble Earl the assurance that, although one can visualise difficulties, such as people going abroad and, as the result of subsequent events, leaving a motor car in the park, the provisions in Section 20 of the 1967 Act and Sections 20, 52 and 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1967 will give the kind of safeguards for which the noble Earl is asking.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Prevention of theft at aerodromes of British Airports Authority
"—(1)The Board of Trade may by order designate for the purposes of this section any area appearing to the Board to be used wholly or mainly for the storage or handling of cargo in any aerodrome owned or managed by the British Airports Authority.
(2) Any constable appointed under the Airports Authority Act 1965 may—

(a) stop any person who is leaving an area designated for the purposes of this section and inspect any goods carried by that person;

(b) stop and search any vehicle or aircraft which is leaving any such area and inspect the vehicle or aircraft and any goods carried on or in it; and

(c) detain in the area—

(i) any such goods as aforesaid for which there is not produced a document authorising their removal from the area signed by a person authorised in that behalf by the British Airports Authority; and

(ii) any such vehicle or aircraft as aforesaid so long as there are on or in it goods liable to detention under this paragraph.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be construed as conferring a power to search any person.
(4) In any area designated for the purposes of this section the powers of a constable under section 11(2)(b) of the said Act of 1965 (by virtue of which he has power to stop, search and detain any vehicle carrying a person employed by the Authority or employed to work on any of their aerodromes, and to board and search any aircraft, if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that stolen property is to he found in or on the vehicle or aircraft) shall—

(a) extend to any vehicle whether or not it is carrying such a person as aforesaid; and

(b) include power, not only to board and search an aircraft, but also to stop and detain it.

(5) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under this section."
5.22 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment deals with the prevention of theft at aerodromes in the British Airports Authority. This is a clause which it is hoped will improve the security of the goods passing through Heathrow Airport. The noble Earl has asked me on a number of occasions what is the size of the problem with which we are dealing here, and I hope that he will ask me the same question on this Amendment, because I can tell him that

369
the losses by theft are now running at over £300,000 a year at this one airport. It is necessary to do everything that is reasonably possible to reduce this rate of loss. This new clause will enable the air ports' constabulary to search vehicles within a certain area, and the area will be designated by Order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord. He anticipated my question, but I think in relation to the loss of £300,000, on average, of goods which are stolen, the total value of goods passing through Heathrow every year is something like £1,000 million. Perhaps the noble Lord could indicate what the trend of this theft problem is, and whether it is rising.
Under this clause, as I understand it, the police of the British Airports Authority will be empowered to search any vehicle, to inspect any goods being carried, and to stop, detain and arrest, but not search, any person. These powers are designated for the cargo handling area, and one point that comes to mind is that the cargo handling area, certainly at Heathrow, on occasions combines with passengers. Is it the intention for these designated areas to be clearly marked, and even fenced off from the public, so that there is no question of people who are innocent passengers being stopped under these powers?
My Lords, the second question that I should like to ask is whether a constable will have power under this clause not only to stop someone from leaving the designated area of cargo handling, but also to stop entry of that person, if he appears to act suspiciously. I think this is important, and I think it is a possible gap in this clause. The final question I wish to ask is whether this clause is exactly what the British Airports Authority have asked for.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with regard to the last question, it is a clause which has been drafted in consultation with the British Airports Authority. Whether or not they wanted a little more power, I cannot say. I think in this world it is unlikely that any authority gets everything that it wants, but I understand that this is satisfactory to the
370
British Airports Authority. Although I quoted a figure of £300,000 as being the amount of the losses, the noble Earl is quite right in suggesting that the volume of goods going through the airport is very much greater. I should not like to give the impression that it is unsafe to despatch anything through Heathrow Airport. Nevertheless, the loss each year is a large figure. It was increasing, and it is necessary to reduce the trend. It is hoped that these powers will enable the authority to make that reduction.
My Lords, I was asked whether there will be any definition or delineation of the area which will be used by passengers. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl an answer to that question. I imagine it is the sort of thing which could be discussed when the Order which defires the area is laid. Nevertheless, I will try to find out the intentions of the Authority in this respect and let him know.
I was also asked whether it is possible to search on entry as well as exit. Again, I am afraid I do not know the answer, but with respect to the noble Earl I should not have thought it was very important, because if the authorities w ant to search anyone entering the cargo area, all they have to do is to stand one yard inside the area, and under this clause they will be able to search and detain any of the goods within the provisions of this clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 12]
Clause 7, page 6, line 13, at end insert "and for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 5 of that Act (which sets a limit of £70 million on the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of any money borrowed by the Authority under that section and its commencing capital debt) any money lent to the Authority under this section shall be treated as if it were money borrowed by the Authority under that section".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment makes provision for rather stricter control of loans made with n this clause. The clause makes it quite clear that any borrowings under Section 5(3) of the Airports Authority Act 1965, and anything under this Bill, is within the limit of the £70 million laid down in the

371
1965 Act. There clearly must be only one limit for the Airports Authority's borrowing powers, whether they borrow under this Bill or under the 1965 Act. This clause makes it absolutely clear.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, this Amendment, to a clause which we discussed when it was before the House, again raises this rather curious situation where the British Airports Authority do not benefit at the present time, because the four airports which they manage are excluded, but they would benefit if they took on a new airfield. I wonder whether the noble Lord could confirm that at the present time this Amendment to the clause is dormant until a new aerodrome is taken over by the Airports Authority.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is not quite the case. There may well be other cases where the Airports Authority wish to spend money or to borrow money, even though it is not for a new airfield. I cannot give any indication that they have any intention at the present time, but they may need some warehouses, a new terminal, or something of that kind, and such money as they borrow for those purposes must still come within the £70 million as provided by this new clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 13]
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause—
Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges
".—(1) Where default is made in the payment of airport charges incurred in respect of any aircraft at an aerodrome to which this section applies, the aerodrome authority may, subject to the provisions of this section

(a) detain, pending payment, either?

(i) the aircraft in respect of which the charges were incurred (whether or not they were incurred by the person who is the operator of the aircraft at the time when the detention begins); or

(ii) any other aircraft of which the person in default is the operator at the time when the detention begins; and

(b) if the charges are not paid within fifty-six days of the date when the detention
372
begins, sell the aircraft in order to satisfy the charges.

(2) 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 aircraft charges if the operator of the aircraft or any other person claiming an interest therein—

(a) disputes that the charges, or any of them, are due or, if the aircraft is detained under subsection (l)(a)(i) of this section, that the charges in question were incurred in respect of that aircraft; and

(b) gives to the authority, pending the determination of the dispute, sufficient security for the payment of the charges which are alleged to be due.

(3) An aerodrome authority shall not sell an aircraft under this section without the leave of the court; and the court shall not give leave except on proof that a sum is due to the authority for airport charges, that default has been made in the payment thereof and that the aircraft which the authority seek leave to sell is liable to sale under this section by reason of the default.
(4) An aerodrome authority proposing to apply for leave to sell an aircraft under this section shall take such steps as may be prescribed by the Board of Trade by regulations made by statutory instrument—

(a) for bringing the proposed application to the notice of persons whose interests may be affected by the determination of the court thereon; and

(b) for affording to any such person an opportunity of becoming a party to the proceedings on the application;

and, if leave is given, the aerodrome authority shall secure that the aircraft is sold for the best price that can reasonably be obtained; but failure to comply with any requirement of this subsection in respect of any sale, while actionable as against the aerodrome authority concerned at the suit of any person suffering loss in consequence thereof, shall not, after the sale has taken place, be a ground for Impugning its validity.
(5) The proceeds of any sale under this section shall be applied as follows, and in the following order, this is to say—

(a) in payment of any customs duty or purchase tax which is due in consequence of the aircraft having been brought into the United Kingdom;

(b) in payment of the expenses incurred by the aerodrome authority in detaining, keeping and selling the aircraft, including their expenses in connection with the application to the court:

(c) in payment of the airport charges which the court has found to be due;

(d) in payment of any charge in respect of the aircraft which is due by virtue of regulations under section 4 of the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1962 (charges for air navigation services);

and the surplus, if any, shall be paid to or among the person or persons whose interests

373
in the aircraft have been divested by reason of the sale.
(6) The power of detention and sale conferred by this section in respect of an aircraft extends to the equipment of the aircraft and 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.
(7) The power of detention conferred by this section in respect of an aircraft extends to any aircraft documents carried in it; and any such documents may, if the aircraft is sold under this section, be transferred by the aerodrome authority to the purchaser.
(8) The power conferred by this section to detain an aircraft in respect of which charges have been incurred may be exercised on the occasion on which the charges have been incurred or on any subsequent occasion when the aircraft is on the aerodrome on which those charges were incurred or on any other aerodrome owned or managed by the aerodrome authority concerned.
(9) This section applies to any aerodrome owned or managed by any government department, the British Airports Authority or a local authority and to any other aerodrome designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Board of Trade; and in this section—
"aerodrome authority", in relation to any areodrome, means the person owning or managing it;
"airport charges" means charges payable to an aerodrome authority for the use of, or for services provided at, an aerodrome but does not include charges payable by virtue of regulations under section 4 of the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1962;
"aircraft documents", in relation to any aircraft, means any certificate of registration, maintenance or airworthiness of that aircraft, any log book relating to the use of that aircraft or its equipment and any similar document;
"the court" means, as respects England and Wales, the High Court; as respects Scotland, the Court of Session; and, as respects Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland;
"operator in relation to any aircraft, means the person for the time being having the management of that aircraft.
(10) The Board of Trade may, after consultation with any local authority which appears to the Board to be concerned, by order repeal any enactment in a local Act which appears to the Board to unnecessary having regard to the provisions of this section or to be inconsistent therewith, and any such order may contain such incidental and transitional provisions as the Board think fit.
(11) Any order under subsection (9) or (10) of this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment
374
in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under that subsection.
(12) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any right of an aerodrome authority to recover any charges, or any part thereof, by action.
(13) The foregoing provisions of this section shall come into force on such day as the Board of Trade may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment, which is considerable in length, deals with the question of the detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges. Again, a number of points were raised in the other place about safeguards in those cases where the Airports Authority intended to detain aircraft and sell the aircraft in order to meet unpaid airport charges. I think it is correct to say, without going into details, which I could go into if I am asked for them, that in general the changes that have been made in this clause are to meet the various doubts which were voiced in the other place.
In general, they increase the safeguards, with the exception of subsection (5)(d), which does to some extent extend the possibility of detaining aircraft, in this case for the payment of any charge in respect of the navigation services provided by the Board of Trade. There is also the provision in subsection (9) which removes the restriction previously limiting the designation of private aerodromes for the purpose of this clause to aerodromes with a substantial amount of air traffic. It was suggested that the smaller aerodromes—that is, aerodromes with a smaller amount of traffic—may need even more than the larger aerodromes the powers in this Bill, and subsection (9) makes the necessary amendment to the original clause. For the remainder, I think it is fair to say that the changes are all increasing the safeguards about which a good deal was said both in this House and in the other place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 13).—(Lord Beswick.)
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this new clause, which I think

375
is a substitute for the original Clause 9 which was in the Bill when it was previously before this House. I am sure that we all welcome it and realise that aerodrome managers should be given this extra protection against non-payment of fees. Also, I am sure we are grateful to the Government for the trouble they have taken in trying to arrive at the correct and right clause. I understand that there were full consultations with all the interested parties.
I have just a few questions to ask the noble Lord. While one accepts that it is right to have the power of this clause so that airfield managers are given this protection, can the Government say how often to their knowledge nonpayment of fees occurs? It strikes one as very odd nowadays, when aircraft cost perhaps £2 million each—for example, the Boeing 707—that the operator apparently cannot always "stump up" the landing fees. One wonders whether the side effect really is to strengthen the arm of the British Airports Authority so that when they increase the landing fees at Heathrow they can say, "Watch out!" to the airline operators.
The second question deals with subsection (1)(a) which reads:
"the aircraft in respect of which the charges were incurred (whether or not they were incurred by the person who is the operator of the aircraft at the time when the detention begins) …".
The reason why I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to this paragraph is that one can see a situation arising where a new owner or new operator of an aircraft purchases aircraft and on the point of starting his business suddenly finds that he is being charged with fees that date back perhaps even a couple of years and were owed by the previous owner. I consider that is a very unfair situation. When this point was raised in another place, the Government's reply was that this was the only way to make the operator at the time fully responsible; the only way to prevent the unscrupulous operator from evading payment. Surely, if a proper register of operators were kept, with dates as to when operators operated, it would be easy to work out who was responsible. It would be very easy, I should have thought, to charge the person concerned,
376
whether scrupulous or unscrupulous, with the bill. It is rather an unfair system if a new operator can be charged this liability of which he may not have any knowledge.
The third question which I should like briefly to ask deals with subsection (5)(a), which reads:
"in payment of any customs duty or purchase tax which is due in consequence of the aircraft having been brought into the United Kingdom ….".
The purpose of this subsection is to deal with the proceeds of a compulsory sale of an aircraft. This subsection seems to offer a rather unfair situation where a foreign operator flies in an aircraft and for some reason defaults. The aeroplane is then detained and, under this Bill, eventually sold. That aircraft when it is sold could apparently, under this subsection (5)(a), attract purchase tax. It seems a very unfair situation where a foreign operator may have to suffer purchase tax even if at the time of the sale friends of his come to purchase the aircraft back. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say whether that is really the intention of the Bill.
The last question that I should like to ask the noble Lord concerns the period of time under subsection (1)(b), the time being "within fifty-six days". The noble Lord may recall that when the Bill was previously before this House the time limit originally started at 21 days. Then, with considerable reluctance, I would say, on the part of the noble Lord, it was raised in this House to 28 days. I believe we were told on that occasion that this was more than enough and it was a considerable concession to have wrung out of the Government. It was therefore a little astonishing to find that in another place the period of time was changed to 56 days, without any explanation or reason as to why this change had taken place. Having said all that, I would welcome this new clause. I am sure it is right that airfield managers and operators should have this additional protection, and it is also right that these safeguards should have been written into this clause.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl has obviously studied this matter with great care and I compliment him on the points which he has picked out. He is quite right that there is retained in this redrafted clause provision

377
that an aircraft may be detained even if the default is incurred by someone other than the operator at the time when the offence begins. I am afraid, however, that I cannot give the noble Earl any better answer than that which he really gave himself when he indicated what was said in another place. It is thought that this provision is absolutely essential; otherwise a person in default would be able to evade detention by handing over the operation of the aircraft to someone else. It would be for persons who assume the operation of, or acquire an interest in, an aircraft to satisfy themselves that all outstanding liabilities for airport charges had been met.
The noble Earl asked me about the position of articles brought into the country: whether there would be any liability for customs duty and purchase tax. The position here is that duty and purchase tax would be payable only where they are payable under the 1952 Customs and Excise Act. There is absolutely nothing in this redrafted clause to change that position either one way or the other. I was asked how often in the past it would have been useful to have had the power now provided in respect of non-payment of fees. Again, I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Earl the answer. It is an interesting point which never seems to have been asked before. If there is any information, I will let him have it. I myself doubt whether there is any question of the Airports Authority's being concerned about their new rate of charge. I think the noble Earl may rest assured that that is not the intention. I myself would think that the matter would arise much more often in the smaller airports. To that extent I am pleased that there has been this amendment to the original Act. I can remember one or two cases where a chartered aircraft brought into this country had not met its proper airport charges, but there have been very few cases in the larger airports.
If there is any more interesting information 1 will let the noble Earl know. He made some point—and I do not blame him at all—about the change in the time allowed; we argued about 21 days and 28 days, and now it is 56 days. I agree that he is entitled to chide me. On the other hand, in this new clause there are many more safeguards, more
378
procedures to go through and therefore it is reasonable to allow more time for them to be properly carried out. I hope with this explanation, inadequate though it may be, the noble Earl will agree that we should adopt the clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 14]
Clause 9, page 9, line 35, leave out from "make" to end of line 38 and insert "in relation to aircraft detained for non-payment of any charge payable by virtue of regulations under the said section 4, provision corresponding to any provision made by or under section (Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges) of this Act."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree, with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. The purpose of this provision is to make it possible to collect payment of navigation charges by the detention of aircraft, in the same way as provision was made in the previous clause for the collection of unpaid airport charges. There is some power already under other legislation which enables detention for unpaid navigation charges, but this makes the provision the same in the one case as in the other. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.14).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 15]
Clause 9, page 10, line 19, leave of t "9" and insert "(Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges)".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. Hanging with this Amendment are Amendments 16 and 28. They are all consequential upon the changes in Clause 9. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No.15).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 16]
Clause 9, page 11, line 30, leave out "9" and insert "(Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges)".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 16).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 17]
After Clause 13 insert the following new clause:
Control of aircraft noise and supersonic flight
".—(1) In subsection (2) of section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 (which in paragraphs (a) to (q) specifies matters concerned with the regulation of air navigation for which provision may be made by an Order in Council under that section) there shall be added the following paragraphs:—
(r) for prohibiting aircraft 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 as may be specified in the Order and except upon compliance with the conditions of those certificates;
(s) for regulating or prohibiting the flight of aircraft over the United Kingdom at speeds in excess of Flight Mach 1 ".
(2) No Order under section 8 of the said Act of 1949 making provision for any such matter a; is mentioned in paragraph (r) of subsection (2) of that section shall be submitted to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament; and so much of section 57(2) of that Act as provides that Orders in Council under the said section 8 are to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament shall not apply to any such Order as aforesaid."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. This Amendment will he welcomed by many people; it deals with aircraft noise and the control of aircraft noise in supersonic flight. The new clause will enable the scheme which was announced by the then President of the Board of Trade in 1967 to be implemented in the United Kingdom when it has been finalised. The clause also includes enabling powers to control supersonic flight, should it be required. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 17).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOUL L: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for ex
380
plaining this new clause. I am sure that if there are any Members of this House who are members of the Noise Abatement Society they will be pleased to see this new clause suddenly appearing in this Bill. It is only an enabling clause, and we look forward to seeing what standards of certification are in fact brought in by the Government. In another place, the Minister said that the clause dealt only with new aircraft projects, and not even with those that were not on the drawing board: so that an aircraft project such as the European Air-bus or the Concorde would not necessarily be included in this clause. Could the noble Lord confirm that? If that is so, I think it is frankly disappointing, because a new aircraft project, as the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, knows, takes eight, ten or fifteen years to produce, and I should have thought the effect of this clause was rather nullified.
While mentioning the European Airbus project could I "sneak in" a question, to ask whether there is any news yet of what has happened at the meeting held on the Continent this week?
There is one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord with regard to the certification of noise control, thinking particularly of Heathrow. I think I am right in saying that at the present time there is a noise control at Heathrow which limits the measurement to 110 P.N.B. during the day and 102 P.N.B. during the night for aircraft operating at Heathrow. During the Committee stage of this Bill the Minister indicated that under this clause the certification standards would be reduced to 90 P.N.B. I do not know whether it is too early for the noble Lord to comment on this, but if the figure of 90 P.N.B. was in fact selected as the figure of measurement, can he say how many aircraft at present operating at Heathrow would in fact come within this lower limit, even allowing for the fact that they would not come within this clause?
Having said that, I very much welcome this clause, which I think will do much to correct the balance of interests between those living near the Airport and the operators who operate aircraft from that Airport.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, anxious as I am to answer the questions of the

381
noble Earl, I am afraid I cannot tell him the outcome of the meeting about the European Air-bus, since that does not take place until to-morrow. Neither can I lay down any noise definitions at this stage. As I think the noble Earl knows, discussions are still taking place with the different manufacturers. We are trying to get a common standard, and I believe that we are making some progress. It was a step forward to get international agreement, but actual standards have yet to be decided. My under standing is that, so far as the Concorde is concerned, the control over supersonic flight will mean that control over the Concorde will be included in the regulations that will follow this clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 18]
Clause 17, page 14, line 18, transpose Clause 17 to after Clause 15.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. This seems to be a sleight of hand, but it is simply to bring together two clauses which deal with the same subject—namely, control over land. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 18).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19]
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
Power of British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.0 to provide technical advice and assistance.
". Without prejudice to their powers apart from this section, the British Airports Authority, the British European Airways Corporation and the British Overseas Airways Corporation shall each have power to provide for any person technical advice or assistance, including research services, as respects any matter in which the Authority or, as the case may be, the Corporation concerned have skill or experience."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. This Amendment, and Amendment No. 30, provide power for the British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to provide technical advice and assistance to persons—and I am advised that "per-
382
sons" in this case will include organisations, and indeed countries, As most of your Lordships will know, much has already been done, especially by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., to give technical assistance and training of one kind or another to persons from developing countries, but because of specific provision in some other recent legislation there is a slight doubt as to whether in fact they have the proper legislative power. This Amendment will ensure that there is no doubt at all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 19).—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this new clause. I think we all agree that the word "person" is perhaps a little loose here, if the intention of the Government is that it should also cover countries. Indeed, in view of the fact that it does cover countries I think many people would have felt that this new clause would have been more suitable in an overseas aid Bill. As I read it, the clause allows the British Airports Authority, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to offer expertise abroad on managing airports, and of course in principle one obviously welcomes this. However, the clause is very wide, and its effect, as I see it, would be to allow both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to invest all their profits abroad. Yet we know that under the B.O.A.C. charter they must pass their profits, if any, back to the Exchequer as a form of public dividend. There seems to be a slight conflict here, as they are being allowed extra power to invest abroad profits which should apparently be returned to the Exchequer.
I have three brief questions to ask the noble Lord. First, do the Government expect this power to be widely used? Secondly, will the Government be consulted before B.O.A.C., B.E.A., or, for that matter, the British Airports Authority—though the first two are obviously more important—put back all their profits into overseas aid? And, thirdly, how much do the Government expect these three bodies to spend on average per year? I presume the have estimated the amount and can give some guidance on it. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give answers to these three questions? Having said that, I would

383
welcome this clause, despite what I said about the very wide powers.
LORD BESWICK: Though these are very wide enabling powers, they do not affect the relationship between the Corporations and the Board of Trade or the British Airports Authority and the Board of Trade; nor do they affect the constitution of the various authorities. This Amendment does not really affect at all what they have been doing in the past or are likely to do in the future. As the noble Earl will know, and as I believe we all know, a number of people from overseas territories come here and receive useful training with the Corporations. Similarly I can imagine that much useful work can he done in the field of air traffic control. Certainly in overseas territories the Corporations have done a good deal of training of individuals. There is no intention of widening the scope of what they have done already, but merely of ensuring that the statutory power is right. The noble Earl says that the definition is a little loose. I understand that the definition of the word "person" comes from Section 19 of the Interpretation Act of 1889, where it is provided that the expression "person"
"shall … unless the contrary intention appears, include any body of persons corporate or unincorporate."
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 20 and 21]
Clause 18, page 14, line 41, after "that" insert—
"(a)"
Clause 18,page 15, line 4, at end insert—
"and
(b) for the purpose of making any provision required or authorised to be made by regulations under section 24 of the said Act of 1957 (pensions and similar benefits for employees of B.E.A., B.O.A.C. and certain other undertakings and bodies) regulations under that section may incorporate and give effect to provisions contained in any trust deed entered into by any employing authority within the meaning of that section."
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which relate to the Air Corporations' Pensions Regulations Acts of 1948 and
384
1967. The purpose of these Amendments is simply to remove any possible doubt that the provisions of the trustees entered into by the Corporations with representatives of their employees are strictly in accordance with the powers of Section 24. It is a matter of removing possible doubts, and I hope the Amendments will be accepted.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 22]
Clause 20: leave out Clause 20.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I leg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. This Amendment, with which I would bracket Amendment 31, proposes to leave out Clause 20 because it is no longer required, permanent provision for the exercise of powers of the Board of Trade having now been made by the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968. The second Amendment is consequential to the first.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Briefly, I am sure that we accept that Clause 20 is now unnecessary because the Industrial Expansion Act offers the same blanket clause. It seems bad luck for practitioners of future aviation Acts, and this one in particular, to have to carry around a copy of the Industrial Expansion Act in order to understand the purpose of this particular clause. It seems to achieve the reverse of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has striven for over the last four years; that is, to make the law less of a jungle and more intelligible for the layman. This seems to be wholly against his policy.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl may well have a point there, and I will bring it to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 23]
Clause 21, page 15, line 29, leave out "Exchequer" and insert Consolidated Fund".
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. This Amendment is a technicality.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 24]
Clause 22, page 15, line 35, leave out from "Act" to end of line 36 and insert" and the Civil Aviation Acts 1949 to 1967 may be cited together as the Civil Aviation Acts 1949 to 1968".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. This is a consequential Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 25–27]
Clause 22, page 15, line 37, after "Act" insert "except where the context otherwise requires"
Clause 22, page 15,line 43, at end insert "and 'local authority' means, in relation to England and Wales, the council of a county, county borough, county district or London borough, the Greater London Council or the Common Council of the City of London and, in relation to Scotland, a county council or a town council."
Clause 22,page 16, line 1, leave out from beginning to "contained" in line 2 and insert—
"(4) The definitions of 'aerodrome' and local authority' contained in the last foregoing subsection shall be substituted for the definitions of those expressions."
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27. These Amendments were taken with Amendment 1.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 28]
Clause 22, page 16, line 11, leave cut "9" and insert "(Detention and sale of aircraft for unpaid airport charges)".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. We have already discussed the purpose of this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 29]
Clause 22, page 16, leave out line 14 and insert—
"sections 10 to 13
section (Control of aircraft noise and supersonic flight)
section 14."
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the new clause for the control of aircraft noise in supersonic flight to be fitted into the list of provisions in the Act which extend to Northern Ireland.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 30]
Clause 22, page 16, line 15, at end inert—
"section (Power of British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to provide technical advice and assistance) except so far as it relates to the British Airports Authority."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 30).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 31]
Clause 22, page 16, leave out line 17 and insert—
"section 19."
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment (No. 31).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DOMESTIC AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY) BILL
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: 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.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of court hearing certain appeals and applications to sit in private:]
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved as an Amendment to Clause 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").
The noble Viscount said: I hope that it will be agreeable to the Committee if the two Amendments to this Clause are discussed together, because the first merely paves the way for the second. Some members of the Committee may recall that this Bill aroused a considerable debate on its Second Reading, and this was largely concerned with the question of whether or not the Court of Appeal and other Appellate courts ought to have some restriction or direction on the powers that are given to them under the Bill to sit in camera. Everyone agreed that it would be most undesirable that the Appellate courts, or indeed any courts, should sit in private unless there were very good reasons indeed for this to happen—and of course there are sometimes very good reasons.
Several noble and learned Lords and other noble Lords spoke on this matter, and it was quite clear to me that there was liable to be something of a delicate situation, because some who spoke took the view that the Bill was just about right as it was, whereas others took the view that there was a great deal wrong with it,
388
which even the Amendment I suggested putting forward at that time might not necessarily clear up.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that since that time I have had discussions with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lords, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Wilberforce, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and Lord Leatherland. I have also been in correspondence with a surprising number of organisations connected with the Press and various individual newspaper editors, and I think that they, having all considered the two Amendments that are down on the Marshalled List to-day, have come to fairly favourable conclusions. I hope I am right in thinking that nobody is dissatisfied with these Amendments—some people think they are a great improvement. I believe they may be to some people's minds a bit of a compromise, but all the same I hope they will prove acceptable.
I would commend them to the Committee for this reason. The noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, in the course of his Second Reading speech, when talking of what advocates before Appellate courts might say in the future, foresaw an advocate saying this:
"See what Parliament has done; it has given you power to sit in private. Surely Parliament means you to exercise that power, otherwise why should it give it to you?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/7/68, col. 1050.]
He, and I think others, foresaw a trend whereby, simply because this Bill has been passed at all, advocates wishing perhaps to conceal the cases of their clients because something disagreeable might emerge in the court, would seek to press upon the courts, and some successfully, that the cases should be heard in private. The advantage of the second Amendment is that I hope it makes perfectly clear what Parliament intends to be the general rule. I do not believe that it will be possible to extend any further the cases where in future appeals and other such matters may be heard in private.
One difficulty has been brought to my attention, that is, that under the wording of the second Amendment it might be difficult for a court to state the grounds which seem to them good and sufficient

389
for giving their decision in private without at the same time disclosing enough of the facts of the case to vitiate the whole of the operation. It is certainly not for me to suggest how learned judges would be able to cope with this situation, but I find it very difficult to believe that, in the types of case of which I have heard as being relevant in this connection, the learned judges in all courts in this land would really find it impossible so to phrase the reasons for having given their decisions in private without in fact doing any of the harm that is feared by people who take this view. Although those views were held, both in this House and outside, I hope that these two Amendments will commend themselves to the Committee and to those who have previously taken an interest in this Bill, to whom I am very grateful for that interest, and accordingly I beg to move the first Amendment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I opposed it. I opposed it, I fear, at some length and also with at times some ferocity. That was due probably to the fact that the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill was a distinguished lawyer and I was an old newspaper man, and there always is some kind of conflict between the two. I believe that the reasons which I gave for not liking the Bill were, first of all, that it interferes with the freedom of the Press to report certain cases in certain courts, a freedom which they had had hitherto, and that the public therefore was being deprived of the freedom to read those reports. I also did not like the idea of allowing more of our courts to sit in private, either during the whole of a case or during part of a case. I also did not like the idea that in this country, where the public is supposed to be aware of everything that the law sets down for their conduct, the public would be deprived of an opportunity to learn how the learned judges in the Appeal Courts were interpreting the various laws that they were supposed to observe.
I still feel that perhaps this Amendment does not go quite as far in permitting the Press to retain their existing freedoms as I should like. Nevertheless, one has to be a realist in this world. I appreciate that in the judicial machine there are powerful interests which want
390
to see some kind of reform here, and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in bringing forward his Amendments, has gone some way to meeting the requirements that the Press would like to see, and also to meeting the requirements of the very skilled High Court reporters, whose Association has been in contact with us. Taking a realistic view of the situation, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having introduced this Amendment, and at this stage I support it. That does not mean to say that I would have been pleased to have been the author of such a Bill had I been acting independently. But the Bill is here; we must make the best of it. This goes a considerable way towards making the best of it. If there are any difficulties that arise of the kind the noble Viscount has indicated, I think we shall have to trust the judges, and I would certainly be inclined to trust those judges. I support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as the Government are concerned, I do not want to repeat what has been said already. There was, as those present on Second Reading will remember, a difference of opinion, even among the noble and learned Lords. As I under and it, all those who took part in those discussions are now prepared to accept this Amendment, and that being so I am sure the Government would be foolish if they did not do so too.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:—
("() Without prejudice to the next following subsection, the court hearing the appeal or application shall give its decision and the reason for its decision in public unless there are good and sufficient grounds for giving them in private and in that case the court shall state those grounds in public.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, 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), the Report of the

391
Amendments received; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I suppose it must always be of satisfaction to a private Member when a Bill of his gets on to the Statute Book. We owe this Bill to Sir Lionel Heald in another place and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has taken the Bill here. As your Lordships know, it arises out of an anomaly which was reported to the Law Commission and on which they reported; and, subject to the Amendments which have been agreed, the result of the Bill will I think be that in some cases in which the courts cannot now do justice they will be able to do justice in the future. I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble

Loan

Date of Loan Agreement

Sterling value (£ million) at date of loan

Sterling value (£ million) amount now of outstanding

United States: Line of Credit

December, 1945

931

1,262

United States: Lend-Lease

December, 1945

161

197

United States: Economic Co-operation Administration.

October, 1948

86

111

United States: Mutual Security Agency

March, 1952

17

18

United States: Export-Import Bank, Line of Credit (Military Aircraft Loans).

April, 1966

19

16

June, 1966

12

10

August, 1966

66

66

July, 1967*

112

116

Bank for International Settlements

November, 1967†

104

87

* Amounts drawn to date.

† Not all in U.S. dollars.

RESETTLEMENT OF KENYA ASIANS
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY asked Her Majesty's Government:
What agreement has been reached with the Government of India regarding Kenya Asians holding British passports who return to India.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am happy to inform the noble Lord that arrangements have been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India concerning the resettlement in India of persons of Indian origin resident in Kenya who are holders of United King-
392
Viscount on having arrived at the winning post.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am glad to have been of some assistance in the furtherance of this particular end.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  UNITED STATES DOLLAR LOANS TO BRITAIN
  UNITED STATES DOLLAR LOANS TO BRITAIN
  DESALINATION OF WATER: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORTS
  DESALINATION OF WATER: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORTS