Sitting of 24 November 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Tax Inspectors
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the United Kingdom has the same number of tax inspectors as the United States of America with four times the population; and what changes he proposes in the tax system with a view to reducing the number of tax inspectors.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Because of differences in organisation, I doubt whether comparisons between the numbers of tax inspectors here and comparable officials
    206
    in the United States can usefully be made. However, studies are being conducted into a number of aspects of taxation with a view to simplification.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: My hon. Friend will be aware, will he not, that for decades Chancellors of the Exchequer have done little more than tinker with the tax system? Can we be assured that it will remain the Government's policy to change the system and simplify it so that at least most members of the public can understand it?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend may be reassured that we are studying a number of measures for simplifying the tax system, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

    Retirement Pensioners
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek powers to provide tax reliefs for retirement pensioners who take up employment.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I do not think that it would be right to give special tax relief to retirement pensioners who are able to work.
    Mr. Janner: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that elderly people should be encouraged to be active and useful? Would he not agree that the present level of taxation on them when they work is a positive disincentive to their working? Will he not think again about giving them special consideration?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have the whole question of tax allowances for the elderly within the purview of our review, but I must point out that age exemption for elderly people already represents a significant advantage which is not available to younger people.
    Mr. Ridsdale: If it is intended to give priority to pensioners, can that priority be given to those who are not able to work rather than to those who can work, particularly having in mind the difficulties those over 70 are facing at the present time?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has made, if I may say so, a valid point.

    Value Added Tax
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement of his policy concerning total extinguishment of selective employment tax and purchase tax on 5th April, 1971, and their substitution by value added tax from 6th April, 1971.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the ending of selective employment tax and purchase tax and their replacement by a value added tax.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I have nothing to add to what my predecessor said in reply to questions from the hon. Members for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 7th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 469.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the entire Conservative Party pledged itself to the abolition of the selective employment tax[Interruption.]—at the recent General Election—[Interruption.]—and as the nation is now pregnant with fiscal expectations, will my right hon. Friend take early steps honourably to deliver?
    Mr. Barber: Quite apart from the fact that we believe, on merits, that the selective employment tax is a tax which must go, it is also because we gave the very firm commitment, to which my hon. Friend refers, that we are determined that the selective employment tax shall be abolished.
    Hon. Members: When?
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a categorical assurance that a value-added tax will not be imposed on food?
    Mr. Barber: We made our position quite clear during the election, and stated clearly in our election manifesto, that we would consider a value added tax on its merits in the course of our review of indirect taxation. That is the pledge we gave, and we shall keep that pledge.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to act directly on costs, will he at least assure the House that he will not increase these two in-
    208
    direct taxes or whatever replacement he has in mind?
    Mr. Barber: As far as I am aware, no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 19 or 20 years I have been in the House has ever answered a question like that by giving a commitment, and I do not propose to start.

    Bank Overdrafts (Interest)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now introduce the necessary legislation to admit all interest on bank overdrafts as a charge against liability to income tax and surtax, to be effective from 19th June, 1970.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): We shall carry out our pledge; but beyond that I cannot commit my right hon. Friend.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that in the summer of 1969 the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a specific pledge in this matter? As the cost of implementing that promise is trifling, could not this at least be done at an early date and so prevent much contentious appeal to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
    Mr. Macmillan: There is no case, I think, for favouring interest on bank overdrafts as opposed to other such annual charges. The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech referred to annual interest, and we shall carry out that pledge, but I cannot now say when.
    Mr. Lawson: If this is done in respect of bank overdrafts, will the same be done in respect of hire-purchase contracts which are entered into by ordinary working people.
    Mr. Macmillan: That is another question.

    Gaming Machines (Decimal Coinage)
    Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a decision prior to 15th February, 1971 on the coin denomination on which gaming machines licence duty is to be levied so as to enable clubs, public houses and cafés to place orders for new machines for operation on their premises immediately after

    209
    the date on which new decimal coinage comes into operation.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: This is governed by existing law. The introduction of decimal coinage will not require any change in the licence duty beyond that for penny machines already made by Section 3(4) of the Finance Act, 1970.
    Mr. Gorst: Will the Chief Secretary bear in mind that the industry hopes that when decimalisation is introduced the new coinage will be pitched for the lower rate at 2p? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an early indication of what the position will be, so as to avoid considerable dislocation in the industry?
    Mr. Macmillan: The Minister of State has already suggested to the trade interests concerned that it would be more appropriate to consider the structure of the gaming machine licence duty after rather than before the trade's proposals for adapting machines to take decimal coinage are known.
    Mr. Brian Walden: Will the Chief Secretary bear in mind that that way of doing things is markedly disadvantageous to the trade? The trade would like to know whether there is to be a change in the incidence of duty, because this will affect the machines it orders.
    Mr. Macmillan: I still think that it is reasonable for the trade to wait to make representations about its proposals before asking for consideration of changes in duty.

    Overseas Investments
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to increase British direct investment overseas; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: I am very aware of the importance of overseas investment as providing a basis for future income for this country and as an essential part of overseas aid and development. But, obviously, there are limits to what we can afford to finance from the reserves in present circumstances.
    Mr. Tugendhat: I welcome that statement. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increasingly severe restrictions imposed, perhaps unavoidably, under the
    210
    last Government have made it very difficult for British-based international companies to hold their own in international industry and for them to match the growing take-over of British industry in Britain? Now that the balance of payments is in surplus and apparently likely to remain so for some time, is not this the time to ease these restrictions to some degree?
    Mr. Barber: I take my hon. Friend's point. As I think he knows, we are pledged to consider the whole question of corporate taxation. One of the aspects of this is the effect of the changes which were made in 1965 on overseas investment. We are also studying ways of encouraging private investment in the developing countries. This was one of the matters which I discussed with my colleagues in the recent Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Conference.
    Mr. Duffy: Not only because or the improvement in the balance of payments but also because of present developments in the direction of economic international integration, should there not be some relation of current restraints, otherwise British overseas investment will suffer?
    Mr. Barber: The House will appreciate my own sentiments in this matter from the answer I gave to the Question which is on the Order Paper. The simple fact is that inevitably—the whole House will, in fairness, agree—there are limits to what we can afford to finance from the official reserves in the present circumstances. Having said that, of course I take note of what has been said.
    Mr. Barnett: May we take it that the Chancellor will not encourage any further capital outflow? If through his tax measures he is going to encourage further outflow, how will he balance this, as he will also be repaying debts in the short and medium term? Does this mean that we will have even heavier deflation than we have at present?
    Mr. Barber: One of the constraints—I not want to rub this in, but as the hon. Gentleman has himself raised it and as my hon. Friend has reminded me I must now mention it—is that we inherited a very considerable increase in the short- and medium-term debt. This is obviously one of the major constraints

    211
    upon the Government in almost everything they consider in this field. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point.
    Mr. Emery: Has not the balance of payments been brought to its present state to a very considerable extent by the amount of the invisibles which are the return on our overseas investments? If my right hon. Friend desires a deflationary position, is not this one of the best ways of obtaining a long-term gain?
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is right Everyone in Britain has cause to be grateful to those who were wise enough in the past to build up our massive overseas investments, because the contribution which is made to our invisible earnings by interest, profits and dividends from private investment overseas is very considerable.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish monthly figures showing the money supply under the definition m1, m2 and m3, both unadjusted and seasonally adjusted, as set out on page 322 of the Bank of England Quarterly Review for September, 1970.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monthly figures of the money supply he proposes to publish.
    Mr. Barber: I am considering the possibility of publishing monthly money supply figures.
    Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement will be widely welcomed? Is he aware also that it is intolerable that the House should not have had any figures about the money supply since last June and that when those figures were produced they covered the quarter before the General Election, which showed the largest increase in the money supply ever, a fact for which the Labour Government were entirely responsible?
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has made a very relevant point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are later Questions dealing with the substance of this matter,
    212
    and I should be happy to go into further details then if right hon. and hon. Members wish me to. It is true that the previous Administration declined to publish monthly money supply figures. I am now considering doing so, because I can see the advantages of it. The only reason for my hesitation is that the figures in this series have been available for only a relatively short time and I should not like them to be published before it is absolutely certain that they would not be misleading. I hope that it will be possible to do so.
    Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the publication of more figures on this matter, as it always welcomes the publication of figures. What is the Treasury's present position concerning the money supply? We know that the Treasury was sceptical at one time, we know that it swung into certainty in the opposite direction, and we know that there is now further scepticism. What is the Chancellor's view as to the importance of the money supply and how he intends to use it to control the economy?
    Mr. Barber: That question obviously goes far wider than the Question on the Order Paper, which is concerned with the publishing of monthly figures. There is a later Question dealing with the substance of the matter. Obviously, questions of money supply and of domestic credit expansion are of great importance. The previous Government took that view, and I take the same view.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Chancellor agree with the September issue of the Bank of England Quarterly Review, which is referred to by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) in the Question? That publication makes it clear that the increase in bank lending—probably the most vital factor in the increase in money supply—was running in accordance with the ceiling laid down until mid-June and that the increase which brought it out of line took place after mid-June.
    Mr. Barber: If the right hon. Gentleman would like to table a Question related to a specific aspect of bank lending, I should be very happy to answer him. This Question is concerned with the publication of statistics concerning the money supply generally. In his

    213
    Budget the right hon. Gentleman proposed a limit for the 12 months of the financial year 1970–71 of £900 million domestic credit expansion. When we took office, although only three months of that year had elapsed, there had already been an expansion of £700 million.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Chancellor has, unfortunately, failed to understand the question, which he understandably declined to answer. Will he not agree that it might have been legitimate to refuse to be drawn wider had he not been drawn by the hon. Member for Horsham into making some very tendentious suggestions?
    I now put three question to the Chancellor. First, has he read the Bank of England Quarterly Review for September? Second, does he recollect that it makes it clear that a very large part of the increase to which he referred took place after mid-June? Third, does he agree with that?
    Mr. Barber: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, the simple fact is that he set a target of £900 million for the full year, and before we came to office, when only three months of the year had elapsed, domestic credit expansion had risen by £700 million. Nothing the right hon. Gentleman can say can rub out that record.
    Mr. Tapsell: In view of these exchanges, is it not now clear that the Chancellor's Budget judgment last April was at fault, and a considerable tightening of the money supply is now necessary?
    Mr. Barber: No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will give his own verdict on his Budget judgment in due course. I have already made clear the Government's attitude towards the control of the money supply and domestic credit expansion. I would only add now, in fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) whose Question it is, that Question No. 34 raises this matter more directly, and I shall he very happy to deal with it then.

    Pay-As-You-Earn
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a Green Paper on his proposals for the reform of Pay-As-You-Earn.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not know what proposals my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does not my hon. Friend agree that tnere is no reason why administrative reforms in taxation should be regarded as a Budget secret, and that consultations with outside bodies and individuals could well take place on the subject? Second, does he agree that it is essential to consider the reform of Pay-As-You-Earn together with the reform of National Insurance?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will appreciate that any substantial administrative reform is bound to involve some budgetary matters, and these must be for my right hon Friend in his Budget Statement. However, I note what my hon. Friend says and will bear it in mind.

    Blind Persons (Taxation)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to withdraw the tax allowance for blind persons and to arrange for the payment instead of a positive tax credit of equivalent value from which all blind persons can derive the benefit.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: May we have a statement at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Lipton: The Budget.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) anticipates. Clearly, this is a budgetary matter on which it would be wrong to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. But I have read my hon. Friend's article in the Disablement Income Group magazine Progress, and I have taken careful note of what he says.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why should this be regarded as anticipation of the Budget when we can have a statement that 6d. will be taken off income tax next year? If the Chancellor can announce 6d. off income tax next year, why cannot the Minister of State say to his hon. Friend, "Yes, this will be done next year"?
    Mr. Jenkin: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If my right hon. Friend chooses to follow an

    215
    admirable precedent and announce the rate of income tax for next year, that is one matter; and he has done that. On the other hand, questions about allowances and so forth, such as those raised by my hon. Friend, must await next year's Budget.

    Disabled Persons (Vehicle Excise Duty)
    Mr. Farrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to secure the exemption from the payment of vehicle excise duty of those who are so badly disabled as, being unable to drive themselves, to require their husband or wife to do so.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming? Is he aware that a badly disabled man who has to have his wife drive him because he cannot drive himself has absolutely no compensation? Will he look into this again?
    Mr. Macmillan: I have a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend suggests. It is not a new suggestion; it has been raised on Finance Bills and in other ways for some time. There are, however, considerable difficulties both for the Treasury and for the Department of Health and Social Security in administration. The Department of Health and Social Security is constantly under pressure to extend its categories of disablement to take matters of this sort into account. I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, and it will be considered; but more than that I cannot say at this moment.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is not the hon. Gentleman in a position now to do something about which he spoke when he was in opposition, when he supported the wonderful campaign conducted by his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who has fought for years to secure relief for people of this sort? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides would agree that it is morally right, and some of us would like the Treasury to do some value analysis in the matter, bearing in mind that many disabled and handicapped people could make a great contribution if they could be driven by
    216
    their wives and so take part in real work?
    Mr. Macmillan: As I have said, there are great complications in exempting from vehicle licence duty unidentifiable vehicles which are used by handicapped people and others. Also, there are other aspects under present regulations of the problems faced by the disabled people whom we are considering, such as questions of parking, and being helped into buildings, which may sometimes require two people rather than one. All these matters are being considered.

    Lower-paid Workers
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further measures he proposes to improve the standard of living of lower-paid workers and their families.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Government's economic policies are designed to improve the rate of growth of the economy and thus the standard of living of all workers.
    Mr. Cronin: Without considering now the somewhat speculative future prospects of the Government's economic policy, will the hon. Gentleman at least have regard to the plight of fatherless families, of whom there are over 50,000, who, with even the maximum benefit, will still be living well below the poverty line?
    Mr. Jenkin: One of the main objectives of the F.I.S. scheme introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is to help fatherless families and all single-parent families.
    Mr. James Hamilton: The Bill now going through the House provides that a father, mother and child are entitled to only £15 a week. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is totally inadequate in the present day, and that the only way to take care of the problem is to introduce a national minimum wage of 16 10s.?
    Mr. Jenkin: The question of a national minimum wage is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that as a result of his recently announced fiscal

    217
    measures a family which has an increase in income from £13 a week to £14 a week will receive only an extra 10s. as a result of the decrease in supplementary benefit; and if he will take action to prevent this and similar situations.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced, the family income supplement will be reduced by 10s. for each additional £1 of income. Supplementary benefit is not payable to wage earners in full-time work. The general problem of disincentives is a long-standing one, which will not be easy to solve.
    Mr. Cronin: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the phased withdrawal of means-tested benefits will cause numerous anomalies which are both unfair and disincentive in their effects, and these will be superimposed on the principal anomaly that the means test prevents many sensitive workers from drawing any benefit?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can only repeat my right hon. Friend's hope and assertion that those who are entitled to benefit from the provision which is being made will make application. A nation-wide publicity campaign is to be mounted to ensure maximum take-up.

    Luncheon Vouchers
    Mr. Dixonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figure in 1970 represents the purchasing power of 3s. in 1957; and whether he will take steps to authorise luncheon vouchers to be allowable up to this figure for tax purposes.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: About 4s. 6d. My right hon. Friend has no plans for raising the limit on non-taxable luncheon vouchers.
    Mr. Dixon: In the present condition of fast-increasing inflation, most of which derives from the policies of the Labour Government, is not this yet another example to show that all too often it is not the wicked boss who suffers, because he can frequently look after himself, but that the sufferers under Labour-induced inflation are his poor typist and office boy?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the luncheon
    218
    vouchers have never been intended to pay the full cost of a meal. It is a concession which is worth a considerable amount, the equivalent of a tax-free payment of about £35 a year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the point of the concession to give people who have not the advantage of a subsidised canteen a comparable advantage, and if 3s. was fair in 1957 must not it necessarily be unfair today?
    Mr. Macmillan: If my right hon. Friend compares the value of many canteen meals, he will find perhaps that this is a reversal of a previous unfairness rather than a new unfairness.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Since the hon. Gentleman has repeated the hoary old slander that inflation in this country is due to the Labour Government, can the Chief Secretary tell the House why, in that event, there is inflation in the United States of America, Germany, France and other European countries where there is not a Labour Government? Why do they suffer from the same disease under Tory Governments?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am delighted at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Labour Government should have such a wide influence, but I cannot accept that.

    Royal Mint, Llantrisant
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what orders are now in hand for the Royal Mint in Wales; how long they will take to execute; and what orders are anticipated.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Firm orders are in hand at Llantrisant for about 500 million coins and will take until about March, 1971, to execute. Forward production plans include a further 800 million coins to be minted by the end of 1971, but this forecast is necessarily provisional.
    Mr. Hamling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that there is a widespread suspicion that there are not sufficient orders for the new Royal Mint in South Wales, and that there is redundancy already in the R.O.F. which supplies coin blanks, because too many have been made? Will he have a look again at the whole story of the movement of the Royal Mint from Tower Hill, which

    219
    has occasioned so much disquiet among the workers there and in other places?
    Mr. Jenkin: I must make it absolutely clear that we are not expecting any redundancy at Llantrisant. As to the question of looking at the whole story, I spent over five hours with deputations of workers representing the trade union side from Tower Hill and went into every possible argument for reversing the decision which had been taken by our predecessors. In the end I felt it right to advise the then Chancellor, Mr. Macleod, to confirm the decision.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is it not a fact that we have the appalling situation of grave fears about future employment at Llantrisant, to put it at its worst, actual redundancy in the R.O.F. making blanks, a run-down at Tower Hill, and orders which formerly went to the Royal Mint being sub-contracted to other organisations? Is that what is called Tory scientific management?
    Mr. Jenkin: In this we are merely continuing the policy pursued by our predecessors.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: In the forward orders which my hon. Friend has just mentioned, has provision been made for the issue of proof sets of the new decimal coinage, which can be a valuable dollar-earner?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. This is under active review, and we can see the possibility of quite substantial business for the Llantrisant Mint for a number of sets. This would represent new business which the Mint has not done before, and will be a very welcome addition to its turnover.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Milneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have taken place in regard to the rôle of selective employment tax arising from the Reddaway Report, "Selective Employment Tax and the Distributive Trades"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: None, Sir. The Government are pledged to abolish the S.E.T. Our proposals for doing this will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Chancellor aware that his reply is disappointing, and that
    220
    the selective employment tax has been largely turned into a charge on consumers, in effect making it a value-added tax on commodities? When he is abolishing selective employment tax, will he consider also deciding that we shall have no value-added tax either?
    Mr. Barber: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have made our position quite clear on a number of occasions. We shall abolish the selective employment tax, and we are considering a value-added tax. Whenever any reference is made to selective employment tax, I find it a little curious how right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be so much keener that we should keep our promises than they ever were to keep their own.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Will my right hon Friend confirm that the food trade pays by way of selective employment tax about £80 million a year? Will he reverse as soon as possible the policy of his predecessors, which thus increased the price of food?
    Mr. Barber: I do not know what the figure is, but I know that the amount paid by the food distributive trades is very considerable.
    Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not normal to call an hon. Member when Questions are being asked about an establishment which is within his constituency and when he has risen at least three times to catch your eye?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker is not omniscient. If an hon. Member has a constituency interest in a Question, he should let the Speaker know.
    Mr. Oram: It was understood that the Reddaway Report was the first of a series of studies Professor Reddaway was making. Is he continuing his study, or is there sufficient certainty about the Government undertaking to enable him to give up his work on the tax?
    Mr. Barber: My understanding is that Professor Reddaway is completing his existing studies but undertaking no more because of our commitment to abolish the tax.
    Mr. Marten: Until such time as my right hon. Friend abolishes S.E.T., which

    221
    I know he will, could he give consideration to suspending that part of it under which people pay in and get back the same amount, which seems a rather redundant sort of action?
    Mr. Barber: I have considered this matter, which on the face of it seems to be a nonsense and in principle is a nonsense. Certainly, if the tax were going to be kept in any form we should have to modify it to get rid of something which is rather nonsensical. But as we shall abolish the tax, and in view of the problems which would arise if we were to institute a new system for dealing with it, I regret that it is unlikely that we shall be able to modify it in the way which my hon. Friend has suggested. It is a matter that I am considering, but I should not like to raise any hopes.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Milneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to raise the threshold at which income tax payments commence and reorganise the tax system to enable payments to be made to those whose incomes and wages fall below the levels required for income tax payment.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation is becoming nonsensical? We are dealing with the question of what is actually in operation now. In the absence of a national minimum wage, raising the threshold of tax is the only way of giving justice to the millions of low wage-earners at present. Why does not the hon. Gentleman take action now, instead of waiting until April of next year?
    Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend had this option open to him, but decided that it was right in the circumstances that he should reduce the marginal rate of income tax for every single taxpayer in the land.

    Amusement Arcade Machines
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for reducing taxation on machines installed in amusement arcades.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: None at the present time.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proprietors of some of the smaller arcades have made representations over a period to the effect that the duty on the machines has put them at a disadvantage compared with the larger syndicates? I have a completely open mind on the subject. Is the Minister considering the question?
    Mr. Macmillan: A deputation representing the interests concerned came to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 29th September. He invited it to submit figures, and when they are received they will be taken into account. The deputation made a case which my hon. Friend asked it to substantiate with figures, but the figures have not yet been received.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm that in future people will have so much of their own money to spend that they will be able to get their amusement without using these machines at all?
    Mr. Barnett: We were told during the debates on the Finance Act, 1970, that these companies would not be able to exist at this level of taxation. Are any of them still in business?
    Mr. Macmillan: My recollection is that some of the objections put forward then were met. I think we must wait until the trade interests concerned have substantiated the case they have made with figures, which has not yet been done.

    Independent Television Companies
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to transfer a part of the revenue he receives from the independent television companies into a fund to be used for consumer protection purposes.
    Mr. Maurice MacMillan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a greedy, penny-pinching policy to take £24 million from advertising on independent television while refusing to give £250,000 for the protection of consumers who are, in effect, paying for that advertising?
    Mr. Macmillan: The Government have already decided that there is no case for

    223
    continuing the financing of the Consumer Council from public revenue. The method of raising its revenue is totally immaterial to that organisation and hypothecating any particular form of revenue in no way adds to the strength of any particular case.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would it not be more to the point if the Government considered relieving independent television companies of the crippling burden of taxation, which is threatening, in a number of cases, their continued existence?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am aware of that point of view and it is one which will have to be taken into consideration, but I cannot say anything about it at this moment.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the rate of economic growth in 1970–71 and 1971–72 of the measures taken on 27th October, 1970.
    Mr. Barber: As I said in my statement, I expect the effect of the measures on demand in 1971–72 to be broadly neutral but by reducing further expenditure and cutting income tax they will contribute to a faster rate of economic growth.
    Mr. Barnett: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, at least in the short term, his policies are not likely to achieve an increase in the rate of economic growth and that we are well on the road to achieving the O.E.C.D. target of being the poorest country in Europe? Will he confirm that the only way in which he proposes to deal with the matter is by reducing the money supply and increasing the level of unemployment?
    Mr. Barber: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is all very well for him to say this sort of thing. But he will recall that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) talked about a growth rate of 5 or 6 per cent., the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) talked about a growth rate of 4 or 5 per cent. and the National Plan talked of a growth rate of 4 per cent. As we know, none of these targets was achieved. What I am saying is that I believe that the proposals I
    224
    have put forward, together with the other measures which the Government are pursuing, will contribute to a faster rate of economic growth.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In reference to the money supply, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government now stick to the targets for the rate of growth, money supply and domestic credit expansion laid down by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in his Budget Statement? If not, why have these targets been changed?
    Mr. Barber: We have been doing considerably better in recent months. Earlier at Question Time we talked about the quarter ending in June. The September quarter figures will be published next month but it is already clear that the rapid rate of monetary expansion in the June quarter did not continue in the September quarter. Preliminary indications are that the rise in money supply in the September quarter was a good deal better, especially in view of the fact that there was an exceptional gilt-edged stock redemption during that quarter. So at least we can take heart from that. In looking to the future, we must bear in mind the point I made earlier—namely, that the target for domestic credit expansion set by the right hon. Member for Stechford was £900 million for the year and already in the first quarter there had been an expansion of about £700 million.
    Mr. Grimond: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there seems to be surprisingly little increase in demand and that what is lacking for growth is investment? How does he think his measures will stimulate investment? Is he satisfied that the abolition of investment grants will increase investment?
    Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a wider question, but from the figures one sees that the rate of growth of investment in industry went down after investment grants were introduced. I believe the figures show that they were a failure. I believe also that the measures we have taken, including the cut in corporation tax, will improve our very bad record in industrial investment. I hope so, because it is in the national interest that this should happen.

  QUEEN'S AWARD TO INDUSTRY
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister whether he will advise that exporters other than manufacturers should be eligible for the Queen's Award.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. From this year onwards merchants and those responsible for invisible exports will be eligible.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very welcome answer? Can he say whether, in his view, the selection system is satisfactory?
  The Prime Minister: The McFadzean Committee, set up by my predecessor, examined the selection procedure and concluded that, generally speaking, it worked well.
  Mr. Ashley: As all exports are dependent on co-operation in industry, why is the Prime Minister jeopardising that co-operation by making provocative and divisive speeches about industrial relations on the same lines as those which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) makes about race relations?
  The Prime Minister: That supplementary question goes very wide of the Queen's Award.

  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for explaining the Government's economic policy.
  The Prime Minister: This falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Barnett: As the Prime Minister will have heard, his back benchers are not terribly happy about that. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not bother to explain it today, would the Prime Minister take it upon himself to tell us whether it is Government policy to reduce monetary supply, which he apparently was complaining about the other day, and what effect he expects this to have on the level of employment?
  The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new place on the Front Bench. I hope his back benchers were pleased with it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in calling for 1 per cent. additional deposits, is obviously using a form of control of monetary supply.
  Mr. Cant: If the Prime Minister does not feel it desirable to appoint a special Minister, would he at least bring the Governor of the Bank of England into the general circle of his influence? Would he remind the Governor of the Bank of England that it is more important to control monetary supply in the next 12 months and provide a good gilt-edged market for redemption of £1,700 million worth of Government securities?
  The Prime Minister: The Governor of the Bank of England has a constitutional position which was settled under the Act introduced by the Labour Government in the late 1940s. I am sure he is well aware of the point the hon. Gentleman has made.
  Sir G. Nabarro: As a successful economic policy depends in large measure on further expansion of invisible exports, will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider the Queen's Award for Members of Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: Broadly speaking, the Queen's Award goes for direct rather than indirect effort. I do not wish to see any of my colleagues in this House directly exported.
  Mr. Moyle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if such a Minister as suggested were appointed, one of the first things he could do would be to explain whether the Government feel that the settlement reached for hospital workers is appropriate for lower-paid workers in other sections of industry in the absence of any other criteria?
  The Prime Minister: The provision of criteria by the Labour Government was not very successful. Each of these negotiations should be carried on by the appropriate machinery.
  Mr. Sheldon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any value-added tax he introduces will not apply to food?
  The Prime Minister: That was the statement made when we were in Opposition, and any question of a value-added tax was a matter which was to be decided at a future date when we were to be in Government, and that remains the position.

  ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with the Prime Minister of Israel.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 5th November.—[Vol. 805, c. 445.]
  Mr. Mayhew: What are the Government proposing to do to follow up the quite successful start which they have made in the Middle East? Are they, for instance, proposing to collaborate more closely with the French in checking the Arabs' dependence on the Russians and seeking for a settlement?
  The Prime Minister: We have been co-operating with other Powers in the four-Power talks in New York. We shall continue to do that and to work as closely as possible with those who share the same ideas about a settlement in the Middle East.
  Mr. Fidler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's view that any settlement must be on terms which Israel regards as guaranteeing her security?
  The Prime Minister: In his speech at Harrogate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised that the purpose of a settlement was to give secure frontiers to Israel. This must be a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arab countries.
  Mr. Kaufman: In view of Major Jalloud's categorical statement that if Britain supplies Chieftain tanks to Libya, Libya is determined to use those tanks against Israel, will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that no Chieftain tanks will be supplied to Libya?
  The Prime Minister: That question is entirely separate from that which I am now answering.

  HOME IMPROVEMENT GRANTS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment made in London on 12th October concerning the home improvement grants publicity campaign represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Molloy: Is the Prime Minister aware that he should be ashamed of that reply? Does he not realise that his right hon. Friend was eulogising the products of a foreign nation and running down the products of its British competitors in the electrical industry, and that many in that industry, management and labour, are outraged? I was hoping to have at least an apology, if not a withdrawal of the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and if the Prime Minister has no confidence in the British electrical industry—[Interruption.] I regret that the Tory Party seems to have no confidence in, or concern for, the British element of the electrical industry. That being so—
  Mr. Speaker: Long questions cut out the Questions of other Members.
  Mr. Molloy: It is not a long question, Mr. Speaker.
  Hon. Members: No, it is a speech.
  Mr. Molloy: I will carry on when hon. Members are quiet.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important period of Questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be quick.
  Mr. Molloy: This is an important question, because it involves the whole of the British electrical industry. The point I am making to the Prime Minister is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the question."] Will the Prime Minister examine the speech and ask his right hon. Friend to correct that wrong and deleterious statement which has damaged the British electrical industry in favour of a foreign competitor and—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has put his question and the Prime Minister will answer.
  Mr. Molloy rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has put his question; the Prime Minister will answer.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was making a speech to encourage home improvement and the obtaining of grants for that purpose. In the course of it he used the phrase "Black and Decker revolution". He was using it in the same colloquial sense that one uses the expression "Hoovering", and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has ever objected to the use of that phrase, which affects a firm in his constituency. He objects to the use of the phrase "Black and Decker revolution", but he might realise that some of his hon. Friends in development areas appreciate that this American firm has a factory in Spennymoor, in a development area, producing this equipment.
  My right hon. Friend has sent a letter to the other firm in the hon. Member's constituency which is concerned and which wrote to him about this matter and he has explained the purpose of what he said. He said that if any offence had been given to that other firm, of course he apologised for making the remark. However, I must also point out that there must have been a remarkably successful publicity campaign by my right hon. Friend, because in the third quarter of this year there was an 80 per cent. increase in home improvement grants over the same quarter last year.

  CONSUMER COUNCIL
  Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on his decision to end the grant to the Consumer Council.
  The Prime Minister: About 160.
  Mr. Davidson: What did the Prime Minister say to those 160 people? Did he tell them that he was unique in believing that there was any alternative body to carry out the work of educating the consumer in how to make the best advantage of his money? Did he also tell them that there was another body
  230
  able to advise them on how to make the best advantage of competition and not be at a disadvantage as a result of competition?
  The Prime Minister: A considerable number of my correspondents express their agreement with Government policy in not using public money for objectives which can be achieved by private enterprise concerns using private money. My staff examine the rest to see whether they bear the stamp of being an organised campaign, in which case they get the same answer. When letters raise particular points, they are dealt with.
  Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend remember that I am really trying to help him when I ask him to bear in mind that women consumers often know a little more than men? Will he please try to arrange a meeting of women Members so that we may arrive at a common policy which will help the woman shopper to understand his policy for the protection of the consumer?
  The Prime Minister: I trust that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that I am trying to help her and that I have complete confidence in women consumers, whom I believe able to do the job of buying perfectly well? At the same time, by reducing Government expenditure I am helping to reduce taxation and, therefore, helping the people she wants to help, those who are in the fixed income groups.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the Prime Minister think that the persistent attempts of his right hon. Friend to assist him in all these heart-to-heart matters—
  Dame Irene Ward: But I am a woman—
  Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the Prime Minister think that the persistent efforts of the right hon. Lady in this capacity—
  Dame Irene Ward: I am not right honourable.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the persistent efforts of the right hon. Lady—[Interruption]—of the hon. Lady promise the most remarkable affair since Queen

  231
  Titania fell in love with Bottom the Weaver?
  Mr. Bagier: How many of the letters which the Prime Minister has had in favour of the Government's policy have come from housewives?
  The Prime Minister: I could not give the answer without further detailed analysis which would not be worth the staff work.

  COMMONWEALTH MEMBERSHIP
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will review with Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth the terms of membership of the Commonwealth.
  The Prime Minister: There are no prescribed terms of membership of the Commonwealth, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one important aspect of this is that the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of independent countries which were once part of the Empire? Would he discuss with his colleagues at the Prime Ministers' Conference the situation that would arise if any one of these countries ceased to become independent either by take-over by a non-Commonwealth country or a merger? Would it then cease to be a member of the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth has always worked on the basis that it has to deal with a situation as it arises. This has certainly applied to countries wishing to become members of the Commonwealth. I would not like to answer such a hypothetical question. One would have to deal with any situation at the time it arose.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the only really important essence of the Commonwealth concept is consultation in a comparatively relaxed atmosphere? Does he think that there is any need for further terms of membership?
  The Prime Minster: I am not advocating that there should be prescribed terms of membership. As to consultation and relaxation, I shall do my best to encourage that at Singapore.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Dalyell: May I raise a point of order that concerns the relations of Members of this House and the Treasury? Question No. 77 was originally put down to be answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dealing with the costing techniques inside the Treasury of Indian Ocean bases. The point of order is not to do with whether we are for or against the Indian Ocean bases. The point of order which I seek to bring to the attention of the House is whether the Treasury can resist Questions in this House about design cost techniques. I submit that there is a point of principle here concerning many hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is not a point of policy that the hon. Member raises, but a point of order. The hon. Member was kind enough to tell me he would seek to raise this point of order. The simple answer is that Ministers are responsible for the transfer of Questions and that it is nothing to do with the Chair. It is purely a matter for Ministers to transfer Questions to what they regard as the most appropriate Department. It has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. May I raise a question with you about how we can ensure with your help that we can get at least a decent proportion of Questions reached at Question Time? Due partly to the funereal process of answering we have only reached Question No. 21 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that we ought somehow to enable a few more Members to take part in Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: The answer is very simple. If the hon. Gentleman reads the evidence given by Mr. Speaker to the Procedure Committee he will see the answer. If Questions are concise, if answers are concise, more hon. Members will have an opportunity of putting Questions, and my experience is that the brief question is often better than the very long one.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As my Question No. 27 was not reached, I will get a Written Answer. May I give notice now that if that Answer is no better than the answer to previous questions on the

233
subject I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's notice is an act of supererogation.
Mr. Atkinson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the Prime Minister today answered Question No. 4 relating to a speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In other words, he accepted responsibility for a speech made outside the House on a matter of Government policy. There are other Ministers making speeches outside this House dealing with major aspects of policy, yet when we attempt to put down Questions at the Table Office we are told that the Prime Minister has suggested that Questions about Ministers making statements outside the House on policy should not be accepted if those Ministers are under the control of a senior Minister with the new grouping system. When we attempt to put Questions to the senior Minister they say that they are not answerable for speeches made outside the House by their juniors if those speeches dealt with questions for which they are not responsiblie to the Prime Minister. When we then go to the Prime Minister and attempt to put questions to him I understand that he has issued instructions that none of these Questions be allowed to be tabled.
Is this not against the practice of the House and should there not be some sort of inquiry now that we have this new overlord system, which means that there are 11 Members of the Government who are being protected from questioning in the House by the new rules which, I understand, have been issued by the Prime Minister? Can you give us a ruling?
Mr. Speaker: The Ruling is quite simple. If the hon. Gentleman turns to page 351 of Erskine May, second paragraph, he will see:
"The Prime Minister may be asked whether statements made in the country by Ministers of Cabinet rank on public occasions represent the policy of the Government, but questions about statements made by other Ministers in the country are not in order."
What the impact of the new structure of the Government is on this particular Ruling of Erskine May I would not know
234
offhand. There may be Members of the Cabinet who are not members of the supersstructure of the Government, but the Ruling is quite simple.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Obviously no one wants to put you in a difficult position, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Government would wish to consider this again. It seems to me to be a change in practice. Surely it was made without the House being informed? Certainly it was the case under the former Government that speeches made by Ministers of so-called Cabinet rank—even that phrase is not a statutory one—outside the Cabinet could be the subject of questions to the Prime Minister in the House. Invariably when I took Questions on them I said that they were or were not the policy of Her Majesty's Government—
An Hon. Member: You never answered them.
Mr. Wilson: I answered every one of them, with one exception, with the words "Yes, Sir". Certainly that was unlike the evasive attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to help the right hon. Member. Would he not agree, through the Leader of the House, to get into discussion with hon. Members in all parts of the House about this? If I am right, in his White Paper he made clear that the Ministers referred to by my hon. Friend were to be regarded as Ministers of Cabinet rank. Within the Erskine May Ruling, therefore, it would appear that he should accept responsibility for saying "Yes, Sir" or "No, Sir" to Questions put to him. Surely this could be discussed between the Front Benches and Mr. Speaker could be protected from the kind of difficulties which have arisen.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. There has been no change of practice. I accept at once that the new departure, as I said to the House at the time, will require consideration. This it will be given, and I am pleased to respond to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we will certainly consider the implications of the new Departments and the implications for the Ministers of Cabinet rank in those Departments.

235
There is no change in practice at all under present circumstances. I will look into the future.
Mr. Wilson: Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will confirm that Ministers of Cabinet rank not in the Cabinet will in future, as in the past, be subject to the kind of Questions which apparently are currently being refused?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have already responded to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that I would like to discuss the whole position of the new Departments. I should stick to that and say that what I promise to discuss I will discuss.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Cecil Edward Parkinson, Esquire, for Enfield, West.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.40 p.m.
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I should like to make my speech on the Bill in three parts.
  The Edwards Committee, which reported to the Government of the day in April 1969—over 18 months ago—said in paragraph 1052 that it accepted that its consideration of the whole and very complex issues of civil aviation could not be expected to be right in every detail.
  "But we doubt whether more time would alter the main lines of our thinking … There are pressing anxieties in the industry and great uncertainty until the Government declares its policy."
  No one in the industry over the last 18 months could dispute this. I hope, therefore, in the first part of my speech, to give the House the Government's decisions on at least some of the problems involved. In the second part I should like to explain the Government's decision on the second company—what is widely known as the second force—and in the third part to explain why this short Bill is before us today. Only in this way can I set the background clearly for the future and show how the Bill fits into the general picture. I accept that there are some gaps, and these will be filled as soon as is humanly possible. But until the main background was properly established, the anxieties of which the Edwards Committee spoke were bound to persist and were damaging to our overall effort.
  There was a broad consensus in the last Parliament, and I think in the country, as to the main lines that civil aviation should take. The previous Government accepted—in their White Paper of November, 1969—with relatively few variations the main recommendations of the Edwards Committee. The present Government accept them also, perhaps with even fewer variations.
  We accept the concept of a Civil Aviation Authority. This will bring together, within a single independent authority, the

  237
  responsibility for both the economic and the entire safety regulation of the industry, including airworthiness, and, because of its close connection with safety, air traffic control.
  There is a considerable and increasing interdependence between the different aspects of airline operations. The Government believe that it is right, if we are to maintain the very highest standards of safety in the air, that the institutional arrangements for regulating the industry must reflect this. Separate compartments will no longer do.
  I referred above to a "single independent authority". Parliament, of course, must lay down the policies to be pursued in all aspects of the regulatory machinery. But, having done this, the C.A.A. must have wide discretion on the detailed decisions involved in implementing these policies. At present, as the House knows, there is only indirect and limited control, in the public interest, over the policies pursued by either the Air Transport Licensing Board or the Air Registration Board.
  The C.A.A. will be a constitutional innovation in that it will relieve Whitehall of detailed regulatory and operational functions which, for the most part, have hitherto been carried out by Government Departments. In this way it will help to streamline Whitehall and improve the quality of government. But this could not be done without giving the C.A.A. full responsibility for the control of airworthiness and for air traffic control along with its other economic and safety functions.
  Nobody looking at the past 30 years could reasonably criticise the performance of the A.R.B. This is the measure of its success in the past. The proposal, therefore, is to set up an airworthiness council representing the same sections of the industry as is today represented on the A.R.B. Lord Kings Norton, the present chairman, has recently suggested to me that it would be valuable for this airworthiness council to retain the name Air Registration Board so as to help preserve the high reputation and the goodwill which is associated with this name. This is an interesting suggestion which I am only too happy to consider.
  The C.A.A. will have a statutory duty to consult the airworthiness council on
  238
  airworthiness standards and on the certification of prototype aircraft. If the A.R.B., which I see as becoming the airworthiness council, feels that in theory it has lost some independence, it will in return be close to the heart of the C.A.A. which itself will have great independence in all these affairs. Its expert knowledge of the industry will be available on call to the C.A.A.
  These changes will affect the basis of employment of around 6,000 of the staff of the Department of Trade and Industry and, in addition, the staff of the A.R.B.—another 400. The Government will ensure that the terms and conditions of employment will be at least as good with the C.A.A. as those now enjoyed. The Government will also encourage the development within the C.A.A. of a comprehensive system of staff consultation.
  Next, the Government have decided to establish an Airways Board to exercise strategic control over the public sector of the industry. It will, as the Edwards Committee recommended, be expected to secure gains and economies which should result by treating the resources and the route networks of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. as a single system.
  There are those today, perhaps for one reason, perhaps for others, who feel that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should be amalgamated. There are some violently opposed to this. In my view, this is not something which can properly be judged by somebody looking at the two corporations from outside. It must be done from within when many of the problems can be studied in depth and the proper conclusions can be made. There will be no question of either corporation losing its identity without Parliament being consulted.
  The aim is to introduce legislation this Session to give effect to both these decisions—the C.A.A. and the Airways Board—so that both can be in existence in 1972. These decisions clearly have implications for the appointments to the boards of both corporations and the A.T.L.B. The new appointments will be announced very soon.
  I now come to the second part of my speech. As the House knows from the statement of 3rd August, as well as from the policies of the present Government when in Opposition, we believe that it

  239
  is in the national interest that the independent sector should be strengthened and should include a strong company carrying the British flag in addition to the main flag carriers, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
  Not unnaturally, this is opposed on good commercial grounds by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. who would like to do the whole job themselves. Equally naturally it is opposed by those who dislike all private enterprise. What is clear is that it was not opposed by the Government of the day when they issued their White Paper last year, and it was not opposed when the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), as President of the Board of Trade, put a stop to B.O.A.C. buying out B.U.A.
  It was accepted as a good proposal by the Edwards Committee, which, in paragraphs 1065 and 1066, said:
  "Our proposal for a second force airline presents difficulties that should not be glossed over. One motive for proposing it is a sense of fair-play. We are most anxious, if it can be done without damage to the total British aviation effort, to give those who have ventured their resources in the building up of air services a fair chance to go on doing so. A second is that we would like to see in this expanding industry a substantial and efficient additional source of airline innovation and management. Third, on the limited number of routes where a second British operator is desirable, we would like to be sure of its strength and skill.
  Despite the difficulties we believe that, without undue sacrifice on the part of the Corporations, it should be possible to provide scope for such an operator. If our proposals are accepted by the Government, it should be possible to find acceptable ground on which a consortium of airlines could build. If no group of airlines is prepared to take on the task we shall be greatly disappointed. The process will, however, almost certainly take time and the territorial concessions must be limited."
  Where I think there is a genuine difference between the two Front Benches, whatever may exist below the Gangway, is this: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to will the end but, perhaps for political reasons, fought shy of willing the means.
  Air travel today is in a transitional stage. The distinction between scheduled and charter services is at times a bit blurred. The difference between the big corporations, be they British, American or of any other nationality, and the people who primarily operate charter flights may
  240
  be a difference of size, but is no longer a difference in aircraft types, safety records, and so on.
  If we are to have a private airline to carry the British flag alongside, and sometimes in competition with, the national air corporations, and if it is to build and maintain the sort of reputation that we need to increase the overall British share of world aviation which is so important to our prosperity and invisible earnings in particular, it follows that it must have a secure basis from which to operate.
  B.U.A. has had many successes on scheduled services, and Caledonian has a success story in the charter field. These two great companies have agreed to come together on 1st December, and adequate finance has been obtained to cover their immediate needs. This finance could not have been obtained without a guarantee from the Government that some modest transfer of profitable routes from the existing air corporations would take place. The extent, in general terms, was set out in the statement of 3rd August—2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. of the annual revenue, which is about £200 million, of B.O.A.C.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Has my right hon. Friend borne in mind the importance, not so much of giving a number of routes to the second force airline, but of its ability to operate at a density that it requires? Can we take it that there will be no restriction on the number of operations and flights that it can carry out on the routes that it is awarded?
  Mr. Noble: Those factors are being carefully thought out. I do not think that the Government can say at the moment what number of flights might be possible on certain routes which may be transferred, because these are often arrived at only after international negotiation.
  I want to stress the figure that I gave earlier in order to put into perspective some of the things that have been said about the transfer. The total size of the proposed transfer is substantially less than one year's growth in traffic. In determining the routes to be transferred, a major consideration will be the need to minimise the impact of the change. The transfer must be enough—and I should like to stress this—to give the new airline a good send-off, but the Government have

  241
  no intention of making further transfers of this kind. When the routes are finally fixed, as they will be very soon, it will be up to Caledonian and B.U.A.—I do not know what name this new company will finally choose for itself—to prove themselves the success that we believe they can become.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: Leaving aside the amount involved, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify the transfer of public assets to private enterprise with no compensation? Could he justify it the other way round?
  Mr. Noble: I do not want to go into the whole of this problem now. I am sure that it will be raised on many occasions during the debate, and my hon. Friend who will wind up the debate will deal with it then.
  Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone): Answer the question.
  Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary remarks. A Minister sometimes answers questions by asking one of his right hon. or hon. Friends to deal with them at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Mendelson: This is the only opportunity that the House has to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at once.
  Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman should sit down.
  Mr. Noble: I am not going into this question in depth. I am sure that it will come up over and over again during the debate, and my hon. Friend will answer it in detail at the end, because there is a wide range of ways in which hon. Members think that compensation is payable. I merely say that in many cases in which the Government own licences for all sorts of things no compensation is payable when they are transferred. One simple example of this is that when British Eagle collapsed there was a suggestion that the routes for which it had a licence had some value to the liquidator, but that was firmly denied by the court which considered the point.
  If there are people who think that a private airline today can compete in the
  242
  world simply by being more efficient and providing a better or cheaper service, I remind them that every country jealously guards its own routes and bargains for them on an international basis. Over and above that, fares are internationally regulated. It is possible for an independent airline to break into the magic circle only if, as a matter of public policy, the Government are prepared to accommodate it and negotiate the necessary rights.
  Mr. Neil Marten: To follow that to its logical conclusion, is there any reason why B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should remain nationalised? Why should they remain nationalised when they are ordinary commercial airlines and the Government want that money back to put into something else where it can fructify far more usefully?
  Mr. Noble: I am sure that the debate on the Bill will be very interesting. There are many matters into which one could be diverted, and I would rather not be asked to follow that line at the moment.
  It is our aim to strengthen British civil aviation in both the public and private fields so that it can compete more effectively and the success that has been built up by Britain in world aviation since the days of Imperial Airways may continue to grow and continue to give fast, safe and cheap transport for both passengers and freight.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Some hope.
  Mr. Noble: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so pessimistic about it. British aviation has been a considerable success story in the world, and I am convinced that it will continue.
  Mr. Kerr: It is all in the past tense.
  Mr. Noble: I come to the last part of my speech. The Bill is short. It is important, in order to get the new airline securely established, that the route transfers should take place smoothly and without delay. This is where the Bill comes in. The new airline will have to apply for licences in the usual way. The air corporations, quite understandably, have said that they cannot properly surrender these routes unless they are told to do so. The Government have power to require the air corporations to cease to

  243
  serve any routes that may be specified by an Order made under Section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act, 1967. They also have the power should that be necessary, to grant an exemption to the new airline, under Section 1(3) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, enabling it to start serving the transferred routes from the desired date even though the licensing processes have not been completed.
  The Government are quite satisfied that the powers they already have may be used in these ways. The Bill does not seek to remove any doubt which might be felt to exist on these points—there is no doubt—nor does it convey any new power. What the Bill does is to minimise the possible risk of delay.
  The Government's attention has been drawn to the possibility that their use of the powers, so far as this might prove necessary, could be made the subject of legal action. Although the outcome of such action is not, in their view, in doubt, such action could have the effect of protracting the transfer process so as to impair the propects for a smooth transition and a good start to the new airline's operations. The Bill therefore seeks to remove any basis for legal action which could only cause useless and unacceptable delay. It does so by declaring simply that the Government may use their powers in the ways that they have said they would use them should the need arise.
  Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North): Supposing that the Government were to deprive a private airline of certain licensed routes in this way, would the right hon. Gentleman consider that compensation should be paid to it?
  Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman is a long way from the point that I have reached in my speech. If that occurred, I would guess that the answer was "No", but it is a hypothetical question—[Interruption.] If it is purely on the transfer of routes, I think, that no compensation is payable. This is the point.
  To continue with my speech, it does so by declaring simply that the Government may use their powers in the ways that they have said they would use them should the need arise. The Government hope, however, that, given this Bill, all the interested parties will come to the
  244
  view that it would be preferable to allow the normal A.T.L.B. licensing procedures to be followed within the time available.
  The point of controversy is not whether the Government's powers can be used in these ways—indeed, the power of exemption was used several times by the last Administration so that there should be no interruption of service while licensing processes were completed—it is about the purpose for which they may be used. That purpose is to ensure that the new airline is successfully established.
  The last Administration said that they wanted such an airline to be established, and took some courageous decisions to ensure that it had a fair chance to be formed. Where the last Administration lacked the courage of their convictions was in balking at the one step which was essential to get the new airline off the ground. If the House agrees that this one key step of a modest route transfer should be taken in pursuit of a policy objective which both sides of the House support, they will support the Bill.
  4.3 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: In view of the great importance of the Bill, I thought that that was not only a very disappointing speech but an extremely thin one which did not inform the House of the gravity of the Bill. Indeed, the Bill is of such importance—the one Clause of it—in that it reveals the Tory philosophy which will be enunciated in the early 'seventies, provided that they stop in power for two or three years.
  First, on the format and make-up of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, Edwards suggested a civil aviation authority, and also an air holdings board. We accepted most of what he said about the civil aviation authority, and it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is going down that road. Indeed, he has reiterated much of what I said the last time that we debated civil aviation. I take it that the air registration board, which he will call the Airworthiness Council, will be absolutely and completely under the umbrella of the Civil Aviation Authority.
  Second, on the Airways Board, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has it in mind, as we had, that initially it would be responsible for the marrying of similar operations between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., with the long-term possibility of a merger in mind as well.

  245
  Then, the right hon. Gentleman came on to what really matters to the House—the question of the second force. He said that, by 1st December, the companies will have adequate finance, backed by a Government guarantee of profitable routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I rise to condemn and oppose the contents of this miserable little sheet that we have before us. This one-Clause Bill, as I said, is primarily concerned with enunciating Tory philosophy for the 'seventies, hiving off State assets to feed private speculators.
  This is a sad day for British civil aviation, and not just for either of the Corporations. It is a sad day for all civil aviation and also for the second force—and indeed for the smaller independents as well. The Corporations will be forced, very much against their will, to surrender profitable routes to private enterprise, the second force will be born amidst political controversy and will be diseased by trade union opposition and industrial discontent from the outset, and the other independents fear that this second force, being the Government's child, will be pampered and reared to their exclusion, so the whole of British civil aviation, with the passing of this small Bill will suffer—every section of it.
  Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman should make it clear to the House what he means by his very clear statement that this merger would be opposed by the trade unions. On what grounds will they oppose it? I have spoken to the trade unions about this point and we met every one of their suggestions about the conditions and the service of their men and the trade union factors. On what ground will they oppose?
  Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not keeping abreast of the trends. I know that he has been abroad and may not have read all the Press comments, but he must be aware that the trade unions themselves have stated that they will not only oppose the launching of the second force but take steps, if necessary, to black its operations overseas, and that during this afternoon a lobby is taking place in the House by the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. staff against the launching of the second force. Therefore, it is already being bred in political controversy and trade union discontent—
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Where are all the Labour Members?
  Mr. William Hannan: They are out talking to the lobbyists.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Too many hon. Members are making speeches before they are called. It is for the Minister or for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether he gives way.
  Mr. Mason rose—
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I was simply trying, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, despite this great controversy in which he says were are involved, fewer than 20 of his own backbenchers are present to register a protest.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a point of interruption, not a point of order.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Member must be aware that many of my hon. Friends are outside receiving the lobbyists in the Central Lobby.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman—who should take the grin off his face when such serious matters are before the House—that once more civil aviation, because of the presentation of this Bill, to the detriment of our whole nation, has been thrust into the cockpit of controversial politics. That is my first charge against the Government.
  Mr. Onslow: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves his first charge, could he reconcile what he has been saying, in such a welter of moral indigation, with the fact that he brought forward a White Paper in which he committed himself to certain route transfers?
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I did not commit myself to certain route transfers or any route transfers. if I may continue without further interruption, I will repeat what I said in the last civil aviation debate and what is contained in the White Paper, to get the record clear.
  We were determining an orderly growth of civil aviation both in the public and the

  247
  private sector, and I do not think anybody on either side of the House would deny that. We set up the Edwards Committee, which involved a two-year inquiry. We gave serious consideration to all its recommendations and, indeed, accepted almost every one of them, including the idea of an independent second force airline but not, as the Edwards Committee suggested and as the right hon. Gentleman has now announced is his policy, on the basis of a transfer of routes from B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.
  We were always worried about the number of small independent airlines and especially their periodic collapses. Many of us were concerned with the small shoestring operators and the question of safety in the air, because insolvencies and accidents are often synonymous. We were also acutely aware that massive periodic investments were necessary to buy into the next generation of jets or wide-bodied aircraft, a problem which bedevilled B.U.A.
  For all these reasons we thought it right to welcome the emergence by amalgamation of a viable, financially sound operator which could command serious attention from the Air Transport Licensing Board when applying for new routes.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) questioned what we did. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper "Civil Aviation Policy", Cmnd. 4213, stated:
  "The Government would welcome the emergence, by amalgamation, of such a new airline if it resulted in the strengthening of the industry as a whole and contributed to the realisation of the Government's policy objectives. They agree with the Committee's view that this would almost certainly take some time. A new airline of this kind must evolve progressively, proving itself at each stage. It is for the airlines to decide, in the exercise of their commercial judgment and in the light of market forces, whether and in what ways to come together."
  I also made it clear on 12th November, 1969—
  Mr. Onslow: What about paragraph 41?
  Mr. Mason: I am coming to that. I said:
  "… We would like to see a second force airline developed, but we are not intending to carve up B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. routes to assist it. We would hope that some independent airlines would merge, and gradually become strong and viable enough to contest overseas in their own
  248
  right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 415.]
  Before dealing with the question of route transfers, I will explain what we had in mind about the second force. The obvious possible amalgamation was Caledonian and British United Airways. B.U.A. had already been to the Government for certain routes which they wanted to be taken away from B.O.A.C. These applications were refused. B.U.A. then approached B.O.A.C. and asked it to consider a take-over. It came to our notice and Ministers decided in principle that they had no objection, subject to a satisfactory financial bargain, especially since B.U.A. at this time was a willing seller. It was not in tune with our White Paper policy, but it was not our fault that B.U.A. approached B.O.A.C.
  Unfortunately, the Chairman of British and Commonwealth was not aware of the progress being made in talks between the Chairman of B.U.A. and Caledonian. Once this was known, Ministers decided to freeze the B.O.A.C./B.U.A. talks and await the outcome of takeover or merger negotiations between Caledonian and B.U.A. This was clearly in line with our White Paper policy. It was not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a courageous step on our part; it was a just and honourable course at the time. There was now emerging the possibility of a bigger independent airline, viable and financially strong enough to merit the serious attention of the Air Transport Licensing Board when it applied for new routes.
  Later, when the Civil Aviation Authority was established, we envisaged it carrying out an exercise in route rationalisation, seeking the co-operation and agreement of the corporations and the independents. That is where the argument raised by the hon. Gentleman about significant and insignificant comes in. Even if there had been no mergers at the time of the institution of the Civil Aviation Authority, reallocations and readjustments would not be ruled out if they would benefit the international competitiveness of the industry as a whole and the balance of payments.
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention to paragraph 41 of the White Paper. I will quote it so as to put it in its proper context. It will reveal to the hon. Gentleman, who has not read it properly, that

  249
  the Government had no intention of giving B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. to the independent airlines:
  "The Government cannot accept that the formation of such an airline should be made conditional upon the transfer to it of a significant part of the Corporations' route networks … Some reallocation or readjustment of routes, which might include some exchange of routes, would not he ruled out where, in the judgment of the Civil Aviation Authority, this would benefit the international competitiveness of the industry as a whole and the balance of payments … These are matters to be determined by the Authority in the light of detailed study and argument and the Government do not intend to impose a preconceived reallocation of routes on any airline, which has borne the cost of developing the routes and is serving them well."
  There was never any question of launching a second force independent airline on the basis of stealing profitable routes from the Corporation.
  Mr. Burden: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he intended to set up a second force, denying it routes, he having been told by B.O.A.C. that it would not give up any routes and that B.U.A. then said that it could not operate under those conditions? Is he saying that B.U.A. then told B.O.A.C. that this was the only way in which it could exist, whereupon he would not give it any future and would not allow it to merge with B.O.A.C.?
  Mr. Mason: No, the hon. Gentleman should realise that we had no intention of encouraging an amalgamation between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. We were encouraging Caledonian and B.U.A. to get together so that in their new viable and financially strong position they would be able to approach the A.T.L.B. for new routes and on that basis gradually grow. That has been understood from the outset. I know the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in civil aviation matters, but he has obviously not read the previous civil aviation debate or listened to my speech when I spelt it out. I said:
  "The fact is that no independent airline, or combination of airlines, could be given a very rapid and extensive increase in its scheduled service network without taking routes away from someone else, and that someone else must be one or both of the Air Corporations. I find this a very difficult proposition to justify, on grounds either of sense or of need … We are talking about routes that B.O.A.C. has built up over the years. A great deal of the taxpayers' money has been invested in them. If they are profitable, and that is why B.U.A.
  250
  wanted them, then they are the basis on which B.O.A.C. can expand into new markets. There would be no gain to our earnings of foreign currency by taking these routes away from B.O.A.C. and there could be a loss if B.O.A.C. were weakened as a result … the White Paper makes it clear that there has been too much fragmentation of our national effort in the past and we shall not strengthen it now by carving up the strongest airline we have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 436–7.]
  Throughout, we have resisted the giving away of Corporation routes.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave the House no information about the Bill and what it purports to do, but from what he said at a Press conference and in his previous statement on 3rd August it seems that because of the Bill we shall witness a switch of £6 million of annual route revenue, with all the annual profits that will flow from that going from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to the second force.
  All this was agreed with the companies before any agreement with the Corporations or talks with the trade unions. Both these bodies, Corporations and unions, were informed after the companies had had assurances. This is happening at the worst possible time when profits in civil aviation are declining. At the moment T.W.A. is an example. B.O.A.C. is probably over its peak, with declining profits in the offing; and by this Bill the Government are now to take away £6 million of annual route revenue. Secondly, it has shattered the morale of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. staff; the pilots are disturbed, as is every union in civil aviation under the umbrella of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. I repeat that, unfortunately, this second force, because of the technique adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, is now being bred with political controversy and trade union discontent.
  What of the Government's legal right? They gave the impression that Section 3(5) of the Air Corporation Act, 1967, and Section 1(3) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, empowered them to act. I have read all the Committee reports dealing with those provisions and obviously the situation was very doubtful. It certainly was not the spirit and intention of those Sections and nothing of this sort of operation was mentioned in Committee. Only when B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. refused to co-operate willingly in the discussions about transfer of route

  251
  and the unions threatened to test the Government's legal position in the courts did the Government hurriedly have to introduce this Bill. Indeed the courts could well have stopped their having a second force airline even if Parliament itself might prove helpless in this situation. If there had been no opposition from the Corporations and the unions, this Government, without recourse to fresh legislation, without parliamentary debate and consent, might well just have taken the routes away.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Trade and Industry on 9th November, when challenged in the House, said that there was doubt but the Bill was being introduced because he could see that the intention was to forestall. It is for that reason that legislation is now being introduced, otherwise, we might not have had a debate at all on this important matter.
  We now have before us a lawyers' statement, a one-Clause Bill and a Ministerial diktat which is designed to twist the arm of the Corporations and blackmail them into submission. It is an attempt to legalise a national, immoral act. Perhaps this is what one would expect from this so-called high-principled Government.
  We are bound to ask what are the pressures that have been brought to bear on B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The treatment of B.E.A. and B.A.O.C. and their boards must be borne in mind when we consider that board members' contracts end in five weeks' time. Why has there been no announcement by the right hon. Gentleman about these contracts? Do we have to read into this that a pistol-at-the-head technique might have been deployed and that, because of their opposition to the Government, their jobs are now at risk?
  Mr. Noble: I rise immediately to set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on this score. The reason was the decision whether or not to go for the Airways Board. It had nothing to do with the rest of it.
  Mr. Mason: That was an interesting intervention, but we shall await the announcement on these contracts with unusual interest. Who will be prepared to chair these boards after this exercise?
  252
  There will need to be some strong assurances from the right hon. Gentleman to chairmen of the Airways Board and the Civil Aviation Authority, and indeed to the Boards of both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., before they will take on further contracts.
  Sir Charles Hardie and Mr. Anthony Milward have been right to oppose the Government. They are in charge of blocks of State assets—taxpayers' investments—and have proved more honourable than the Ministers, who are prepared to bleed the State Corporations to feed their friends and speculators, especially foreign speculators.
  Mr. Burden: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has firmly impugned the honour of Ministers in his last remark. I suggest to the Chair that it is completely out of order unless he can prove that they have been dishonourable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I do not think the Chair heard quite the same word that the hon Gentleman appears to have heard. Mr Mason.
  Mr. Mason: This Government do not seem to have any qualms at all about barefaced stealing. They are now prepared to pinch from the Corporations to featherbed the privateers. In regard to the figure of £6 million, the Minister has given no indication about compensation. If I remember his words aright he stated that there would be no compensation payable where licences are involved. I noted him as saying that on a transfer of routes no compensation would be payable.
  We would like to know about compensation. B.O.A.C., in particular, has invested in the development of routes; it has taken time to prove them; it has engaged in international advertising; it has developed all the services; it has established agreement and a close understanding with Governments; and has built up enormous good will for the airline and the nation. B.O.A.C. sees all that effort, negotiation and anxiety going for nothing.
  What of the losses the Corporation must now suffer? How do the Government intend to cook the Corporation's books? I remember a Tory Minister on 1st January, 1964, sending out a letter to the Chairman of B.O.A.C. about the commercial freedom of that Corporation.

  253
  In the last paragraph he said this—and I wonder that the Minister did not use this to whip B.O.A.C., instead of bringing in this Bill:
  "It is important that the interchange of views between the Government and the Corporations should not blur the fundamental responsibility of the Corporations to act in accordance with their commercial judgment."
  The right hon. Gentleman ought to squirm at that statement, in view of his own intervention. The letter goes on:
  "If the national interest should appear, whether to the Corporations or to the Government, to require some departure from the strict commercial interests of the Corporation, this should be done only with the express agreement or at the express request of the Minister. How losses, if any, resulting from such a political decision should be presented in the accounts will depend on circumstances in each case."
  How are the losses to be recorded by the Corporations? They cannot write in—or perhaps they can—the fact that "We was robbed", and we do not want that to be a recurring theme every 12 months.
  It was interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about this being a once-for-all transfer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in winding up will spell out this matter a little more clearly Although the right hon. Gentleman at the Press conference after his statement in August said that this was a once-for-all transfer—and this has been widely reported in Flight, the Financial Times, and he even told this to the T.U.C.—he will remember that on 9th November, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in answer to a Question by one of my hon. Friends, said:
  "With regard to the transfer of the routes, I could not give an undertaking that never again would I take a step of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1970; Vol. 806. c. 29.]
  Do I understand therefore that he is over-ruling what his right hon. Friend said? Do I take it that what he said today, reiterating what he said previously, by-passes what his right hon. Friend said and that there will never be another transfer of this kind of a once-for-all nature? I ask that this matter should be cleared up when the hon. Gentleman comes to reply.
  Mr. Noble: I made it absolutely clear in my speech. We do not contem-
  254
  plate any other transfers of this kind. The point is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked a different question. There may be times, with other airlines, in quite different circumstances, where transfers will be supported or opposed. It is a quite different question.
  Mr. Mason: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman's reply is not good enough. My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
  "Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the proposal to transfer £6 million-worth of B.O.A.C. business to Caledonia/British United Airways will be a once-for-all transfer?"
  The Minister, in reply, said:
  "With regard to the transfer of the routes, I could not give an undertaking that never again would I take a step of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 29.]
  The right hon. Gentleman must come clean. He said that it is a once-for-all transfer. A senior Minister in his Department has said that that is not true, and that he cannot give that undertaking. What is the truth? Is it a once-for-all transfer, and are we to understand that it will never happen again? I see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head in agreement.
  Mr. Noble: No. I cannot do more than tell the right hon. Gentleman that what I said in my speech is the position today. I cannot do more than that.
  Mr. Mason: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell his hon. Friend who is to wind up to make it absolutely clear that what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said is not true and that his assurance that it would be a once-for-all transfer really stands.
  On the question of the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority, I noticed that there was a passage in the Board of Trade statement in August indicating that the independent airlines were to get priority over the Corporations. I hope that we shall not see any more transfers.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this matter, especially in view of his own past interest in it. When he talks about compensation he must recognise that what has happened in the past can

  255
  happen in the future. B.O.A.C. previously transferred to the independents a route which it could not make profitable and which the independents then made profitable. There was no question at that point of B.O.A.C's saying to the independents who took over, "We shall give you something to go with this transfer because it is loss making".
  Mr. Mason: That is absolute nonsense. Hon. Members pop in from time to time to hear what is said about civil aviation—and that goes for the hon. Member. If he wants to know about the Latin American route and B.O.A.C. going out and B.U.A. coming in, I can tell him that there was the question of different aircraft, a different structure, and different stopping points on the routes. There was a vast change. There was no comparison between the aircraft that B.O.A.C. were operating and those that B.U.A. were operating.
  On the matter of the transfer of routes, for which the Bill seeks permission, we are also bound to wonder what will be the attitude of foreign Governments to this change. According to what I can glean from The Times—and that newspaper seems to be able to get the right leaks from the Minister's Department—Portugal, Gibraltar, West Africa and other points on the routes in question may be affected. Hitherto the Governments concerned have been accustomed to dealing with B.O.A.C.—a British State airline with a great international reputation, and a highly successful airline.
  When those Governments, were talking to Sir Charles Hardie, or Keith Granville, or to Tony Milward, or any senior members of B.O.A.C., or B.E.A. staff, they felt that it was like having a link with Her Majesty's Government. They felt that there was a special relationship involved. I have no doubt that all that helped in the establishment of services in those countries—link lines, pooling arrangements, and so on. We should like to know what their reaction has been to having foisted upon them this private airline, born of political controversy because of the technique of its launching, and obviously not of the status and fiancial stability of B.O.A.C.
  What fears do those Governments have about trade union discontent and about
  256
  the future not only of this new airline service but also the hitherto shared operations and pooling arrangements? Those Governments must have serious doubts about this shameful act, and it is right that Parliament should know what their reaction has been.
  The amputation of these limbs from B.O.A.C. in the nations affected may encourage the growth of new limbs from other successful international airlines, with a consequent loss to British civil aviation route networks, and a loss of foreign currency. We have a right to know how those Governments have reacted and whether we should visualise further losses.
  This is a small but highly dangerous Measure, which could be the forerunner of many. We visualise the Conservative Government hiving off from nationalised industries some of their profitable ancillary activities. Unfortunately, the second force happens to be the first, assisted by this robbing technique. I have no doubt that this is starting a pattern; this is a precedent. The chairmen of the British Steel Corporation, the National Coal Board, the Gas Council, the Electricity Authority, the Post Office Corporation, and so on, must all be aware that it will be a testing time for them. The pattern has now been set.
  We should also ask how many more Oliver Twists of the speculative world, egging on private industry, are to parade their begging bowl before the Department of Trade and Industry and its old close friend, who is now to be regarded as the dotty chairman. How many more chairmen of nationalised industries will be subjected to this disgraceful technique, and these back-door pressures—and, in the end, who will want to serve on these boards?
  Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton): Before we leave this very eloquent passage in my right hon. Friend's speech, may I suggest that on this occasion a more apt comparison with the present Administration would be Fagin?
  Mr. Mason: Indeed, they are just as full of guile and not to be trusted.
  Because I feel that British civil aviation is bound to suffer as a result of this Bill, and because of the shady, immoral, barefaced stealing of public assets in order to buttress private enterprise, I must say

  257
  that the Bill cannot command any support from this side of the House. When the truth of this operation is known I doubt whether it will command much public support.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement made on 26th May—before the election—by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who was then the Opposition spokesman on aviation. He said:
  "It must be fully understood that if the President of the Board of Trade were to approve a B.O.A.C. take-over of B.U.A. before the General Election, a Conservative Government would not regard itself as bound by any such decision."
  Her Majesty's Opposition issue the same warning to all who are concerned in this venture. We shall not be bound by this shameful act and will, on return to office, return these routes to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., without compensation. The independent companies are not paying for them now, and they will have profiteered in the meanwhile. They will have had their quick quid, and a Labour Government will take the view that the State and the taxpayer have a right to the return of these stolen assets.
  4.39 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: As a maiden speaker I believe that I should make some remarks about my constituency. First, however, I feel that I should say how much I have enjoyed the two speeches that have been made so far—my right hon. Friend's for its content, which was most pleasing to us, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), because it took me back to the days when as a small child I was taken to a revivalist meeting in a Welsh valley. There was exactly the same tang to it. Regrettably, it said nothing—and in exactly the same style—that had not been heard before.
  What sticks in my mind about my constituency, as I am sure stuck in the mind of my predecessor, Mr. Newens, a most energetic and hard-working Member, is its sheer size. It has the second largest electorate in the country. It is interesting to reflect that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) and I represent in this place almost as many people as are represented by some of the delegates to the United Nations. I am prompted to remember the wise words of another of my predecessors, Sir
  258
  Graeme Finlay, who was wont to say that the constituency had everything except a shipyard, a fishing industry and a coalmine. The Lee Valley regional park is spreading and doing a fine job. Before long with the emphasis on water as a source of amusement and recreation, if not of refreshment, I hope I shall have a boatyard or two if not a shipyard, certainly better fishing, and I hope that I shall be excused from the coalmine.
  Epping is an enormous constituency, with a new town, soon to be a fast-growing new town again, and small market towns in one of which I live. It includes Waltham Abbey, a most splendid building, with the most splendid choir singing the greatest sacred music in the South of England. It has an electorate of 36,000 in the Greater London area. I often wonder whether I am the only hon. Member with 36,000 London electors who has a strong agricultural and horticultural interest in his constituency. I should like to comment further about my constituency, but this is not the time for it. The debate promises to have too much interest for us all.
  I sincerely regret that hon. Members opposite, who are in such a high state of indignation about a political decision, should have chosen to go outside and discuss it with those who want to take direct industrial action about political decisions which should properly be discussed in this House.
  As a member of the British Airline Pilots Association of 17 years' standing—and as I spoke only yesterday to the Chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association in B.O.A.C.—I can say that they are not interested in the sort of thing that is going on out there. They deeply resent any suggestion that they would be a party to industrial action when the place for these matters to be discussed is here. I am not talking about legitimate industrial action for purposes of legitimate industrial ends. I am speaking of industrial action for political ends. The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Barnsley implying that the Airline Pilots Association sympathised with such action should be withdrawn.
  Before we are carried too far into this, we should also remember that the airline industry situation which faced the Government on coming into Power was different in degree from anything we had seen

  259
  before. The position in the past has always been that the private sector has been discriminated against right, left and centre. I regret that it has been discriminated against, by Governments of left and right and, had the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) been called to form a Government, I am sure that it would have been discriminated against by a Government of the centre. During those years of discrimination the private sector was always denied a cut of any profitable scheduled services.
  Thus, it developed different areas of work. It developed originally, and became very dependent upon, troop charters and War Office charters for dependants. That business withered, as did our bases overseas. The private sector then developed, at great expense and effort and in the teeth of opposition from the air Corporations, the inclusive tour holiday market. Not only did that become a profitable business but it brought sunshine holidays to many millions who had previously known only Blackpool. It went on from there to develop to some extent the business of running emigrant charters from this country to Australia and New Zealand. That is the only side of the private sector business which benefits when right hon. Gentleman opposite sit on this side of the House. As we know, that is when emigration figures go up.
  These have been the mainstays of their business. They have always weathered the storm up to now. Many of the storms have been caused by gusts of wind coming from this place. But on this occasion they were faced with a new situation. They were faced with a Government that was determined to starve them sooner or later into submission. The Edwards Report came out and as has has been explained today, the Government said: "Certainly, we would love a second force airline. Have a second force airline. But you cannot have any routes to run it on."
  The example of the Egyptians refusing straw for bricks has stood a long time, but this was even refusing the clay for the bricks. It was a statement to the independent industry: "Go ahead and die, but we will give you one word:
  260
  take your own time over it, so long as you hurry."
  Mr. Frank Tomney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  An Hon. Member: This is a maiden speech.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry that I have provoked the hon. Gentleman, though I had rather intended to. I know that a maiden speech should be non-controversial. I have waited five months to find something non-controversial. Unfortunately, in these days even motherhood is controversial and sometimes frowned upon in view of the population explosion.
  There is only one way to keep the independent sector of the industry operating, and that is for it to have a fair crack of the whip, and that includes route transfer. This subject will obviously run right through the debate. One has to look first at the question of compensation. If the Corporations are asking for compensation for the money they have sunk into developing routes, one has to look at their case closely. At the same time and by the same token, one has to look at the fact that the factor which was beginning to squeeze the independent sector was that their chosen centre of business, the inclusive holiday tour, which they had developed exclusively at their expense, was the one which B.E.A. Air Tours was being set up to enter with public money, and, whatever B.E.A. says, with a subsidy to under-cut and break the independent industry. If it is argued that there should be compensation one way, surely it must be argued that there should be compensation the other way.
  On the other hand, if the argument is that a route traffic right is an asset for which, whenever it is transferred, there is a compensatory money payment, that is a most dangerous and convoluted argument—because it leads us to wonder what exactly happened when B.O.A.C. decided not to operate to South America, to Washington and to Los Angeles. Did the Chairman say to the Minister, "Here is your route traffic right back. May we have our money back?" No, he could not. He did not pay for it in the first place. There never was and never has been a payment made. The suggestion that there should be takes us back to

  261
  Elizabeth I selling monopolies. It simply is not on. It does not make sense. The arguments about it will probably continue, but speaking from the experience of half a lifetime spent in civil aviation, I can say that we have to look closely at the overall benefit of the British air-traffic industry.
  If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had had their way, the inclusive holiday market would never have been created. They would still be firmly protecting their creatures which were totally unenterprising about that sort of business. There is no reason why a modest transfer of routes of the kind envisaged should do any lasting harm to B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. Having worked for one of the Corporations for 17 years until coming into the House, certainly I detected no panic or sudden striking of breasts and rolling in the dust when it was announced that there was to be a second force. Of course, there were demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, and my constituent, Clive Jenkins, spoke in great metaphors about tearing the living flesh off the bone, though not quite about amputating the limbs. Matters get more gory every day.
  But what protests came when the original Eagle was taken over by B.O.A.C.? There was no froth, no noise, no agitation and no threat of direct industrial action for political ends. All was quiet. I wonder why. Was it because there was no element of public interest involved, or was it because it was a case of a nationalised industry getting bigger as opposed to smaller?
  Sooner or later we shall have to return to the subject and discuss which routes are to be transferred. I would only ask my right hon. Friend to look at this most carefully, as I know he will. There are areas in which damage could be done to the Corporations and to the British industry. Of that we are well aware. There are areas in which B.O.A.C., Britain and good operating practice are virtually synonymous. It would be sad to let in another airline to replace B.O.A.C. in those areas. There are other areas in which the name of B.O.A.C. is not held in such high regard. Hon. Members will no doubt recall that when Eagle was taken off the route to Bermuda there were strong protests for a long time from the people of Bermuda
  262
  about losing what they regarded as their airline. I hope that we shall see their airline again on that route and that the route through to Central America and to the southern states of the United States—where the name of B.O.A.C. is not well established—will provide a firm base of operations.
  An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is nonsense. Clearly he did not go there almost weekly as I did. It is not nonsense to me. The Corporation has never broken into that area of Central and South America, with its strong Spanish ethnic association. The Bill provides a splendid opportunity for a new British flag carrier to improve the standard of British airlines and the British share of a market which has been declining.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: It falls to me to observe the custom and privilege of this House in following a maiden speaker. I do so on this occasion with not quite as much generosity as one usually accords to maiden speakers. Maiden speeches are supposed to be non-controversial, and this House usually accords a maiden speaker the courtesy and privacy of this Chamber by hearing him without interruption. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) started very well by referring to his constituency. Some of us know the Lee Valley scheme and the great developments planned for it which we hope to see come to fruition. After all, the plans for the area were formulated by the Labour Government.
  However, before the hon. Gentleman strayed into more controversial areas of aircraft policy he would have been wiser to have had a word with his Chief Whip. I am sure that he would have been advised to follow the practice of this House by not being quite so controversial. However, I do not intend to savage the hon. Gentleman. That is not the custom of the House. I warn him, though, that having heard him the House will be aware of his potentialities and treat him accordingly.
  This debate and yesterday's run concurrently. One would think that the conclusions of both debates would be consecutive. But they never are. The

  263
  troubles of the aircraft and the air transport industries have been aired in this House almost since their inception. They do not grow less severe, though they become more concise and narrow.
  Several Estimates Committees have investigated the air transport industry. One upon which I served in 1954 and 1955 lasted 14 months and came up with the conclusion that the industry was so based that the capital employed was too narrow to support an industry of the size required by the United Kingdom. Out of that report arose the amalgamations in the aircraft industry, together with some bankruptcies. The intention was to consolidate the resources of the nation into a vast capital expansive industry where research and technological developments were mostly needed.
  Sir George Edwards, whom I regard as being second to none, has always managed in one way or another to keep his company alive in the face of intense home and international competition. The paradox is that the issues confronting B.O.A.C. confront every other airline in the world. The reasons are the same. They are heavy capital costs, heavy running costs and low returns on capital. There are hundreds of Boeing 707s on the ground in America which cannot be sold. Any successful aircraft such as the Viscount, the 111 or the strategic 311 has a viable life of only a few years, until a competitor comes up with an aircraft which is better, faster or safer. Aer Lingus is still flying Viscounts very successfully. The reason is that there is not a great deal of time to be gained in travelling from A to B or Y to Z a little faster. A certain amount of time is saved, of course, but the only reason for bringing a new aircraft into service is to provide a better turnover on capital. That is why B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., being State airlines dependent on national policy and finance, are operating so successfully after a long period of initial difficulty. At this juncture, when there is a plus on the balance sheet, their Conservative philosophy is to take away £6 million from their most successful operations.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: And that is only a start.
  Mr. Tomney: The hon. Member referred to a revivalist meeting on this side of the House. It is not. What we are seeing is the rebirth of capitalist intervention in public industries which are making a profit. They see the chance of clawing some back. Considerable capital has been sunk in industry. We should think not only of the aircraft themselves but of safety, navigation, research, development and airfields. Mistakes were made at London Airport because we were first in the field and all this had to be paid for. They were paid for out of the proceeds of aircraft sales and the operations of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. They are not paid for by private aircraft or private airlines which license their flights and routes.
  This is why it is so important to get this debate in perspective. Financial circles show no inclination to take a stake in the coal mines or British Railways. They want a stake in what is profitable—not that the financial life of the Corporations is by any means assured. This is an act of financial exploitation against the State. The House should not give a Second Reading to this miserable little Bill. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are as English as a spinning top, a pease pudding or a pint of ale. Everybody knows and appreciates them and their reputation throughout the world, wherever they go. Many people I know will not travel unless they can travel on British State airlines—they are afraid of certain consequences—and I am one of them.
  Mr. Tebbit: I should tell the hon. Member and the House that there were airfields built before Heathrow and that there were very good reasons why we should have looked elsewhere very often for better ways to build it and why it has been financed, and the British Airports Authority is running it not only with revenues from the landing charges of the aircraft of the Corporations—one or two foreign operators go in and out there as well, I am told. Hon. Members might like to spend a day there some time to see.
  Mr. Tomney: I not only spend days there: I have members there. I understand the hon. Member's argument about foreign airlines, but foreign competitors under licence did not put down the hard

  265
  cash to build the airport at Heathrow: the British taxpayer did. They are trying to provide for themselves a capital bonus out of something which is established. It is the same when one rents a house from a landlord: the landlord built it in the first place.
  Our aircraft industry has to stay in business. It is highly technical, inventive, scientific and expensive and as yet no adequate cost-effective system has been devised for it. With regard to commerce, industry and finance, mergers take place and there are criminal frauds which are so obscure and involved that the courts cannot prosecute or determine where the blame lies. One example recently was the Bloom enterprises, where the Q.C.s, highly specialised though they were in the business, concluded that they could not unravel this thing in 20 or 30 years. The Treasury had to accept those conclusions and come to an accommodation.
  We have had the same thing in industry. We have debated the costs of the Rolls-Royce engine in aircraft development. There are not enough adequately trained accountants to investigate these industries. I know, because we spent 14 months on the subject in Committee. One of the most surprising things that we came up with about the aircraft industry was that in one case as much as £22 million had been spent on an aircraft which never left the drawing-board.
  Until we get some order into this, both as regards engines and aircraft manufacture, we shall have this situation. The industry has to live: they bring forward every year new ideas and plans. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. want new designs. Their research officers and scientists constantly submit specifications for new plans, because they must stay in business. All this is very expensive. The independent air lines play no part in this. This is borne by the taxpayer. And now we have to give away the extent of the earnable revenue of 12 months—£6 million.
  This is the economics of bedlam. We cannot go on like this, with air frame manufactures, an aircraft industry and an air transport industry which are established and paying their way, and take away their viable margins. If we do, they will not be able to break even, and
  266
  then we will have the same arguments in the House about why they cannot. For God's sake let us have a little common sense. The Government should take the Bill back where it belongs—in the archives of Tory Central Office—and leave it there.
  Mr. Robert Adley (Bristol, North-East): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that morally it is unjustifiable to expect an intervention by private industry in nationalised industry, shall we say, in November, 1967, when that nationalised industry might be able to show a profit on its books, and that it is justifiable to have similar intervention in the same two organisations in July, 1967, when they are writing off £95½ million public money? Is that his argument?
  Mr. Tourney: That has been repaid. But I was never in favour of the proposition formerly peddled by my side of the House to buy either B.U.A. or Caledonian or to agree to an amalgamation. When we are engaged in enterprises like this I believe in the forces of State competition. If the private man cannot compete I would buy him out not at a bargain price but for nothing. We have now reached a stage where competitors are worldwide in aviation, and they all have the same problem.
  In the space of a few weeks, we have to make a political decision about the air bus or the 311. Both sides of British industry are competing for the favours of the House of Commons in this argument—one for the airframe and the other for the engines.
  On the one hand, the people who wish to enter Europe favour the airbus project, which may or may not have the capacity to earn about £1,000 million in three years. I am not sure whether it will occur in dividends. On the other hand, we have the 311 with a Tristar engine which will give employment to thousands of Rolls-Royce workers—and that is probably the only high-class technical industry that we have left in this field.
  The House must decide between the two. Whichever we decide, the decision should be in the interests of the British taxpayer, completely and authoritatively. This will never be achieved if we syphon off the marginal profits of an industry which we have built up.

  267
  The Minister introduced the Bill with a short speech. It is not too late for him to take it back to where I explained it originated. If he does not take it back, then either the present Government or the next one will have to ask the House for a subvention for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
  In future we will have to face the acute problem of air space. Anybody who flies regularly knows the difficulties that are being faced today by the main airports of the world. I was at New York Airport two years ago in mid-summer when the temperature was 98 degrees and the humidity extremely high. We had to agree to board the plane and wait until we could get off the ground. We sat in the plane, hot and sweaty, for two and a half hours while the aircraft queued up to leave the ground.
  Indeed so crowded is that airport—the same can be said of many other inter- national airports—that aeroplanes must usually queue to both take-off and land. This and similar problems must be tackled not nationally but internationally. In both time and space, the operating difficulties of the airlines are acute throughout the world.
  We cannot subsist on the margins. There must be an adequate return on capital—[Interruption.] I have always been a great believer of this and for this reason B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should not be interfered with. They should be left to do their own bookkeeping, now that they have achieved success, particularly in view of their immense worldwide reputation. They should be given the support which the taxpayers have sent us here to provide.
  Whether in steel, gas, electricity or the railways, it is being proved conclusively—the Americans are now thinking of nationalising their railways—that certain industries can exist only within the framework of the State. It is to be regretted that hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be prepared to sacrifice the aviation industry.
  If the Bill is passed, my hon. Friends and I will watch developments with interest. I am sure that within two or three years the Government will, if they are still in office, be asking for a subsidy or subvention to make good the harm they are now doing—and then the attack
  268
  from this side of the House will be far more fierce than it is today.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) is an old and valued hon. Member to whom I wish to extend every courtesy.
  Mr. Tomney: Not so much of the old, please.
  Mr. Onslow: I must be careful how I express my compliments. I did not mean old in the sense of age. He is a valued hon. Member, but while I will not deal with the points he raised about the aircraft industry, I must quarrel with him about the robust and avowedly controversial maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit).
  I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I congratulate my hon. Friend, both on his speech and on his courage in making that sort of maiden speech. I think it not such a bad thing that when an hon. Member stands up in this House for the first time, hon. Members should have some hint of the sort of person with whom they will have to deal. I have known other hon. Members in the past to give some hint of what is in store for us in their maiden speeches.
  I would, however, dissent from one comment made by my hon. Friend. He is not wholly right in saying that there is an unavowed subsidy being given from B.E.A. to B.E.A. Airtours. There is, of course, an element of protection. Any company would consider itself lucky to come into this business having got its capital for what should be a risk operation at very much less than a risk price. It is also true that a considerable advantage is being given to B.E.A. Airtours by way of the established connection on which it can depend for its business. However, I have satisfied myself that there is no question of a subsidy being given improperly or that anything is being done which is not open.
  The dear little Bill, if I may call it that, on which such a vast pyramid of debate has been erected prompts me to return to a theme which I have raised before. It is my wish that we could have, instead of an explanatory memorandum. a memorandum which really explains what the Measure is all about.

  269
  To look at the Bill one would hardly come to the immediate conclusion that it is the cornerstone of British aviation for the next 15 or 20 years. I wish that it could have over-printed on it in bold lettering, "This is a Bill which is designed to make Britain more competitive in a field of endeavour in which we have the most to gain from exploiting our skills". To take such a step might be a departure from precedent, but I regret that it cannot be done.
  Mr. Mason: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Onslow: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer before intervening. I will be dealing with him shortly, and then he may be glad of the opportunity to intervene.
  I welcomed the speech of my right hon. Friend, which I will study with care in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because it contained much of what my hon. Friends and I have been anxiously awaiting for a long time. I was particularly glad to hear his commitment to the creation of a Civil Aviation Authority, an independent authority responsible for the economic and safety regulation of British civil aviation.
  I hope that when my right hon. Friend drafts the legislation which will set up that body he will not hesitate to look across the Atlantic and take, as a possible model, Section 102 of the Federal Aviation Act, 1958. Hon. Members will be instantly familiar with the fact that it contains a positive, progressive and competitive statement of the framework within which the licensing authority of the world's greatest aviation nation sees itself working. If we wish to live in the world in which they live, we had better adopt attitudes not dissimilar to theirs.
  I come next to the question of the Air Registration Board, its future and perhaps its name. I am glad to note that my right hon. Friend has not closed his mind on the question of the actual title of the board. However, it is more important that its functions are right. The continuing importance of the board, within a Civil Aviation Authority structure, will turn on the independence which it enjoys in practice. We do not want to become too bogged down by theory.
  270
  What we want to know is how the board will work in practice and how the members of the board will be prepared to go on making it work.
  When we come, as we shall in due course, to consider the difficult problem of how to absorb within the Civil Aviation Authority some 6,000 staff at present employed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, I hope that my right hon. Friend will commission within his Department a study of one past experiment which might provide useful evidence. I refer to the establishment of the British Airports Authority. I believe that it is agreed in retrospect that there was too little streamlining and too much straight transfer of Civil Service functions from openly within Whitehall to openly outside Whitehall and that in the process the methods and the men remained too immune from change. I set considerable store by my right hon. Friend's intention to relieve Whitehall of this work and to streamline its administration.
  I am sure that no hon. Member can quarrel with the intention, in respect of the Airways Board, to go for economy of resources. Nevertheless, it is clear to many of us that though this may not be a final commitment to the merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. it will certainly open up the way. If one side of the enterprise were in the manufacture of some light industrial object and the other side were in the aviation business there would be no degree of correspondence between the two that would make sense of a merger. But since both Corporations exist to fly people and things around the world, a merger would seem to be the obvious and logical result of bringing the two closer together in this way.
  But, again, I note that my right hon. Friend's mind is not firmly made up on this point, and I would say that if experience suggests that it is not desirable to proceed as far as merger, he might consider the possibility that it would no longer be necessary to perpetuate the Airways Board after it had performed the necessary functions in the fringe areas where it can certainly do a useful service.
  So far as concerns B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. board appointments, the House will understand that this has not been easy to resolve until now. I am sure that if my

  271
  right hon. Friend could have given us names this afternoon no one would have been more pleased than he to do so. I still hope that he can assure us that "very soon" means what it is usually understood to mean—and preferably this week.
  It emerges from what the right hon. Member for Barnsley said that the previous Government's commitment to a second force was not only wrong in its timing but somewhat hypocritical in its intent. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on the wording of paragraph 41 of his own White Paper to release him from any intention ever to have transferred routes from the Corporations to a second force, and if he relies particularly on the statement:
  "The Government cannot accept that the formation of such an airline should be made conditional upon the transfer to it of a significant part of the Air Corporations' route networks …"
  why bother to put in the words "a significant"? In what way is the intention of the Government made more clear by putting in a word which can only raise doubt?
  If he had said that there was no question of transferring any route we would have known what he meant, but because that is not what he said many people assumed, and I think that they rightly assumed, that at that time, when he held the Ministerial responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman had not closed his mind to the possibility of route transfers. It may be too much to press him to admit this, but I tell him quite frankly that he cannot eradicate the suspicion, because the words are there.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Member will have taken note—and I know that he follows civil aviation matters with great interest—that I made two statements in the House even after the publication of the White Paper, once during Question Time and once during the civil aviation debate—that we had no intention at all of allowing B.O.A.C. and B.E.A routes to go to a second force.
  Mr. Onslow: Again, it would have saved any question of suspicion ever arising, and remaining, if in the White Paper—which presumably was the subject of some careful preparation and in which transfer. Again, the point that has been
  272
  words did not appear wholly by accident—this question of significance had never been raised at all. So I repeat that I cannot convince myself that the Minister never at any time intended any such thing.
  It is important, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman knows it, that if there is to be a second force it must have a secure base. He should have known—because he took a close interest in these matters, although not on a day-to-day basis; he did not concern himself continually with them—that security, in aviation, is as essential to operators as it is to their employees, and I was sorry to note that he did not acknowledge this in that somewhat intemperate speech, the only redeeming feature of which was that even he failed to keep a straight face in some of the most purple passages.
  Therefore, when my right hon. Friend tells us that he accepts the need to minimise the impact of any transfers I hear him with great pleasure, and when he says, and I accept that this is so, that he does not envisage further transfers I hear that with pleasure, too, because what appears to me to be essential is that the morale of the men who work in what is the present public sector and the present private sector should be buoyed up by the knowledge that their jobs are in no sense at risk. I do not believe that this present Measure will put anybody's job at risk.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It the second force goes on to the West African sector of the B.O.A.C. African service would not that put B.O.A.C. West Africa ground handling jobs at risk? Does the hon. Gentleman honestly say that this Measure puts no one's job at risk?
  Mr. Onslow: I might remind the hon. Gentleman, who daily gets more embarnacled and who is, I think, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) that Mr. Adam Thomson himself has clearly stated that there is no question of any redundancies or loss of jobs. If there are staff around the world who might as a result of route transfer find that they were no longer working for B.O.A.C. but in a position to take jobs with the second force corporation, I doubt very much whether they would in any way suffer in the process of

  273
  stressed by Mr. Adam Thomson, speaking as a potential employer, is that he is working on the basis of comparability with the Corporations, and that there is no question here of anyone being left without a job or of anyone doing the same job for less money, and this has been generally accepted by those who have been engaged on the union side.
  Mr. Huckfield: Very interesting.
  Mr. Onslow: I know that the hon. Member is an opponent of the Bill, and I know that he is one of those who braved the weather in Trafalgar Square for the protest meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping referred. I have had from my constituents cards reading:
  "We urge you to oppose any handing over of Public Airline Routes, Business and Revenue, or Privileged Treatment to private Operators."
  I have had 16 of those cards, and perhaps one from the hon. Gentleman, who is not one of my constituents so I need take no notice of it.
  I took the pains to write back to them asking them to explain the grounds for their objection, because it is not clear from the card. I got only four replies, which suggests that this form of protest is not particularly heart-felt: but so far as it is useful at all, I was able to find three grounds of opposition to the proposal. The first and I would say the most important is purely personal. The constituent in question writes:
  "… any handing over to private companies can only have an adverse effect on my future."
  That is from a man who is concerned about his job—
  Mr. Huckfield: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Onslow: —and of whom Mr. Adam Thomson has said, as I believe the House as a whole would be able to say, that there is no risk to this man's future.
  The second ground of objection is a practical one—
  Mr. James Dempsey: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite conceivable that we shall have two aircraft running to the same airport, such as an airport in West Africa, as has been quoted, but that the total trade or revenue will not be increased, and that there is therefore
  274
  bound to be a running down in costs and some redundancy? It might not necessarily mean a lot of unemployment, but there could be some loss of jobs.
  Mr. Onslow: No, I do not agree.
  The second point of objection—a practical one and a more attractive one, perhaps, in some ways—is phrased in this way by a constituent:
  "… it must be bad business to take away profitable parts of B.O.A.C.'s routes (thereby jeopardising their profits and future planning etc.) and giving them to a private airline that will obviously demand more and more routes until it eventually folds up anyway leaving Britain with a run-down national airline instead of being a world leader as it is at present."
  Mr. Huckfield: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Onslow: That is just wishful thinking on the part of the hon. Member for Nuneaton who is amongst those who are most anxious to see the venture fail. The defeatist, the pessimist, the person who believes that, although it might be a good idea, it will never work, will be proved wrong; because a purpose of this venture is to bring into British civil aviation, and to give greater opportunity in British aviation to, men of real calibre in management.
  I say to hon. Members who have not been fortunate enough to meet Mr. Adam Thomson—[Interruption.] I find it so difficult not to provoke the tender sensitivities of the erudite on the Front Bench below the Gangway. I believe that the emergence of Mr. Adam Thomson as. a major influence in British aviation management will be greatly to the country's good, because he has the capabilities and the qualities which Britain will need if the second force is to become the success that I wish it to be but which the hon. Member for Nuneaton does not.
  I am taking more time than I should.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Do go on.
  Mr. Onslow: I have other things to say, and I will go on if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. My third point is the objection with which we are mainly confronted now, which is wholly doctrinaire and which is represented by the revivalist ravings of the right hon. Member for Barnsley—" This will not work, because I do not want it to work. I will put a

  275
  spell on it, too, if I can think of one strong enough". This is putting in the frighteners—"At all costs this must not work because, if it did work, it would be a terrible blow for Socialist dogma". Bad luck for Socialist dogma, because we have the chance, and we are going to take it, to make this venture work. Why?
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Because the Tories are going to sell B.O.A.C. down the river.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman must learn not to ascribe to others motives lower than his own.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: My motives could not be lower than those of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Onslow: The barrage of antipodean courtesy to which I am subjected will serve only to prolong my speech and keep out the pearls of wisdom to which the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to subject the House.
  I want to make this point. Indeed, I intend to make it. We have it within our grasp, an opportunity to exploit the skills which the nation possesses, to exploit the assets which are ours sometimes by accident, and to do so in such a way that will not damage the success which we have built in the past. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are very muddled about this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Running commentaries from sedentary positions do not help the debate. There are many hon. Members who hope to have an opportunity to express their point of view.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am quite prepared, providing that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will agree to give way, to make my commentary from a standing position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Loughlin: I did not rise on a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then the hon. Gentleman was out of order to speak at all. The person whom the Chair calls has the Floor until and unless he gives way.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said in your rebuke that it was wrong to make comments from a sedentary position. I did not rise on a point of order. I rose to point out that I was fully prepared to make it from a standing position if the hon. Gentleman would like to give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, that is still less a point of order.
  Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not give way to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who seemed to be so comfortably sitting, because experience told me that it makes no difference from what position he intervenes.
  I will come as swiftly as I may to my final point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—with the co-operation of the House. We talk, we have talked, and I dare say that other hon. Members will go on talking as if the whole purpose of the operation was either to advance private, and therefore dishonourable, interests—
  Mr. Loughlin: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Onslow: —or, for some doctrinaire reason, to perpetuate an act of spite against nationalised industries.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: A dishonest intention.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) has plumped for dishonesty. Whichever he plumped for, he would have been wrong. The point of the Bill is to advance the general interest of Britain as a whole. It may in the process involve some temporary foregoing by the Corporations of positions which they have built up, but this is not something which is being thrown away or squandered. In the course of their growth both Corporations went through a very difficult period when they required and were given substantial and expensive public protection.
  As an act of policy we are now saying that we wish to call into existence another major international airline under the British flag. We must accept, because it is inescapable—history tells us this—that it will require protection whilst it grows—for no longer and no greater purpose than that.

  277
  However, we should be very foolish indeed to delude ourselves into believing that simply to say, "Let there be a second force" will suffice. If we wish there to be a second force, as the House does—as right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench claim they do—we must recognise that the second force must be protected until it is firmly established. I believe that it will be, and soon.
  I hope that in three years' time we shall see a second force able to hold its own with any airline in the world. When that time comes, if I may anticipate the roar of protest from the Front Bench below the Gangway, I shall be happy for ordinary members of the public to be invited to place their savings in either the second force or the State Corporations, and I believe that we shall then find that we have moved into a situation where there will no longer be any need for the taxpayer to subsidise British aviation in any way.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: As one who disagrees with every last syllable of the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), I, too, offer him a somewhat muted congratulation on it. I do so for three reasons. First, I, like him, before coming to this House was engaged in a part of the aviation industry. Second, having listened to the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech it is obvious to me that certainly in the discussion of aviation matters there is a total end to consensus politics in the House. Third, I fear for the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), because the hon. Member for Epping will obviously provide some severe competition for him in terms of rock-ribbed reaction on aviation politics.
  I was especially interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who seemed to reflect a rather greater degree of honesty than did some of his right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. The House will recall that the hon. Gentleman asked: Why not go ahead and denationalise the lot? Considering what lies behind the Bill, I should very much like to hear from the Minister who winds up the debate a rebuttal of the idea underlying that suggestion, or, failing that, I hope that the Government will come clean and tell us that that is precisely their purpose—this last being what I suspect to be the truth.
  278
  I hope that the country will not judge from the relatively small number of hon. Members present that this is a debate of no consequence. Without doubt, we are concerned today with a great deal of money. What is being perpetrated under the Bill, taking into account the background against which these developments have taken place, is very close to larceny on the grand scale, and, as such, had the perpetrators of it not been Ministers of the Crown, they would most likely have ended up behind bars for a long time, certainly far longer than the six months which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) recently endured.
  I come now to the vexed question of the routes which, should the Bill become law, B.O.A.C. will be forced at the point of a gun to hand over to the Government's blue-eyed boys, the newly-merged consortium of Caledonian-B.U.A. These routes, we are told, will be such as to produce about £6 million gross revenue per year, and they will be passed on a silver plate—or, perhaps, more accurately, a gold plate—to the new company totally without payment, in order, so to speak, "to see it on its way".
  I have been looking into the question of what is involved here, and, in particular, the value of such an extremely generous hand-out to the Government's political pals, not so much in terms of revenue as in terms of the capital value of the stolen routes, regarding them, as they must be, as income-producing assets. These are rather technical matters on which even eminent chartered accountants offer widely differing views, as happened when eminent firms of chartered account ants had occasion recently to investigate the affairs of Pergamon and one of our colleagues lately in the House.
  I took the opportunity to consult a friend of mine, a qualified accountant to know what in his opinion was the capital value of these revenue-producing assets, that is, the routes which are about to be stolen from B.O.A.C. I was rather surprised that his answer was: certainly not less than £15 million. I am not qualified in these matters. Suffice it to say that there is a great deal of money involved in these routes in terms of assets capable of producing sums of that kind.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster rose—
  Mr. Kerr: Certainly, it is—
  Mr. Onslow: Give way.
  Mr. Kerr: When I come to the end of this passage. I have prepared careful notes, and I shall stick to them, if I am allowed to get on.
  Certainly, it is far too much money for even the present Government to ask the British taxpayer to fork out.
  Mr. McMaster: Which routes did the hon. Gentleman refer to his accountant, and what figure did he take for the profitability of those routes?
  Mr. Kerr: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Obviously, I was leaving it in a fairly general form because, until we know precisely—[Laughter.]—all we have to go on is the agreed figure of £6 million revenue produced from the routes which are to be stolen.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): If the routes concerned cost £7 million to run although the revenue was £6 million, would the hon. Gentleman's chartered accountant still think they were worth £15 million?
  Mr. Kerr: I have more faith in the ability to look after their follow up that ridiculous suggestion.
  Mr. Onslow: Read that last bit again, Russell.
  Mr. Kerr: It was good, was not it? It is interesting that hon. Members opposite have been so quick to deliver on their promise to their friends and backers outside the House.
  The question has already been touched on, and answered by the Minister, about whether these routes are to pass on a once-for-all basis. Having heard the Minister today, and recalling the reply of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 9th November to a Question put by my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr Barnes), I am totally dissatisfied with what the Minister said. I hope that we shall have some clarification. I am sure that the House is every bit as dissatisfied as I am
  280
  with the present situation, when we have two senior Ministers in violent contradiction one with another. I believe that it was the Answer of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 9th November which was the truth, but I should like that confirmed by the Government spokesman tonight.
  This has created in the mind of many people—certainly among many of us on this side of the House—the suspicion that someone has been lying. We are left to choose between Government spokesmen as to who it is, either the President of the Board of Trade as he then was, and his Minister of State, on 3rd August and subsequently, or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is, in my opinion, intolerable that the House should be left in that kind of doubt.
  The one thing certain about the powers which the Bill would bestow on the Government is that they would have no trouble at any future time in handing over B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. routes in addition to those presently being discussed. This is the aspect which worries me. One can almost predict when that sort of thing will happen. It will come as soon as the new airline runs into difficulties and learns the hard way that the world of international airline operation is a tough world, and certainly no place for a feather-bedded bunch of Johnnie-come-latelys who are heavily under-financed and almost wholly dependent on political favours from a Tammany Hall-style Government, who, happily, are unlikely to last for any great time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), the former President of the Board of Trade, state unequivocally that the next Labour Government, which, we pray, will come very soon, would be totally committed to the renationalisation of the stolen routes, without compensation to the robber barons.
  My advice—these people have been referred to—to those in the City and elsewhere who are currently licking their lips at the prospect of a plate of thick cream handed to them by their ever-loyal friends in the House—I am looking especially at one or two hon. Members directly opposite now—would be to "cool it". I say that particularly—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—to the right hon.

  281
  Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the present Home Secretary, who until recently had close connections with the merchant banking firm of Kleinwort Benson, which, through its investment trusts, is one of the principal new backers of Caledonian-B.U.A., according, at least, to Flight magazine of 29th October. Such people might, perhaps, save themselves a lot of money if they take my advice and pull out of this nefarious enterprise before they get their fingers burnt on the return of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Adley rose—
  Mr. Kerr: As one who had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Cyril Kleinwort when he came before the Select Committee which investigated the Bank of England recently, I should be greatly grieved to see him queuing up for his social security benefit as a result of heeding the Home Secretary's advice rather than mine.
  I turn to another aspect of the Government's proposals which has had too little attention, namely, the repercussive effects and the damage that would be done to B.O.A.C.'s competitiveness if, for example, some of the Corporation's East or west African routes were handed over to Caledonian-B.U.A., as has been strongly rumoured and as has been suggested in the debate. It is well known that a considerable volume of traffic comes to B.O.A.C. because it can offer trans-Atlantic clients, especially Americans, a through service via London, Heathrow to various points in Africa and elsewhere. If these African routes were handed over to the new operator, there is little doubt that a sizeable part of that business would be lost completely to British aviation, public or private. Not only would there be reluctance on the part of prospective customers to commit themselves to a private, relatively untried operator, but as a matter of sheer convenience they would avoid if possible the rather messy changeover from Heathrow to Gatwick, where the Caledonian-B.U.A. terminal exists.
  This is one of the answers to those who claim that with two sales outlets British operators are certain to increase the total number of passengers they carry. Such arguments are not only self-interested and therefore suspect, but they fail to take sufficient account of the infinite com-
  282
  plexity of airline operations and the many pitfalls far Conservative Ministers who, from the goodness of their hearts, want only to reward their friends and political backers.
  Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kerr: I have given way quite enough already.
  I should like to touch briefly on an aspect of the wretched story which has been kept very largely from view, or at least from the general public's view. I refer to the fact that the growth sector in civil aviation, at least for the next few years, is almost certain to be the charter market, rather than scheduled services, a fact well supported by the story of Caledonian's growth in recent times. This being so, naturally B.O.A.C., in spite of the difficulties it encounters from being one of our scheduled service flag-carriers, is anxious to maintain its position in this part of the international market. But to do so will almost certainly require new and additional equipment, especially Boeing 727 and 737 aircraft, which are expensive items and which will probably require temporary financial assistance from whatever Government are then in power for their purchase.
  In view of the stated determination of the present Government to give route priority to the new airline and generally to ensure the commercial success of their friends' new enterprise, it is hardly conceivable that that type of financial help will be forthcoming from them. So a further body blow will have been struck at B.O.A.C., no doubt to the delight of the Conservative Party and all who view successful publicly-owned enterprise as anathema.
  The only people who may not be pleased are the taxpayers, who may have to pick up the bill for the salami-type destruction of a great national asset in the interests of a group of hard-faced and greedy men who, as has been said before, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  Mr. Adley rose—
  Mr. Kerr: I am coming to my final point, and I do not want to delay the House by yielding to inconsequential interruptions.

  283
  My final point has to do with the men and women employed in the industry, numbering many thousands, who help to make such a great success of the great British industry. As one who has not only had the privilege of representing a great number of them in Parliament but who is also an executive member of one of the principal airline unions, I warn the Government that they are building a heap of red-hot coals around their heads if they go ahead with this filching of hard-earned public assets in the interests of their political friends and backers.
  Already this year we have seen the sort of stuff these people are made of. Last February about 14,000 of them attended a demonstration rally in Brent-ford football stadium to protest over the G.A.S. issue, which in their opinion, as in mine, represented a gross imposition on them by the present management of the British Airports Authority. Whether or not hon. Members share the view of the workers involved in that issue, who are largely the same people as are involved in this argument, I can assure the House that the demonstration on that day last February will pale into insignificance by comparison with the struggle which lies ahead of the Government on the issue of this bastard child conceived in sin, the second-force airline. Knowing them as I do, I must tell the Government that from the highest to the lowest the workers in both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are determined to resist these proposals to the limit. Not only do they see these class-conscious proposals as a threat to their livelihood; their very British sense of fair play has been outraged [Interruption.]
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few minutes ago you quite rightly rebuked me for making sedentary observations on the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who is now giggling. It would be invidious if the strictures were restricted to one side of the House, so may I ask you to exercise the same degree of control over hon. Members opposite as on hon. Members on this side?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Mr. Loughlin: It is a point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that it is not a point of criticism of the Chair. Interventions only create further delay.
  Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. It is a valid point of order in that it deals with the procedures of the House. I am not seeking to criticise the Chair. I am seeking to have demonstrated that the same kind of strictures as were applied to me shall be applied to any other hon. Member, whether on the opposite side of the House or this. There is no criticism of the Chair, except that if the Chair applies strictures in relation to conduct it must apply the same strictures to other hon. Members, otherwise it is manifestly unfair. I submit that during the time my hon. Friend has been speaking there has been the same kind of conduct as that for which I received censure, and there has been not one word of stricture. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you apply strictures to me it is imperative that you do so to other hon. Members, on whichever side of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will certainly apply such strictures wnenever it hears what appears to be a continuous running commentary. The hon. Gentleman may be assured of that.
  Mr. Kerr: Perhaps I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest. I have learned to live with the giggling of the hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and Woking. Far from finding it a distraction, I have come to look forward to the giggling which is regularly a background to most of the speeches I make here, particularly from those two hon. Members.
  If hon. Members opposite doubt the truth of what I have just said—and I imagine that many will have forgotten it—I suggest that they go outside the Chamber and talk to some of my friends and constituents who are in the Lobby expressing a point of view to various hon. Members on this subject, but the only thing I would suggest is that if they do go there, it would be as well to hide their identity, because this is no time to be having an unscheduled by-election.
  In the interests of industrial peace and of the future of what I, at any rate, unlike the giggling hon. Members opposite,

  285
  regard as a great British industry, I desperately appeal to the Government to throw away just this once their ideological prejudice on this issue and thus make posible, for the general health of British aviation, a chance for it again to hold its head high as one of the world leaders, and certainly the leader in this country of an industry vital to our prosperity.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I will not comment to any great extent on what the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) has said, except to point out the error of his remark that B.U.A. and Caledonian, in their merger, are the blue-eyed boys of the present Government. It is extraordinary how the Opposition have completely lost sight of the fact that they engineered the association. They seem conveniently to have lost sight of that fact, but nevertheless it was they and not the present Government who started the negotiations between B.U.A. and Caledonian.
  The hon. Member talked about money bags and the barons on this side of the House. But a good number of barons were created by the Labour Government only recently, so the creation of barons does not apply to one side of the House only.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me clearly. I said "The robber barons".
  Mr. Burden: That is an interesting remark, but if there are robber barons on this side I would like to know who they are so that I can keep my hands in my pockets when they are around. I hope that he will tell us if he really knows some robber barons on this side.
  I listened with considerable interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend and I welcome the fact that a single independent civil aviation authority is to be set up and that it will have the control over the allocation of routes and various other matters. I know that we shall have further clarification in the weeks ahead. I hope the authority will have flexibility, power and independence from Government intervention.
  I had serious concern about the Air Transport Licensing Board when it was set up because I always felt that, in the background, for political or other con-
  286
  siderations, the Minister responsible could overthrow its decisions which had been taken after due consideration and in the light of what it believed to be in the interest of British civil aviation without looking at the political aspects. What I feared would happen did happen.
  As the House is aware, I was a director of British Eagle International. The board gave that company the right to fly the North Atlantic, albeit with very limited security and on a very limited sequence. There was, of course, tremendous pressure from B.O.A.C., and the Conservative Minister of the day threw out the board's decision. He withdrew the authority which it had given to British Eagle. From that day to this, in my view, the board has always had to be looking over its shoulder, no matter what decision it has made, in order to try to consider what might be the view of the Minister in the background. This has been no good at all for British civil aviation at any stage. I believe that it has caused a great deal of apprehension and many problems.
  Some hon. Members opposite try to give the impression that for the independents there are different standards of safety from those operating for the Corporation. They know that this is not true and I wish that they would stop endeavouring to imply it, unless they have a specific case of where this has been so and where the inspection authority has fallen down on its job. If it has, that is not the fault of the operators but of the A.R.B.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I speak in my capacity as air safety adviser to the British Safety Council. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Jay Review Special Report of 1967, he will see that on page after page the statement is made that the safety record of the independents is not as good as that of the two Corporations.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is going back a very long time and I would like to see this matter brought up to date, because safety regulations have been tightened. Let us deal as much as we can with the present situation. What I am complaining about that hon. Members opposite are now stating this as if it were a fact today. I regret I have not

  287
  read that report in full, but my own experience of the facts is that the independents right across the board have been every bit as jealous of safety and that it has been enforced as strongly by them as by the Corporations in the past.
  Mr. Tebbit: This issue of safety is a canard which should be nailed once and for all, and today is as good a time as any. If the record is examined, it will be found that there was a period when independent companies were so financially constrained that they were using cast off aircraft which related to a previous era when safety standards were lower, and clearly the safety standards related to the aircraft and not to the operators. There is no question that now that the independent operators are using aircraft like the BAC111 their record is as good as any, and if hon. Members opposite care to look outside this country they will find that some of the finest safety records are in North America, where the airlines do not have the benefit of being mucked about by their Governments.
  Mr. Burden: Interventions with such a knowledgeable background are extremely valuable not only to me but to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), who is an expert on safety, has paid great regard to the experience of an airline pilot with a considerable number of flying hours. I am sure that the message will have got home to him very strongly and that he will have welcomed it, because I know that he is as receptive as he is argumentative on occasions.
  Of course, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and the Labour Government, or certain members of the Labour Party, took every possible step they could on every possible occasion to stop any strengthening of the independent airlines. But the Edwards Committee realised quite frankly the difficulties of the independents and recognised that they could play a very important part in the future of British aviation. So it suggested, and came out most strongly for, a second force. Indeed the Edwards Committee's Report must have been very carefully considered by the Labour Government and it must have impressed them. Whatever Labour Members may say this afternoon, the Labour Government made it perfectly clear that
  288
  they wanted to set up a second force airline. Indeed, they took steps to ensure that there would be a second force airline which would be privately owned and backed by private capital.
  The demise of British Eagle was very sad. Many people remember it with nostalgia and affection, not only in this country, but in airports throughout the world. Messages were received from all over the world, and the people of Bermuda in particular made their feelings perfectly clear. British Eagle showed what the independents could do. B.O.A.C. would not operate a mid-Atlantic route, but British Eagle decided to do so, and within a short time it was a very profitable route. That is one indication of developments undertaken by an independent under great difficulty and with considerable problems.
  Labour Members have suggested that B.U.A. has experience and expertise in scheduled flights. It also sponsored the VC10 which B.O.A.C. was not prepared to support. Today, the VC10 is one of the greatest aircraft in the world. If I am wrong in that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping will intervene to say so. The VC10 is an aircraft in which people like to fly and which they much prefer to its competitors. It was sponsored by B.U.A., and that demonstrates one of the advantages of independence.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. No doubt when he speaks he will be able to give the complete lie to what I am saying by facts and figures and from his experience in the airline business, either in administraton or in flying. No doubt he will be able to give the lie to what I have said—I have some knowledge; not a lot and I have much to learn, but I am always prepared to learn—and to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) who spent many years flying. No doubt the hon. Member, who has flair and colour but lacks experience will be able to give the complete lie to our more mundane remarks which are based on some experience.
  Caledonian has been successfully built up on the exploitation of the charter market. Why do Labour Members now object to the setting up of a second

  289
  force? I shall later refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) who was President of the Board of Trade in the Labour Government. Why do Labour Members now object so strongly to a proposal which before the election seemed to have virtue? Why has it suddenly become a prostitute? The lady has not changed her character, but at this stage it has become wicked and evil even to talk about it.
  The real Socialists have made their position clear all along the line, and it is something we all understand: they are against any competition. They believe not only in preserving the State industry as it is, but extending it as far and as wide as they can. But that is not and has not been the position of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it had been, they would have started to nationalise many more industries during their six years of office. The real Socialists must be very disappointed men, and somewhere within the ranks of the Labour Party there must be a clash.
  What has interested me has been the attitude that by setting up a second force, for which it is proposed to give away at the most not more than £6 million of the route income now obtained by B.O.A.C., the Government will somehow murder the giant B.O.A.C. and/or B.E.A. if it is interested in the routes concerned. How weak that giant must be! What feet of clay it must possess! Is this an airline of which we can be proud? Is this an airline able to stand up to the fiercest competition in the world, an airline which will collapse because £6 million of its route income is lost? Let us get it into perspective: it is no quite as bad as that. I give way to the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) who has not been here all the time.
  Mr. Marsh: I apologise for not being here all the time. I was here earlier to listen to both opening speeches.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this was not the argument. The argument which has been accepted by most hon. Members on both sides of the House is that expropriation, whether of private or public assets, cannot be defended. These are public assets being expropriated.
  Mr. Burden: I shall use the arguments which suit me. I shall put the arguments which I believe to be valid. I am too old a bird to be caught by that, as the right hon. Gentleman should know.
  When the Labour Party was in power, right hon. Gentlemen opposite carried out the wishes of some of their socialistic friends to some extent and they did everything they could without completely destroying the independents. They slowly starved them to death. They took every step to make it impossible for them to continue. They withdrew the trooping which had been so important to the independents. They made it possible for the Corporations to go into the charter market. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the holiday allowance to £50, which caused tremendous losses to the independents. These were some of the actions of the Labour Government which got the airlines into their present serious difficulties.
  The independent company with which I was associated, the Eagle Company, introduced package holidays to this country and made it possible for thousands of people to enjoy holidays abroad more cheaply than ever before. Hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Nuneaton, have spoken of equipment. The hon. Member for Nuneaton knows full well that any airline today must have a viable cash flow and income and assets that provide it with the ability to re-equip itself with aircraft which will enable it to compete with any other airlines.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why 25 independent aviation operators have gone bust since 1960.
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman had been as bright as I thought he was he would have realised that most of their income had been taken away when trooping was taken away, when charter flights were taken away and the £50 holiday allowance was introduced. That stopped many people going on holiday and cut back the routes.
  Mr. Huckfield indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has not got much of a business head. He may know a lot about air safety, but he does not know a

  291
  lot about business. It does not matter what the airline is, it must have a viable route system to exist.
  I turn now to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Barnsley. It is extraordinary the way that the Leader of the Opposition is putting some of his right hon. Friends in the hot seat. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who declared in this House that it was vital for the country to have an Industrial Relations Act, is now saying that this was rubbish—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Second Reading debates are wide, but not as wide as that.
  Mr. Burden: I was merely drawing an analogy. I will make the point about the right hon. Member. Now we have the President of the Board of Trade—
  Mr. Mason: Thank you.
  Mr. Burden: —for whom I have a great deal of affection—we have the ex-President of the Board of Trade. My affection for him is so great that I had forgotten about his change. Today the same right hon. Gentleman who came to this House and said that there must be no union between B.U.A. and B.O.A.C., who said that he would not allow it because there had to be a second force airline consisting of B.U.A. and Caledonian, today comes to the House and says that that was a nonsense. The seats of some hon. Gentlemen opposite might be a little more comfortable if they could be shuffled around a bit so that they do not have to answer today for the things they said yesterday.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman, along with only one or two of his hon. Friends, as is evidenced by the sparse attendance opposite, knows that the White Paper policy was quite clear, that we welcomed the emergence of a second force by amalgamation but not on the basis of route transfers from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. That is clear and has been spelled out in speeches and questions from that Dispatch Box when I was President of the Board of Trade. The Government are using a dastardly technique to launch this second force, carving up B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and that is where we part company.
  Mr. Burden: What faith can this House or the country have in what is written in White Papers when the day after a White Paper there is a complete reversal or another White Paper which completely reverses the decision of the previous?
  When the right hon. Gentleman was President of the Board of Trade he had a position of responsibility. Now he can be a real Socialist and pander to his friends and expose his complete irresponsibility. Quite seriously, the hon. Member for Nuneaton would have occupied the right hon. Member's position this afternoon much more comfortably. The right hon. Gentleman should have come to the House this afternoon draped in a white sheet, but instead he is here trying to bluff. There has been a lot of bravado and, I regret to say, not a little hypocrisy in view of the previous Government's attitude.
  They say we are hiving off State assets, the assets of the Corporations. In the airline industry, as in many other industries, many people are beginning to wonder whether there is any virtue or value in their owning these industries. They are wondering whether it will bring them any benefit, whether they are saving money as a result and getting a better service. Let us not hide from ourselves the fact that there is a great deal of criticism and dissillusion.
  As to the remarks about the trade unions, hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well not to try to stir up strife there. Would they have adopted the same attitude towards this operation if the policy that they had put forward had been approved? Of course not, and they know it. This is a purely political manoeuvre. I do not believe that the trade unionists will oppose the second force, I do not believe that they will obstruct it. They will see it go on. It is not necessary to give B.U.A.-Caledonian a wide spread of routes. What is necessary is that it should have routes on which there is a possibility of an earning capacity which would enable it to equip the airline. After all, it will represent Britain. It should have the latest aircraft. One of the first considerations, along with the routes, is the frequency that will be allowed upon those routes. If airlines are to make profits it is necessary not only that they should have the routes with a reasonable traffic density but that they

  293
  should be able to keep their aircraft flying.
  B.O.A.C. will resist this and we understand that. Just as the Labour Government was determined to create a second force airline, so too are we. But whereas it was the deliberate intention of the party opposite to create a second force airline purely and simply as a gesture and then do everything possible to drive it into the ground, we are determined to ensure that it will be a success. Today air power is as vital to our future as was maritime power in the past. The air is a considerable and constant growth area. It is essential to the future of this country, irrespective of what hon. Gentlemen opposite call political dogmatisms, from a pure commercial point of view that our airlines are able, as they do, to compete with the best in the world and to continue to carry as great a proportion of the world's traffic as possible.
  I make one final point which is a great indictment of the right hon. Member for Barnsley. The right hon. Gentleman said that if we make this airline viable by giving it some routes then, when Labour is returned to Government, they will take them away. Earlier this evening the right hon. Gentleman talked about cutting the limbs off B.O.A.C. Mr. Clive Jenkins talked about stripping the flesh off B.O.A.C. The right hon. Gentleman has, in effect, said that although they were in favour of setting up a second force airline, if it is set up and now made viable they will ensure not only that it loses its limbs and that every bit of flesh is taken off it, but that, when they come to the skeleton, it will be crushed under a sledgehammer.
  I do not believe that the party opposite will have that power. I believe that it will be in the wilderness for many years. If and when it does come to power I believe that there will be a viable second force airline of which this nation can be proud and they will not dare dismantle it.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Barnes: The Minister for Trade was not very convincing this afternoon when he said that the Bill was being introduced not because the Government had doubts whether they had power to transfer these routes, but to forestall arguments taking
  294
  place that might delay the transfer of the routes.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. If they have power to transfer these routes the Bill is not necessary. Alternatively, if the Government fear that they will be held up by litigation, this is a good indication that the powers which they have at the moment are inadequate. I think that it is doubtful whether the Government have this power.
  Section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act, 1967, gives the Government power to
  "limit the powers of the corporation … as they think desirable in the public interest".
  That Section was not intended to apply to air routes. The Government ought to admit that they do not have power at the moment, that they will not have power until this Bill becomes law, and that they are bringing it in to force through a transfer of routes against the wishes of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
  It is not much of an advertisement for the picture of private industry, which hon. Gentleman opposite like to hold out and for which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry got such cheers at the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool, that the only way to persuade private industry to have a go at a second force airline is to say, "Here is £6 million worth of your competitors' business to set you on your way".
  What happens if it does not work out like that and this new airline runs into difficulties? When the deal was announced in August serious doubts were expressed whether it would be viable. The Economist at that time took the view that the Government had offered the independent airlines
  "the bare minimum to keep them alive, not enough to guarantee them a commercial future."
  I was glad to hear the Minister for Trade this afternoon give an assurance that the Government would not contemplate making more orders under the Bill to transfer more routes. But the Bill gives the Secretary of State, at any point, power to make further orders to transfer other routes from B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. to the new second force airline. If this is done it will weaken B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. even more than it is weakening them at the moment and will make it

  295
  harder for them to compete on international routes. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State winds up he will firm up that statement made by his right hon. Friend in his opening speech.
  I believe that B.O.A.C. should have been allowed to take over B.U.A. Both the airlines wanted this at the beginning of the year. It was the natural course of events. It would have been good for British aviation and would have strengthened the airline's position in the world. It would also have been in the interests of people in the industry.
  But this merger of B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. was prevented by the politicians. I find little difference between the attitude taken by the Government and that adopted by my own party when in Government The Labour Government favoured the setting up of an independent second force airline. This Government, of course, favours the setting up of a similar independent second force airline. The only difference between those attitudes is that the Labour Government did not accept that this should be done by a significant transfer of routes from B.O.A.C. Indeed, the White Paper, Cmnd. 4213, published in November, 1969 states:
  "The Government would also welcome the emergence of a 'second force' airline, formed by the amalgamation of two or more existing independent carriers, but cannot accept that the formation of such an airline should be made conditional upon the transfer to it of a significant part of the Air Corporation's route networks."
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself. If he believes that with the transfer of these routes this second force may or may not be viable, how could it be viable without them?
  Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my argument. I think that my argument may appeal to him more than he may think at the moment if I may develop it.
  A similar comment to that in the White Paper was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in the House on 12th November, 1969, when he said:
  "But we do not accept that the creation of such an airline should be made conditional on the transfer of a significant part of the air corporation's routes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 411.]
  296
  My right hon. Friend has already quoted part of what he said in his speech in the debate on 18th March, but he did not quote the statement a little later in his speech when he said that he could not believe that the wholesale transfer of routes such as B.U.A. had sought made any kind of sense at all. The implication to me, and I think to some of my hon. Friends, of the use of the words "significant" and "wholesale", on which great emphasis was placed in the White Paper and in the statement and speech to which I have referred, is that it was clear that the Labour Government envisaged some kind of transfer of routes. This must surely follow from the great emphasis on and constant repetition of the words "significant" and "wholesale".
  Mr. Burden: We have been trying to get out of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) exactly to what extent they intended to transfer routes. The right hon. Gentleman now denies that there was any intention to transfer any routes and says that they will take them all away if they get back.
  Mr. Barnes: If, as I believe, the Labour Government were contemplating a transfer of routes, the question then arises: would the transfer have been enough for the independent second force airline to be viable? In view of the doubts which the Economist had about the transfer of £6 million worth of business, surely there must have been even graver doubts about the viability of the transfer of a lesser amount of business?
  The question then arises whether the Labour Government were serious at all about the proposal to set up an independent second force airline, and here I should like to refer to an article in the Sunday Times of 9th August, 1970. This was written shortly after the announcement by the Government, and it dealt with the whole issue in depth. The authors of the article at one point quote a comment which they had obtained from an ex-Minister in the former Labour Government. They do not say who it was, but they say that he said:
  "There was never any intention of helping to create a second force. We only put the idea in to knock it down."
  Some people may say that that was a devilish clever bit of politics, but that is not what I would say. This is a style

  297
  of decision making which I detest, and which I believe my Government inclined to on more than one occasion.
  It is a thoroughly sound principle in politics never to give the wrong reasons for anything that one is proposing to do. If someone fears that the real reasons are unconvincing, the wrong reasons will be even more unconvincing. If someone has doubts about doing something, he should not do it. But if he overcomes those doubts then he must have the courage of the decision that he has made, and he must state the real reasons for taking that decision.
  My own feeling is that this hiving off of routes is most retrograde. I regret to say this, but I believe that we have our own Labour Government to thank almost as much for it as the present Conservative Government, because our Government took the initial steps that have culminated in the Bill being brought before the House today. I regard this as a retrograde step. It will weaken Britain's position in the forefront of world aviation. To achieve the highest standards of safety and efficiency it is necessary for airlines to be big. The State airlines have done magnificently in this respect. These things cannot be achieved on the cheap, and I believe that the Bill, by seeking to hive off these routes to this independent second force airline, is jeopardising so much that has been achieved in British aviation by the State airlines. For that reason I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill tonight.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. James Hill: I, too, must declare an interest, though a past one. I had the pleasure of serving with B.O.A.C. for 11 years during, if I may say so, the golden era of flying immediately after the war, and perhaps B.O.A.C.'s bias towards pioneering routes has made it naturally very protective.
  Immediately after the war the Lancastrian and Halifax and flying boats, with virtually cannibalised R.A.F. equipment, were flying these routes, and naturally B.O.A.C. must feel quite possessive. The losses on the Princess flying boat were a great blow to B.O.A.C. The Brabazon was a second failure in which B.O.A.C. had placed a lot of faith. Following that there were the tragedies on the B.S.A.A.
  298
  routes to South America. There was the loss of the Star Tiger, and several other planes, which even now people are saying was sabotage. It might have been at the time. Nevertheless, all that made B.O.A.C. very possessive, quite rightly so from its point of view, and perhaps quite rightly so from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The fact that we have to face is that we are now in a modern age, when routes are no longer being pioneered. Routes must be commercially viable. Only the other evening the Chairman of B.E.A. told a group of Members of Parliament that he agreed that any route of less than 500 miles must be a loss leader. I think that we were all horrified to hear that at the time. One or two people asked, "Who picks loss leaders?" and the Chairman had to say, according to his brief, that he had to pick these routes and maintain them regardless of the fact that they were not commercially viable.
  The thought which occurred to some of my colleagues was, "Why confine this to B.O.A.C.? Why not see whether B.E.A. would like some of its loss leaders hived off?". It may be that B.E.A. will come forward in the future and hand over some of its routes to this second force airline. I hope that it will. If the second force airline can make a success of the South American routes, as was done in the past by Eagle and B.U.A., why should it not make a success of the short hauls on which B.E.A. has admitted it is losing money?
  Perhaps I could make a suggestion to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let us not all the time think of routes of an international flavour for Caledonian-B.U.A. Let us remember that some of the most profitable routes that were built up in the past were achieved through B.O.A.C.-subsidised companies. I can think of many of them. I have in mind Aden Airways and Arab Airways, and no doubt hon. Members can think of many more. I suggest that it is routes such as those which a conglomerate like B.O.A.C. might want to have taken over by Caledonian-B.U.A., but there is this possessive nature of B.O.A.C. about pioneering routes and I can understand why the Corporation is reluctant to release them.
  It is surprising to me how we can talk on this subject until ten o'clock, because

  299
  this is a very simple issue. We are talking this evening about £6 million gross. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) said that he had got his accountants to find out the capital value of these routes and was told that they were worth £15 million. They are very good accountants, unless one is paying income tax. Whatever the value of these routes—and we do not know where they are—if there is a second force airline, and if we are looking to it as a national emblem, we must support it in any way that we can.
  The hon. Member for Feltham has tried to create the impression that B.O.A.C. will stagger under this fatal blow to the heart, that it will barely recover from the hiving off of this gigantic portion of its empire. When one breaks down the figures one finds that it is a simple hiving off of £6 million worth of business, and B.O.A.C. has said that each year it can look forward to a 15 per cent. increase in its routes and revenues. I believe that within six months B.O.A.C. will have recovered from this "dastardly blow", as I think it was called earlier.
  What I think is appalling—and I am sure that my hon. Friends agree with me about this—is that every time we try to do something to implement our policies we get a threat from the other side, "Watch out. If you do that, when we get back to office we will make you all suffer." That kind of attitude will bring instability to the money market. It will not support Caledonian-B.U.A. if there are threats of that kind.
  An Hon. Member: That is what they are after.
  Mr. Hill: If that is the idea, we must let it be known that we shall support Caledonian-B.U.A. as much as we can within our terms of office. Certainly I look forward to many years, as I am sure my right hon. Friends do.
  Trooping contracts were mentioned. It so happens that, by a complete coincidence, I had lunch today with an ex-stewardess of Eagle Airlines and her husband. She mentioned that trooping contracts were the one thing that kept that airline prosperous in those days. I suggest that that was part of the former Government plan to reduce the indepen-
  300
  dents to a very minor level; in fact, it was said earlier that not only was this a salami-type destruction of B.O.A.C.—whatever that means—but that Caledonia/B.U.A. would not be able to go to the money markets for the re-equipping of the airline that must follow. I particularly made that point to the Chairman of Caledonia/B.U.A. at the meeting that I mentioned earlier. He reassured me and said that if that airline can keep the routes that it has been offered and receives the co-operation of the Government it will not have to ask the Government for any further financing.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) made a slight mistake in that he read the wrong Section of the Act when he said that he could see no connection between it and the question of particulars of flights. The Act is the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960, and the relevant Section is Section 1(3), which reads:
  "The Minister may by regulations provide that paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection shall not apply to flights of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, and may by instrument in writing exempt from the requirements … any other particular flight or series of flights."
  That is the Section that deals with the A.L.T.B. requirements.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick also said that B.U.A. was most anxious to join B.O.A.C., and that B.O.A.C. was most anxious to have B.U.A. under its wing. Let us remember the stern facts of the situation. B.U.A. was facing a severe crisis. B.O.A.C., with its part-time board members, was only too anxious to get as much under its wing as possible. At that time B.U.A. had nowhere else to turn. Was it not natural that it should be anxious? I suggest that far from doing B.O.A.C. a service by allowing it to take over B.U.A. we should help B.O.A.C. to the degree of allowing a second force airline not only to take over the £6 million worth of routes but to look deeper into the problem and perhaps help B.O.A.C. with some of its subsidiary routes.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: I shall comment on only one speech by an hon. Member opposite, whose name I shall not mention, which reminded me of a precept that I was given before I came

  301
  to Parliament, namely, "If you can't strike oil in 15 minutes, stop boring."
  As is my wont, I shall be brief. The Conservatives have always cast greedy eyes on nationalised industry. That is not a new thing. I cannot understand my hon. and right hon. Friends holding up their hands in horror at this move. It is part of our criminal law that if a man is accused of a crime evidence can be given of similar acts if they form part of a system—and this is a system. This is not the first time that the Conservatives have done this sort of thing. They did it in transport. They saw that road transport was the strong sister and the railways were the weak sister, so they hived off road transport to private enterprise and left the weak sister to fend for herself. They did it with S. G. Brown of Watford—the famous manufacturer of gyroscopes. When it was nationalised it was making a profit every year. The Conservatives cast their greedy eyes on it and gave it to private enterprise in the late 1950s, against the remonstrations of the Labour Opposition.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Member be fair and admit that these industries were built up by private enterprise and that it was his party that cast greedy eyes upon them?
  Mr. Tuck: No. I shall admit nothing of the kind. They were profitable under public enterprise, and the Conservatives cast their greedy eyes on them. They were warned that if they denationalised them and gave them to private enterprise serious consequences would ensue—and they did, because when S. G. Brown was given over to private enterprise it made loss after loss, until it disintegrated a few years ago. Unfortunately, the Labour Government did not have the guts to take it back into public ownership. I disagreed with them on that point. I said so on many occasions and in a speech in the House.
  We now have the same kind of thing. Incidentally, it is curious that the Government do not know which way they are going. First, we hear a lot about a soft, sodden morass and lame ducks and are told that we must not help the lame ducks at all and that "industry must stand on its own two feet", but then,
  302
  practically in the same breath, the Government inject millions of £s into Rolls-Royce and are now going to help Caledonia/B.U.A.
  We cannot expect the Government to know which way they are going when they speak with a double voice. Somebody may write a book in the near future, with apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson, about, "The Strange Government of Dr. Edward and Mr. Heath." We cannot expect the Government to be consistent but we can expect them to be honest. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) cast doubts upon the late Labour Government. Be that as it may, we are not judging this Government by the actions of a former Labour Government; we are judging them on their actions today. In my submission, they are far from honest.
  Under our law, if a servant takes the property of his master and appropriates it to his own use or to the use of another person for his own purposes he is guilty of the offence called embezzlement and may be sent to prison for a long stretch. Here the public servant is taking the property of his master—the public—and misappropriating it to his own use, or the use of private enterprise. If such a thing is done on a small scale the offender may be put in prison, but this is being done on a large scale and the Government can therefore get away with it. It is nothing less than public embezzlement on a large scale and the Government should be ashamed of their dastardly action, which should arouse the contempt of every decent thinking member of society.
  Mr. Tebbit: It ill becomes any member of a party that presided over the most fantastic embezzlement of money through inflation to talk about embezzlement in terms of transferring from one person to another traffic routes that had no fixed asset value and have never been purchased or sold before.
  Mr. Tuck: First, we are not judging the actions of past Labour Government. We are judging the actions of the present Conservative Government, who come before us with the Bill. Secondly, the resources of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. were built up by public money, public taxation. They are public property and it is absolutely dishonest to appropriate them to the use of some other party.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) will excuse me if I do not follow too closely the short but powerful arguments he has made. I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), who I am sure will have earned the respect of hon. Members on all sides of the House, for what he saw to be the somewhat dubious actions of the previous Government in seeking to introduce a Bill for the second force airline.
  We on this side can be honest in stating our reasons for wanting to introduce a second force airline. We believe in competition. It is understandable that the Government, who did not believe in competition, should be criticised by some of their back benchers for seeking to introduce competition into the airline industry. We believe in competition, enterprise, and fairness for all airlines in Britain, not just the nationalised airlines, in respect of applications for route licences.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman has said that he believes in competition. If one of these new airlines competes successfully and drives the other out, will he then resurrect a second airline to have fair competition?
  Mr. Adley: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was here when the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick made his remarks. The tone of his remarks, as a Labour Party back bencher, was that he found it hard to respect his Front Bench for introducing a Bill which they did not believe in. We on this side of the House have no difficulties in supporting our Government.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We did not introduce any Bill. We published a White Paper which sets out clearly and in some detail our attitude to the question of the merger of independents, with a view to a second force, progressively but without a precondition of assured routes being set up.
  Mr. Adley: I shall not prolong this discussion. I agree with and respect the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick for what he said.
  304
  I have been speaking for about three minutes, with two minutes of interruptions. A new British civil airline is one of the most exciting prospects facing us. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Apart from anything else, it represents the policy on which the Conservative Party went to the country. That is not a bad reason for supporting a Bill when it comes before the House so quickly.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to delight in telling us that it is immoral to create an airline by taking away from the State a part of what they consider to be the State's assets, and yet they seem to consider it moral at any time to nationalise or take over any industry which they consider would be better run by nationalisation. We do not believe there is any morality or immorality in nationalisation. We put forward our policies which we believe to be right. The Opposition put forward their policies which they believe to be right. It is unfortunate for the Opposition that we happen to be in Government, but not so unfortunate for the people of this country.
  I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) when he chastised what he called the robber barons of British industry in their connections with Caledonian/B.U.A. I am sorry that he did not give me an opportunity to question him about the worthy part being played in this great Caledonian/B.U.A. enterprise by my predecessor, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Bristol, North-East. It gives me great pleasure to know that he has accepted an invitation to join the board of Caledonian Airways. He will be a great asset to this enterprise, and I wish him every success in his new activity.
  The hon. Member for Feltham told us at great length of the attitude of the trade unions towards this merger. My experience of talking to trade unionists connected with the civil aviation industry is at various levels and it includes talking to stewards and stewardesses on airlines on which I have flown who also happen to be members of trade unions. It is not my impression that there is any clear indication of solid trade union opposition to the Bill. Many people working in the industry welcome this opportunity and the opportunity which it provides for alternative employment. That is one of

  305
  the main advantages which the Bill will offer to those working in the industry.
  I have been involved in the transport, travel and tourist industry for most of my working life. I recognise from the point of view of the customer the great advantages he will have from the choice of yet another British airline to carry him round the world.
  Some weeks ago it was suggested—the criticisms have now been muted—that this new airline had in some way a non-British heritage. I am glad to say that in reply to a Written Question I received the Answer that 57 per cent. of the new airline's operational fleet would be British, as opposed to 50 per cent of B.O.A.C's. present operational fleet.
  On the question of routes, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have seemed to insinuate that the routes which were being transferred from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to the new airline were somehow sacred and that they somehow belonged to those airlines. Those routes do not belong to the airlines but to the nation. Just because for the last 20 years no other airline has succeeded in having its full claims for new routes satisfied, whereas the State Corporations have always succeeded in having their claims for new routes satisfied, and because the tradition has grown up that the nationalised carriers own all the routes, this does not mean that those routes belong to the nationalised carriers.
  I should like to deal with the point about the pioneering spirit of B.O.A.C. We have seen how well that worked on the South American routes. They have not been pioneering. They have been taking advantage of a monopoly situation. The Bristol Bus Company, which has a monopoly when it puts buses on a new route on a housing estate, does not claim to be pioneering but simply taking advantage of its monopoly situation.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would the hon. Gentleman call the North Atlantic route a monopoly, when there are 21 airlines operating on it?
  Mr. Adley: Are there 21 airlines operating across the North Atlantic? I was not aware there were as many. I have travelled on nine myself. I am not sure of the objective of the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Huckfield: About the monopoly.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much turbulence from the hon. Member for Nuneaton. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put a question, he must do so in a Parliamentary manner.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) spoke about the successes of British Eagle, about their difficulties and final dissolution due to inability to obtain routes. As a former director of Eagle, he was too modest to make the point, but perhaps I might illustrate it. When Eagle had its route to Liverpool, it was the first airline to put on jets, while B.E.A. running to Manchester was still operating Vanguards. In addition, Eagle was the only airline to offer a refreshment service on the route. Had the company been able to achieve the route realisation that it requested to enable it to have a firm base for its commercial operations, there is no doubt that the higher standards that it pioneered would have set an example very soon afterwards to the nationalised carrier, which with its inferior service, would have been unable to compete for business.
  Civil aviation and the travel and tourist industry represent one of our major growth industries. The introduction of a third British civil airline will help our competitive position, the spreading of the British flag round the world, and increase the revenue that we receive from tourism. It is with the greatest pleasure that I support the Bill.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), I have never accepted the concept of a second force airline. I could not accept the Edwards Committee's recommendations about a mixed economy in civil aviation and certainly I do not accept that we have a need for or should deliberately go out to create a second force.
  Until the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), there appeared to be very little difference between the two Front Benches. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has returned to the Chamber. I hope that he will not giggle too much. As he pointed

  307
  out, most of the difference appears to reside in paragraph 41 of the Edwards Report.
  The official position on this side of the House has always been that we would rely upon the Civil Aviation Authority to make route transfers, whereas in the Bill we are giving power to the Government to make them. What it comes down to is that the difference between the basic positions of the two Front Benches is that the solution proposed by the Conservative Party is likely to make it happen more quickly.
  As for the political differences between the two parties, I am sorry that the Conservative Party, in the past and now, believes in a second force. I do not accept the need for a second flag carrier and for an airline in competition with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and that is why I do not accept the need for this Bill.
  One or two hon. Members opposite have conveniently neglected the fact that we are discussing our most successful nationalised industry. We are discussing a State-owned undertaking which overall made a gross profit of £31 million last year. We are discussing a State-owned airline which made a higher rate of return on the capital employed than any other international scheduled carrier. Apart from that, we are discussing the world's biggest international scheduled carrier.
  Bearing in mind some of the scruples, aspersions and doubts which hon. Gentlemen opposite cast on nationalised and State-owned enterprise, this side of the House can hold up B.O.A.C. to them as a very good example of what a State-owned enterprise can offer, provided that it is left alone to do its job and is not messed about as it will be by this Bill. If the Bill goes through all its stages, it will contain all the potential necessary to create under our eyes a second British Eagle. We have had one British Eagle fiasco, and we could have another.
  It is curious to hear the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry talking about lame ducks and then, a couple of weeks later, proposing a route transfer of £6 million in public money to a new airline operator. Is he saying that Caledonian-B.U.A. is part of his "sopsodden morass of subsidised incompetence"? Is he saying that we have to
  308
  give out money to private airlines because, just like Rolls-Royce, this private airline is different? Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have changed their tune a bit since 18th June. I can remember that they were saying right up to the election that we did not need this kind of public money in private enterprise.
  Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Huckfield: Seeing that it is the hon. Member for Woking, yes, for a short time.
  Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It will be only for a short time. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is misdirecting himself? We are discussing not £6 million worth of public money but £6 million of route revenue. There is a difference. I think that he might detect it.
  Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his deliberate mistake. He realises of course that this is £6 million of route revenue which the public taxpayer and B.O.A.C. will not get in future.
  Mr. Onslow: It is revenue.
  Mr. Huckfield: I am sorry, but it is revenue lost to a State-owned undertaking.
  With all the talk recently about not giving away public money, this is a complete turn-round for a Government who have said that they will make private enterprise stand on its own two feet. It is the most complete turn-round that we have had from them since last night. I do not know whether the Government intend Caledonian-B.U.A. to start business as a lame duck, but certainly it would fit in with the kind of description that they have been applying to certain of our subsidised private industries.
  My fear arises not from the provisions in the Bill. It is a weak little Bill. It contains only a couple of Clauses and, frankly, it does not deserve all this attention in the House. I am worried about the thinking behind the Bill. The Bill makes possible a direction on the part of the Government telling B.O.A.C. exactly what to do. I cannot think of any other undertaking, State-owned or private, which has the same amount of directive as B.O.A.C. will receive under the Bill.

  309
  Does Pan-Am get this kind of directive? Does President Nixon exercise that sort of control over TWA, Pan-Am or any of the American companies operating the trans-Pacific or Atlantic routes? The fact is that the Government are afraid that private enterprise will go to the wall. After all, they have before them the not-too-shining example of British Eagle.
  In addition to the directives that the Government may give to B.O.A.C. under the Bill, the Minister for Trade has committed himself to saying that Caledonian-B.U.A. will get route priority. It is not only a matter of £6 million of routes. Irrespective of whether it is a once-for-all operation, we are told that, when the second force goes before the Air Transport Licensing Board or its descendant the Civil Aviation Authority, it will get route priority.
  Then we have an even more serious situation developing, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) refer to it. In addition to the Bill's provisions and in addition to the route priority, Adam Thomson has already declared that the second force will have 60 per cent. of its capacity on charter. We all know that the growth sector is in chartering. If B.O.A.C. wants to extend its chartering activities, many of its planes are VC 10's, which are not very good charter aircraft. The VC 10 has not enough seats. If B.E.A. Airtours wants to extend its charter or I.T. operations, it will have to buy new aircraft—737's or 727's—because its Comets are wearing out.
  In other words, we have the possibility that the second force will be already well embedded in the industry's growth sector and, when B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. come before this House for borrowing powers in order that they may buy new aircraft and get into this sector themselves, assuming present rumours are anything to go by, they will be restricted. So we can have, apart from the provisions of the Bill, because of the general presumption behind the Conservative Party's thinking, a situation in the end in which the two Corporations will be left in the static sectors of the market, and the second force, because of its basic charter commitment, in all the growth sectors. That is the thinking behind the Bill and the long-term threat that I see facing B.O.A.C.
  310
  I say that the main topic in civil aviation in the 1970s is not ownership of the 'planes but what kind of flights they operate. It is the whole question of charter versus scheduled flights. That is the main issue to which the House should address itself—not whether it is British Eagle, B.U.A. or Caledonian but how we can resolve the question of how the scheduled lines will reconcile their policies and accounts with the increasing competition from the American supplementals and the British charters. My opinion is that we must have more charters and more group traffics and fewer scheduled flights—except that I want to see B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. maintaining their share of the market.
  But the interesting thing is what will happen if B.U.A.-Caledonian tries to join I.A.T.A. If we are to have some of this second force on international schedule routes, as the Bill will allow, it will have to join I.A.T.A. What will I.A.T.A. say to the fact that, at the beginning of this year, the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States, the basic regulating body for civil aviation in that country, was listing Caledonian as one of the major violators and one of the major participants on the West Coast of the United States against the C.A.B's regulations? We had a situation in which Caledonian was one of five charter carriers accused of over 70,000 violations of American aviation regulations. What is the International Air Transport Association going to say about that?
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that Caledonian has been cleared of these accusations. I hope that he will say that the major component part of this new British second force is not that kind of airline at all. I hope that he will say that the C.A.B. was wrong. Unfortunately, if he does, the C.A.B. will not agree with him.
  The other component part of this second force also, presumably, will have to assume some degree of international respectability. The number of charters cancelled or forced to cancel by the Board of Trade shows that some of the very latest examples have been charters to be flown by B.U.A. If we are to have this second force operating on international scheduled routes, I hope that it will be a little more respectable and will

  311
  respect the rules and regulations more than it has in the past.
  Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Huckfield: I have already given way to the hon. Member, and I would prefer to make my own speech.
  The main basis for the Bill is that we are supposed to want more competition in international civil aviation. One only has to look at the experience which is now confronting every major American domestic carrier, now facing gigantic losses, now seriously examining the possibility of route co-operation instead of competition and of mergers, because they know now that, under the policy of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board, competition in the United States has been proved to have failed, and failed miserably.
  But at the same time, we, under the Bill, are deliberately encouraging more competition. It is still said by hon. Members opposite that competition will increase Britain's market share. I can only quote to hon. Members opposite what has happened on the London-Glasgow route since B.U.A. has been operating. Up until the time that B.E.A. was the sole "flag-carrier" on that route, traffic was growing by 12 per cent. per annum. Since 1966, when B.U.A. has been on the route as well, traffic growth has been stunted to a mere 5 per cent. per annum, and the fares increases have never been higher.
  That is the effect of competition, and the kind of thing that this Bill will directly bring about. But it is still said that our two State-owned airlines do not face competition. I do not care how many European flights they fly, how many North American or international schedule flights they fly—they will find severe and intense competition, particularly on the North Atlantic. It is absurd for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suppose that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and their ancillaries are not subjected to competition, when every airline employee knows that, if they cannot perform particular peripheral services themselves efficiently, these go out to sub-contractors. That is the policy of the two Corporations—and to argue that there is not competition
  312
  in the two Corporations is nonsense, because the actual practice of the Corporations proves that not to be so.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Member says that if the Corporations cannot carry out peripheral undertakings themselves, they hand them out. What else can they do if those services are necessary to the running of the airline?
  Mr. Huckfield: I am not sure how much the hon. Gentleman has been listening. What I said was that if the two Corporations could not provide their particular peripheral services efficiently against outside competition, those services were handed out to outside competition—and the airline employees know it.
  We are being told today that the Bill is necessary because B.O.A.C.'s market share is falling, because it is not performing well. Can we honestly say that B.O.A.C. is not performing well when its load factor is higher than pretty well any other airline on the North Atlantic, when last year its load factor on the North Atlantic was 60 per cent., compared with Pan-Am's and T.W.A.'s 53 per cent? Can we say that it is not proving to be efficient when, looking at this carrier in terms of aircraft utilisation, hours, load factors, revenue, yield and all the other important indicators. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are doing very well indeed?
  But despite all this, we are still told that we need more competition. Where will it be? Let us imagine the second force carrier on the West African routes. How will the second force cope with the problems that B.O.A.C. has had with Nigerian and Ghana Airways? Let us imagine putting the second force on the East African routes. What will happen to all that goodwill which B.O.A.C. had to pay very handsomely to build up in East Africa? Let us imagine the second force in the Caribbean—again, apparently the hon. Member's favourite route. What will happen to the work that B.O.A.C. has done with the Early Bird fare system? Let us imagine the second force on the South-East Asian and Australian routes. How will it get past the Australian Government's very tight restrictions? Let us imagine that the second force goes on to the North Atlantic, which it has said that it does not want to do—
  Mr. Adley rose—
  Mr. Huckfield: I have been interrupted a number of times. I listened reverendly to the hon. Member's speech and if I feel generous I will give him a moment later.
  What happens if it goes on to the North Atlantic, where excess capacity is bringing overall load factors down to below 50 per cent.? Wherever one looks, under the provisions of the Bill for the second force carrier to go to replace B.O.A.C., one sees difficulties—for B.O.A.C. of course, but above all for British civil aviation. It does not matter where one looks: the Bill threatens the whole future of British civil aviation and the standards, status and reputation of this country in international civil aviation.
  What will happen to the pioneering work which B.O.A.C. has done with it; Boadicea computer system? About £47 million of the taxpayers' money is in jeopardy because of the attitude being adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. B.O.A.C. has sold Boadicea's programmes abroad and a great deal of the money which was paid to build up experience in this form of computing is now threatened.
  Have hon. Gentlemen opposite thought of the complexity of having one British carrier going into Gatwick and another into Heathrow? I suppose that Americans wishing to book a through service from, say, Kennedy to Lagos or Accra will have to fly on a resurrected Westward Airlines shuttle between Heathrow and Gatwick and then board a plane of the second force for the rest of the journey. This is absolute nonsense. We cannot have all the problems of a second flag carrier operating from a different airport. The scheme will not work by this means and airline experience has proved this to be so in America and throughout Europe.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that this second force will not be a second British Eagle. They tell us that there will be only one transfusion of money, that this will be a once-for-all operation and that no additional money will be required in the future. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite honestly believe that if, in a year or two, this private enterprise fledgling of theirs comes with the begging bowl, it will be sent to the wall? Of course it will not. I cannot imagine hon. Gentlemen opposite
  314
  allowing that to happen. They do not like to hear the rattle of the begging bowl of private enterprise, though they seemed to change their tune yesterday. I am sure that they will have to do the same again in future.
  I could comment at length about the Air Registration Board and the holding company, not to mention a lot of the other creations planned by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will not delay the House, however, except to reiterate that I believe in B.O.A.C., as do scores of people throughout the world, and the loading figures of the last two or three years prove this.
  Mr. Burden: We believe in B.O.A.C., too.
  Mr. Huckfield: I doubt it, considering the sentiments that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed today. If a comparison is to be made between who is on the side of B.O.A.C. and who is not, it is clear that today's debate proves that hon. Gentlemen opposite are on the side of profits for their friends, while we are on the side of B.O.A.C.
  Earlier my right hon. Friend declared that the Labour Party would once we become the Government again, renationalise the routes that are being handed over. I hope that he sticks to his word. Indeed, I hope that it becomes Labour policy to renationalise these routes. Wheter the routes are handed over under this Measure or awarded by the Civil Aviation Authority, I hope that when we are returned to power, which will not be long judging by current events we shall renationalise not only the routes but the whole second force as well. Only then will I be satisfied.
  I conclude by suggesting a couple of slogans that we should bear in mind: "For some people there is only one airline, B.O.A.C. "and" B.O.A.C. has taken good care of us". Let us make sure we take good care of B.O.A.C.".
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I trust that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) will forgive me if I do not comment on all the points he raised. But if he honestly believes that my hon. Friends to not admire B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., he knows nothing about either our policy or our

  315
  views. From my remarks he will gather that I am a great supporter of both Corporations.
  The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that charter is where the money lies and not in scheduled flights. I understand that it is a mixture of the two that makes a truly viable airline. It seems, therefore, that if one believes in a second force airline, one must automatically believe in a mixture of charter and scheduled routes.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) made an extremely good speech and a particularly honest one. He made an accusation against his own Front Bench to which we have a right to expect a reply. He said that when in Government the Labour Party put forward a policy in which it did not believe and which was simply flown as a kite, to be knocked down on the first occasion. I hope that we will be told exactly what the Labour Party meant when they spoke of a second force and how they thought it could be viable without the transfer of some routes.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton that it is absolutely sterile to knock the Corporations, but it is also sterile to compare the Corporations with the second force or vice versa. The Corporations have done and are doing an extremely good job and one must, therefore, go right back to first base to see just what it is we are trying to do.
  It is easy to work up a great deal of moral indignation as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have done about how we want to destroy the whole structure of civil aviation in this country. That is nonsense. The Government were elected democratically and have a right to change those laws which will affect their future policies. We have made no secret of our support for a second force. From this debate, judging from the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is clear that we are a good deal more honest than they are. It was clear early on that we would need to transfer routes from the Corporations to a second force; that is, if the latter was to be viable, and obviously without those routes it could not be viable as was suggested in that mammoth document, the Edwards Report. If we accept those recommendations, then we are doing something which I would like
  316
  to think hon. Gentlemen opposite did when they were in power but which I doubt whether they did; namely, consider that those recommendations were genuine and worthy of our consideration.
  My hon. Friends believe in competition—in the interests of efficiency, profitability and consumer choice. I consider those to be the right principles by which any party should let their policies be shaped. We therefore also believe that all the institutions of this country deserve to be looked at again to ensure that they are being as competitive as possible; and if they are not, then we should see whether competition can be injected into them.
  This being so, it does not seem unnatural that the airlines should have taken our interest. Clearly, one has a right to ask whether the State Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., are as profitable and efficient as they should be This is the task of any Government because those Corporations are the possession of the people, as taxpayers, and we, as the custodians of them, have a right to act as watchdogs for them.
  Mr. John Mendelson: By giving away their assets?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: One can make out a strong case that the Corporations have not been required by Governments to be as profitable as they could be. The remarks of the Chairman of B.E.A., for example, have been quoted. When asked why B.E.A. ran certain routes which made a loss, he replied, "I decided that we should". Is that the sort of remit which any Government should give to a State Corporation which is run on taxpayers' money? I believe that the Corporations should be as profitable as possible, because the profit belongs to the taxpayer. The task of the Corporations is, therefore, to earn as much as possible for the taxpayers.
  Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I will not give way.
  If as a nation we want unprofitable routes to be covered, then the Government should say so and offer such subsidy as is necessary for those routes to be covered. Not to do that makes nonsense of the accounting of the Corporations, and confuses the whole issue.

  317
  One has also to appreciate that there is something about a State Corporation which is different from a private enterprise company. It is an attitude of mind. It is, I am afraid, an almost narcissistic approach to life which makes the Corporations very resentful of any criticism, and of any suggestion that they should be forced up against competition. Always, when anyone has asked to operate on one of their routes they have resisted, and will continue to resist with all the force at their disposal. It may be said that they are acting reasonably, but it seems that they will resist unduly as though it were somehow wrong to suggest that someone else could operate the route better.
  Yet, when they have been forced up against competition, as on domestic routes, they have admitted—certainly to me—that competition has made them more efficient, that it has given the consumer greater choice and, I like to think, has made them more profitable. A reasonable argument can therefore be put forward that competition improves services, as this party has known throughout its existence and will continue to preach, because it is true.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman may now be making a very valid point, but the example I quoted of the B.E.A. London—Glasgow route proves everything he has said to be wrong, because since B.U.A. were introduced on that route—and I know all about hot meals, jet services, different booking-in facilities and the rest—the plain fact is that growth went down from 12 per cent. per annum to 5 per cent. per annum and fares went up faster than ever before. That is the effect of competition on that route.
  Mr. McNair Wilson: The hon. Gentleman advances a very simplistic argument. He gives no reason other than it was private competition that somehow stunted the growth. He will no doubt explain that that is the same reason for the Manchester—Birmingham service going down, but he knows very well that it is the British Rail city-to-city service which has taken that traffic away. I am not prepared to accept such a simplistic argument.
  If competition has been successful at home it is because we can put two operators on to the same service, but once
  318
  we go overseas we are talking about something else. Here, in fact, and I am talking and thinking particularly of B.O.A.C. routes, one cannot get the same measure of competition. On the North American routes, for instance.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) told us that he listened reverently: a little more reverence from him, please.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Whereas it is possible on those routes, where there can be dual designation, to have competition, on many other overseas routes we would get, not competition, but substitution, if we put on another carrier. This seems, therefore, to raise the question of how the second force fits in when operating in competition with B.O.A.C., and it seems to me that we have fair reason to ask what the Bill sets out to do.
  First of all, we know that it sets out to take from the Corporations certain of their routes. The Bill does not operate the other way round. There is no suggestion that it could be used to take routes back from the second force, but I suggest that this will never be necessary. I do not dispute the need to transfer routes. It is the only way in which the second force can be made viable as a scheduled carrier and it is hypocritical to suggest some other solution, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) tried to suggest. However, to go back to the Bill, in Section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act, 1967, there is a reference to
  "… limiting the powers of the corporation to such extent as …"—
  the Board of Trade:
  "think desirable in the public interest …".
  It is in the public interest that this debate is taking place, so all our arguments must be advanced towards that object.
  That being so, I was very interested when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked my right hon. Friend why, if we believed in the benefits of private enterprise, we did not denationalise the State Corporations. That question is worth asking, even though it seems to raise all sorts of other questions with which I cannot now deal. If we do not denationalise the State Corporations, and if we believe in private

  319
  enterprise, we must support this second force. I have already expressed my own liking for the State Corporations and my desire that the House should give them maximum credit for the great work they have done in promoting civil aviation in this country. I fear that on this side we sometimes suffer from split personality when we talk of State Corporations; we cannot make up our minds whether we should sell them off completely, or put up with them and castigate them whenever the opportunity offers.
  I think that the Corporations can be made profitable—
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: They are.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Not all of them, by any means. British Rail loses £150 million a year.
  Mr. Huckfield rose—
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: No, I shall not give way.
  In this case we clearly believe that the State should continue to own B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and accept that we should seek to set up this second force.
  My right hon. Friend said that one of the reasons for our wanting to set up the second force was that it would be an additional source of airline management and innovation, several examples of which in terms of private airlines we have heard about tonight like package holidays and the extremely successful way in which Caledonian has built up its charter business. These examples show that private airlines have pioneered all sorts of ways of improving our share of the airline market.
  But when all is said and done, why do we want a second force? It is not only because of innovation and airline management but because we want to see Britain getting a bigger share of the world airline market, and we believe, as Edwards believed before us, and as your party once claimed to believe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I have no party.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant to say when the party opposite claimed to believe such a second force would help Britain to get a larger share of the airline market.
  320
  One might ask whether this is the right moment to be setting up a second force. It is true that many of the world airlines are suffering from over-capacity, and it is also true that many of them are not making profits, so we must again give all credit to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. for the fact that they are profitable. But so much of this debate has turned on an imponderable and it is what routes we are suggesting should be taken from the Corporations in order to make the second force viable.
  We know that the Corporations are being asked to give up between 22½ per cent. and 3 per cent. of their annual revenue, which has been estimated to be worth £6 million. What we do not know is which routes are in question; how the transferring of those routes from the Corporations will upset the operations of the Corporations, and how profitable those routes are.
  Clearly, the second force expects, and reasonably expects, profitable routes, because to give it anything else would he to doom it before it starts, and that is clearly not our intention. Equally, it is not our intention to take from the Corporations such profitable routes as to cause them to bear a greater burden than would be reasonable, or to upset the structure of their world network. Therefore, until we know which routes are envisaged, to some extent the debate must be limited and can only take place on the simple piece of green paper which we have been given and on which our pledges are based.
  There is also the doubt in my mind that if some routes in certain parts of the world are transferred there will be an absence of through flying. If a passenger boards a Caledonian/B.U.A. flight for part of the journey but then has to transfer, there can be no certainty that he will transfer to another British carrier. I should like to think that the route transfers will take this into account.
  I raise this doubt because, as I said before—I am supporting the whole concept of the Bill that the second force is there to enhance Britain's share of the world's civil airline market. If it does not achieve that object, in a sense it does not achieve the purpose for which it is being established.
  Finally, I welcome the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that this is a

  321
  once and for all route transfer. It is important that the civil airlines of Britain are given a chance to settle down again and get used to the new structure. It is crucial that the Corporations and the second force know where they stand and can plan accordingly.
  In those terms I ask the right hon. Member for Barnsley to think carefully about his statement this afternoon that, when and if his party is returned to power, it will take those routes away from the second force—an act of political dogmatism, with no benefit to Britain. If the Labour Party believes in a second force by the same token it must wish that force to be successful and must realise that if the force cannot see a future its whole ability to raise the capital it will require to be operational and of going in for aircraft procurement, which is crucial to itself and to our civil aircraft industry, will be jeopardised. It will mean that it is being asked to operate under a grossly unfair burden. Indeed, in that state of doubt the second force will be made a lame duck before it has even had a chance to spread its wings.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am glad to see the Minister for Trade in his place. I am sorry that I missed the speech with which he introduced the Bill. I understand that he introduced the Bill in his usual genial manner and put an acceptable gloss on a very dubious piece of legislation.
  Even the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), to whom I listened with bated breath, said that he could not understand the Bill, that it was not very clear, but that he supported it. Then the hon. Gentleman proceeded to chastise my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and those of us on this side who oppose the Bill for being ideologically orientated. This is a dichotomy of approach which is very difficult to comprehend in any logical sense.
  When I hear the sort of pleasantries and sophistries which some hon. Members opposite who are relative newcomers to the House and who are doing their best to make names for themselves inflict upon us in their early days here, I often wish that some senior Tory statesman would take them out, buy them a drink,
  322
  give them a good talking to, and tell them what this place is all about.
  I am a good democrat. As I listened to one hon. Member, who made a reasonable speech compared with some others that we have had to listen to, talking about ideology and moral indignation, I tended to get a little steamed up. I do not easily get steamed up, as the Minister for Trade knows.
  This is primarily a moral question. We in this House, who are a mixed collection of all kinds of expertise and all fields of activity, sometimes address ourselves to the mechanical aspect of Bills and tend to avoid facing the moral imponderables of what we are doing. There is a great moral question involved in the Bill.
  To anyone who charges me with being ideological, I openly confess that I am philosophically, by conviction and by long association with this party, a Socialist. I make no apology for that. I need not make an apology, as some of my older friends on the other side of the House know full well. When people tell me that they are in some way neutral animals who are not ideological, and when they have the effrontery to stand up in this ancient House and try to make a case in support of a Measure such as this, I am jolly glad that I have stood up so often and put the moral question to the House.
  The antithesis of my point of view is the ideological point of view put by the hon. Member for Woking, to whom we have had to listen in deep pain and anguish. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, because I do not like to have to say these things in his absence.
  The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): Bated breath.
  Mr. Price: I am using the term figuratively. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had been to Eton. I have never been to Eton, but I understand what language is about. I am trying to convey in a simple manner what I feel about this as well as what I think. I feel that this is a piece of political brigandage.
  I can remember the sort of Government that was inflicted on Britain immediately after the First World War. I was not a Member of the House in

  323
  those days—I was too young to be a Member of the House then. However, I remember the Government we had—the Robert Horne collection of business men who, according to J. M. Keynes in one of his famous books, looked to him, when he looked down on them from the Gallery, like a lot of gentlemen who had done rather well out of the 1914–18 War.
  Today we are getting a rather different type of politician. Today's politicians are more successful in concealing their real motivations than were politicians in those days. One famous Member of this House, who has long since gone to his last rest, and who sat on the Tory benches in those days, had the nerve to rise in his place and say, "Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Great Northern Railway, I believe so-and-so". Nobody commits that cardinal error nowadays. Present-day politicians do it more skilfully. They say that they are acting in the public interest and in the interest of the nation, when all the time they have personal business interests and they expect to profit in a financial sense from what is being done in the House. I do not think that that is unfair to anybody.
  I have had quite a few years' experience of the House now. I have addressed the Chamber many times and experienced heckling and disagreement. Nevertheless, one puts a point of view in the best words that one can find. I speak sincerely and with deep conviction borne of experience and of reflecting on these problems. Nobody who comes to the House in 1970 can tell me that Britain's capital market, in the mixed economy in which we live, with partly nationalised industries and partly private enterprise, can find the necessary capital for great enterprises such as these.
  I am not a bigoted ideological person in these matters. The facts of life are that for the great industries the capital market is incapable of producing the amount of capital required to build and sustain the great airlines, the great steel companies, the railways, and all the other great public services which are vital to the life of Britain.
  Last week we had a celebrated debate on the plight in which the great firm of Rolls-Royce finds itself. Without heavy Government assistance, without public
  324
  money on a very large scale—£89 million—Rolls-Royce is quite unable to carry on its commercial operations in the present-day world. We have had the example of Cammell-Laird, another great company which made a plea to the Government for assistance. We have had the example of other great shipbuilders on the Clyde which would have gone to the wall and thrown thousands of people out of work if the Government of the day had not come forward with help and public money.
  In spite of all this, we have to sit here and listen respectfully to the stuff which is talked by hon. Members opposite. I am not given to barracking in the Chamber, though I am often tempted when I listen to the tripe which is spoken from those benches by quite inexperienced Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Uneducated.
  Mr. Price: I do not want to be offensive to anyone, but it passes my comprehension. Some of us have had to battle with real industrial problems, trying to raise the standard of life of the people under the old dispensation of crude capitalist economics under which so many suffered the various forms of penury and poverty which were a disgrace to a civilised nation. We have seen great change in the past 20 or 30 years. It has been done by planning. Some of it, I agree, was clumsy planning—not all was perfect—but, when one considers the morass handed down to us by previous generations, the morass of slums, of worn-out and inefficient industry incapable of providing the capital required in, for example, coal mining—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide of the Bill. I hesitate to interrupt him, but he is an old Parliamentarian and he knows that it is necessary to address oneself fairly closely to the business before the House.
  Mr. Price: I am always ready to bow to the Chair on occasions like this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that one must keep to the point. But I am keeping to the point to the best of my ability, approaching this question in as broadminded a fashion as I can. If it had not been for public money, where would

  325
  our great enterprises have been? Whether one is a nationaliser or a crude commercial capitalist tycoon—whatever one's associations may be with the business world and with life in general—one must realise that, if the State had not taken over the great basic industries of this country, they would have gone to the wall and could not have done the tasks necessary in a civilised community.
  One of our greatest mistakes in the past, if I may say so in retrospect now—I thought so at the time—was to pay excessive compensation to the commercial interests which had run our industries down. I am a lifetime member of the Labour Party, and, though I have often disagreed with my party on all kinds of minor issues, on the major issue I am with it all the way. But I feel that one of our great mistakes was to pay too much for some of the industries on which the livelihood of thousands, or even millions, depended, industries which would have gone to the wall if we had not given compensation to the commercial interests which had run them down until they were not worth much. I believe that we paid far too much for the coal mines. We paid infinitely too much for the railways. Much the same applies to the steel industry, which had bled this country white and which handed over assets which were not really viable in return for large sums of public money.
  We did it nevertheless in the public interest. I was hoping—
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way one moment?
  Mr. Price: I am not sure that I will. I shall in a minute or two if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete a sentence or two more. I was hoping that some hon. Member opposite who thinks that it is a good thing to hive off some B.O.A.C. routes to private enterprise would explain in simple terms to a simple man from the Provinces—
  Mr. Bidwell: Simple?
  Mr. Price: Certainly. I hope that I shall not be barracked from my own benches. I was hoping to hear an explanation in commercial terms, because I believe in commercial probity, whether it be State enterprise or private enterprise. Integrity and probity are an essential element in any business transaction.
  326
  How do hon. Members opposite defend this rotten Bill to us who have so often paid far too much in public money to compensate the capitalist owners of industries which have been run down? I am sorry to use such a strong term, but it is a rotten Bill. It is a corrupting Bill.
  How will hon. Members opposite explain to the country the taking over, without compensation paid by the private operators, of assets and goodwill established and built up by public money in our nationalised airways? No one has faced that question yet.
  If someone buys a brewery—I say "if" because breweries are big business nowadays, and this has become very much a topical issue—not only does he have to pay £X million for the plant and machinery which produces the beer but he has to pay almost as many millions in respect of the goodwill of all the licences subsisting in the properties which the brewery owns. Is there anything wrong in that?
  I give way to the hon. Gentleman now.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In defending nationalisation, the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "in the public interest". Will he explain exactly what he means?
  Mr. Price: I do not want to give an academic lecture. I am speaking off the cuff, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and with some conviction. It is in the public interest that people shall have trains to ride in, that they shall have enough food to eat, that they shall have a ready supply of steel for all the nation's major works, that they shall have aeroplanes to fly in, if they want to fly—that they shall have these things to do the job efficiently and without imposing an undue burden on the public purse.
  Those are the terms in which I put it. It is a rough-and-ready definition, but there it is. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) wish to intervene? If I say anything wrong, I shall be only too pleased to give way to him, especially as he is wearing such a delightful flower in his button hole.
  I do not want to waste the time of the House, but this is an important question. Earlier in the debate, I sat listening demurely to a speech from one of

  327
  my hon. Friends who put unanswerable arguments on this question of the goodwill subsisting in the nationalised industries. If it had not been for hundreds, or probably thousands, of millions of pounds of public money poured into the British aircraft industry, there would have been no British aircraft industry. The market is incapable of raising sufficient capital to finance these vast operations.
  During the time the right hon. Gentleman himself has been a Member, both in opposition and in Government, his own party nationalised one of the great industries basic to our country's future economy. Some of the newer hon. Members opposite who have just come straight from the Primrose League or the local parties—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) knows better; he is agreeing with me. Some of the newer Members come here forgetting that the Tories nationalised atomic energy, an industry basic to our future development, and one of the foundation stones of any future industrial expansion. It was done by the Tory Party, not by the Labour Party, yet junior members of the Tory Party keep singing their song about the evils of nationalisation. It makes me want to vomit, and I am not sick easily.
  I have rambled a bit in this speech, but I am dealing with the ethics of the matter in my own way. The ethics of the Government's proposition do not bear examination. They are proposing to hand over to commercial operators, without compensation, assets which have been valued by a competent accountant as being worth about £15 million. That figure has been given. I am not an accountant, and I am willing to be corrected if the figure is wrong. It may, of course, be greater than that. But this proposal simply cannot be defended by any Government of whatever colour. As Labour Party men and Socialists, we on this side have always stood firmly in the forum of public opinion by the rule that, if we took over any business or any industry, we would compensate the owners on fair terms. We have always done it. This is a moral issue. I have always stood for fair compensation when the State has found it necessary to take over an industry. But there is no such acceptance of a similar moral code by hon.
  328
  Members who come here under the Tory banner. The Government are coolly proposing to hand over assets without any payment for them. In other words, they are handing over public money of an ascertainable amount to private enterprise, which can do what it likes with it. It could pass it over into the hands of foreign operators. Once the equity goes to a private airline we cannot guarantee that the play of the market will not make that private British airline a foreign airline in a very short space of time.
  I have made a study of these affairs. I may be very amateurish at it, but I have had a great deal of experience of this sort of thing. The Government propose to take away two of the most profitable routes now operated successfully by B.O.A.C. not because B.O.A.C. has been inefficient or has fallen down on the job but because it has been too successful for the liking of people in private enterprise, who want to get their hands in the till. It is as simple as that.
  In terms of political activity, it stinks. It cannot be defended within morality as I understand it. Even if it were justified on ideological grounds to set up a private airline, the least that hon. Gentlemen opposite can do is to name their pals with whom they have the closest links in the City. Many hon. Members opposite no doubt hope to profit by the pickings available once the good routes are handed over to their friends. I do not want to make individual charges, but hon. Members should stand up and declare their interest in these operations. Nobody has done it in my hearing.
  The same sort of thing has happened on previous occasions. It happened when commercial television was established. We had all kinds of impassioned speeches on ideological grounds, and all kinds of people skilfully concealed their movements, but all the time they were asking around the City, "If we get this Bill through the House, what is in it for us?" The results began to reveal themselves to public examination very quickly.
  The Minister for Trade has just been to South America. He looks well, and we are glad that he enjoyed his trip. I understand that he has been swanning around Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires.
  Mr. John Wilkinson rose—
  Mr. Price: I shall not give way, because I am trying to be brief.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he had any conversation with operators in South America about these routes, because it may be that that part of the globe is one of the areas that are looked upon as providing desirable pickings. We shall be very interested to know whether part of his mission to South America was concerned with that. We hope that he had a successful trip and that he obtained more trade for the British flag. I am all in favour of that.
  Mr. Noble: What the hon. Gentleman described as swanning around consisted of about 16,000 miles in four days and about 14 hours work a day. It was very enjoyable. The main theme from Buenos Aires, the only part I was in, was the tremendous job British United Airways has done in developing that route.
  Mr. Price: I am glad to hear that, and that the right hon. Gentleman had a good trip. I am not suggesting that he has been wasting his time. I am all in favour of Ministers going abroad. My regret is that some of them come back too early.
  Mr. George Lawson rose—
  Mr. Price: I lose my thread if I have too many interruptions.
  Many occasions have been brought to my notice when Ministers have gone abroad and returned early and made a nuisance of themselves. I would give some of them a one-way ticket, though not the right hon. Gentleman, whom I like very much. He is one of my favourite Tories. I hope that that remark does not do him any harm. The right hon. Gentleman means well. But Nietzsche, the great German philosopher, said that all men mean well; it is the motivations of what they do that matter. A mere expression of good intention does not mean that the man is doing the right thing.
  I do not want to go on any longer, because other hon. Members may wish to speak. However, I must say that I listened with great respect to the very thoughtful and informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). He is a considerable expert in these matters. I hesi-
  330
  tate to enter into debate on these technical matters with people who know so much more about them. I have merely put the political question as I see it. My hon. Friend drew attention to a number of important things, and at the end of his speech made a well-sustained appeal to the Government to withdraw the Bill and think again.
  As sure as night follows day, if hon. Members opposite, whose only concern is their own commercial interests in a matter like this, skim off the cream and leave B.O.A.C. hanging together as a bag of bones, the nation will have to foot the bill. The private operators will probably sell out their share of the operation to foreign operators and instead of having a British monopoly on certain routes we shall have so fragmented and scattered them that we shall no longer enjoy the high reputation that B.O.A.C. enjoys in the world. I have flown with a great many of the world's airlines, and I know that B.O.A.C. and its subsidiaries are looked upon with great respect in every part of the world. The Bill will tarnish that respect if it results in fragmentation of the kind it proposes.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I am sure that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) will forgive me if I do not follow him up all the attractive little by-ways that he explored.
  However, I should like to deal with his last point. He was somewhat carried away towards the end of his speech when he described a loss of about 2½ to 3 per cent. of the Corporations' routes as skimming off the cream and leaving it a bag of bones. If the poor old State Corporations depend on about 2½ to 3 per cent. for their entire profit, they must be in a sorry state.
  I speak as a frequent user of the air Corporations. I fly with them almost once a week, and have done so for the past 10 or 12 years. Therefore, I speak with some knowledge of the operation of both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
  Much of the debate turns on a vital point of principle on which there is a difference between the two sides of the House.
  In suggesting an alternative to the air Corporations, I and many of my hon.

  331
  Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), whose arguments were very cogent and well-reasoned, are not thereby implying any criticism of them. I have flown both in the United Kingdom and abroad on their flights, and they are very fine flights. They stand up to the best in the world. However, in the past few years the Corporations, particularly B.O.A.C., have seen a fall in their share of some vital routes, including the North Atlantic route. The B.O.A.C. share in the route to Canada is down to between 20 and 25 per cent. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs either for the Corporations or for the country, because we are all shareholders in them.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments put by the Chairmen of the Boards of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. as to why the second force should not be called into being. Heavy emphasis has been laid on the fact that, if this 2½ to 3 per cent.—some £6 million worth out of £200 million in the case of B.O.A.C.'s annual income—is taken away, then it will not amount to an increase in Britain's share but will simply be a substitution of one carrier for another. I cannot accept that argument. When the air Corporations have been advancing their case for buying more aircraft, we have been told how rapidly the industry is growing. We are told that it is one of the growth industries of the generation. But if that is so, and if, after the temporary pause which not only Britain but other countries are experiencing, the growth continues, surely B.O.A.C., if it is as strong and viable as it says it is and as I believe it is, will soon make up the 2 or 3 per cent. which it is losing.
  Hon. Members opposite have talked about compensation as though some of B.O.A.C.'s equipment is being taken away and given to the second force, but all that is being given to the second force is a small percentage of the total routes which have been covered by B.O.A.C. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) referred to an estimate which he said an accountant had made of the value of these routes. When I asked him what figure he was taking for profitability, he said he did not take any figure for it because he did not
  332
  know which routes were to be taken from B.O.A.C. for the second force. Indeed, the hon. Member for Westhoughton said that one of the most profitable routes of B.O.A.C. was being taken away. He was being carried away a little by his own verbosity because no one knows what routes are to be granted to the second force.
  It is nonsense, without knowing the profitability of a route, to advance any estimate as to its value. One cannot put a value on it. To a certain extent I accept the argument that perhaps some value should reasonably be put on it, but the medal has another side to it. If one is to place a value on a route to be taken away, one must also place a value on the charter flights in which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are engaging and some compensation should be paid if inroads are made into the independents' share of this work. But the true value, if there can be a valuation, is of course the market value, the value in a free market if the route were sold. It might be fair and equitable that some assessment should be made and some compensation paid. As a lawyer, I would reject any idea of confiscation in the procedure we are debating here.
  I want to move now to my main point, which is the concept which has underlain most of the debate but which some hon. Members have only hinted at, while others have not been prepared to face up to it directly. The difference between us surely is the fundamental difference between those who believe in a free enterprise system as being the best and most efficient in the interests of the consumer and the nation, and those who believe in socialism, that is, State enterprise. The hon. Member for Westhoughton—I am sorry he is not here now—referred to coal, the railways, gas, electricity and so on, and he was asked what he meant by the job of the Government. I suggest that the functions of the Government are very clear and they definitely do not include running an airline or running an airline for profit.
  The functions of the Government have been well laid down in the past. They consist of administering the country, of looking after such matters as those which the great Departments of State, the Foreign Office, the Defence Ministry and the Board of Trade look after, the police,

  333
  the keeping of law and order, and so on. Those are the functions of Government. They cover the legislative functions—making the law and applying it—and the judicial function in so far as that is part of the functons of Government.
  Mr. Lawson: Would the hon. Gentleman include subsidising Harland and Wolff in Belfast?
  Mr. McMaster: Yes. I will cover that point if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so in my own time and without getting carried beyond the rules of order.
  The basic functions of Government therefore are administrative legislative and judicial. They include, of course, running enterprises where there is a monopoly. Hence the gas, electricity and water boards, which are ideally the function of Government because, if such functions were given into the hands of any one person, as he would be a monopoly he could charge any price he liked. It is right and proper, therefore, that such essential services as gas, electricity and water should be run by the Government.
  But where there is an element of competition, and where there can be an element of competition, it is no part of the job of the Government to go into the market and run a business for a profit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East pointed out, if B.E.A. runs a Highlands and Islands service, and if it does not charge an economic fare on the route because of its poor usage, and if the Government do not give it a subsidy, then it is charging a rate structure which does not maximise its profits as a Corporation. If it does maximise its profits and has a complete monopoly, then it is just being used as an indirect way of taxing the public.
  If, on the other hand, the air Corporations operate inefficiently and have to be subsidised—and a lot of the losses have had to be written off—all our people, whether they fly or not, every man, woman and child, every pensioner and widow, have to pay part of what they would otherwise enjoy towards subsidising the air Corporations, which means subsidising them presumably for the flying public and perhaps indirectly for the aircraft manufacturers.
  Is it the job of the Government to decide which of these two alternatives
  334
  shall be used? Does State-run enterprise provide the best service? As I have said, I frequently use the air Corporation routes and I noticed, as other hon. Members have noticed, the very big improvement when British Eagle came on certain routes. I discussed this with B.E.A. and it admitted that its service had improved because of the competition from British Eagle, now B.U.A., on the Belfast route. I believe the same thing has happened on the Glasgow route. I believe that it takes the spur of competition to produce the best services.
  This must be what we are talking about tonight. If we are not discussing efficiency, which is providing a regular, comfortable, reliable and punctual service for the public at the lowest seat-mile cost possible, what are we discussing? It takes the spur of competition to create the greatest efficiency, stemming from the fact that someone's very livelihood and the money invested by the public are at stake, so that they know that unless they provide the services properly and carefully they will lose not only their jobs but their savings.
  The approach to a State monopoly has to be different. One has the "take it or leave it" attitude which we know so well, the idea that Big Brother knows best. They may be only minor pinpricks, but I have raised complaints on behalf of myself and constituents with the Corporations and, unfortunately, I have sometimes come across exactly that attitude, that inflexibility which one always gets with a body like a State enterprise. It becomes top heavy and loses its flexibility and its aggressiveness. I have referred to how our share of the Atlantic routes has fallen. This is because we could do with an aggressive operator on the international routes, and we could do with the spur of competition on routes within the country.
  It is a matter of disappointment to me that my right hon. Friends have not gone the full hog. I hope that they will do so during their period in office. I took part in the debates in 1960 on the Civil Aviation Licensing Act. I remember complaining bitterly in Committee that it was not fair to the independent operators, that it gave the Minister the final say in an appeal, so that he was judge in his own cause. The Minister was responsible for a colossal public investment in the

  335
  aircraft which the Corporations had ordered to fly the routes. The Corporations had objected to any of their routes being given by the board to the independents. Among the arguments they advanced was the fact that they were committed to buying new aircraft, an investment which would be jeopardised if the independents had a share.
  This gave very little security to the independents. They were operating against vast Corporations which had the backing of the public purse. Even if the Licensing Board granted an independent a route after a careful study of its application, it was still possible for the Minister to cancel it for some reason, and that did not seem to me to incorporate the best principles of justice, because the Minister himself was an interested party.
  I still feel, as I did then, that if one wants an efficient air service, one must have a service operated independently. I do not believe that we can have a mixture of State industry and private companies, for one is able to draw on the public purse for its capital in a way which is denied to the other. The total available to the one is much higher than for the other, and the rate of interest is often advantageous. If the State enterprise incurs substantial losses, it may have them written off, and in that way be directly subsidised. It may be given a favourable route pattern. In these ways, competition between the independents and the State Corporations is not fair.
  In the long run we shall not have a proper pattern of aviation developing in the country with such a mixture. It is not the function of the Government to engage in air transport when there is no monopoly. I should like the Government to sell their shares in the Corporations. This may not be possible, because of the large amounts involved, in one fell swoop. However, the Corporations are now profitable bodies and well founded, and I see no objection to handing them over to private enterprise over a period so that they may be run competitively, keenly and efficiently in the interests of the flying public.
  This would be the best solution to the problem of the Corporations in the interests of the nation. It would be best
  336
  for the user, the flying public, for it would offer a competitive air service at an economic rate. The independent private companies would be operating and competing against one another and it would be the function of the Government to ensure that competition continued. If monopoly conditions arose, when one company swallowed the others and began to exploit the monopoly, there would be just cause for the Government to intervene. However, so long as services are operated by independent operators, the best interests of the flying public and the taxpayer would be served by denationalising the great Corporations.
  This would lead to a growth in air traffic. I have seen this on a small scale on the Belfast route. When the independent operator, British Eagle, later B.U.A., took over the route, services were improved. The net result was that more people flew. This in turn increased the amount of business done by the companies.
  When the second force obtains the overseas routes, the British share of the market will be increased and there may be an increase in the size of the market as a whole. The public has a choice of whether to go by sea or air, or, with overland routes, by train, car or air. The only way in which to ensure that the maximum number fly is to have the most efficient, prompt and best timekeeping services possible. Indirectly, that would assist the aircraft industry, because a strong and viable aviation industry would lead to orders for more aircraft. The chances are that British companies would be more likely to order British aircraft and indirectly that would help the aircraft manufacturing industry.
  I therefore support the Bill. I should like my hon. Friend when winding up to discuss the future of the Corporations. I should like more competition, an enlarged, buoyant and flexible market, not only for the Corporations and the independents, but for the British aircraft industry.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I did not originally intend to take part in the debate. When I take part in debates I like to hear every speech. I have heard the speeches of both Front Benches and many from the back benches, but not,

  337
  unfortunately, all, so that my speech might suffer a little as a result. I very much hope that the Bill will be defeated tonight because it is a particularly backward step. My constituency of Southall is not far from Heathrow Airport and many of my constituents work there, some for the independent airlines and some for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
  In recent weeks I have been virtually smothered with letters from employees at the airport asking me to do all that I can to see that this Measure does not go through. I have not received a single letter applauding what the Government propose. I would have been content to remain silent and register my vote had it not been for the fact that there has been no powerful expression of the point of view I seek to put forward.
  I want to criticise my Front Bench for its ready acceptance of most of the Edwards Report. As a result of the discussions that I have had with workers at the airport, I have yet to be convinced that we need to cling, at least continuously, to the concept of a second force. At the least if there is to be such a force, for the time being, it certainly should not be one subsidised as a result of taking the most profitable routes from the nationalised parts of the industry.
  I cannot remember the exact years when B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. were set up but it was during the period of the postwar Labour Governments from 1945–51. I was not in the House then, but I do not recall that the Tories were disposed to do what they seek to do now. There were hints at nibbling away and weakening the Corporations. It was never suggested that they would conduct this frontal attack. The contributions from hon. Members opposite have been a mass of contradictions as they were yesterday in the Rolls-Royce debate. On the one hand they applauded the management of an enterprise and on the other hand criticised it. We have had nothing but applause for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. as a nationalised enterprise.
  It is not suggested that the Corporations are inefficient. Both are subject to fierce competition. International flying means that we have to comply with the international fare structure within which there is a great deal of competition. This calls for the efficient use of aircraft.
  338
  With B.E.A. there is competition from other forms of transport getting to and from Europe and in and around this country and to Northern Ireland. There is the choice of sea or air. I made a recent "mixed" trip to Germany and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was more leisurely by ship and train as well as aircraft. With business, speed is usually the criterion. Another form of competition is the railways. Part of the story of inland transport is the revival of rail travel, particularly for business men. This is because it is comfortable, sometimes even more comfortable than air. There will always be competition on inland transport. There are the roads. Hurtling about in a tin box on the motorway is not my kind of enjoyment but that is what I have had to do occasionally in the interests of speed and efficiency. But I am inclined to use other forms of transport.
  Within the concept of modern transport there is ample room for competition. So I ask: why is this Measure being brought in? Why is the clock being turned back? In 1970 we should be considering how we can extend social enterprise, ownership by the nation, for the giant tasks which confront this old country in the changing world scene.
  A Measure of this kind, added to the other Measures which we have had since the election of this Government—the trade union measure in store, the mini-budget proposals, and so on—will divide the nation. But Measures of this kind cannot be taken in isolation. They come out in sequence.
  The suggestion has been made that our attitude stems from political dogma. It is easy to accuse political opponents of mouthing dogma. Dogma is a position from which one does not shift. That has never been my position. The true intellectual approach is to think and to act, but always to have a chink in the door for the reception of new ideas. We are not getting new ideas in the Bill. We are, as it were, getting old wine in new bottles. This is a barren proposal. I remain unconvinced. I believe that my constituents, who have smothered me with protests, are absolutely right.
  With my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), whose constituency abuts London Heathrow Airport—he may be regarded as the London

  339
  Airport Member of Parliament; I know that it is not the only airport in the British Isles, but it is considerable—I went to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) on the problems involved, and we took with us a deputation of workers and trade union representatives who are tremendously concerned about this matter.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister for Trade say that the wages and conditions of workers in the new second force will compare with those in B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. However, that remains to be seen. The workers in B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will not take that statement on its face value. There may have been certain verbal assurances, but those workers know that the relatively good conditions which they have achieved are the result of their own efforts and organisation operating in an expanding industry. They will jealously guard the conditions which they have built up by hard struggle.
  Whatever the result of our political views or considerations, the workers in this Tory Government-inspired second force—many of whom might in the new circumstances come from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—will carry over their "know-how" and experience, but they will not allow a deterioration in their standards and conditions, because they represent a powerfully organised unit of the trade union movement. They will not allow any element of the tail wagging the dog, which is the basic concept of the Measure before us. The Bill will take away the most profitable aspects of the activities of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
  I hope that we shall get an explanation of the apparent contradiction between two points of view. Is this the final stroke? We are accustomed to hearing the word "stroke" being used in this Chamber. Is this to be a once-and-for-all stroke, or is this, as the workers fear, the thin end of the wedge, and will the process be continued until the whole of the nationalised aspect of civil aviation is dismantled? That may be in the mind of the Government. It is obviously in the minds of many backbenchers who have spoken tonight, but that will not come off. We are living, not in the 1920s, or in the 1930s, but at a time when the British trade union movement has never been more coherent, so large
  340
  in numerical strength, and so united. I advise the Government not to try to turn back the clock and to adhere to the dogmatic idea that only private enterprise can succeed in the tasks facing this nation. If the Government persist in that idea, it will lead to the division that I have described.
  There has been much reference to lame ducks, in particular by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Having introduced this interesting phrase by verbal explanation, and by theoretical presentation, he then immediately proceeds to kick it in the teeth by subsequent action. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are far from being lame ducks, but they are sitting ducks for those who cling to the outworn and outmoded idea that this is the only way to get efficiency. I could not help thinking that this Measure might be described, not as something assisting a lame duck, nor necessarily as attacking a sitting duck, but as shooting down a flying duck, because no hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested that these Corporations are inefficient in meeting international and other forms of competition.
  I would settle for the way in which the Government were proceeding to accept the idea of a second force airline for the time being, but I think it has been amply demonstrated that that is not what we require in the years ahead. This is a miserable Bill. I can understand the attitude of the workers on the job. I hope that these proposals will not lead to any deterioration in safety standards.
  I think that it is legitimate for me to express these fears, because a few years ago there was a nasty crash at Southall, as a result of which some people living in council houses were killed. I am not suggesting that everyone operating private enterprise civil aircraft is in the same category. That was an exceptional case. It was a freighter aircraft, the crew of which were killed. It was shown that the plane had been flying for too long, that the crew were overtired, and that there was not sufficient inspection. As a result of that crash new rules were written into the safety code which is applicable to civil aircraft, and I shall jealously guard those rules as long as I am a Member of the House. From time to time I have tabled Questions to find out whether any changes have been proposed as a result of changes in the industry itself.

  341
  I want it to be clearly understood that in presenting this case I do not want to be unfair to anyone involved in civil aircraft who does his job efficiently and dutifully, whether on the nationalised side of the industry or in the private sector. I do not think that there is any justification for the division of this industry in the long run—certainly not by means of this Measure, and what it intends to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Tomney) made an excellent speech. He has much more knowledge of the industry and its economics than I have. He pointed out that this process must inevitably lead to a continuing worsening of the economic position of one sector if the other sector advances too far ahead. The one that is left behind is likely ultimately to collapse. If one fights shy of a frontal assault on B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. in terms of their dismantling—as most of the Government seem to want to do—a situation will inevitably arise in which the private appetite will be whetted, and weople will say, "The public sector does not pay. It must be inefficient". As in the case of publicly-owned bus services and railways, the Corporations are trying to run services that serve the nation although they do not necessarily serve the altar of profit.
  I do not think that the Tories would be all that worried about such a development. Dogma or not, this is the political theory of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They need get no big heads about it, because they did not receive a mandate from the nation for this Measure at the last election. If they study the voting figures at that election they will realise that they have no mandate to turn the clock back to old-fashioned and doctrinaire Toryism. What happened at the election was mainly because of the action of Labour voters. That situation will change.
  If the Tory Government do not watch out they will throw up crises which may mean a new General Election on some of the outstanding issues of our time. That is when the catalogue of crime of the present Government will go too far and we shall have a return of a Labour Government. Everyone knows that. I hope that it will be a damned sight better
  342
  Labour Government than the previous one.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: I want to make only a brief intervention at this late hour. We have heard some interesting speeches, although there seems to have been a lot of hot air from the Labour benches. Perhaps it is something to do with the jet age.
  The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said that they intended to extend nationalisation when the Labour Government were returned to power. Was not that one reason why the Labour Government were thrown out? If it were not, what was the reason? It has been said that there will be no compensation for the assets involved in the routes which the new airline—the second force—is taking over. What about the assets of the municipal bus companies. What happened to them? They received no compensation when they were nationalised under the Transport Act. What about the routes of private enterprise buses that were taken over? There was no compensation in respect of them.
  The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) talked about the law of servant and master, with reference to embezzlement. I was interested to hear that he referred to our Government as the servants of the people. We know that when the Labour Party is in power, they are "the masters".
  Many professional people who have a great interest in the aviation business have spoken in the debate. I am not a professional. My interest stems directly from my constituency, where we have the B.A.C. factory at Weybridge. As everyone in the House knows, we are extremely anxious about the BAC311 aircraft. I need say no more about that, because it was adequately covered yesterday.
  Without the BAC311 we shall not have a viable airframe industry, and without that we shall not have a viable aircraft industry, and without that we shall not have a viable aviation industry. We shall not be able to afford the foreign currency to buy aircraft.
  The airlines cannot operate in a vacuum. They have their own environment in which they operate, and that environment is becoming increasingly

  343
  difficult. One has the difficulties of the routes and traffic to the airports, and the absurd situation in which one spends just as much time getting to the airport as one spends flying. There is the lack of airports and the troubles we are having now about the third London Airport. We have the problem of security at airports, for instance the Kennedy Airport in New York, where there have been 16 acts of sabotage since the B.O.A.C. terminal was erected. There are many problems which make it extremely difficult for airlines to operate these days. It is axiomatic that they should have all the help that they need.
  In the Report of the Edwards Committee, which the Government set up, independent airlines were described as the ginger group of the aviation industry, and it was also said that they had set the pace. I am glad that the Committee said that. In recommending the routes for the second force, the Edwards Report said that the viability of the second force would require limited concessions of Corporation territory. As this Report was commissioned by the Government, presumably they had some interest in it. But the Government White Paper was then published, and the words here were that the Government "cannot accept" the "transfer of a significant part". But the part that is being transferred, 2½ to 3 per cent., one could hardly call significant.
  One of the most significant remarks in the Edwards Report was this:
  "It is therefore our earnest hope that the Government, the industry and the public will accept the philosophy of a mixed economy in air transport."
  This is the very thing which the Opposition, when in Government, did not accept. It seems that when they were in Government they accepted the Edwards Report on the theory of the second force but lacked the courage to provide the means to make it possible.
  In the debate yesterday on launching aid for the engine industry and in the debate this evening it seems that the Opposition have been extremely hypocritical. In the case of Rolls-Royce, they have either been condemning their own action in the past, or, as in the case of the debate tonight, the action which they have failed to take.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sure the House will join me in warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) on a most interesting maiden speech based, as it was, on direct experience of civil aviation. We look forward to listening to him on future occasions, especially on this very important subject.
  Debates on civil aviation often engender contention, but in the past they have usually revealed a fair amount of consensus. However, there can be little or no consensus in this House or in our airlines about this Bill and the policy that it intends to promote. It is a Bill to gerrymander the air at the expense of the public interest and for the advantage of private gain.
  It would be very difficult to exaggerate the importance of air transport to our economy. In itself and as part of civil aviation as a whole it is a great and growing industry, and its potential is immense. But so are the difficulties facing it and the competitive challenges to which it must increasingly address itself.
  The lesson of experience is that its development is best promoted by strong State-owned corporations, and that is no mere point of doctrine. It is the conclusion reached by most other countries, and it has been abundantly proved by all the tests of efficiency, safety, viability and technical and managerial innovation that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have served the country well, earning not only profits for the community but, as the Edwards Report testified, the high esteem of the counterparts of these two famous corporations throughout the world. Currently, B.O.A.C. has no indebtedness to the Government, whose current financial interest is confined to the public dividend capital.
  Those who support the Government on this Bill have attempted to show, not without some support from hon. Members behind me, that there is no difference between the proposals in the White Paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and this Bill. However, there is a world of difference. My right hon. Friend quoted in extenso the relevant passages in the White Paper to show that we

  345
  wished to see a merger in the independent sector, badly needed on restructuring principles if not on any other basis, but not at the cost of the transfer of any significant part of the Corporations' route networks and certainly not with routes being transferred as a precondition of merger. There is a deep divide between that statement of policy and what the Bill will make possible.
  I would add this quotation from the end of paragraph 41 of the White Paper which is conclusive in defining the fundamental differences between our approach and that of the Party opposite.
  "These are matters to be determined by the Authority"—
  the Civil Aviation Authority—
  "in the light of detailed study and argument and the Government"—
  the then Government—
  "do not intend to impose a preconceived reallocation of routes on any airline which has borne the cost of developing the routes and is serving them well."
  That is conclusive.
  Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Roberts: It is a little early to be interrupted, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have promised to sit down promptly, and I delayed the start of my speech to enable one of his hon. Friends to intervene.
  When the White Paper was produced by my right hon. Friend it was generally acclaimed—in the industry, in the country and in this House. That valuable con-census has been wrecked by the Bill and the policy it serves.
  Since the Government first decided on compulsory transfer of routes, the President of the Board of Trade has been at some pains to show that it involves only a small and modest transfer. One is reminded of the story of the illegitimate baby which was explained away as being "only a very small one". But the right hon. Gentleman can no longer protest even that this will be the only one. This brings us to the great question of whether the proposals of the Bill are a once-for-all operation. We are still uncertain.
  The right hon. Gentleman began some weeks ago by assuring the assembled Press that this was to be—I quote him—
  346
  "a once-for-all operation", a mere trifle of about £6 million a year, very small indeed. But very soon that position was shot away from under him by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who flatly told the House on 9th November that he could give no undertaking that this was to be a once-for-all operation. What the right hon. Gentleman said today on this vital question has in no way reassured us that, once they get their way with these routes, there will not be repeated plundering of the assets and routes of the public Corporations in years to come.
  The intention of the Bill is not only to transfer some routes now, immediately, to have them operating by 1972: it is to make it possible to raid the public Corporations as and when necessary to prop up the private sector. It is a Bill for an open-ended policy of despoiling the public Corporations and it can also place the other smaller independents in peril. Indeed, they were in constant peril from successive Tory Governments—more so than from Labour Governments.
  Having abandoned the criteria of the White Paper, the Government are now committed to the viability of B.U.A.-Caledonian regardless of what happens to others, whether private or public, in the industry. That is the position that they have got themselves into, that they got the country into and the industry into.
  Then there is the question of compensation, on which I understand the Under-Secretary is to expatiate. We are told that licences are not assets. But what about development costs? Is a private concern to have handed to it on a plate, for free, a route, a business, which has been made viable by heavy public investment? Under the open-ended policy announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what will be the effect of routes which ripen into profitability as a result of public investment?
  Mr. Tebbit: Do right hon. Gentlemen opposite accept that, as the independent sector of the industry developed, on its own money, the inclusive tour traffic that B.E.A. Air Tours is now after, that independent sector should also be compensated?
  Mr. Roberts: This was according to the hon. Member's favourite dictum of competition—it was not a compulsory transfer.

  347
  What we are talking of here is a smash and grab raid. That is not the position which obtained when B.E.A. competed with independent operators and succeeded in that field. The circumstances are completely different.
  The question whether this is to be a once-for-all operation is vital, because there are now important routes which, as a result of heavy public investment, are likely to prove profitable within a year or two. The South Pacific route is one of these. What guarantee have we—there is nothing in Bill—that such routes will not as and when they ripen into profitability be taken over to sustain and develop private enterprise in this sphere?
  Is there to be compensation? If so, on what basis will it be paid? Or have the Government embraced the principle of confiscation as long as the public bear the loss? What is the Government's attitude on the need to amend the target set for the return on capital as a result of their policy? Do they intend to exercise this principle in a flexible way so that the losses which may result from their policy can, in part at least, be made good?
  To what extent have the Government consulted the men and women whose livelihood depends on the viability of the Corporations? The Minister said that he had met the unions, but did he really go into this matter with them and test their reaction? He will need their co-operation to run any system in the airlines industry.
  Mr. Burden: Did the Labour Government, when they proposed a merger between B.U.A. and Caledonian, consult the unions and get their agreement before taking that step?
  Mr. Roberts: We did not propose it. We said that if in the independent sector companies came together to effect mergers—in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred it was a particular merger—we would assist them progressively to reach a point at which they could act as a second force, but on the conditions which I have repeated tonight and which my right hon. Friend has stated. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite challenging my right hon. Friend and others who, with a sense
  348
  of public responsibility, now warn the Government that there is, to say the least, deep misgiving and suspicion among the work force of the airlines about these proposals. This is not to say that my hon. Friends welcome demonstrative action of a certain kind in protest against these proposals. [Interruption.] Of course not. We as a responsible Opposition are warning the Government that they have hurtled into this without thinking it out. And part of thinking it out must always be what might be the effect nowadays on the work force of the industry.
  The time when workers could be bandied about without being consulted by management or government is over. It must be a cardinal principle in all industrial rearrangements that the workers and their representatives are fully and properly consulted by government and management. Their co-operation must be sought, especially in revolutionary proposals of this kind.
  Then there is the crucial question of the rôle and powers of the new civil aviation authority. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had given more details of what he proposes for this new authority.
  At the moment we are forced to conclude that the Bill re pre-empts the rôle of the Authority in a vital matter. Before the Authority is set up the Bill takes away a vital part of its work, which is the award of licences to operate routes, for under the Bill the Government decide who gets which routes and for how long. We have all been agreed on the need to improve on the A.T.L.B. system, good as it was in many ways, and to create another and improved agency in any new civil aviation authority.
  That applies particularly to the subject of appeals. To whom will a dissatisfied party now appeal? Will there be means of appeal? Appeal cannot be to the Minister because, under the Bill, it is he who says what is to be done with the routes. What is to be the system? In a debate like this, on a Bill as far-reaching in its effects as this is, short as it is, we expected to hear a fairly considerable explanation of the structure of the Authority under which these routes were, if at all, to be regulated. We did not get it.

  349
  A good deal has been said about the need for competition, but the difficulty is that we do not know which routes are to be transferred. We expected that the Minister would this afternoon have indicated to us the actual purpose of the Bill, and which routes needed this legislation before they could be legally transferred. We are getting the Bill without having explained to us what it is for, so we can only speculate about what routes are to be immediately transferred. There have been suggestions in the Press, and anyone's guess is as good as mine, but as far as I can see the routes which are likely to be transferred do not provide for competition but only for substitution; that is to say a monopoly is all right so long as it is a private monopoly.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), diverted us with a lecturette about the rôle of the Government. Of course, that a Northern Ireland Member should thus address a Welsh Member was most acceptable. The hon. Member made the classic case for the Tory way of handling these things. He wanted to denationalise everything, and to unload the shares. He had quite as much support from the very few hon. Members then present on his side as the Minister had earlier. I know that the Minister will understand what I mean when I say that if he has Belfast, East I have Brent-ford and Chiswick. It was a most interesting speech, expressing very well, I thought, the true classic Tory view that nothing should be nationalised, but that if it has been it should be denationalised—until, of course, it breaks down, when the taxpayer must be conscripted to nationalise it again and put it back on its feet.
  Heaven knows that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. already have as much competition as they can handle. They compete with all the world's major airlines. They have to be on their toes in order to prevent large segments of the British intercontinental trade from being picked up by nearby agencies on the Continent. The competition is there. What we need is concentration of resources, of expertise, of finance, of equipment, in order to face the already existing competition, which is growing more acute every day.
  Mr. Onslow: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to overcome
  350
  his natural good nature and make a fighting Opposition speech. If what he is saying about competition is true, can he explain why in paragraph 33 of his own White Paper he seemed content that the second force should be a competitor with British carriers on the North Atlantic?
  Mr. Roberts: I know the hon. Gentleman so well and I know that he really knows his way round this subject, and certainly round the White Paper. He knows that we said that we would consider the possibility of double designation on certain routes, including possibly the North Atlantic. That is not to say what he has just said to the House.
  To truncate my remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) reminded us that compulsory transfer of routes is not the only way in which the Bill will enable the Government to penalise the Corporations. Apparently there is to be automatic preference in the allocation of new routes in favour of independent companies. Is this really the Government's intention? Is the criterion to be, not which applicant makes the best case in the national interest and in the public service, but whether it is in the independent sector? If that is to be the criterion, this is dogma run mad, and nothing but harm can result to the airline industry and to our economy.
  Finally, there is the question of timing. The Government propose to hand over on a plate almost immediately £6 million worth of revenue generating anything between £1 million and £12 million annual profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Less tax."] Everything must be regarded as being less tax. The Government propose to hand over this fat slice of the revenue of B.O.A.C. to the private sector, and this is at a time when almost all the major airlines of the world are facing massive losses, leading in the most unlikely countries to proposals for something like nationalisation through mergers, and when B.O.A.C. itself, the most successful of them all on every count, for all its splendid profitability in the past few years will have to face increasingly acute competition from these very airlines fighting desperately for survival. Is not this the worst possible time to reduce the strength of national Corporations which have proved their

  351
  worth to this country in the international market?
  The Bill and the policy it promotes is ill-considered, hasty and fraught with danger to the airline industry. It is a charter for private gain at the expense of the public interest. We shall vote against it tonight, and we shall seek to undo the damage it will undoubtedly inflict upon the airline industry as soon as we return to power.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): My first pleasant duty is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) on an extraordinarily able and fluent speech. It was based on great experience and was delivered in a wholly acceptable manner.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) seemed to think that my hon. Friend's speech was controversial. It is not the first time that it could have been said that a maiden speech was a shade controversial, but I did not think that my hon. Friend's speech was controversial. I thought that it was factual and full of experience and common sense. I know that the whole House will look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friend on this and other subjects.
  First, I shall underline one or two of the observations which my right hon. Friend made about the need for the Bill. One of the prime objects of introducing the Bill is to give the House an opportunity to debate the Government's policy and to put fairly and squarely before the House their proposals for the second force and for setting up their new airline. There is little doubt in the Government's mind that the powers under existing legislation are adequate to effect the transfer. The only danger, as my right hon. Friend said, might have been that litigation took place which would have delayed and frustrated the quick transfer of the routes, which in turn would have had the effect of tying the whole of our civil aviation industry in a morass of legal proceedings and delays, which would have been to the benefit of no one. The Government have no doubt whatever that they have the legal powers to do what they want to do, but they are putting the matter beyond doubt by bringing forward the Bill.
  352
  Next, I take up the question whether this is to be a once-for-all operation or whether there will be further transfers of routes under the powers given by the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked about this, and he replied that he could not give an undertaking never again to use these powers. The powers relate to the power under the Air Corporations Act, 1967, Section 3(5), a power to stop an airline flying a particular route. Clearly, my right hon. Friend could not give that undertaking. An airline might wish to fly to an enemy country or to a foreign country, or might wish to engage in activities in which the Government definitely wished it not to engage. As was explained in Committee on the 1967 Bill by the previous Government, there are many possible circumstances in which it might be necessary to use these powers.
  Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I confirm, however, that it is not the Government's intention to use the powers in the Bill to effect further transfers of routes in the way proposed on this occasion.
  Mr. Loughlin: I wanted to hear from the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, having once had his hand in the till, he would not put it in again. He has now given it.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman would do better to wait to hear what I have to say before jumping in and wasting the time of the House.
  The second power to which my right hon. Friend is giving emphasis in the Bill is his power under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, Section 1(3), to exempt an airline from the need to complete all the stages of the A.T.L.B. procedure so as to avoid delay in operating a route. Again, it would be impossible for my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking never to use that power again. It has been used several times in the past by Governments of both colours. It is a useful power to exercise so that a service is not interrupted by the delays which the A.T.L.B. procedures can create in holding up actual transfer and power to fly.
  After the Bill has become law and the transfers have been made, any further questions about who flies which route

  353
  will be for the new A.T.L.B., in the form of the C.A.A., to consider under the criteria which will be the subject of later legislation and debate in the House.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) seemed to fear foreign ownership of any second force airline. I need only tell him that the Air Transport Licensing Board has as one of its duties to satisfy itself that there is not foreign control of any airline to which it grants franchises or licences. So it would be perfectly possible to revoke the licence of any airline which at a later stage came under foreign control. We are satisfied, however, that the shareholders and owners of the Caledonian-B.U.A. airline are overwhelmingly United Kingdom residents. The proportion which could be described as foreign is not greater than 1·9 per cent.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am much obliged to the Minister for referring to that passage in my speech in which I expressed doubts about the possibility of a foreign take-over. Perhaps, as an experienced man of affairs in the City, he will now tell the House how he will prevent any such take-over if the equities that go with this dubious transaction go on to the stock exchanges of the world and can be bought by the nationals of any country. Would he care to answer that serious point?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman gets himself into deeper and deeper water. If that happened, the A.T.L.B. could refuse the continuation of the airline's licences. The moment it is known that any airline has come under foreign control, it is possible to take action. That power is a sufficient threat to frustrate anything of the sort happening.
  There have been insinuations from some hon. Members opposite that the proposed new airline would have a less good safety chance than the State Corporations. I must rebut that absolutely. The two airlines, B.U.A. and Caledonian, from which it will be formed, have an absolutely first-class safety record. Whatever may be the picture for the independents as a whole, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that anything intended here is likely in any way to reduce safety.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), in an intervention, gave the reasons—
  Mr. Huckfield rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman will sit down.
  Mr. Ridley: I should be grateful if hon. Members would not interrupt me in the middle of sentences. I am prepared to sit down at colons or full stops, but not at commas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping gave the reasons why the independents have faced some difficulties. The whole House should now acknowledge that there is no need whatsoever to try to cast alarm and despondency on this operation.
  Mr. Huckfield: Then will the Minister tell the House where the second-force airline will do its maintenance? Will it be done in Belgium or this country, and where?
  Mr. Ridley: I have not the slightest idea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a matter for the commercial decision of the airline, just as where B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. do their maintenance is entirely a matter for their commercial decision.
  It is our intention to transfer these routes, representing between £5 million-and £6 million-worth of revenue, which is only equivalent to 2½ to 3 per cent. of B.O.A.C.'s total business, much less than the annual growth of B.O.A.C.'s business as a whole. To say that that in some way truncates or cuts out B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. makes a mountain out of a very small molehill. I emphasise that what we are talking about is not profit but gross revenue. What will be the profit that is transferred depends on the efficient operation of the airlines.
  My right hon. Friend said that we shall proceed with the Airways Board, which will have the effect of bringing together in one form or another, not yet determined, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. This will be an enormous strengthening of the public sector of aviation. The old division of long and short-haul may well not be the right division, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) said, the 500-mile route is

  355
  becoming less and less economic if that is the only route in the mix of routes an airline has. So the Government proposals are, broadly, both to strengthen the public sector by bringing together the two State airlines and to strengthen the private sector.
  Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I come now—
  Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) must keep his seat.
  Mr. Ridley rose—
  Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mere repetition does not make an hon. Member give way.
  Mr. Ridley rose—
  Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West must not continue to interrupt.
  Mr. Ridley: I have a lot more to say. I have given way three times already and I will give way again to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, but I should like to make some more progress first.
  Mr. Richard Marsh rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I am not giving way.
  Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West must keep his seat. It is open for him to ask the Minister to give way, but if he does not give way the hon. Member must sit down.
  Mr. Ridley: I come to the question of compensation which it is suggested by hon. Members should be paid in this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping said, a route licence is a franchise to fly and in this country it is the property of the State.
  Mr. Loughlin: Talk about the £6 million.
  Mr. Ridley: I will come to that. A route licence is granted by the Air Transport Licensing Board on behalf of the State and it is the Government's responsibility and duty to distribute these licences as they think fit. There is no question of the licence being the property of the airline concerned. That position has been the policy of successive Governments on both sides of the House. No Government have ever charged for these franchises to the airlines which operate them, either by trying to sell them outright or by trying to lease them. So, where nothing has been paid, no property right has been created and the airlines have no right whatever to the property which these leases represent.
  Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is still quite clear that the Minister is not giving way. When the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West speaks, he expects to be listened to and he must extend the same courtesy to others.
  Mr. Ridley: The Government have other licences of this sort which they treat in the same way—bus licences, licences for public houses for the sale of liquor, and gaming licences, for example. All these are the property of the Government. They are all revocable or nonrenewable without compensation.
  This was decided at law in the case of the liquidation of British Eagle. The liquidator then tried to claim that the possession by British Eagle of certain air traffic rights constituted property for which British Eagle should receive compensation from B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. or whoever it was who took over those traffic rights. This matter was decided at law and the liquidator's claim was found not to be the case. In no instance has it been established that this is property which belongs to the airline concerned.
  Mr. Loughlin: Tell us the one about the three bears.
  Mr. Ridley: The Opposition have further tried to make out that these route licences are in some way assets of B.O.A.C. for which it should receive compensation. As they are not the property of B.O.A.C., no question of compensation arises. The aeroplanes and the equipment concerned are the property of

  357
  the airline, will remain their property and can be used elsewhere. The terminal facilities, the buildings, hangars, and any other installations in the airport belonging to B.O.A.C. can be sold to the new airline, or to other airlines using that airport, and so they can be recognised. Finally, the money invested in the development of the route is a capital investment which is, or should have been, depreciated and amortised out of the profits which the airline has made out of that route.
  B.O.A.C. has been in possession—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) were listened to; they must extend the same courtesy to others.
  Mr. Ridley: B.O.A.C. has been in possession of these routes for many years and has been making profits on them. It has been writing off its investment moneys against the profits which it has made from them. If in due course another airline takes them over, it will do the same thing.
  I will admit that there will be some loss to B.O.A.C., but it is very small and nothing like the £6 million, or the sort of figures which hon. Members opposite have mentioned.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman said that B.O.A.C. had been in possession of "these routes" for many years. Which routes? The Minister for Trade has sought permission to transfer the routes and has forced the Corporations into submission, but he has not mentioned which routes. We know that £6 million worth of route revenue is involved. The hon. Gentleman has now said that "these routes" have been in the possession of B.O.A.C. for many years; perhaps he will tell the House before we pass the Bill which routes are involved.
  Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that B.O.A.C. has had all its routes in its possession, or a very large proportion of them, for a very long time. That does not give any clue.
  Mr. Mason: Which routes?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall not tell the House which routes, because I do not know. It has not yet been settled.
  358
  I come to the main argument which lies behind the Bill. The Edwards Committee recommended that there should be a second force. It was unanimous and it included in its unanimity its trade union member who is now on the B.O.A.C. Board. Its proposal was accepted by the Labour Government in the White Paper and they had no doubt about the rightness of setting up the second force. The right hon. Member for Barnsley said:
  "That is what the Edwards Committee meant by a 'second force' and what we meant in the White Paper. As it became possible to open new routes or introduce a second carrier on old ones such an airline would command consideration. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said the Government were quite sincere in what they said about this in the White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 435.]
  There is no doubt that the Opposition are fully committed to supporting the second force.
  Mr. Mason: Oh, no.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Now tell the whole truth.
  Mr. Ridley: I have no right to speak for one-half of the Opposition against the other. I am simply saying what the Labour Government said. It has been admitted by the Opposition Front Bench that they see merit in competition. The White Paper says that there are benefits in competition wherever the practical considerations allow. Of course competition in the airline world is not the same as it is in straightforward industry, but it has great merits, three of which I will briefly mention.
  Many hon. Gentlemen have mentioned the advantages of dual designation where this is possible. Second is the instance in which our State airlines may decide to give up one of the routes it is operating. The history of the British-South America route demonstrates this point. B.O.A.C. asked for a subsidy of between £¾ million and £1¼ million to go on operating this route in 1963. No subsidy was offered and it withdrew in 1964. B.U.A. applied for and got the licence. It reintroduced the service one month later and by 1968 was making a reasonable profit.
  Mr. Leslie Huekfield rose—
  Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Member for Barnsley said that there were different planes, different stopping-off points, different frequencies, different routes, but

  359
  this is the advantage of innovation. Here was a company able to try new methods, new plans, demonstrating that it could turn a loss-maker into a profit-maker. I do not question the judgment of B.O.A.C. in giving up the route or of B.U.A. taking it on.
  Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman must know that in 1963 B.O.A.C. could not get the frequency that it wanted, could not get the stopping-off points it wanted and could not get the planes it wanted. B.U.A. did.
  Mr. Ridley: Good for B.U.A. Another example, and one for which those who travel regularly to Edinburgh, Belfast and Glasgow will have reason to be grateful to B.U.A. and other independents, was the introduction of jets on these routes. They were the first to do it and B.E.A. was forced to follow suit. The result has not only been a great increase in passenger satisfaction with the standard of service but a great growth in the independent share of the traffic. The independents together on these three routes averaged in 1963–64 1·6 per cent. of the traffic and by 1969–70 it had grown to 9·8 per cent.
  It shows what can be done by competition and it shows that despite the fact that competition was severe, the service has been improved, albeit at increased cost. This is presumably what the passenger wants or he would not pay for it. The arguments for a second force are very strong and accepted by everyone except some hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not appear to believe in competition of any sort whatever. The independents have been handicapped by lack of opportunity and the only hope for a strong independent clearly lay in the B.U.A.-Caledonian merger. The key to that merger success was the transfer of some of the scheduled routes.
  Edwards recognised this and made a strong plea for the transfer of some scheduled routes to the new force. What was the attitude of the Opposition to the transfer of these scheduled routes? Now they are saying in the strongest language, with the greatest vehemence, that no transfer of scheduled routes should be made, nor would they have made transfers. They call it bare-faced robbery, to quote the right hon. Gentleman. Yet they have been saying that no "significant" transfers of routes should
  360
  be made. This is rather different. The right hon. Gentleman, talking about his White Paper, quoted paragraph 41. He quoted the first sentence and then read straight to the third sentence. He left out the second sentence of that paragraph which reads:
  "The Committee emphasised that territorial concessions must be limited."
  If
  "territorial concessions must be limited",
  it follows that territorial concessions were to take place.
  Mr. Mason rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Ridley: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what territorial concessions he envisaged were to take place and what his policy was. Was it to have no scheduled route transfers, or to allow scheduled route transfers to take place as published in his White Paper?
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman should be more careful when quoting from White Papers. The Edwards Committee, not the Government, emphasised that territorial concessions must be limited. We did not accept the Edwards Committee's recommendation that a second force airline should be established on the basis of transferring routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I have made that clear many times, and especially today.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) does not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Gentleman made a speech this afternoon which all who heard it believed had the ring of truth about it.
  We do not know what the previous Government would have done. We do not know whether they were trying to tempt a second force into existence in order to smash it through shortage of routes. We do not know whether they would have let it come into existence or whether they were merely doing it to knock it on the head, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick said.
  The independents lost ground during the Labour Government's period of office. In 1964 the Corporations had 88·5 per cent. of the scheduled market; in

  361
  1969 they had 93·2 per cent. The modest transfer which we are proposing would probably not bring us back to the 1964 percentage of the business. This is not surprising, since the scheduled services have been the profitable part of the business. Of B.O.A.C.'s total profit last year of £31 million, £30½ million was made on the scheduled services and only £637,000 on the non-scheduled and other services.
  Therefore, one realises that the true reason that the Labour Government were not prepared to give scheduled services to the new independents was that they knew that it was essential to have some scheduled services if an airline were to
  operate profitably. Yet the Labour Government persisted in trying to confine the second company to the charter market. They insisted on trying to starve it of the necessary routes We on this side of the House believe that we should have a strong public Corporation and a strong private airline. The Bill gives us the power to make the necessary transfer of routes with out robbery or exappropriation, as I have shown. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 265

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Ailason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Critchley, Julian

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Crouch, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Havers, Michael

  Astor, John

  Curran, Charles

  Hawkins, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dance, James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Heseltine, Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Hicks, Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Dean, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bell, Ronald

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Dixon, Piers

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Holland, Philip

  Benyon, W.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Eden, Sir John

  Hordern, Peter

  Biffen, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hornby, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Blaker, Peter

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Fell, Anthony

  Hunt, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fidier, Michael

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  James, David

  Bray, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Brewis, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Foster, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fowler, Norman

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fox, Marcus

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Jopling, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Fry, Peter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Burden, F. A.

  Gardiner, Edward

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kilfedder, James

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kimball, Marcus

  Channon, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorst, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gower, Raymond

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gray, Hamish

  Kirk, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Green, Alan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Clark, William (Surrey, East)

  Grieve, Percy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Knox, David

  Clegg, Walter

  Grjmond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Lambton, Antony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Grylls, Michael

  Lane, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Cummer, Selwyn

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Coombs, Derek

  Gurden, Harold

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, Miss John (Keighley)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Cordle, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Peel, John

  Stodart, Anhony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Percival, Ian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Loveridge, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stokes, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pounder, Rafton

  Sutcliffe, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Redmond, Robert

  Temple, John M.

  Madel, David

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Marten, Neil

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Mather, Carol

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maude, Angus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Tilney, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Trew, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Miscampell, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Royle, Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Moate, Roger

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Molyneaux, James

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Money, Ernle

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Walters, Dennis

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Monro, Hector

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sharples, Richard

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whiby)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Simeons, Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mudd, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Murton, Oscar

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Neave, Airey

  Soref, Harold

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Nott, John

  Spence, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sproat, Iain

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stainton, Keith

  Younger, Hn. George

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Osborn, John

  Steel, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Owen, Idris Stockport, N.)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Neil

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Albu, Austen

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Driberg, Tom

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dunn, James A.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cohen, Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Ashley, Jack

  Coleman, Donald

  Edelman, Maurice

  Ashton, Joe

  Concannon, J. D.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)

  Ellis, Tom

  Barnes, Michael

  Crawshaw, Richard

  English, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Cronin, John

  Evans, Fred

  Baxter, William

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beaney, Alan

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fernyhough, E.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Foley, Maurice

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Foot, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Ford, Ben

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Forrester, John

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Garrett, W. E.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Buchan, Norman

  Delargy, H. J.

  Ginsburg, David

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Golding, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dempsey, James

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)

  Doig, Peter

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Cant, R. B.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  364

  365

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McElhone, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McGuire, Michael

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mackie, John

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hamling, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roper, John

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hardy, Peter

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Harper, Joseph

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Shore, Rt. Hon. Peter (Stepney)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Marquand, David

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Sillars, James

  Horam, John

  May hew, Christopher

  Silverman, Julius

  Hough ton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Smart, William

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  MM Ian, Bruce

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stafford, A. W.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Stoddart, David (Swlndon)

  Hunter, Adam

  Molloy, William

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Strang, Gavin

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Swam, Thomas

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Moyle, Roland

  Taverne, Dick

  John, Brynmor

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Federick

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tomney, Frank

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oram, Bert

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Flint, East)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Orme, Capt. L. P. S.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Judd, Frank

  Oswald, Thomas

  Varley, Eric G.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Kelley, Richard

  Padley, Walter

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Kerr, Russell

  Paget, R. T.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wallace, George

  Lambie, David

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Watkins, David

  Lamond, James

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Weitzman, David

  Latham, Arthur

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lawson, George

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Pentland, Norman

  Whitlock, William

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lip ton, Marcus

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rankin, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Woof, Robert

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  McBride, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McCann, John

  Richard, Ivor

  Mr. Kenneth Marks and

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  MacColl, James

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.14 p.m.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill seeks to remedy one of those unfortunate lapses which are bound to occur from time to time in the observance of the procedures of Parliament. It is not the first time that this has happened, and I dare say that it will not be the last, that the omission of some step in legislative procedure has thrown doubt on the validity of legislation, in this case supporting legislation, namely, two Statutory Instruments.
  As the House knows, when a parent Statute gives to the Minister the power to give birth to law by means of Statutory Instrument, it will describe the breed of Statutory Instrument. I need not describe all the breeds of Statutory Instrument which can pass through the House. I will describe only those with which we are concerned in the Bill. They are, first, the Statutory Instrument which does not need to be laid before the House at all; secondly, the Statutory Instrument which requires to be laid before the House but in respect of which no further parliamentary procedure is necessary; and thirdly, the Statutory Instrument which requires to be laid before Parliament and against which hon. Members may table a Prayer for its amendment. In the case of Statutory Instruments which have to be laid before the House, the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, requires that they should be laid before they come into operation.
  In 1965 and 1967, the Government of the day were not advised otherwise than that the Statutory Instruments with which we are concerned were of a kind which did not require to be laid before Parliament. It is now agreed on all sides of the House that they were of the kind which required to be laid before Parliament and, furthermore, that they were of a kind which ought to be subject to parliamentary procedure by way of a Prayer for annulment. By that, I am not suggesting that these Statutory Instru-
  368
  ments should be annulled. However, hon. Members should have had an opportunity to initiate a debate upon them in the House.
  This House appoints a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which for many years I had the honour to be chairman. Since this Indemnity Bill has been presented to the House, I have been teased by hon. Members on both sides for letting two Statutory Instruments through the Select Committee without their being laid before the House. On behalf of the Committee, I must refute that rather jocular allegation.
  At the time that these Statutory Instruments were made, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments was not permitted to look at any Statutory Instruments other than those which had to be laid before the House. In 1965, there were two occasions similar to the present on which it was found that Statutory Instruments which ought to have been laid before the House had not been, and this was reported to the House. Following upon that, I asked that the Select Committee should be allowed to look at all Statutory Instruments, whether or not they required to be laid before the House. The terms of reference of the Select Committee were altered in November, 1967, and since then Statutory Instruments which do not require to be laid before the House have been put before the Committee.
  This is not an error that is likely to occur again. In 1969, the Committee spotted one of these Instruments and quickly saw that it was laid before the House within a month of its being made. Under our present procedure, it is unlikely that the same sort of oversight will occur in future as occurred with the two Instruments with which the Bill deals.
  In none of the previous cases that I have mentioned was it considered necessary to have an Indemnity Bill. Private rights were not affected. However, in the case of these town planning orders, private rights may be affected. I do not want to scare anyone, but many planning permissions granted by the Greater London Council over the past five years may be invalid.
  It is rather a complicated explanation of the situation, but perhaps I might put it briefly in this way. Under Section

  369
  24 of the London Government Act, 1963, both the Greater London Council and the London borough councils are local planning authorities. This sort of dual personality in planning responsibility is resolved in the Act by saying that the Minister may make regulations as to the planning applications to be dealt with by the G.L.C. or the boroughs respectively.
  That is what was done by these two sets of regulations. They deal with a number of important planning matters, some of which are directed by the regulations to be dealt with by the G.L.C. Others, these regulations direct, are to be referred to the G.L.C. if dealt with by the boroughs.
  Therefore, if these regulations are invalid, a wrong procedure has been adopted over planning applications for some years. It has been discovered that, to say the least, there is a doubt as to whether these regulations are valid.
  The Section of the London Government Act gives the power to make the regulations and on the face of it, it is quite clear. They need not be laid before the House when they are made, but there is a pitfall further back, in Section 29(6), which introduces a Section of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, which itself makes it necessary for regulations of this kind to be laid before the House and to be subject to the negative procedure—that is to say, to make it possible for the House to debate them upon a Prayer tabled by any hon. Member.
  In those circumstances, by these cross-references betwen the London Government Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, these regulations should have been laid before the House, subject to the negative procedure. We will all agree with this. They are the kind of regulations, dealing with important planning matters, which should come before the House and be debated, if any hon. Member wishes.
  Unfortunately, that is not quite the end of the story. This provision, which made it necessary for these regulations to be subject to negative procedure, was provisionally repealed in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. Fortunately, that repeal has not been brought into operation yet, because it was inserted
  370
  in the 1968 Act only for the purpose of the new forms of planning in the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, which have not come into full operation yet. Therefore, without any damage, it is possible to remove that repeal in the 1968 Act of the provisions relating to town planning regulations of this sort.
  The Bill says succinctly what I have said in a much more long-winded way and it conveniently recites the short history of the position in its first few lines. Clause 1 indemnifies the Minister of Housing and Local Government and all others who had a duty to comply with Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and I assure the House that the then Minister of Housing and Local Government and his officers in the Department committed no legal offence. However, if a person had acted on invalid planning permissions, it is possible that a civil claim could arise against the Minister and his officers; and it is right, in these circumstances, that the House should indemnify both Ministers and officers against any such claim.
  Clause 1 also provides that the regulations shall be deemed to have been laid before coming into operation. Of course, they were laid only on the 10th of this month and not before they came into operation respectively in 1965 and 1967. However, the way to put this right is to deem them to have been laid on 10th November, 1970, before the regulations came into operation.
  Clause 2 prevents the negative procedure in the House relating to the regulations being removed when Schedule 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, comes into operation.
  Fortunately this is a nice, short Bill. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that it is proper for the Government to introduce an indemnity Measure in this case. I say again that it has not been necessary in several other cases—in fact, I think since the early 1950s—to bring in an indemnity Bill to put right Statutory Instruments which may have slipped some step in procedure.
  In this case, where private rights were concerned, it was proper for us to inform the House and to introduce the Bill. I hope that the Measure will receive the approval of hon. Members.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Silkin: The whole House is grateful to the Minister for his clear and lucid exposition of what is a very complicated position. We are grateful, too, for the knowledge which he gave us and for explaining that it is unlikely that this rather complex and difficult situation is likely to arise again.
  On a personal note, it seems a curious irony of history that he was Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments when I was the Government Chief Whip. Both of us were rather interested in altering the terms of reference of that Select Committee. Justice in this case may have come late, but it is certainly seen to be done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not advise my hon. Friends to oppose the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  CANVEY ISLAND (FIRE SAFETY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Hawkins.]
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for making it possible for me to raise the subject of fire hazards on Canvey Island. As may be known, I have been trying to raise the subject for some weeks past. It is therefore a pure coincidence that a public inquiry opened this morning on Canvey to hear objections from residents to a proposal to introduce an additional hazard in the from of a large oil refinery.
  I have had the honour to represent Canvey in this House for over 20 years, and I think I can claim to know the island like the back of my hand. I still have vivid memories of the great flood disaster of 1953, when the islanders were the worst hit of all the East Coast communities and many lives were lost. The lesson was learned. The island sea defences were greatly strengthened, confidence was restored, population grew,
  372
  and we now have a flourishing community of over 25,000.
  This large and growing community, however, is still dependent, as it was in 1953, on a single line of communication with the mainland, passing over a ramshackle bridge which has been a constant source of anxiety for as long as I can remember. True, the island is to have a new approach road by 1972, but its growing traffic and its emergency services will have to depend on a single, tenuous link until then.
  Along the southern-western edge of the island are three industrial installations regarded by the authorities as major fire risks: the important North Thames Gas Board methane terminal, the London and coastal oil wharves, and the Regent Oil Company's storage tanks. About a mile to the west, across the creek in neighbouring Thurrock—whose representative in the House I am glad to see in his place—are three other installations which are classed as major fire risks: the Mobil oil refinery at Coryton, Thames Haven Wharves and the Shell oil refinery at Shell Haven.
  In February, despite strong protests from me, backed by thousands of my constituents and by the local authorities, the late Government decided to grant industrial development certificates to two international oil companies to establish refineries on Canvey Island despite obvious planning and amenity objections. One of these companies has gone ahead, and their application is the subject of the public inquiry which opened today.
  One must readily concede that modern oil refineries are generally well conducted installations, where the utmost care is taken to prevent fire or to contain it once it has broken out. They have their own highly efficient fire-fighting force. But they are not immune to trouble, as the disastrous Texaco refinery fire at Milford Haven showed as recently as last month. It is for this reason that they should never be sited near residential areas.
  In the last three years the Essex Fire Brigade has responded to 54 calls from the refineries and other high risk installations in Thurrock and Canvey, and 45 of these were calls to the Thurrock installations. One of these calls was to a serious fire which occurred at the Shell Haven refinery in June, which started

  373
  after explosions in a pump house. More than 200 firemen fought through the night as flames leaping 150 feet high menaced some 25,000 tons of oil. Three men were badly burned and taken to hospital. It was announced that the Shell Company would make a report but that this would not be published.
  On 2nd July I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was then Minister of Technology, drawing his attention to the fact that this report would not be published and that many of my constituents were worried about the implications. I pointed out how vulnerable Canvey is—vulnerable in the double sense; because of its own complex of fire hazards and because of its dependence upon a single line of communication with the mainland. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he was satisfied that there were no lessons to be learned which ought to be published.
  I was told that although the report would not be made public copies would be sent to the Thurrock Urban District Council's petroleum officer, to H.M. Inspector of Factories and to the Essex Fire Brigade, and that H.M. Inspector of Explosives would keep very much in mind the need to pass on any useful information to the petroleum officer for Canvey Island.
  That was reassuring, except that in the five months that have since elapsed no information has been passed to the petroleum officer for Canvey Island, despite the distinct impression of the clerk of the local council who, as secretary of the Thamesside Oil Refinery Sub-Committee, had written separately to the Inspector of Explosives, that he would be told what lessons had been learned. He has heard nothing since. Nor did I until late yesterday afternoon, after it was known that I would be raising this matter tonight. I understand now that some information will be given to Canvey Island. It is about time.
  On 11th November the local Press reported that yet another fire had broken out at the Shell refinery. We have no information as to whether it was serious.
  My hon. Friend will forgive me if I point out that disasters do not respect local government boundaries and that in
  374
  this case one would have thought that common sense and common prudence would require that a report of what had happened should have gone automatically, not only to Thurrock Urban District Council, but to Canvey Urban District Council as well. The significance of this will be seen in a few moments.
  On the night of 26th July, as though the gods had decided to teach everyone a lesson, the 10,000-ton passenger vessel "Monte Ulia", bound for Tilbury, veered off course and hit the Mobil Oil jetty at Coryton with such force that the impact was heard a mile away. The ship swung round and grounded on a sandbank off Canvey, but the impact set off a terrifying chain reaction. A pipeline on the jetty was fractured and hundreds of tons of crude oil gushed out into the estuary and burst into flames. As the blazing oil snaked round Canvey Island commercial tugs, happily on the spot, battled to stop the flames from spreading. Two blazing barges moored to the Mobil jetty broke loose and were swept down on the ebb tide towards the London and Coastal wharf on Canvey Island where a tanker was unloading hundreds of tons of highly inflammable fuel. A general alarm was sounded. Shipping in the estuary was halted. Thanks to the splendid exertions of the Essex Fire Brigade, the fire was eventually brought under control.
  Nevertheless, had the tugs not been providentially on the scene, and had the wind and tide directions not been favourable, it is almost certain that there would have been a major disaster. A spokesman for the Port of London Authority was reported in the Evening Echo as saying:
  "We have been very lucky. There has been nothing like this since the war. It went off like a bomb. There was a terrible risk involved with so much fuel around."
  Certainly we have had a lucky escape. But within a few days constituents were asking me if I knew how lucky we had been. Did I know, for example, that at the London and Coastal Jetty, towards which the blazing barges had headed, the arrangement for fire fighting was to use a product line and that when the firemen arrived the line was full of fuel and could not be charged with water because the mechanism was defective?

  375
  I wrote at once to the Essex County Council, as fire authority, and asked if this was true. The reply I received confirmed that, although the installation on land was equipped with a ring main water system to be used exclusively for fire fighting, this did not extend to the jetty where the emergency had arisen. Here, it was quite true, the arrangements in an emergency were to use a product line which would have to be cleared of inflammable fuel before it could be charged with water.
  The county clerk conceded that, although such an arrangement had been considered reasonable in the past, it was so no longer. He said that
  "schemes envisaging an arrangement of this kind would not now be accepted in view of the delay which must occur in clearing lines back to ships or storage tanks and then removing residual products."
  He added, however, that the extension of the ring main system to the jetty would not take place until next year and implied that this might not happen until a new jetty had been built. Incidentally, there had been a little delay in getting the main fire system working, but it was working by the time that the blazing barge came within range. The clerk told me that this was
  "a serious matter as it could have caused difficulties under different circumstances."
  I understand that the defect has now been put right.
  It is clear to me that not only were the arrangements for fire fighting less than satisfactory at this particular installation but that they will remain so until some time next year. Councillor William Ashworth, who represents half the island on the county council, pursued the matter independently and he told me only a few days ago that he is deeply concerned at what he has been told and he supports what I am saying tonight.
  I am not concerned here with apportioning any blame. I have no doubt that the arrangements at the London and Coastal wharves comply fully with existing regulations. They must do so, because they were inspected as recently as June. The question arises, however, as to whether the conditions imposed under the regulations are adequate. There is every reason to believe that they are not.
  376
  In this connection, I recall that in August 1969 my hon. Friend's predecessor in the Home Office wrote to one of my Canvey constituents who had inquired about fire precautions at the neighbouring methane terminal. He said that there had been 55 fire incidents in the previous four years, only one of which had caused serious anxiety. He then added:
  "All necessary precautions are taken to ensure that occupiers of neighbouring properties are not endangered".
  Very reassuring, But, surely that applies to all other industrial fire risks on Canvey Island. Can it be said with certainty of the London Coastal wharves? If not, what is being done about it?
  On the day after the "Monte Ulia" incident, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), then President of the Board of Trade. I told him what had happened. I asked whether a routine inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts had been put in train, and whether there were any lessons to be learned. I asked him to appreciate that on Canvey Island we are particularly sensitive to matters of this kind since we already have extensive oil and methane storage facilities and a very large residential population, with only a slender line of communication to the mainland. I referred also to the proposal to erect a new oil refinery, which was bound to increase the amount of oil traffic off our shores and, therefore, the degree of hazard.
  On 7th August I was told that a preliminary inquiry had been ordered and was proceeding. Since then, nearly four months have passed. Although I have made repeated requests to the Department for information, again I heard nothing until yesterday, that is, after it was known that I would be raising the matter on the Adjournment tonight. I am now told that I shall be kept informed. That is a little late in the day.
  It will be seen, therefore, that my constituents and I have good grounds for complaint, and all the more so when it is realised that an additional hazard in the shape of an entirely new refinery with storage facilities for highly explosive gases, and all the accompanying ancillary risks, may be thrust on the island very soon.

  377
  I assure the House that in raising this matter tonight I am reflecting the views and anxieties not only of Canvey's experienced county councillors, Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Pickett, who represent the Conservative and Labour Parties, but of the local authority and most of the island's representative organisations as well. I am delighted also to see present the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who represents the neighbouring constituency, whose interests are bound up with ours in this matter.
  I wish to make plain that I make no criticism whatever of either the Essex fire brigade or Canvey's part-time firemen. I yield to no one in admiration for the skill and courage which these men display at all times. No doubt, if the existing fire hazards on Canvey Island are to be deliberately increased, our present arrangements for fire fighting will have to be changed and the regular force may have to be strengthened. But, in the meantime, these men as well as my constituents as a whole are entitled to expect that the fire risks are kept to the minimum.
  I wish, therefore, to put the following questions to my hon. Friend. First, bearing in mind our experience, will he ensure that in future when there are any lessons to be learned from fires at industrial plants regarded as high risks, these are transmitted automatically and without delay to all neighbouring authorities where there are similar fire risks, and not merely to the fire authority?
  Second, since the Home Office is primarily responsible for preventing disasters from occurring and for dealing with them when they occur, will he ensure that other Departments, especially the Department of Trade and Industry, bestir themselves more energetically than they did in this case when hon. Members raise questions touching on the safety of their constituents?
  Third, will he see that an appropriate officer inquires into the situation on Canvey Island, so that he—I refer to my hon. Friend in whom I have complete faith and confidence—can satisfy himself as well as everyone else concerned that our existing fire precautions are really adequate?
  Fourth, will he draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—how aptly
  378
  his collection of responsibilities is named in the context of this debate—to the dangers, indeed, the folly, of permitting an additional refinery to be established in an area where there are already far too many major fire hazards for the health and safety of a large and growing resident population?
  I have no wish to be alarmist. Indeed, I am choosing my words carefully. But the Aberfan disaster crept upon us largely unawares precisely because no one ever thought that it was his responsibility to calculate the risks being taken. I beg my hon. Friend to make sure that his colleagues understand fully that, before any deliberate decision is taken to add to the existing fire hazards on Canvey Island, they must remind themselves that the safety of more than 25,000 human beings is involved.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. H. J. Delargy: Time is short and I must be brief. As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has indicated, my constituency is very concerned with this question. Of the four major oil refineries on the river, three are in my constituency. Four miles of our river front is being used for the storage and processing of oil. So we have experience of the fearful hazards of the industry. All the firms in my constituency have in turn contributed to these hazards. I will give a few examples from the last three or four years.
  Esso was responsible in 1968 for a spillage of 54 tons of naphtha; and in 1969 another 700 tons; Shell was responsible for fires in 1969 and 1970; Lathol was responsible in 1965 for a 250 ton tank explosion; Murco was responsible for spillages in 1966 and 1967; Paktank was responsible for explosions in 1968 in West Thurrock, which I raised in the House. It was an explosion which kept all the residents in that area in constant fear for many weeks. These hazards are not merely hazards; they are certainties and dangers which exist and from which the people have suffered.
  The Thurrock Council would deprecate the siting of another oil refinery in this locality. It would create an over-concentration aggravating the existing air and river pollution and detracting from the safety and convenience of people who live in Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham. The siting of an additional jetty of this

  379
  kind would be highly dangerous because this section of the river is already exceptionally busy. I have been extremely brief, but I hope I have said enough to indicate our feelings in Thurrock and our support for all opposition to the erection of a new refinery on Canvey Island.
  10.47 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has raised a matter which I know is of very great importance to his constituents. I am sure they will appreciate the force and clarity with which he put the case. I was also glad that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) had the opportunity to intervene briefly and to put the point of view of his constituents, which is equally of very great importance. As they will appreciate, a number of Ministries have responsibility in this matter including the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, and I give an assurance that I shall ensure that all the points they have brought up in the debate are brought to the attention of those Ministries.
  It would be helpful if I were to say a few words about the present position on Canvey Island. As I understand it, at the moment on Canvey Island there are three major fire risks. First, there is an installation where liquid methane is stored; secondly, there is a major petroleum storage installation; and thirdly, there is the oil wharf to which my hon. Friend has referred. All these installations are subject to the licensing provisions of the Petroleum Consolidation Act, 1928.
  This Act provides that premises where petroleum spirit is kept must be licensed by the local authority, which may refuse to grant a licence, or may attach to the licence such conditions as it considers necessary to ensure the safe keeping of the petroleum spirit. There is in this connection the right of appeal to the Home Secretary. Similar provisions apply to the storage of liquid methane, to which the Act has been applied by an Order in Council under Section 19 of the 1928 Act.
  Local authorities are guided in the exercise of their licensing functions under
  380
  the Act by a Model Code of Principles of Construction and Licensing Conditions for Petroleum Installations. This was revised in 1968 by the Home Secretary's Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, on which both the local authority associations and industry are represented. The recommendations of the Code are not binding on licensing authorities, but in fact most local authorities have adopted these recommendations as the basis of their licensing conditions.
  The recommendations of the Code in respect of major installations cover such matters as siting; safety distances between storage tanks, and also between tanks and the perimeter of the installation; fire precautions, including the provision of fire walls round tanks; and the provision of fire-fighting facilities at the installation. Perhaps most important, the Code makes it clear that consultation should take place between the applicant, the licensing authority and the fire authority at the early planning stages. This is to ensure that, so far as possible, the fire protection and fire-fighting arrangements are to the satisfaction of the fire authority. The expertise of the Explosives Inspectorate and the Fire Service Inspectorate is always available to licensing authorities which wish to seek advice on the licensing of petroleum installations. The Canvey Island Urban District Council was, I understand, guided by this advice to a very large extent in licensing the liquid methane installation.
  The effect of this licensing control is to enable the authorities to require that appropriate standards of safety are provided for everyone on the installation and that all necessary precautions are taken to ensure that occupiers of neighbouring properties are not endangered. Among the conditions attached to the licence for the liquid methane installation are provisions designed to preclude any possible source of ignition within 50 feet of any place where liquid methane is kept and to secure all possible precautions to prevent accident by fire.
  My hon. Friend has referred to certain accidents which have occurred at these oil installations. There was the case of the severe fire which destroyed the pumphouse at Reedham East on 9th June, when three employees were quite severely burned, and there was the accident at Coryton on 26th July, when a

  381
  ship collided with the oil jetty. My hon. Friend described the effects of that.
  This sort of risk, it is contended, could be increased on Canvey Island if the projected development of a new oil refinery on the island is allowed to proceed. But I should point out that these accidents, serious though they were, fortunately did not injure a member of the general public or surrounding property in any way. This reflects not only the efficiency of the Essex fire service but the efficiency of the licensing arrangements. I am very glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute both to the efficiency of the Essex fire service and to the fire service on the site. To this one must add the awareness of the oil companies of the risks which their installations present. Every fire of this kind which occurs is considered, not only by the companies but by the Government. We examine lessons which can be derived from it in improving safety measures for the future, both as regards equipment and practice. My hon. Friend can be assured that these two incidents will be fully considered in this context.
  A preliminary inquiry has been instituted under the Merchant Shipping Acts into the Coryton incident about which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will be making a statement in due course. As to the Reedham East fire, investigations have been undertaken by both the company and the local petroleum officer. Although it is not for the Home Office to say what use might be made of the report of a private company on a fire at one of its own installations, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will see what can be done to ensure that fire research reports on the two incidents and the report from the petroleum officer of the Thurrock Urban District Council are made available, if required, to the petroleum officer of Canvey Island Urban District Council.
  As to the existing installations on Canvey Island, although some 50 outbreaks of fire occurred at the methane installation between 1965, when it was brought into operation, and the end of 1969, all these fires were extinguished immediately by the plant personnel, who had been specially trained in fire-fighting. I think that this is a fair measure of the efficiency of the fire-fighting arrangements
  382
  in that installation. It is only where, first, the preventive measures at such installations and, secondly, their own first-line firefighting arrangements fail to stop a fire that it is necessary to call upon the resources of the local authority fire services. It is for the fire authority to decide what is needed in the way of personnel and equipment to deal efficiently with any fire which is likely to occur in their area. Clearly a fire authority having major oil installations in its area would be particularly concerned to ensure that adequate fire cover was provided for them. The fire authorities have always received the fullest co-operation from the petroleum industry and I understand that they are satisfied with the standard of fire cover provided for Canvey Island. My right hon. Friend has no power to order an inquiry into the fire cover unless there is an accident.
  Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend may have no such power, but I am asking for an inspection by an appropriate officer of one installation to make sure that there are no undue risks in the light of the county clerk's admission that the present situation is unsatisfactory and will remain so until some time unspecified next year.
  Mr. Sharples: My understanding is that the licensing authority has power to make an inspection of this kind, and any technical information or help required by that authority and which the Home Office was able to give would be made available.
  The main question raised by my hon. Friend was that of the new refinery which is now being considered at the inquiry which opened today. It would be improper for me to say anything in this debate which might in any way prejudice that inquiry, although my hon. Friend is not inhibited in quite the same way. If there is concern as to the extent of the increased fire risk which would be presented by an additional oil installation in this area and the ability to provide adequate fire cover it would, of course, be right for these considerations to be brought forward at the inquiry. If planning permission for this development is given, it would still be for the Canvey Island Urban District Council to decide whether a licence for the new installation could properly be granted under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 and,

  383
  if so, what conditions should be attached to it to ensure that the petroleum spirit is kept safely and that the risk presented to the general public is reduced to a minimum. Before reaching a decision, it would undoubtedly consult the fire authority, who would then need to consider whether the fire cover currently provided for Canvey Island required to be increased in any way and could be effectively reinforced in a case of emergency.
  384
  I hope that what I have said will be of some comfort to my hon. Friend. I should like again to say how much I have appreciated the way in which he has put his case and that I realise how much concern this matter is to his constituents on Canvey Island.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Reverse Income Tax
  Reverse Income Tax
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Tax-Per-Employee Proposal
  Tax-Per-Employee Proposal
  Unrequited Exports (Transfer of Assets)
  Unrequited Exports (Transfer of Assets)
  Housebuilding Firms (Bank Loans)
  Housebuilding Firms (Bank Loans)
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Taxation (Proportion of Gross Domestic Product)
  Taxation (Proportion of Gross Domestic Product)
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Fuel Oil Duty
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Government Expenditure (Effect of Reductions)
  Government Expenditure (Effect of Reductions)
  Development Areas (Investment Incentives)
  Development Areas (Investment Incentives)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Value-Added Tax (E.F.T.A.)
  Value-Added Tax (E.F.T.A.)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  British Investment Overseas
  British Investment Overseas
  Prices and Incomes (Control)
  Prices and Incomes (Control)
  Professional Sportsmen (Taxation)
  Professional Sportsmen (Taxation)
  Money Supply Policy
  Money Supply Policy
  Local Government Finances
  Local Government Finances
  Additional Bank Holiday (December)
  Additional Bank Holiday (December)
  Clothing for Disabled Persons (Tax Allowances)
  Clothing for Disabled Persons (Tax Allowances)
  Examination Fees
  Examination Fees
  Guide Dogs for the Blind
  Guide Dogs for the Blind
  Pet Foods
  Pet Foods
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Hickstead Show Jumping Ground (Betting Duty)
  Hickstead Show Jumping Ground (Betting Duty)
  Peers (Expenses)
  Peers (Expenses)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Bank Charges
  Bank Charges
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Staff Salaries
  Staff Salaries
  Employees in Specified Accommodation
  Employees in Specified Accommodation
  Dog and Cat Condition Powders
  Dog and Cat Condition Powders
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Old Persons
  Old Persons
  Benefits (Public Information)
  Benefits (Public Information)
  Homeless (London)
  Homeless (London)
  Disabled Persons (Health Service Charges)
  Disabled Persons (Health Service Charges)
  Influenza
  Influenza
  Electro-Physiological Technologists' Association
  Electro-Physiological Technologists' Association
  National Insurance (Old Persons) Act, 1970
  National Insurance (Old Persons) Act, 1970
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Therapeutic Pools
  Therapeutic Pools
  Hospitals, Rossendale
  Hospitals, Rossendale
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Social Security Benefits (Abuse)
  Social Security Benefits (Abuse)
  Wage-stop
  Wage-stop
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Unmarried Mothers (Supplementary Benefit Claims)
  Unmarried Mothers (Supplementary Benefit Claims)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Potato Acreage
  Potato Acreage
  Milk
  Milk
  Pigs and Pig Meat
  Pigs and Pig Meat
  Inshore Fishing Fleet
  Inshore Fishing Fleet
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Dogs and Puppies (Export to Japan)
  Dogs and Puppies (Export to Japan)
  Farm Amalgamations
  Farm Amalgamations
  Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
  Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
  Forestry Commission (Plantations)
  Forestry Commission (Plantations)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Art Galleries and Museums (Admission Fees)
  Art Galleries and Museums (Admission Fees)
  Arts Council (Touring)
  Arts Council (Touring)
  Direct-Grant Schools
  Direct-Grant Schools
  Steam Railway Museum, Liss
  Steam Railway Museum, Liss
  Milk
  Milk
SCOTLAND
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Strome Bypass Road (Landslip)
  Strome Bypass Road (Landslip)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
  Scotch Beef (Trade Descriptions Act)
  Scotch Beef (Trade Descriptions Act)
  "Hereford Express"
  "Hereford Express"
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Whistleberry Road (Blantyre-Hamilton)
  Whistleberry Road (Blantyre-Hamilton)
  Schools (Equipment)
  Schools (Equipment)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  East Pakistan (Flood Disaster)
  East Pakistan (Flood Disaster)
  Beef (Import Levies)
  Beef (Import Levies)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Public Holidays
  Public Holidays
  Rotherham, Maltby and Dinnington (Unemployment)
  Rotherham, Maltby and Dinnington (Unemployment)
  Portsmouth (Redundancies)
  Portsmouth (Redundancies)
  Coal Miners (Carmarthenshire)
  Coal Miners (Carmarthenshire)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Ex-Ministers (Memoirs)
  Ex-Ministers (Memoirs)
  Registered Disabled (Doncaster)
  Registered Disabled (Doncaster)
DEFENCE
  Indian Ocean (Bases)
  Indian Ocean (Bases)
  Queen's Flight (Use by Ministers)
  Queen's Flight (Use by Ministers)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Area Electricity Boards (Capital Accounts)
  Area Electricity Boards (Capital Accounts)
  Local Employment Acts
  Local Employment Acts
  Ministry of Technology (Expenditure)
  Ministry of Technology (Expenditure)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Wallingford Hydraulics Research Station
  Wallingford Hydraulics Research Station
  Finance Companies (Registration)
  Finance Companies (Registration)
  Gas and Electricity Showrooms (Proposed Closures)
  Gas and Electricity Showrooms (Proposed Closures)
  Charter Flights
  Charter Flights
  Fishermen (Death by Drowning)
  Fishermen (Death by Drowning)
  Fishing Vessels (Losses at Sea)
  Fishing Vessels (Losses at Sea)
  Gas and Electricity Workers (Pay)
  Gas and Electricity Workers (Pay)
  Dogs and Puppies (Export to Japan)
  Dogs and Puppies (Export to Japan)
  Natural Gas (Conversions)
  Natural Gas (Conversions)
  Crashed Aeroplanes (Cannibalisation)
  Crashed Aeroplanes (Cannibalisation)
  London Airport (Noise)
  London Airport (Noise)
  Civil Aviation Flying Unit
  Civil Aviation Flying Unit
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS SUPPLY)
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS SUPPLY)
  SOUTHAMPTON (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  SOUTHAMPTON (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  MIDDLE EAST (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)
  MIDDLE EAST (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)
  MAURITIUS (OFFICIAL VISIT)
  MAURITIUS (OFFICIAL VISIT)
  MARKET GARDEN (GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS)
  MARKET GARDEN (GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF SALARIES)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF SALARIES)
  INDIAN OCEAN BASES
  INDIAN OCEAN BASES
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRANSPORT FACILITIES)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRANSPORT FACILITIES)
  INFANT PLAINTIFFS (CAPITAL FUND INVESTMENTS)
  INFANT PLAINTIFFS (CAPITAL FUND INVESTMENTS)
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants and Ministers (Expenses)
  Civil Servants and Ministers (Expenses)
  Civil Servants and Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Civil Servants and Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Departmental Staff (Salaries)
  Departmental Staff (Salaries)
  Public Boards (Salaries)
  Public Boards (Salaries)
TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES
  Driving Instructors (Bangor)
  Driving Instructors (Bangor)
  Good Vehicles (Foreign Registration)
  Good Vehicles (Foreign Registration)
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
ENVIRONMENT
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
  Blackpool-M6 Link
  Blackpool-M6 Link
  Road Salt Supplies
  Road Salt Supplies
  Folkestone-Honiton Trunk Road
  Folkestone-Honiton Trunk Road
  Folly Wood, Oakley
  Folly Wood, Oakley
  Countryside Commission (Grants)
  Countryside Commission (Grants)
  Sewage Disposal
  Sewage Disposal
  Bus Services (Private Operators)
  Bus Services (Private Operators)
  M1-M6 Motorways (Link)
  M1-M6 Motorways (Link)
  Pennines (Road Closure)
  Pennines (Road Closure)
  Countryside Commission (Access Agreements)
  Countryside Commission (Access Agreements)
  Land (Local Authority Holdings)
  Land (Local Authority Holdings)
  Public Access
  Public Access
  Kendal Link Road
  Kendal Link Road
  Kendal (Western Bypass)
  Kendal (Western Bypass)
  M1 (Congestion)
  M1 (Congestion)
  South Hampshire
  South Hampshire
  M1/M6 Midlands Link
  M1/M6 Midlands Link
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Rebate Scheme (Disregards)
  Rate Rebate Scheme (Disregards)
HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION
  Direct Labour Departments (New Capital Building Work)
  Direct Labour Departments (New Capital Building Work)
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1968
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1968
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Passports
  Passports
  Urban Aid Programmes
  Urban Aid Programmes
  Urban Aid Programmes
  Urban Aid Programmes
  Schermuly Company of Dorking
  Schermuly Company of Dorking
  Aerosol Sprays
  Aerosol Sprays
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Securicor
  Securicor
  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Prisoners' Letters (Censorship)
  Prisoners' Letters (Censorship)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
WALES
  Welsh Books and Periodicals
  Welsh Books and Periodicals
  Carmarthenshire
  Carmarthenshire

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Coleridge—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in the economics debate on November 17, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 312 (No. 24), at col. 1077, I inadvertently misrepresented the proposals of Mr. St. Clare Grondona made some years back for effecting realistic stability of prices for imported durable basic commodities. I attributed to him the use of certain figures which in fact he had not used. What I inadvertently said was:
"… of Britain's import bill of around £2,000 million or so, something like half goes on raw materials, on commodities of a durable character."
What I had intended to say, attributing the figures to Mr. Grondona, was,
"Of an import bill of around £8,000 million more than £1,000 million goes to pay for basic
2
products (namely, foodstuffs and industrial raw materials) that are unquestionably durable."
My Lords, I apologise to the House for this mistake.

HISTORIC TOWNS: CONSERVATION PROPOSALS
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend, as the last Government did, to introduce a new type of general conservation scheme for historic towns and cities, which would attract Exchequer grant at a rate of 50 per cent.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, discussions with the local authorities in the four cities of Chester, York, Bath and Chichester about pilot conservation projects are proceeding. Her Majesty's Government consider that until these particular studies have been carried further, decisions on a new grant specifically for general conservation schemes would be premature.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that amounts to the tearing up of four years of work on

3
the four towns studies by the four consultants and by the Preservation Policy Group, all of which came to the conclusion that such schemes could not be done without an Exchequer grant?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I would not accept that. The four studies have been commissioned; several projects in connection with conservation are going on in pursuance of those studies and the work is proceeding quite satisfactorily at the moment. Furthermore, there was the Preservation Policy Group which the, noble Lord himself chaired and whose Report has yet to be published although it has been studied already in the Department. Several of the proposals are under active consideration and are being studied. When I say that this decision is premature, it does not mean to say that it may not be accepted in due course.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Preservation Policy Group Report was accepted by the last Government and that if anything is being studied about it now it is not its proposals but the question of whether or not the acceptance of those proposals by the last Government should be torn up?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I recall it, there are eleven separate proposals in that Report. They are all being studied and none is being torn up.
LORD REAY: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government not agree that since at the moment the Government supply up to half the deficiency cost of redevelopment schemes in central areas, to do the same with conservation schemes would be moving in the direction of integrating a policy towards redevelopment schemes and conservation schemes and would also redress the present policy of a bias against cultural traditions?
LORD SANDFORD: No, My Lords, I do not agree that there is a bias against our cultural heritage or traditions in this matter. There is a whole range of different grants that can be brought to bear on conservation projects. Some of them, in the case of derelict land in development areas, are as high as 85 per cent. and many others are as high as 75
4
per cent. All can be brought to bear in various ways on conservation projects.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Lord enable me to get this point quite clear? Does he agree that the Preservation Policy Group Report said that there should be a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant for general conservation schemes, that the last Government accepted this proposal and said that they would build up public expenditure in this way to £3 million a year over three years, and that the first Answer he gave is to the effect that this will no longer be done?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has another Question for me later on this week when perhaps we could go further into this matter. When the Report of the Preservation Policy Group has been published (and at the present moment knowledge of its details is available to only a limited number of people) perhaps he will put down a Question and then we can debate that, too. But I do not admit that all the work of the Group has been in any sense torn up.

PRISON TUITION: REQUEST BY WALTER PROBYN
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that permission has been refused for Walter Probyn, a prisoner in Her Majesty's Prison at Gartree, Market Harborough, to receive tuition with a view to qualifying himself for an eventual degree in sociology, although the appropriate department of the University of Essex was willing to make the services of a lecturer available for this purpose.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): No, my Lords. When this prisoner was at Chelms-for he asked for a prison class to be formed in sociology. As the demand from other prisoners was too limited to justify the cost of such a class he was offered tuition by means of a correspondence course. The prison authorities were aware that his legal advisers were in touch

5
with the University of Essex. But no offer of tuition for the prisoner had reached the prison authorities from that quarter. Nor have firm proposals been put to them since. The education service at Gartree prison is helping the prisoner to choose a suitable correspondence course.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he agree that for an extremely intelligent and articulate man a modicum of personal tuition, if it can be arranged, is much to be preferred to a correspondence course? If a sufficient number of prisoners wish to take this course in Gartree Prison, and a more accessible university than Essex can provide facilities for extra-mural teaching in sociology, will this have favourable consideration?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the prison education system offers a wide range of classes in conventional subjects, and where there are sufficient numbers arrangements are made to form a class. That answers the second part of the supplementary question. Individual interests and preparation for degree courses are normally met by correspondence courses but supplemented at appropriate stages by face-to-face tuition. In this instance we believe that a correspondence course, aimed initially at G.C.E. O-level, supplemented by personal tuition where possible, is the correct approach.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the prison authorities would allow such a person to register as a student in the Open University?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Open University does not in all cases insist on G.C.E. qualifications and an arrangement has been entered into on an experimental basis to allow prisoners from two prisons to participate in the Open University courses when it starts in January of next year. Gartree is not one of those prisons.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Suppose the University of Leicester, which I gather is in very close proximity to the prison where Walter Probyn now is, expressed a willingness to allow a member of its staff to do some personal coaching, would the case be reconsidered?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, no formal application has yet been received from the University of Leicester or from elsewhere, but any offer of tuition which is made would be carefully considered.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is it a fact that there is considerable unemployment among graduates in this particular subject? If that is so, could not this talented young man be encouraged to take up some sort of subject in which he is more likely to earn a living after he leaves prison?

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION POLICY
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: 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, especially in view of their decision relating to the Annan Committee of Inquiry, whether they will soon be making a policy statement about broadcasting and television.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications announced on July 23, he is inviting his Television Advisory Committee to undertake a study designed to identify the main technical questions of relevance to broadcasting. This will provide the basis for a more informed public discussion of the issues. He will then consider whether an inquiry into the structure of broadcasting after 1976 is desirable and, if so, what form it should take. The Government hope to issue a White Paper early in the New Year setting out their proposals for commercial sound radio.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May we remind him that time marches on; and may we ask whether he is aware that there is a good deal of uncertainty about this matter? In the meantime, can he reassure us, in reference to commercial local radio, that there will be complete equality in the allocation of wavelengths between the B.B.C. and local commercial radio?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend is very well aware of the urgency of these matters. I am afraid that I cannot commit him on the rather wider point referred to in the second part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are very grateful that the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is standing by the decision arrived at by the previous Postmaster General regarding the year 1976? Will he give serious consideration to whether commercial radio should in fact be brought into operation?—because the greater part of those people in the other place are against it.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that there is a certain difference of opinion between the two sides on that point in both Houses.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I refer again to the noble Lord's prognostication for January and ask whether he is aware that there will be even more anxiety created by his reply? May I ask whether it is possible that the Government are running into difficulties over commercial local radio, because of needle-time and difficulties of that kind; and is he aware that we are very urgently awaiting his reply?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean a reply on the subject of local radio?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend.

WINES AND SPIRITS DUTY
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in next year's Budget, they will consider reducing the duties on wines and spirits.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, such a possibility will of course be considered in the review of taxation before the Budget. I am afraid that my noble friend will have to wait and see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer then decides.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I must declare an interest. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will warn the Chancellor that should he raise these duties, or even if he keeps them as they are, there is a real possibility that the law of diminishing returns will lead to the Revenue's getting less money?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, while I appreciate my noble friend's interest, which I reciprocate in a lesser degree, may I remind him that in the last Budget it was estimated that wine consumption—including British wine—in this country will increase by some 8 per cent. this year and spirits consumption by some 5½ per cent. My noble friend is no doubt aware that the wine drinker in Britain, and the drinker of British wine in this country, together with the spirits drinker in this country, is, on the whole, living up to those expectations.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord is in such an amiable mood, will he make representations to his right honourable friend to reduce the tax on tobacco?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a new Member is naturally most anxious not to fill the Order Paper with Questions which the Government do not wish to answer and, therefore, that it would be of enormous help to the whole House if the Government could say which parts of next year's Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to divulge and which parts he wishes to hold until the more traditional period?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain that I can necessarily answer the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question in the affirmative, but I can assure him that this part of my right honourable friend's intentions will not be divulged until Budget day.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WEST END BAPTIST CHURCH, HAMMERSMITH BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Report of the Amendment received.
CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

VISITING FORCES BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the first occasion on which I have sought to introduce legislation in your Lordships' House, and I do so with a considerable sense of trepidation, though I am comforted by the knowledge that the Bill before the House has two virtues. First of all, it is small. Its text covers barely a page, and it concerns only a handful of individuals. It concerns the liberty of the person, and as your Lordships, very properly, have often spent many hours discussing the liberty of individual human beings, I make no apology for that.
The second virtue of the Bill is that it is moderate. On occasions I have expressed views which place me in a minority in your Lordships' House, but I would not presume to introduce legislation before your Lordships if I were not convinced that this is a moderate and reasonable measure, which deserves to have the support of all sides of the House. And so I ask your Lordships, as I am sure your Lordships will, to consider the argument with care, even
10
though the Bill seeks to give some measure of protection to deserters from Allied Forces and even though many of your Lordships may have views about deserters which may dispose you to oppose the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill can be very shortly stated. It seeks to amend a part of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. Under our present law as contained in that Act, a British police officer has the power to arrest any deserter or absentee without leave from any of the forces of a NATO, Allied or Colonial power. Once arrested, the deserter will be brought before a magistrate and, provided that the court is satisfied that he is a deserter, he will be handed over to the military authorities of his own country. Once handed over, he will normally be flown out to be tried according to the laws of his own country. It is, in effect, a special kind of extradition procedure which we offer.
Under this Bill that power to arrest will be limited to cover only deserters and absentees without leave from Allied or Commonwealth Forces if they have deserted from a base situated in the United Kingdom. Anyone who deserts elsewhere and then comes to Britain would be treated as though an immigrant. The Bill achieves this object I trust, but in a somewhat obscure way—and that is because Section 13 of the Visiting Forces Act applied the existing law relating to British deserters to deserters from Allied and Colonial Forces. My Bill deletes a section of the 1952 Act and substitutes a new section, applying the existing law only to deserters who desert while within the United Kingdom. That explains the reference in the Bill to a number of provisions of the Army Act 1955 which regulate the procedure for deserters from the Royal Forces.
That in brief is what the Bill seeks to do. It may be that the reaction of some noble Lords is to ask: Is it not normal for us to assist our Allies in this way? Would they not do the same service for us? The answer to both questions is, No. So far as I can discover, we are the only country, at least among the NATO Powers, which hands over, or in effect extradites, their deserters in this way. We offer to our Allies a facility which none of them offers to us.

11
To explain how this comes about, it is necessary to go back to 1951, when the NATO Powers signed an agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic Treaty (Cmnd. 8279). That agreement regulates the situation where the forces of one party (called the sending State) are stationed under the North Atlantic Treaty in the territory of another party (called the receiving State). It provides, very reasonably, that certain offences committed by visiting troops should be dealt with by the civil authorities of the receiving State and certain other military offences, including of course desertion and absenteeism without leave, should be dealt with by the military authorities of the sending State.
By Article VII 5 of the Agreement:
"The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall assist each other in the arrest of members of a force or civilian component or their dependents in the territory of the receiving State and in handing them over to the authority which is to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the above provisions."
By Article 1 of the Treaty the word "force" is defined as follows:
"'force' means the personnel belonging to the land, sea or air armed services of one contracting party when in the territory of another contracting party in the North Atlantic Treaty area in connection with their official duties."
So the agreement quite clearly refers only to what one might call generally visiting forces. That Agreement was a thoroughly
reasonable and sensible provision, and I do not seek in this Bill to detract from it one iota. Our law, if this Bill were passed, would continue to give effect to that Agreement in full.
To give effect to that Agreement it was of course necessary for the British Parliament to pass a law; and that was done in 1952 by the
Visiting Forces Act. As the name suggests, the Act dealt mainly with visiting forces; that is, forces stationed in the United Kingdom. But with regard to deserters and absentees without leave, and with regard to them only, the Act went much wider than the NATO Agreement by authorising the arrest not just of deserters from visiting forces, but all deserters and absentees without leave from any of the forces of any Commonwealth or NATO country, wherever and for whatever reasons they had deserted.
12
In the debates on the Visiting Forces Act little reference was made to this particular provision. In your Lordships' House, where the Act was introduced, Sections 13 and 14 were virtually ignored. In another place, the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in introducing the Bill, explained the meaning of Sections 13 and 14 and added only this:
"These provisions are somewhat wider than is strictly required by the NATO Agreement, but they repeat the arangements which were made in the 1933 Act for the Commonwealth Forces and were extended during the war to Allied Forces. The House, I hope, will agree that such a provision is as much to our advantage as to that of the other Members of NATO."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 17/10/52; col. 568.]
It is true that in the days of Empire and in days of war, in very different circumstances, this kind of power of arrest was in force. But if the then Home Secretary, in the last words of that quotation, was expressing the hope that other countries would reciprocate by granting us similar arrangements, he was to be disappointed. I have made inquiries of the attaches of our NATO Allies and I have so far received replies from eight of them. They are all to the same effect. In the United States, Canada, Italy, West Germany, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxemburg the position is similar. In none of those countries does their law go further than the provisions of the NATO Agreement; in none of those countries is there any provision for the extradition of deserters; and all say that an Allied deserter who absconded within another country and then entered their country would be treated under the normal immigration procedures: that is to say, he might be refused admission; he might be deported; but there would be no power to arrest him and return him specifically to the authorities of his own country. From other sources I am informed that the law of France is the same. So it appears that, so far as our Allies are concerned, in passing this particular provision we are completely out on a limb.
Those are the circumstances in which the Visiting Forces Act, with this anomalous provision, was passed. In the succeeding years the power of arrest given by Section 13 was, I believe, very little used. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he replies to give

13
the Government's view, will be able to give us some figures of the number of persons, and particularly the number of deserters from abroad, who were arrested under these provisions. But until recently it was perhaps unlikely that many Servicemen from other countries would desert, find their way here and be apprehended, even though the Act in theory applies to a vast number of countries as far removed as Greece and Zanzibar.
The new factor that has caused so many people to question the justice of this clause is the war in Vietnam. Let me say this at once. Whether your Lordships believe that the Americans are right to be fighting in Vietnam, or whether you believe them to be wrong, is not an issue in or relevant to this debate. What is relevant is that this war is one which, as your Lordships well know, has agonised the United States of America. It is a war which has caused tens of thousands of young men to choose exile rather than submit to the draft. It is a war which is bitterly and sincerely opposed by millions of American citizens. It is a war the opposition to which has penetrated inside the heart of the United States forces themselves.
The figures for desertion from the American forces, as distinct from absenteeism without leave, are startling. I quote from the 1969–70 Report of Amnesty International, where it is said:
"United States Defence Department figures on desertion from the American Army indicate that whereas in 1967 there were approximately 43,000 deserters, in 1968 there were over 55,000. In 1969, the figures are estimated to be well over 70,000. Figures on A.W.O.L. ('absent without leave') are roughly treble the numbers for desertion."
The relevance of that feeling in the United States and of those figures to this Bill to-day is that from those many thousands some few have wanted to settle and work or study in this country. For that laudable wish they have been not merely deported, not merely refused admission, but handed over to the very military forces whose policies they have resisted and which they deplore.
Your Lordships may think that these are misguided young men; you may think that their actions are wrong. But that is not the point. The point is that their actions were actions motivated by sincere conscientious belief, which your Lordships
14
will, I believe, respect, whether or not you agree with them. I personally have been involved with two such cases. The first will
be remembered by my noble friend Lord Stonham and it concerned a young man called Jeremy Tupper. He has been drafted into the Services in the United States. He was not opposed to war, as such, but he was bitterly opposed, and said so, to the war in Vietnam. When his unit was due to be posted to Vietnam he applied for conscientious objection and that request was refused. As my noble friend Lord Brockway, who can speak with so much more authority on these matters, will bear out, selective conscientious objection is
not granted by the United States law. So this young man had no alternative but to desert. He came here with a young wife; he lived here openly for some six months; he entered this country legally, and he applied for a work permit. Suddenly, without warning, he was arrested, handed over and flown out to the United States, and there he stood his trial. I am not able to finish the story of Jeremy Tupper because I do not know what sentence he received, but I do know that the average sentence imposed upon deserters from the United States Forces is three years and two months, with hard labour, in a military stockade.
The second case occurred only two months ago. It concerned a young man called Richard Lee Haygood who had made Britain his home. He had married an English girl. She was expecting a baby. He had for many months worked, legally and with a work permit, for the North Thames Gas Board, and he had lived here in all for 15 months. Suddenly, in the space of about five days, the happiness of these two young people was shattered. Although he had committed no crime against our law, although he was not in breach of any conditions of entry and although under the normal law he had committed no offence for which he could be extradited from this country (for in none of our extradition provisions is desertion an extraditable offence), yet suddenly, in the middle of the night, he was arrested, handed over and is now awaiting his trial in custody in the United States. All this because, after long and careful and conscientious deliberation, he had decided that he would not return for a second spell as a marine in Vietnam.

15
These two cases taken alone are enough to make us pause, to make us question whether our law is decent and proper, and would justify the Second Reading of this Bill. But they are not isolated cases. In an Answer given in another place on November 5, 1970, the Home Secretary said that ten United States deserters had been arrested
under the 1952 Act by the British police in the last three years. There may have been many more, for the Home Secretary continued—I quote from column 1250 of Hansard of November 5:
"… the United States Service police in the United Kingdom may, under the Act to which I have referred, arrest their own deserters."
I do not agree that there is power under the 1952 Act for American military police to arrest deserters in this way; and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can tell the House whether that statement is correct. As it stands, it is most disturbing.
In the two cases to which I have referred, my noble friend Lord Stonham two years ago, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, two months ago, both stated that there was nothing that they could do. Neither the police it seems, nor the courts, nor the Government have any discretion in the matter whatsoever, even in the most deserving of cases. Therefore, I have presumed to take the only possible course to bring this practice to an end; that is, to seek to change the law which makes it possible. I believe that the Bill before your Lordships makes that change in a reasonable and logical way. If the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can suggest a better way, such as, for example, by the insertion of a conscience clause or a discretionary clause into the 1952 Act, he will no doubt say so, and the matter can be considered carefully in Committee. I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that at the very least this Bill deserves a Second Reading and a fuller consideration from this House.
Before I close, let me make quite clear what the consequences would be if this Bill eventually became law. Some noble Lords may fear that if the law were changed the country would be invaded by hundreds of deserters making nuisances of themselves, living off the Welfare State
16
and claiming sanctuary in this country. That would emphatically not be the case. As I have already said, they would be treated like any other alien. If they could qualify as a visitor, as a bona fide student, or as a worker with a work permit they would be welcome, as all such aliens are. If they had no means, if they had no legal job, they would no doubt be refused admission or deported, or asked to leave, as all such aliens are.
There are at present a number of young Americans—not very many; perhaps 100 or so—in Britain to-day who are draft resisters. They are not subject to being suddenly arrested; they earn an honest living; they create no problems, and should they do so they can be sent away. Our immigration laws, coupled with our extradition laws, render the wide power of arrest which I am seeking to limit totally unnecessary, just as it has been considered to be totally unnecessary by every other country of which I have particulars.
I have tried to explain the meaning of this Bill. I have endeavoured to show that our present law is unnecessary; that it is unique among the laws of all our allies; that it is not forced upon
us by any treaty, and that in individual cases it causes severe hardship. But there is, I believe, a wider principle at issue. It is a principle which was aptly summed up by the Canadian Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Allan MacEachon. Speaking for the Canadian Government's policy on this very issue on May 22, 1969, he said:
"The question of an individual's membership in the Armed Services of his own country is a matter to be settled between the individual and his Government and is not a matter in which we should become involved."
The United Kingdom, like Canada, is a country which is widely, and rightly, respected among the countries of the world for the decency and the tolerance and the liberty of our way of life. It is not in our national character to ban these young men from our shores, and to persecute them should they dare to arrive, for the sake of a law passed, almost inadvertently, eighteen years ago. It is not worthy of this country and its traditions to continue to persecute young men in this way. The honourable and decent thing is to admit that in passing

17
this provision of the 1952 Act we made a mistake, and to take the necessary steps to rectify it.
I have received a great number of letters of support for this initiative; but there is one which encapsulates in better words than I can find the message of this Bill. It comes from a Brigadier and his wife, living in retirement in an old vicarage in a Suffolk village. They say this:
"We hope that the House of Lords will show a civilised compassion and humanity to the conscientious deserters from this brutal war in Vietnam, or any other war. We may then not be so deeply ashamed of our recent treatment of them."
It is in this spirit that I commend this Bill to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gifford.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, first on a very reasonable and closely drawn Bill, and secondly on a most admirable speech, which your Lordships will be reassured to hear will cut down my oration by several minutes. I agree with the noble Lord that the Bill is not about the Vietnamese war at all, however passionately we may feel about it on either side; it is not about the rights and wrongs of conscientious objection and various conscientious-objection laws; it is not about individuals—and I shall not produce any individual cases, although I wish that circumstances were such that we could raise instances that have happened from other countries. The noble Lord mentioned Greece and Zanzibar. Those countries are both covered by this legislation and these provisions. I think your Lordships would find yourselves in a difficult spot if you had to defend the application of the law as it stands at the moment to deserters from Zanzibar. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it is not likely to happen, but I think your Lordships should have it in mind that that is the state of the law at present.
Indeed, it is possible to feel extremely strongly that the Americans are right to be in South-East Asia, and to have a tough view about conscientious objection, and still to support this Bill. I believe that my father, whom a number of noble Lords will have known in another place
18
as a rather Right-wing Conservative Member of Parliament, would have taken exactly this attitude to this particular situation. As the noble Lord said, it is not as if we are offering all these people free entry. There are any number of safeguards. Our immigration laws are not wide open; nor are we without powers for dealing with people once they are in this country if they are a
nuisance. Our obligations to our allies will be completely fulfilled, as the rest of our NATO allies fulfil them, when we pass, if we pass, this Bill.
What the Bill is about, and what I hope this debate will be about, is whether we should extend unnecessarily provisions which debar us from giving asylum to people when we want to; whether we should limit our sovereignty unnecessarily—totally unnecessarily—on the whole question of political asylum which has been for so long a great tradition in this country. The reasons for the present laws, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, are mysterious. I believe that this Bill should be passed. I shall listen with great interest, as always, to what noble Lords have to say, and particularly to what the noble Lord who speaks for the Government will have to say on this matter. After he has spoken, I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will be speaking from these Benches and can possibly comment on the Government's point of view. But, my Lords, at the moment I feel that this Bill certainly should be passed, and I would urge noble Lords to pass it.
3.24 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, explained the purpose of this Bill with clarity in his speech; and in a speech of quite remarkable brevity from the Liberal Benches we have heard that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of 'Whitley, agrees with what he has said. It might therefore be helpful to noble Lords who intend to take part in the debate if I were to say with equal clarity early on in the debate that the Government are not able to support this proposal to amend the law relating to deserters from the United States or other visiting forces in this country. We believe that a change on the lines proposed would do more harm than good, and if at the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, decides to put the

19
matter to a Vote, I must recommend your Lordships to vote against the Bill's being given a Second Reading.
I shall try to avoid making a long speech, but I want to comment on some of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in moving the Second Reading of his Bill. In doing so I shall arrange my remarks under two heads: first, the detailed arguments for and against the Bill, including a summary of current practice in this country and overseas; and secondly, the wider context in which this Bill must be seen. The present practice is that under the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 a visiting force may itself arrest deserters from units stationed in the United Kingdom, since by virtue of Section 2 of the Act it exercises jurisdiction over members of its own forces here. A serviceman who has deserted from a base in this country, or goes absent without leave, is therefore liable to be arrested by the appropriate branch of his Service. If he gives himself up to our own police he may be handed back to the military authorities without any court proceedings. These powers would not be affected by the Bill.
In addition, however, the 1952 Act provides, as the noble Lord has explained, that on request by the Service authorities the police may arrest a person who is suspected of being a deserter and take him before a magistrates' court. If the court is satisfied as to his identity, and that there is sufficient evidence to justify his being tried for desertion or absence without leave, it will hand him over to the Service authorities. For this purpose it is immaterial whether the desertion occurred within or outside the United Kingdom. The 1952 Act is wide enough to allow deserters or persons absent without leave to be returned to any designated authority in this country, such as a military attaché, even though the country concerned may have no visiting force here.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was questioned in another place on November 5 about the current practice as regards deserters from the United States Armed Forces. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in his speech (and he was good enough to give me advance notice that he intended to raise this point) that a misunderstanding
20
might have arisen about the powers of the American authorities in this respect. Let me therefore underline once again the distinction I have just made between the powers relating to those who have deserted from a unit in this country and those who have deserted from a unit based outside this country. The power of a visiting force to arrest a deserter itself is limited to persons who desert from units stationed in this country. No inference that the United States authorities go further than this should be drawn from my right honourable friend's remarks. I hope that this statement will amplify the previous replies. The noble Lord can be content that there is no question of a general rounding-up by the American authorities of deserters irrespective of what the Act permits.
However, the Bill in front of us does not deal with the position of deserters from bases within the United Kingdom. What we are considering to-day is the situation concerning persons deserting elsewhere. Much has been made of the argument that in its application to deserters and people who go absent without leave the Visiting Forces Act goes further than is necessary to meet our obligations under the Agreement regarding the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty—which, as an historical footnote, I see was signed by the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, on behalf of the Government, in 1952. When the Bill was introduced it was made clear by the Home Secretary of the day that it was intended to go further than the provisions of the NATO Agreement.
For reasons which I shall explain the noble Lord is in eror in saying that this was inadvertent. What he and other noble Lords must remember is that the Visiting Forces Act is not only confined to the forces of NATO countries: it applies also to the forces of Commonwealth countries, and arrangements of the kind provided in the present Act date back to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933. It is just as much in our present interests as it was in 1952 to retain the well-established procedure for the apprehension and return of deserters wherever they desert from, and we see no reason to disturb the situation now. Nor is it only a question of restricting the procedure to those who desert here. One consequence of this Bill would be to remove any

21
power to apprehend a deserter who had remained in this country after his unit (which might have come here for a training exercise) had departed. This kind of problem has arisen in relation to our own deserters in at least one NATO country.
My Lords, it has been pointed out—and this is a central part of the noble Lord's argument—that our NATO partners have not assumed obligations beyond those imposed by the Agreement. This is true, but it does not follow that we should not go further. It was never intended that our legislation should rest on the basis of reciprocal arrangements with other NATO countries, since there were already in existence these wider powers which had applied since 1933 to members of Commonwealth forces. The noble Lord who has brought forward this Bill has been assiduous in pursuing his researches about the practice of other countries, but I can supplement the picture he has given.
In six Commonwealth countries there is legislation similar to the Visiting Forces Act 1952, and thus their authorities have power to arrest and hand over deserters not only from visiting forces stationed in their country but also from forces stationed elsewhere in the world. The New Zealand legislation was extended as recently as 1969 to facilitate the apprehension and return of deserters known to be in New Zealand. The NATO Powers, on the other hand, including Canada, have in most instances limited themselves to legislation on the lines required by the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. They therefore have no statutory powers under visiting forces legislation to arrest and hand over deserters other than those members of those forces stationed in their own country. There are, however, some important qualifications.
The Federal Republic of Germany, for example, has a bilateral agreement with the United States under which deserters from United States forces anywhere in Europe, if discovered in Germany, can be returned to United States jurisdiction. The United States places considerable emphasis on visa requirements for entry and powers under the Immigration and Naturalisation Act. I am also informed that, on the rare occasions when a deserter from NATO forces outside the
22
United States has been apprehended within the United States and proceedings have been taken under the immigration laws, the Federal authorities have, on the request of the Government concerned, approached the prosecutor with a view to securing his agreement to the surrender of the individual to his own national authorities. Whether or not the prosecutor decides to comply with this request is entirely a matter for his discretion. This is regarded as the normal practice.
I hope that those of your Lordships who are going to speak in this debate and are in support of the Bill will be quite honest and will come out into the open. There is much more at stake here than just an amendment to the Visiting Forces Act. I wonder how many of your Lordships, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who has exchanged views on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on a number of occasions in the past have any deep knowledge of the Visiting Forces Act. What is really at issue here, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, would accept, is whether those who desert from the American Armed Forces because they object to the war in Vietnam should be enabled to eater this country and freely remain here. Estimates of more than 80,000 persons a year have been given as the total numbers of American Servicemen who have deserted. Although this figure is considerably inflated by the fact that anyone who goes absent without leave for 30 days is classified as a deserter, it is still a substantial total. Very few have come to Britain, and we do not want to do anything to encourage a greater flow.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WINDLESHAM: Since January, 1968, police records indicate that there have been only 10 cases (8 from units outside this country, and 2 from units based here) in which deserters from the United States Armed Forces have been arrested by our own police and, after the appropriate proceedings in a magistrate's court, handed over to the Service authorities. Occasionally there is a case which attracts public comment and sympathy. One recent instance mentioned by the noble Lord was the young American marine, Richard Lee Haywood, who had married an English girl.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I should like to say something. I think he has made a valid case, but may I ask him this question? In view of the fact that the German authorities have the bilateral agreement with the United States, but only as regards deserters from within Europe, can he give any indication as to the flow of American deserters into Germany? If one had those figures one could weigh them against the point which the noble Lord made: whether, if we met the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Gifford, it would cause a flow of deserters into this country.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not have that information available, but—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord seek to find out?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I can seek to find out that information, and if it is possible to get an answer before the end of the debate I will give it to the noble Lord.
My Lords, I was about to move on to describe the establishment and the activities of an organisation called "The Union of American Exiles in Britain". This now exists as a pressure group to try to change our laws to enable deserters and draft resisters to be granted political asylum in this country on the grounds of their opposition to the Vietnam war. I will quote the actual words used by the organisation itself to describe its current British campaign:
"There has been no fair play whatsoever shown by the British Government to American citizens who have been made refugees because of their refusal to become complicit with their Government in the continuing crime which has been and is the American devastation of Vietnam. Every British subject can help restore a sense of fair play and of justice, and of adherence to codes of international law and order (not to mention the U.N. Charter) by aiding the British campaign in calling attention to the complicity and silence of the British Government in response to the question of American refugees."
Incidentally, my Lords, this is not the first time that attempts have been made to relax our practice concerning deserters from the United States armed forces, and I shall listen with great interest to what any noble Lord speaking from the Front Bench opposite has to say. When in Government the Labour Party were quite
24
explicit in their opposition to any attempt to relax the law concerning American deserters. Perhaps I may refer your Lordships to a Written Answer in another place on July 4, 1968 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 255]:
"MR. FRANK ALLAUN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Visiting Forces Act to prevent the United States servicemen who have deserted because of conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam from being handed over to the United States military forces.
MR. ELYSTAN MORGAN: No."
My Lords, I do not base my case, in asking your Lordships to reject this Bill, simply on a distaste for the opinion of extremist organisations which aim to bring pressure on Parliament, whatever language they employ. Nor do I propose to be drawn into a discussion on whether the United States is right or wrong in its interpretation of what does or does not amount to justifiable conscientious objection to military service. That, my Lords, is surely a matter for them. Whether or not the United States Government decides on compulsory military service, and the means by which young men are selected for that service, is no business of ours. We would resent it if the United States Congress expressed opinions on our domestic legislation and Americans would be entitled to resent our trying to tell them who should or should not serve in their armed forces.
What is within our control is the grounds on which we grant political asylum, and here there are some well recognised guidelines. I can do no better than quote my predecessor at the Home Office, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. On March 5, 1968, the noble Lord told the House (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1334):
"In considering applications, our practice is to grant asylum if it is reasonable to suppose that the result of refusing admission to a foreign national will be his return to a country in which, on grounds of politics, race or religion, he will face danger to life or liberty, or persecution of such a kind and extent as to render life insupportable. … The fear of persecution must be well founded, and the persecution which is feared must amount to more than a penalty imposed for a breach of the law. In other words, it has to be shown that the penalty imposed on an individual by the legal processes of his country, and which may be awaiting him if he is forced to return, amounts to persecution and not just to punishment. It follows that where, in a democracy, a man seeks to evade the military service to

25
which he and his fellow-countrymen are liable, and is thereby vulnerable to criminal proceedings, such a situation cannot be regarded, in itself, as satisfying the criterion for political asylum. A foreign national with conscientious objection to military service should make his case for exemption to the authorities of his own country."
In conclusion, we see it as a sensible part of our relationship with out NATO allies, and with the countries of the Commonwealth, that we should be ready to assist them in the recovery of persons who have deserted from their armed forces. The obligation of a member of a country's armed forces—and it does not matter which—must for obvious reasons be strict, and it is unrealistic to believe that the law can recognise some sort of "justified desertion" which excuses the deserter from the normal consequences of his act. It would be inconsistent for the Government to appear to condone conduct which we should regard as inexcusable in members of our own Armed Forces. Nor do we believe that it would be in our interests, either at home or abroad, to encourage disaffected members of the forces of friendly countries to look for refuge in this country.
Neither the war in Vietnam, nor the activities of the Union of
American Exiles in Britain, nor the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, are grounds for altering our practice. We have a law
which has worked perfectly satisfactorily in practice for 18 years and, like our predecessors, the Government see no reason to change it now. Accordingly, my Lords, I must advise the House to oppose a Second Reading.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that there was one instance where the British Government had had difficulty in the case of a deserter—I think he said in another country. I take it that he is not basing his case on the need for any reciprocity; he is just saying that this law suits us. Could he tell us the name of the country in question and the outcome of that particular instance? I do not know whether it is material, but since he mentioned it perhaps we should know.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am very willing to give the noble Lord the information for which he asks. I may not have been explaining my argument as clearly as I should have been,
26
because it is a subsidiary point and not in the main line of the argument. The point I was making was that under the Bill there would be no power to apprehend a deserter who had remained in this country once his unit had departed. It is a half-way house; it is not exactly a unit based in this country, nor is it exactly a unit based overseas. It is one that has come here for training; the chap deserts; the unit goes and he stays. It is a very complicated situation. The country where there have been problems of this sort is Canada.
3.47 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I feel impelled to begin by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for introducing this Bill. I am quite sure that I am speaking on behalf of Members of the House on all sides in paying a tribute to the ability with which he introduced it. That has been recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his tribute to its clarity. May I say this? I find one argument in favour of hereditary Peers in this Chamber is the ability of their young sons to put a case to the House. May I also just say to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I regret that I am replying to him. I should much have preferred to speak before him, because in all my personal contact on many issues I have found how reasonable and responsive he has been. I hope that, despite the speech which he has just delivered, he will listen to the arguments which will be put forward in this debate and be prepared, in that broadminded way which I know he holds, to consider the case that we are seeking to put forward.
I appreciate that this issue goes beyond the war in Vietnam, but I want to respond to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and be quite frank about this matter. It is the war in Vietnam which has made this issue of immediate importance. As he indicated in a rather strange phrase, my attitude on this issue does not date only from the Vietnam war, but in facing this issue one must recognise the climate in the world about the Vietnam war. One must recognise that world opinion generally is probably more critical of this war than of any war since the Boer War at the beginning of this century. It is in that

27
atmosphere and climate that we must look at this particular issue this afternoon. I do not know whether there has ever been a situation in which a Government engaged in war has aroused so much opposition within its country, as there is in the United States of America to-day over the war in Vietnam.
The figure which the noble Lord gave, of 80,000 men who in one year are refusing, either by tearing up their draft cards or by deserting, to fight in the Vietnam war is absolutely amazing—
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, my Lords; I qualified that figure. First, it is not my estimate; I merely quoted the estimate that has been made. And I qualified it by saying that the figure is inflated because it includes numbers of people who go absent without leave for a period of just over 30 days. They may have deserted not on grounds of opposition to the Vietnam war, but for some other cause.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, but does it not exclude the men who have deserted but have not yet deserted for 30 days? Would not the numbers of such cases balance the others, and about make up the number?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not going to argue about that because I have never used such a large figure as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, used today. It is absolutely unique in history that when a Government is engaged in war there should be such opposition from within its country to the war, and so much refusal to serve. I am not arguing that this should be the determining reason for our vote to-day; I am saying that in the climate of world opinion, opinion in this country and opinion in America itself, we have at least to consider whether or not this Bill should be supported.
I want to address this argument to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. It is the general principle that a country does not deport and extradite from its territority anyone who has committed an offence
which is not an offence in that country. Under British law, many of those who are now extradited, or are in danger of being extradited, would not have committed an offence. It is doubtful
28
whether they would have been deserters at all. We have a law which is more tolerant to those who feel it wrong to engage in war than the laws of any other country in the world; and to that I pay my tribute. Our laws regarding conscientious objection are extraordinarily broad in their interpretation; they not only apply to a man or woman who is a religious objector, or an absolute pacifist; they apply also to men and women who believe that a particular war is wrong. I have knowledge of this issue because I took a test case to the appeal tribunal, and the tribunal agreed that if any man or woman felt it within themselves to be wrong to fight in a particular war they should be accepted as conscientious objectors.
That law applied not only under conscription; it applies to-day. Any man in the British forces who adopts the attitude of conscientious objection has the right to go to a tribunal and appeal on that ground. Therefore, if this position had arisen in this country, and we were at war—not only when we are at war: it applies in peace time—a man in the forces would have the right, under the broad law in this country, to make an appeal of conscientious objection on political grounds. Therefore I am right in saying that by the practice of extradition we are now denying the basic principle of our law to these men opposed to fighting in Vietnam. In this country they would have the right to appeal to a tribunal and receive its judgment.
The noble Lord has referred to the law in America upon this aspect. He is probably aware that in America the right of conscientious objection to war is limited to those who have religious objections. In some States it is limited only to those who belong to a religious organisation which has that principle, and even only to those who are descendants of families which have that principle. Therefore in this Bill we are extraditing people to America who would not be breaking a law in this country. I urge the noble Lord to look upon that deep-rooted principle and consider whether we are not repudiating it when we, under this Bill, are sending back to America those who would not necessarily be guilty of any offence if they were in this country.
I want to go further than that. There are many precedents in this country when

29
extradition laws have applied and when the people concerned have been regarded as political refugees. I can illustrate a case from my own experience of a boy in Spain who refused to fight in the Spanish Navy. He came to this country illegally and, after a debate in another place, was not returned to Spain, where he would have come under prosecution and suffered severe imprisonment for his offence. That is not only a ruling in this country. I take a recent example: Turkey has now refused to extradite hijackers from Soviet Russia on the grounds that it is a political offence. I want to urge upon the Minister that we have to accept the principle that these men are, in spirit and essence, political refugees when they refuse to take part in a war which they regard as wrong, even if only from a political point of view—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to ask him a question for the purpose of clearing my mind, and maybe the minds of others as well. He mentioned the case of the person who was to have been extradited to Spain. I remember the case particularly and, as my noble friend may recall, I spoke on it. But is the noble Lord now saying that there is no difference between the situation in Spain and in the United States; that in the United States they have no more politcal liberty or powers than in Spain? Is he saying that the case is on all fours?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would never think of that. I have been to the United States of America and have been tremendously impressed by the tolerance and freedom with which one can express views there. I have been there and denounced the Vietnam war, and been allowed to do so. That would not be permitted in Spain, which has a neo-Fascist régime. All I am saying is that if these men are extradited to the United States of America, at the very minimum they are liable to imprisonment for five years, and they may be liable to imprisonment for 20 years. Therefore the consequence of their extradition is probably as severe as it might have been in Spain if the man had been extradited there.
I have listened with great interest, because my knowledge has been
30
increased, to the examination by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, of the position of other NATO nations upon this issue. So far as I can understand, we are the only country in NATO which goes beyond the NATO Agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned the Federation of Western Germany. If I was hearing him aright—I may not have been, because I was interrupted—he was saying that Western Germany has an arrangement with the United States of America whereby deserters from other European countries who go into Western Germany may be extradited.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, deserters from the United States forces anywhere in Europe.
LORD BROCKWAY: Anywhere in Europe, which is exactly the point I was making. They must go to Western Germany from another European country before extradition. If they go directly from the United States of America into Western Germany they are not liable to extradition in the same way that they are here. Therefore that instance which the noble Lord gave as supporting the attitudes in this country hardly bears examination.
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, my Lords, I think it is very relevant, because it is an instance of where the practice of a NATO country goes further than is required by the NATO Agreement. Western Germany also has provisions similar to the other NATO countries, but beyond that it has entered into a bilateral arrangement with the United States.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I accept that; but to say that because one other country has some departure is justification for this country going very much further is not an argument that I can accept. I was going to point out that there are two other NATO countries which signed the NATO Agreement and which took a very different line from ours. There is Canada—Canada very near to the United States of America; Canada very much under the influence of the United States of America. In May, 1969, the Canadian Government decided to give de facto immigrant status, with the right to work, to deserters and draft resisters, except those who were in American bases; and that is the argument

31
in the Bill which is now before this House. The other case is that of France, which has given de facto asylum both to draft resisters and to deserters entering that country from the United States of America. They must report to police stations, and when they have done that they are given the right not only to stay but to obtain work in France.
I speak deeply on this issue because, though it may not be understood, I have enormous appreciation of the tradition of liberty which is allowed in this country. I have deep appreciation of the law in this country which respects those who believe that war is wrong and that a particular war is wrong. That, with our tradition of tolerance, we should now be extraditing these men back to America for an offence which would not necessarily be an offence in our country, and which, from my contact with many of them, is to them a deep moral issue—believing the Vietnam war is wrong, believing it would be wrong for them to engage in it, believing that they would be destroying the very soul of their own personalities if they continued to fight—that is a thing of shame to me. I hope that the majority in this House will support the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has put forward.
4.5 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with great interest, I shall be very brief. While I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the views which motivate the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in moving the Second Reading of his Bill—if I may say so, he did it superbly—I am bound to say that I take a completely opposite view to him, and I consider the purpose of the Bill to be indefensible.
What are we being asked to do? Put simply, we are being asked to amend the present law and henceforth permit young men from the United States, and indeed from other allied and Commonwealth countries, who have deserted from the service of their own forces on so-called "grounds of conscience", to remain at liberty in the United Kingdom as deserters. In my view, and I speak now as a former soldier, apart perhaps from cowardice in the face of the enemy there is no more despicable crime that a serviceman
32
can commit than to desert. Let us be under no illusions as to what this means; it means deserting his country and his comrades. You cannot class deserters as being similar to political refugees. In my view, they are not one and the same thing. What the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is really seeking to do is to get Her Majesty's Government to grant political asylum in the United Kingdom to all those who wish to come here, having deserted from the United States forces because they perhaps object to the Vietnam war. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham has already pointed out—
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves his general comments about deserters, may I ask him whether he would apply the term "a despicable crime" to, for instance, a young Russian soldier who deserted from the invading forces in Czechoslovakia, because I would not.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: Yes, my Lords, I would. As I was saying, my noble friend Lord Windlesham has pointed out that successive Home Secretaries of both political Parties have consistently maintained the view that conscientious objection to military service is not, in itself, a ground for political asylum. My Lords, is it really for us to interfere on whether or not the United States Government should require its own nationals to serve, on a selected basis, in its own armed forces? I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is not suggesting that the United States Government is not democratically elected. I believe any such interference on our part would be greatly resented. I put it to your Lordships that some noble Lords opposite might perhaps be a little busy in poking their noses into the affairs of other sovereign States. I suggest it is an impertinence.
As the law stands at present, as your Lordships know, it is obligatory that, once arrested, a deserter shall be handed over to the military authorities of his own country. It is automatic. I hope it will remain so. I know of no case where the Act has not worked satisfactorily over the past 18 years, and I can see no justification whatsoever for altering the present situation. I shall oppose the Bill that is before us, and I hope those other noble Lords who, like me, do not

33
wish to see our country become a haven for deserters and drop-outs—and it could do so—will do the same.
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I listened fascinated to the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick. He spoke as a soldier, he spoke as a patriot, and I think the key to his entire philosophy of life was shown when he replied to my noble friend Lord Gifford that he would consider a Russian soldier who deserted at the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia unworthy of pclitical asylum. I understand that point of view, and the point of view of those who deeply believe, "My country, right or wrong", or "My Party, right or wrong".
I came to the House this afternoon pleased that on these Benches we had a free vote; but I was dismayed to be told that the Government Whips will be on on the other side. The noble Lord opposite indicates that I am wrong. It is only a recommendation. Good! I think one has here the basic distinction between two different philosophies which are not allowed to exist side by side in authoritarian countries whether of the Right or of the Left. It is something which makes us love our country.
It has been a great tradition in this country that when a man or woman had real conscientious objection, we should not confine that objection to a narrow religious base, and if that objection was held on broad terms it would be respected by one's fellows. We are dealing with a profoundly important issue this afternoon. I do not believe it matters whether those involved can be numbered in tens or in hundreds. I believe that the numbers are very small, but that is not the essence of the matter. The essence of it is that we live in a country where, again and again, men have suffered agonies because of a point of view which, at a particular moment, might not be that of their country or of their Party.
When I heard my noble friend Lord Brockway speak, I remembered what it meant as a child of a little over nine years of age to have a father who was opposing his trade union movement; opposing the Labour Party and opposing his Labour Member of Parliament. That was before the 1914–18 war. There can be agonies for those who are out of line. The
34
soldier in the front line has to face dangers and take all the risks, but I hope noble Lords will accept from me that there can be real agony not only for the men who stand apart, but also for their wives, their children and their parents. There can be punishments which go far beyond the period of gaol which may have to be served, and people's work may be undermined.
If we look back at the history of our country, can we really say that men and women who have been personally known to many of us in your Lordships' House were cowards and second-rate citizens? I remember that the loneliness of my father's position was changed during the First World War when "Peace by negotiation" came into my home. There was Ponsonby, E. D. Morrell, Charles Trevelyan, Wedgwood Benn and Lord Brockway. Where is Lord Archibald, who ought to be here? There was a whole array of them. They had to face their punishments and their dangers. I remember a meeting about "Peace by negotiation", which Lord Kirkwood held in our area. When the crowd got rough he said, "If there is a better man here, let him come and take my place from me", In other words, he was not my noble friend Lord Soper; he was not a pacifist. But again and again we have added to the status of our country, and to the respect which it has in the world, because we have not been afraid of disagreement. That is the issue which we are considering to-day.
Many of us cannot take the view of, "My country, right or wrong". That does not mean that we disagree on small issues. I have never been able to take the view, "My Party, right or wrong". I was out of it for 13 years, and one does not do that lightly or frivolously. It means breaking with one's closest friends, with one's background and all the rest. But if we have a law in this country which respects the conscientious objector with political or social objections as well as with religious objections, is it right that we should send back to America these young Americans who are going back not to a neo-Fascist Spain, as my noble friend Lord Brockway pointed out, but to a country which does not make provision for a person whose objections are basically social and political?

35
I think it is right and wise that we should not dwell too much in this debate on whether or not we think America is justified in its Vietnam policy; I think that that would obscure the issue. But there is a considerable minority opinion in America which believes that America has entered a war which cannot be supported, so it is inevitable that there should be young Americans in this country with that point of view. What are we going to do? Are we going to give them the traditional British right of asylum? Are we going to allow them to remain in a country where there is this right of political and social objection? Or do we really think that it is in the British tradition, that it is worthy of our past and worthy of what we hope our future will be, that we should take such a narrow legalistic view? We shall not be robbing America of one single soldier, because although a brave man fights for what he believes in he cannot be made to fight when he does not believe in something.
Having listened to the compassionate and very moderate case which my noble friend Lord Gifford put, and which has since been supported, I hope that we shall not regard this as a Party issue when we come to vote. This is a great humanist issue and it is a reflection of our total values. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Gifford will have your Lordships' support.
4.18 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to make what will surely be the shortest speech in the debate, which has so far been remarkable for the fact that everybody who has spoken has held the strongest possible convictions, but has expressed them with the greatest possible moderation. I think we received an extremely good lead in that respect from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford.
I wish to make only three points. I came with a speech absolutely peppered with constitutional and legal points, every one of which has been swept up with great ability by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, into that strange shadowy country which Marshal Saxe, that great European soldier, once described when he said that the science of war was full of shadows
36
as to what constituted a respectable war and what constituted the reverse.
In very sincerely praising the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for its clarity and moderation, I could not escape the feeling that an undertone was there when he spoke of the draft-dodgers, as we call them, and the deserters. He admired them for their act of conscience. When they were called up they either fled the country in the first place, or took the Oath and enlisted and then fled the country afterwards. I think that when he reads his speech in Hansard he will feel it is not unreasonable that many of us are driven to the belief that he sees these men as possessing a much higher quotient of conscience and honour than those who are actually risking their lives in the field of battle. He may or may not have intended that, but when he reads his speech in Hansard I think he will find that that impression is there.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: Perhaps when he reads his own speech he will think it over himself.
Now Canada was mentioned, and I should just like to make one very small point on that. I was five years in the Canadian Army during the war and, for 24 years after it, on the Reserve, and I am very interested in two quotations made about Canada, one by Mr. Allan MacEacher, and one about Canada in general by Lord Brockway. It is really very important, to get the true picture, to realise what a massive argument geography provides: 3,000 miles of unpatrolled and unpatrollable country, with a border which, from the point of view of those born in the countries on either side of it, you can pass with as little formality as you pass from England to Scotland or vice versa. That has a very important bearing, I think, on Canada's attitude.
Last of all, in order to be quite sure that my speech is the shortest, I should just like to express this view. We in this country have never been a great land Power, although we were once a very great sea Power. We have always been a genius in alliance. Alliances, like friendships, remain strong so long as you keep them in repair. I believe that if

37
we took such a gratuitous action as passing this Bill, though not many people may be involved, it would have a very bad effect on our relations with the Americans. For that reason, and for others that other noble Lords have stated as well, I shall feel impelled to vote against it.
4.22 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I thought, as did many other noble Lords who followed him, that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made an extremely well-argued and well-delivered speech in support of his own Bill. However, I do not accept some of the reasons (even what I suspect to be the main reason, because it is the emotional reason, and the reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir) held by most of those who support this Bill and advanced by them as reasons why we should support it. I do not accept that we should be asked to vote for this Bill, which would benefit deserters from the Armed Forces of foreign countries, out of a respect for their integrity of conscience, out of a duty to pay regard to decisions taken on that superior moral level.
It seems to me that liberals feel themselves obliged to give a moral description to the behaviour of anyone whose cause they wish to advance. In this case, of course, I am not using the word "liberal" in order to focus an attack on my colleagues on these Benches. Far from it: I am using it in a much wider sense. I am using it to refer to what is perhaps the idealistic element in all of us. The reason why I do not accept this argument is partly because this is an inadequate description of the person who will benefit by this Bill and partly because, even if it were an adequate description, it would not provide an adequate reason for supporting the Bill. I do not believe that we should change the law in order to accommodate the refinements of conscience of this particular foreign minority.
The sponsors of this Bill, and some of its supporters, are very anxious to engage our respect for those who desert from foreign, and in particular the American, Armed Forces. In a document which I still believe emanated from the authorship of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill rather than from one of the massed lobbies which we were warned he
38
had assembled behind him, there is this sentence:
"What was conceived"—
referring to the 1952 Act—
"as a convenient means of dealing with the conventional type of deserter has been used to oppress young men who, whether one believes them to be courageous or misguided, have acted according to their conscience".
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, expressed similar sentiments in his speech.
A little further on in this document the author goes further. He compares the inequality of treatment accorded in this country to those who have resisted the draft as compared with those who have deserted from foreign forces, and he says:
"Indeed, there is reason to pay greater tribute to those who have been to Vietnam, experienced the reality of the war and have the courage to obey their conscience rather than their superior officers".
I believe that such arguments are nonsense. People who desert from armies do so for a variety of reasons. If you bring morality into it, you must consider that some have base motives if you wish also to believe that some have motives which are sublime. I appreciate the humanity of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, but on the whole I do not consider it necessary to bring morality into this argument. Personally, I would tend to expect deserters to include a fair number of disturbed or psychotic individuals, of those who are anti-social rather than social; and I do not believe that we can measure the value of this Bill by the contribution that they are likely to make as a group to our society.
However, the fact that the sponsors of this Bill have adduced reasons for supporting it which are invalid, even if they have put great emphasis on those reasons, does not mean that the Bill itself is bad. On the contrary, as I shall argue, there are very good grounds for supporting this Bill. The inequality of treatment given to deserters as opposed to draft resisters, who may legitimise their position in this country by qualifying as visitors, as students or as alien workers, is a good argument.
But I consider there is a better argument. It seems to me that the intention behind international agreements of this sort—and I call the existing law an international agreement, because it has the

39
function of an international agreement by being a law in support of other Governments' institutions—must be to support foreign Governments in situations where their interests are common to ours, and such laws as these have in the past grown up in response to the demand of particular situations in which this community of interest was recognised.
Now I should like to repeat some of the words which were used by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (as he then was), in introducing the Visiting Forces Bill in 1952, and which were quoted by Lord Gifford. He said:
"These provisions are somewhat wider than is strictly required by the NATO Agreement, but they repeat the arrangements which were made in the 1933 Act for the Commonwealth forces and were extended during the war to Allied forces".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 17/10/52, col. 568.]
In other words, it was only under the exigencies of war time, when a community of vital interests was undeniable, that provisions such as those now in force were extended to nations other than those of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that it was in our own interests to retain the 1933 provision in relation to the Commonwealth. But, so far as the Commonwealth are concerned, there are surely few who would now dispute that our expectations for common military action in the face of common danger are not the same to-day as they were in 1933. And, of course, in many cases the status of the countries within the Commonwealth has changed from that of Colonies to that of independent countries. So far as the post-war situation is concerned, which the 1952 Act was designed to fit, it was admitted even by the movers of that Bill that it went further than our obligations under the Treaty demanded.
Now it does not seem to me an important matter whether this was intentional or whether this was inadvertent. It seems to me understandable that in the early days of NATO we should have agreed to go beyond our strict requirements in the interests of a new international organisation for mutual defence of which we were then recent members. Such enthusiasm towards co-operation was perhaps our way of expressing that we really wished to be a member of that organisation; for we are aware that we otherwise should
40
have some difficulty in persuading foreign countries that we really wish to join associations of foreign Powers for particular purposes, where these are not based on the Commonwealth, even when we do wish to join them.
But even if that is not the explanation, the situation since those days eighteen years ago has changed again. In the last few years the United States has been engaged in a war to which it has committed vast resources, material and emotional, of its own. This war has been a far more important consideration, a far more vital problem, to that country's Government—indeed to its successive Governments—than has NATO defence It has brought down an Administration; it has fragmented a society; and yet in that war we have had no vital interest.
It does not matter whether you approve or disapprove of that war; it does not even matter if you argue that the United States' conduct of that war was important to us because it was, globally speaking, essential to defy Communism at that point and because Communism is our dedicated enemy. Even such an argument is unimportant; and it is unimportant because one single fact proves that the Vietnam war was not vital to us; it was not vital to us because in defence of vital situations we have a tradition of committing troops of our own. It is one of our finest traditions, a tradition to which, perhaps, we owe our survival. Yet to the Vietnam war we never sent a single man.
Throughout such a period, however, this law remained to support an ally in a military capacity in a field in which we were not allied. This seems to me to be a superfluous capacity, one which has not been characteristic of laws such as our present law nor of our present law itself as established in 1952. When the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave us his example of the problem of the man who has been left behind following the withdrawal of his unit, I would say that that may be a problem; but in that case let us have a reciprocal agreement. He brought in the question of the United States Agreement with Germany. All right! But that was a bilateral Agreement. A precedent for the general support for foreign Governments' military policies has developed by accident, and I see no argument for

41
continuing it. In 1942 or 1952 we extended assistance in return for assistance that was being extended to us. In 1970, there is no longer a reason not to revert to this admirable principle. To pass this Bill, therefore, would be to revert to tradition and not to abandon it.
To those who say that this matter is not important, that it is not worth this debate or these arguments, I would say that it is important because it gives us an opportunity of defining more clearly the manner in which we wish to have relationships with foreign countries. Therefore I feel that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for introducing this Bill; and, for the arguments I have given, I believe that it should be given a Second Reading this afternoon.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, we have just listened to a most thoughtful and, in the context of the debate, unusual speech from the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I find myself experiencing a certain pleasure at hearing a speech not wholly in favour of Lord Gifford's Bill coming, if not from the Labour Benches, at least from the other side of the House; for it looked as though there might be a certain polarisation across the Floor; and that would be a pity. I am going to speak against the Bill but I do not identify myself for that reason with my Party. I feel that it would be a pity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, said, if we came out for or against this Bill according to Party lines.
About the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, I wonder whether the noble Lord himself, having made what others rightly described as an admirably restrained speech on the subject, is quite happy at the way the debate has turned out. It may be that he is. But what has happened, it seems to me, is that we have had a debate about the rights and wrongs of conscientious objection. The Bill is not about conscientious objection at all. It is not even about conscientious desertion, so far as I know, although it certainly was on that aspect of desertion that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, placed his emphasis.
We might do well to consider exactly what is a conscientious deserter. Can any noble Lord tell me how, when a man
42
who has deserted, whether it be in Vietnam or in Berlin, arrives in England, it is possible to tell whether he deserted for conscientious reasons? Surely the conscientious factor must be established before he deserts. It is easy for a man to say that he had to desert because he does not believe in what his country is doing, or because he loathed the jobs that he was called upon to do. The story of the American who married the English girl, who came here, was arrested and was sent away, it seems to me (without withholding sympathy for the young man) has nothing to do with any kind of evidence that he was in fact a conscientious deserter.
If a man joins the army, particularly the American Army, and has a conscientious objection, he still is drafted in (as can happen under American law); and he may find himself in action against the enemy in Vietnam and may be appalled by what he finds. There is the story of the man who deserted, having been withdrawn from Vietnam. He was in Europe and he could not face a second term. What upset him in the first place was to find himself in a helicopter ordered to shoot at anything that moved in a village below. He saw his cannon-fire destroying women and children. That is a horrifying experience; but it is not reasonable to say that desertion, even under the strongest compulsion of con-science, is the only course open to him. There is another course open and that is next time to refuse to obey the order. The American forces, like our own and like every other, are subject to the same kind of military law which requires a man in general to obey orders. If a man thinks that those orders are unlawful—and shooting women and children is unlawful—he is not only allowed to disobey them but it is his duty to do so. That defence is open to him at a court martial; and that defence is the same in the American Army, Air Force and Navy as it is in ours.
So I think it goes a little far to suggest that when a man in such a position elects to desert and to run away he is taking the most courageous line. It may be that he is; but I should myself have greater admiration for the man who stays and refuses to obey the orders, even if the orders are lawful, and faces the music, goes to prison and takes it like a man. I have more admiration for him than for

43
the man who withdraws himself from the position of ever having received an order that he disliked, and who runs away to escape the consequences of his action. I do not care for that man.
And when he has done it and comes here, how are we to find out whether he has done so conscientiously or not? But suppose we can. Let us suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, intended that this Bill should be about conscientious objection. We then have the argument which formed the greater part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who said that in deporting these men we should be deporting them for something which would not be a crime if committed by members of our own forces. I do not think that that is quite true. What we are deporting them for—if "deporting" is the word—is desertion. It is quite simple. That is what the Bill is about. No man is deported from here and handed over to the American forces, whether he is stationed in Great Britain, Germany or Vietnam, for refusing to obey orders to fight the enemy. He is arrested and handed over for desertion. The two things are not the same. It is possible to refuse to obey orders; to refuse to shoot the enemy; to refuse to serve in Vietnam. Surely, if you do that, you will promptly be arrested and tried by court-martial; but by the time you get here you have done something else as well—that is, deserted—and that is what these men are handed over for.
Now, my Lords, with that in mind I turn to my last point. Suppose the thinking behind the speeches of the noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, be accepted (as your Lordships will see, I do not accept it) and what was desired now was to exempt conscientious deserters from the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. If that were what was intended, the Bill we are debating would not be the one required for the purpose, because there is nothing whatever in it, by innuendo, implication, print or anything else, to suggest that it has the slightest connection with conscience. It may be a good Bill or it may not be a good Bill; but it certainly does not follow from anything that has been said by the noble Lords who have argued the case on the grounds of conscientious objection or conscientious desertion.
44
My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, I would simply say, in a word or so, that whether or not we should have reciprocal laws with other countries, whether we should rescind our perfectly good law, as it seems to us, because others do not have it, seems totally irrelevant. We make our own laws, my Lords, and I hope that we shall not make this one.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, from time to time I felt that I was in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. Although he said that this Bill was not about conscientious objectors, he seemed to keep coming back to that; and, if I may say so, the noble Earl rather contradicted himself. As I thought my noble friend Lord Gifford made clear in his admirable presentation of his Bill, this is a Bill concerned with desertion. It is not the quality of desertion with which we are concerned; it is the act of desertion. It is desertion by a soldier from a visiting force, but who has not deserted from a base in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, put the case to us of what one does with the deserter who deserts from a visiting force's base and then the visiting force leaves? I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that he is a deserter in the terms of the Visiting Forces Act as those of us would like to see it amended by my noble friend Lord Gifford.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, kept us rather on a tightrope, because until the end of his speech I did not know whether he was for or against the Bill. He must have raised the Minister's hopes only to let him down at the very end. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said one thing that rather surprised me. I am sure that he did not intend it in that way, but it seemed to me that there was a slight element of smear in his remark that nobody knew about the Visiting Forces Act and that very few people were concerned about it until the Vietnam argument started. I put it to the noble Lord that ignorance should not always be said to be motivated by some sort of sinister attitude; and that the reason why many people did not know about the Act was, presumably, there were not so many deserters, and therefore we did not know about it at

45
all. Regarding my own very minor Act of Parliament, which I got through at the end of the last Parliament—the Indecent Advertisements Act—I would not have known anything about the old law which I was amending unless the matter had arisen because of some action we were taking. I think that perhaps the noble Lord—as I am sure he intended to be—might have been a little more generous about the motives of some of us, and certainly of those of us who support this Bill.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that this applies also to the Commonwealth, is rather a boomerang because the Commonwealth, certainly as it was in 1933, was really the Empire; and even to-day one may argue that the Commonwealth is a family affair and, therefore, there should be a family relationship between members of the Commonwealth. But one cannot call NATO a family affair—perhaps not even an extramarital affair. It is a group of allies, and often we find ourselves with some very strange bedfellows. I should like to ask the Minister—I will certainly give way to him if he wishes to comment on it—whether the way the Act operates at the moment is that if a Greek soldier deserted from the Greek Army, and the present Greek Government or the Greek Army asked us to arrest the man and send him back, we would then, would we not, be forced to do so? I take it that the answer is, "Yes".
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that sort of question is not best put quickly across the Floor of the House in the course of an exchange of this sort. It is a detailed one. If the noble Baroness wants to give advance warning, or would like a reply afterwards, I should be happy to give it.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that if I were going to put something about which I felt that he should have had advance warning, I should certainly have given it. But, in the context of this debate on the Bill, Greece is a member of NATO and, therefore, if the noble Lord is hesitating about that, what is the whole thing about? Either it is legal and it is an Act of Parliament, in which case it must be followed for all contracting parties, which I think was his own phrase; or, if we are
46
going to differentiate, then we are getting involved in the very sort of thing that those of us who are supporting Lord Gifford's Bill are very worried about getting involved in; and this goes far beyond the question of Vietnam. I think I have proved that quite clearly. This is why, apart from the morality—about which my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lady Lee of Asheridge spoke most movingly—there is a lack of common sense. There is an unreasonableness about it and it is getting us into the sort of situation (it may do so even more in the future) which creates tremendous complications for us because of an involvement that we should not have.
The noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, said that we should not be poking our noses into the affairs of other sovereign States. With great respect, my Lords, that is exactly what we are doing at the moment; and it is exactly what my noble friend wants us to stop doing. It is not a question of deciding whether somebody is a conscientious objector, whether they are a draftee, or whether they should have political asylum. These things are quite irrelevant to this Bill. All the Bill says is that we should not accept the request of another Power to arrest a deserter, unless that deserter has deserted from a base in this country; in other words, it applies to visiting forces. As the Minister pointed out in the first part of his speech, which he headed "Detailed arrangements", the situation at the present time is that the person is brought before a magistrates' court and the magistrates have no choice, once the identity of the person has been established and they are satisfied he is a deserter, but to hand him over to the authorities of the country from the army of which he has deserted.
If we did not keep on saying "America", but related this matter to the whole of NATO, and even the Commonwealth if you like, we should perhaps get it in a better perspective. I am a magistrate, and up to now I have been fortunate in not having had a case of this sort before me. I should have to interpret the law—I should have no alternative. It is no use the Minister shaking his head: that is so. I should be extremely unhappy about it, because although it may be the law to my mind it certainly would not be justice. I find it uncivilised because we are put in the

47
position of indulging in a manhunt which really should not concern us.
Finally, my Lords, the fact that the last Government did not change the law does not mean that it is necessarily right and I should have thought that this was an opportunity for this Government to put it right. I firmly believe that if the Visiting Forces Act in its original form had been before Parliament to-day it would not have got through in that form. From both sides of the House and from all political Parties, Members would have pointed out the defects and the Bill would have been amended. We should not have had the present Act of 1952, but an Act much more along the lines of the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Gifford.
4.50 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this afternoon, and the views which have been expressed from all parts of the House have gone from one extreme to another. At the outset I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, on introducing what is in essence a controversial Bill with, if I may say so, moderation, great care, great clarity and with much persuasion. He certainly made out his case as well as it could be done. I commend his Bill for one good reason—that it is brief; but I regret that that is as far as my commendation of it can go.
The noble Lord has explained the main purpose of the Bill, which is to alter the existing law in order to allow young men who have deserted or gone absent without leave in other countries, and subsequently come here, to remain in this country and to prevent their being returned by the British authorities to the appropriate authority of their country. What the noble Lord is trying to do is perfectly simple. He took much care to explain this and to leave us in no doubt whatsoever. He is trying to alter the law in such a way that when an American Serviceman deserts or goes absent without leave from the United States Forces, because, for instance, he is opposed to the policy of the war in Vietnam and dislikes taking part in it (and I readily accept that there are those who have a genuine disapproval for the
48
policy which results in that war as distinct from disapproval and dislike of the fact of war, which must be common to all), he may have the right (0 come to this country and be given asylum here, and may be allowed to live and work here. The British authorities, says the noble Lord, should not have the opportunity of returning such a man to the United States authorities, and the United States authorities should not have the right to request the British authorities to help in his return.
I appreciate the sincerity with which the noble Lord holds these views, but I must say that I cannot agree with them. My disapproval of this Bill is twofold. I believe that we should be putting ourselves in an intolerable position, if we were to interfere with the relationship which exists between the United States military authorities and their own personnel. Legal responsibilities and obligations must be to the United States authorities as a whole and cannot be to the individual and varying whims, however sincerely held they may be, of its personnel. We should be affronting an ally and, I suggest, doing a most unfriendly act to an ally if we were not only to refuse to return to that ally a member of their forces who had elected to desert but were prepared also to help him and give him asylum.
It is up to the United States military authorities to conduct their own affairs and the relations between themselves and their personnel in the best possible manner. They must make their own decisions about the right course to be taken with those who object on grounds of conscience and it would be wholly improper for this country, I suggest, to encourage, acquiesce in or condone, or to be thought to encourage, acquiesce in or condone, desertion from the forces of an ally.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that whether we feel that the war in Vietnam is right or wrong is not an issue here. I am not so sure. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, based the whole of his argument in support of this Bill on his strong objection to the war in Vietnam. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, at the end of his speech, fell into the trap, having discounted one particular argument as not being an issue here, of quoting extensively from a letter upon which

49
he obviously placed much reliance, because, as he said, it put it better than ever he could, but the author of which was clearly motivated in his writing by none other than the argument which the noble Lord previously discounted—namely, the war in Vietnam.
As I understand it, and as my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, the Bill stems from the activities of an organisation called the Union of American Exiles in Britain.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Earl, the Bill stems from my own views on this matter and not from any other source.
EARL FERRERS: I entirely accept that the Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, but I think it would also be fair to say, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, that it goes very much with the views of the Union to which I have referred. I believe that it would be much resented if, in response to pressure from a body which is openly opposed to the policy of the United States Government, we in this country were to alter the arrangements which have existed for some eighteen years.
Secondly, I think it most undesirable that we should put ourselves in the position of being prepared to encourage the settlement here of people who have seen fit to desert from the forces of their own country, however genuine in their own conscience they may be. While I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has deeply and sincerely held views on this subject—and I respect those views—I believe that we should be wrong if we were to pass this Bill, because it would be seen, even if it was not so intended, as a direct encouragement by this country to the harbouring of those who have deserted from the forces of an ally; and that would be quite justly bitterly resented. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will see fit not to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he would clarify a part of his argument. Did I understand him to say that this Bill gives a deserter a right to come to this country and gain asylum? If he did say that, I would reply that it does nothing of the
50
sort. The ordinary laws of immigration still apply. Anybody can be kept out or refused admission as an alien.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if a person, having come to this country, were not handed back to the authorities, he would enjoy the right of asylum?
5.0 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I apologise for my name not being on the list of speakers, but I have been a deserter in the Isle of Man and did not know that this Bill was on the Order Paper. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for allowing me to speak before him and the summing-up of the debate. Before I say a few words on the Bill—and they will honestly be a few—I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, on his excellent and compassionate speech. I do not often use the word "brilliant", but I really thought he had surpassed himself and pleased the whole House by making a first-class speech.
I joined this debate actually in November when I took my daughter out to dinner one night to a little restaurant. An American was standing up, shouting so loud that we could not hear the music and we could not dance. I listened to what he was shouting. It was that he objected to going back to America to be put in jail: it seemed a reasonable enough argument. But I really thought that he had shouted for long enough, and so I joined in. I shouted back at him: "You would be much better busting rocks in America, and much safer, than fighting in Vietnam". Whereupon he replied to me, quite justifiably: "I will not take that from a dirty, lecherous, middle-aged slob taking a pretty girl out to dinner". My daughter, who has always been so loyal to me, jumped to her feet and shouted back at him: "My father is not a dirty, lecherous, middle-aged slob; he is a dirty, lecherous, old slob".
Of course we all feel deeply in our hearts about this rather terrifying thing that has happened to these young Americans, who infest all the countries. We all know that they have run away from the war and do not want to fight, although we do not know the reason. One could go on for a long time about

51
that, but I do not wish to. I just want to say that I think what I call the ordinary, respectable, democratic Americans do not know what they are fighting for, but they do know what they are fighting against.
I was privileged to hear a man for whom I have a great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (Lord Windlesham has read what he said earlier, and I need not repeat it), state his views in your Lordships' House as the most compassionate Minister of State, Home Office, that it would be possible to get. I thought then, and I think now, that it would be a great mistake to let a Bill of this kind go further.
5.2 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Strange, who was expecting a brilliant summing up from my noble friend Lord Beswick, but unfortunately my noble friend has had to attend some urgent meetings and has missed some of the speeches. Therefore it seemed more correct, out of courtesy to your Lordships, that I should speak from the Opposition Front Bench. Let me first, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, state the position of the Labour Party in the House on this subject. It is entirely up to my noble friends who sit in the House, in the light of the discussion, to make up their minds as to how they intend to vote, whether for or against the Bill, or whether they abstain.
I think I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, although it is a fair argument, that the previous Government on a matter of this kind, when pressed in the House, took a particular point of view, and this was not significantly challenged. I am bound to say that the matter has been revealed in a much more detailed light following the really outstanding speech of my noble friend Lord Gifford. I am happy to say that it is quite obvious that your Lordships were deeply impressed by his exposition and moderation. Though I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was fair in his reference to the quotation from the brigadier, of course my noble friend had to quote the whole of the letter. I hope that we shall never refrain from doing what we may conceive to be right purely on the
52
grounds that such action is capable of being misinterpreted by other people.
I confess, my Lords (and here I speak for myself, because, as I have said, it will be for my noble friends who sit on these Benches to make up their own minds; and I know that some certainly will vote for the Bill), that it was my intention when I came in to listen to the debate, either to vote against the Bill or to abstain. However, I must say that at the moment I have not made up my mind, because certain matters have been revealed in the course of the discussion. I think it might be as well if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, were to exercise the privilege, which the House always gives to the Minister, to speak again to see whether he can deal with some of the powerful points that have been made. The answers to some of the questions will certainly influence me. In my experience, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham argues with great fairness and consistency, but I must say that I found some inconsistencies in his speech today.
As I understand it—this is a technical question, and it is difficult to come to a view—he was arguing that the Act which my noble friend seeks to amend derives from an earlier Act concerned with Commonwealth forces. I think we shall all agree that the environment in which that previous Act was passed was of a very different kind, and that the Commonwealth was of a different kind. The first question that I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. If the 1952 Act does arise from the Commonwealth Visiting Forces Act, is it a fact that in Canada there are not reciprocal arrangements so far as this country is concerned? I see the difficulty, and presumably the case which the noble Lord had in
mind was that of a soldier, it might well be, whose unit was on a training exercise in Canada and who just stayed behind. I do not know whether it was that sort of case. But what I should like to know is whether Canada has reciprocity with this country. It may be, of course, that my noble friend Lord Gifford will be able to answer some of these questions.
Secondly, there is the position of the other NATO countries. My noble friend Lady Birk referred to a Greek soldier, though I do not wish to pursue that.

53
However, as I understand it, the purpose of the original Act was to make provision in relation to the NATO Alliance for the purposes of NATO. I do not think that anyone, even my noble friend Lord Gifford, objects to it in that context. I am not seeking to make embarrassing remarks from a foreign affairs point of view, but let us take an example of one of our NATO Allies which has colonial possessions in which a civil war is going on. If a deserter from those forces were to find his way to this country, having perhaps conscientious objection, and possibly being a native inhabitant of the territory in question, would he be capable of being arrested by the civil police and brought before a magistrate, such as my noble friend Lady Birk; and would there then be no option but to hand him back?
I am not taking the Vietnam argument, because it is rightly said that to-day we are not debating the Vietnam issue. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, shakes his head, but I can assure him that I am not debating the Vietnam argument. I have listened to the arguments, and I want to make it clear that none of my remarks relates to Vietnam or anywhere else: but it does happen that that is a valid example. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he will answer the second question that I have asked him on this aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, made the point (I hope I interpret him correctly) that it is perhaps better to look at this matter in terms of a properly negotiated reciprocal arrangement, specifying more clearly the circumstances. It may well be that this Bill does not achieve fully the purposes that my noble friend Lord Gifford has in mind. The question that I, speaking for myself, have to make up my mind on is whether I should support the Second Reading of a Bill which may not be satisfactory. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whether he can provide any relief in regard to the anxieties which have been aroused in my mind and, I believe, in the minds of quite a number of noble Lords.
I share the view of noble Lords who adopt an argument about the position of a deserter. I fully accept that a deserter may appear to be somebody to whom no privileges are given. But the important thing about the effect of passing this Bill
54
would be that, while anybody who entered this country illegally could be removed it would be under different processes and not simply as a result of arrest by the military police. It may well be that this Bill will make little difference in principle, but it raises issues of profound importance in terms of liberal human rights. The noble Lord opposite has really argued defending the position of his Government—and, indeed, that of my Government previously—that this is a convenient and workable measure. But, my Lords, it is clear now that anxieties exist, and that there are human rights issues on which the House is bothered. I am surprised to have come to the position that my own personal view is that, unless the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can give a little more explanation, I am inclined to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.12 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if it is the wish of the House, and if I am granted permission to speak a second time, I should be happy to take up a few moments. It would not be right for me to try to reply to the debate and deal with all the points that have been raised. This is a Private Members' Bill; it is not a piece of legislation introduced by the Government. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to say what he thinks of the arguments that have been raised in support of and against his own Bill.
I can comment on one or two points that have been raised. The most important point is the question which still seems to be in the minds of noble Lords: it is that our law is unique; that we have an outdated law which applies to servicemen who have deserted on grounds of conscience. That is not true; we are not unique. It may be that our practice is a good or a bad one, but it is not a unique practice. It is shared by six other Commonwealth countries. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that in 1933 the concept of the Commonwealth was rather different from what it is to-day. But as I explained earlier, the Government of New Zealand, for instance, extended the application of their legislation in 1969 to enable them to apprehend deserters particularly in South-East Asia, Singapore and Malaysia, whether they have deserted from units based in New Zealand or outside New Zealand. So

55
it is not as though this is an outdated anachronism: it is a procedure which the Governments of six other countries have found it desirable to adopt for their own purposes.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, followed this up—about the position of a deserter, let us say, from Greece or from any other NATO country. The position is that the Visiting Forces Act would apply to a member of the Greek armed forces or to the armed forces of any country to which the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, took me to task when I shook my head during his speech—I hope he was not disturbed by that—when he said that we should not conduct this debate as if it were about American Army deserters. But this is what we are talking about. So far as I know, and so far as anyone who has listened to this debate knows, the other cases are hypothetical. We have not had any instances of deserters from Greece or any other NATO country; but we have had quite proper examples from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and others, of deserters from the United States armed forces. That is what we are talking about.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have misunderstood me. What I said was that we are not debating the rights and wrongs of Vietnam.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Well, I hope that the noble Lord feels pleased with that interjection. We know what we are talking about. There is a serious issue, which was raised in a calm and rational way by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. What this Bill aims to do is to alter our law so that young men who have deserted from the American armed forces, based outside and not just inside this country, should be enabled to enter this country, and to remain here within the limitations of the normal immigration control—as the noble Lord said, as visitors, students or in order to work.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the bilateral agreement between Germany and the United States, and whether it would be possible in the
56
course of the debate to provide any information as to the number of deserters who had been arrested in Germany and the rate of desertion from the United States forces in Germany and in Europe as a whole. I can assure him that we have made efforts in the course of the debate to obtain this information. Unfortunately, it is not readily available. If I can get further information later, I shall be happy to send it to him.
Finally, I should like to say, after hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, had to say, that the Government believe that a change in the law on these grounds is not in the interests of this country. I therefore recommended to the House at the beginning of the debate, so that our position was quite clear, the rejection of this Bill. I hope that we shall have the support of noble Lords in different parts of the House. The noble Lord speaking from the Opposition Front Bench can make what play he likes, but as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will know better than I, this has been a consistent point of view, and a consistent argument by himself and his friends for some years now. The previous Government when in power had responsibility, as we have responsibility now, to do what they thought was right in the interests of this country, and I hope that some Members of this House on those Benches will remember and will act, and perhaps will vote with us on that basis.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would say that he is doing his best to irritate me into voting against the Government. But will he answer one of my questions; namely, that in regard to the position in Canada?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think the position with regard to Canada is relevant. The Canadian practice is different from that of this country. Along with some other NATO Powers it limits its practices in a way that we do not. I do not see to what extent the noble Lord is going to be tipped over to vote one way or another on an issue of this sort according to what the practice is in Canada.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing his best!
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will vote as he wishes, and I hope that he will look back on it with credit.
5.14 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, at the end of this most stimulating debate, I find myself somewhat taken aback in perhaps having such a distinguished vote as that of my noble friend Lord Shackleton depending on what I may say. But may I do better than the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and tell my noble friend Lord Shackleton exactly what the position is in Canada, as I have it from the Department of National Defence in London, from the Commander of the Canadian Defence Liaison Staff. He says:
"With reference to your letter, I am pleased to be able to assist you in your inquiry into Canadian law as is relates to the Status of Forces Agreement. The only authority for arrest of members of foreign Forces personnel by members of the Canadian Forces in Canada for the offence of desertion is to be found in Section 10 of the Visiting Forces Act, which section applies only to members of a visiting Force A member of a foreign Force who came to Canada otherwise than in the course of duty—as, for instance, your suggested example of entry as a visitor or a student other than a military or U.S. Government sponsored student—would not be considered as being a member of a visiting Force and, consequently, no legislative authority exists for his arrest as a deserter by members of the Canadian Forces."
I think the question of my noble friend Lord Shackleton about members of other countries which are involved in wars, apart from their NATO responsibilities, was answered. They would of course be able to benefit by the Visiting Forces Act as it now stands.
My Lords, I do not propose, and your Lordships would not want me, to go over the questions that have been raised in this debate or to comment in detail
about the speeches which have been made. Many noble Lords have been kind and used the word "compassionate" about the attitude which I bring to this question, and I believe that that is a proper attitude to bring to any consideration of the liberty of the individual. In weighing up the arguments on either side, I would ask your Lordships to consider this. The present law allows the arrest of individuals within our shores. And in any question where an individual is arrested and loses his liberty it is necessary to ask: is that justified? Is that justified by the principles of our criminal law? It is not. Is it justified by any treaty? It is not. Is it justified by the principles and the law of extradition? It is not. Is it something done by our allies for us? So far as NATO is concerned, it is not. There may be six other Commonwealth countries which have the same bad law as we do, but in my view that is no argument against this Bill.
I would ask Members of the House to consider this matter compassionately and to recognise, as perhaps some noble Lords who have expressed views against this Bill have not sufficiently recognised, the hardship which in a very few cases the present law brings to the individual. Is there any proper justification for it? I ask your Lordships to say, No, and to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I believe technically does what it should do: it brings these deserters into the general law of aliens. I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 95.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Cowley, E.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Avebury, L.

Crook, L.

Hughes, L.

Balogh, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bernstein, L.

Faringdon, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs. [Teller.]

Birk, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Lindgren, L.

Bowles, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maelor, L.

Brown, L.

Gifford, L. [Teller.]

Milford, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Burntwood, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Byers, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Henley, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Constantine, L.

Heycock, L.

Popplewell, L.

Rea, L.

Shacklelon, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Reay, L.

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of. Mansfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Silkin, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Segal, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundonald, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Adrian, L.

Eccles, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Mar, E.

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Alport, L.

Ferrier, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Monson, L.

Audley, Bs.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Glasgow, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bourne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Reigate, L.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

Rhyl, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Champion, L.

St. Helens, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Just, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

Terrington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Inglewood, L.

Teviot, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ironside, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Thurlow, L.

De Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Leathers, V.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Digby, L.

Luke, L.

Williamson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

INDO-CHINA WAR: BRITISH POLICY
5.34 p.m.
LORD BOURNE LORD BOURNE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether, in view of the widening of the war in Cambodia, of the steady withdrawals of United States forces, and of the fact that, after several years of fighting, official figures estimate the number of armed Communists in South Vietnam at over 200,000, they will make a statement of British policy regarding the war in Indo-China. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason I put down this Question is twofold. First, we have a new Government, and although the previous Government made a Statement earlier about policy in South-East Asia, the new Government have not yet had the opportunity of doing so.
My second reason is a more personal one. As President of the Military Commentators'
Circle I was invited by the South Vietnamese Government, and made a trip to Saigon and South Vietnam in company with Air Vice-Marshal Menaul, whom your Lordships may otherwise know as the Director-General of the Royal United Service Institution. We did a full trip lasting ten days, helicoptering all over the place. In the South we went to the Delta, and to Cambodia; in Central South Vietnam to the Australians—and it was a pleasure to meet them, because they were so very professional in the way they did things. Lastly, we went to Hué, the destroyed city, and the North, including the Demilitarised Zone again by helicopter.
I should explain that as guests of the South Vietnamese Government we were in their hands (and very good hands they were, too), but as a result the only Americans that I met in South Vietnam officially were in fact advisers to the province chiefs. And a more dedicated group of people I have yet to meet: they were quite splendid.
In the interests of brevity I shall say a few things about what I found in South Vietnam, and then give some conclusions on them; and, finally, make one or two remarks about the outside situation. First of all, it may not be generally realised that inside South Vietnam itself there are still 200,000 armed Communists in the country. Observing that we never fought more than 10,000 (and usually 5,000) in Malaysia, that is an enormous figure; and of that total of 200,000 well over 100,000 are Viet Cong infrastructure. In other words, they are the cousins, uncles and fathers who live round the edges of the villages and on those villages.
To show the impact of the war on the people of South Vietnam I will just quote the figures of kidnappings and assassinations that are taking place every week. The average for the first half of this year was 330—an awful number of murders and kidnappings. That is just to show that the people are still conducting a terrific war. The South Vietnamese Army is 450,000 strong—ten or eleven divisions; and although I did not see the other ranks actually fighting, I saw the staff a good deal and I certainly gained an impression from all around me. One cannot be in an area like that without feeling the atmosphere, and I thought they were not only quite efficient in themselves but also very well turned out (which is only a small point), and had recently gained very greatly in confidence. That, I think, was perhaps because they took part with the Americans in the offensive against the sanctuaries in Cambodia.
The conclusion I came to, and the Air Marshal with me, is that the South Vietnamese Army will be quite capable of taking over the complete ground role at the end of 1971, provided that they are given heavy air support and technical support. In other words, that if a tank or a jeep is driven into a ditch another is provided—and, of course, they are not made in South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese must have logistic support. I even see advantages in South Vietnam fighting its own war. I believe that there is a great deal in the argument that the Americans are there as the intruders on the scene, and I am not at all sure that the South Vietnamese would not do better alone, provided, as I say, they were given the air and technical support necessary.
62
Certainly they would do at least as well in the matter of intelligence, because, for a start, they do not have the language difficulty. To show that they are in fact fighting this war very much at the moment I will quote the casualty figures for 1969, which were: for the South Vietnamese Army, nearly 19,000; for the United States Army, 9,000. That has now dropped to a trickle, quite a small figure. So the South Vietnamese are in fact already carrying the load.
On the question of Cambodia, of course I saw only one little section of that country. But I heard a good deal, and my impression is that the Communists are feeling the loss of Port Sianoukville and the truck route from there to the sanctuaries—probably using Chinese trucks. That route was 80 per cont. of their lines of communication; only 20 per cent. at the very most came down the Ho Chi Minh trail. The Communists have now invaded Cambodia, and we had a debate on it in May. To my mind the real reason why they are occupying Cambodia is in order to replace that line of communication, because without the safe bases they cannot threaten South Vietnam and Saigon. I personally think that the campaign in Cambodia is a negative one, and I even think that the Cambodians, when they are fully equipped—and, incidentally, they were quite sore because Britain had not offered them any arms—and when they are trained, as they are now being trained by the South Vietnamese, will be very good fighters and capable of holding their own country. Twenty years ago the French relied a good deal on the Cambodians.
The South Vietnamese Air Force has at present 21 squadrons. This is being expanded to 40 by the end of next year, and later on to 50. It will continue to be a tactical air force. At the moment they have 250 helicopters, which is a lot of helicopters, but they do not have heavy air support. They want Phantoms and B.52s, but they are not going to get them—not at present, anyway. The South Vietnamese Navy similarly is expanding to 1,100 ships and 40,000 men; a terrific expansion. Both the South Vietnam Air Force and the Navy are expanding methodically and are very capable of doing so. Incidentally, I visited a South Vietnamese Air Force workshop, and you

63
could eat your dinner off the floor, which is more than could be said of some places.
I was asked questions about reorganisation. I did not suggest it, but I was asked by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs whether I had any comments on reorganisation. I explained that I was not going to offer any suggestions, but as they had asked I would make one suggestion. It is perfectly possible, of course, to argue that the United States and South Vietnamese between them have suffered from, first of all, unclear war aims; secondly, that they are fighting two separate wars and they have never had a single director of operations, never had unity of command; the intelligence is distinctly questionable, the jungle tactics are doubtful. The tactics in the open are absolutely splen-did and so modern that they are bound to win, but, unfortunately, you cannot always arrange your battles in the open. My chief criticism was the lack of a strong police. Previously, we had always had a director of intelligence who was a policeman and the intelligence was run by the police. In South Vietnam it is not
run by the police. They are nominally in control, as a lot of co-ordination goes on in Saigon, but in fact they are looked down on. That is the main suggestion I made. At the end of the war police intelligence wants to be absolutely close alongside the Government and they want to know who is the chief Communist living in a flat in Saigon.
The next thing I learned in South Vietnam was that the Government is gaining ground in the villages—by the way, there are usually six or seven hamlets to every village; a village is quite a big affair—with roads, bridges, aluminium roofs, tractors, schools, and, above all, with land reform. The farmer previously had a job to get any land. Now if he is an approved farmer he is given title to three hectares, which is seven and a half acres, and if it is good rice land and he gets two or three crops he is a prosperous farmer and interested in the prosperity of the community. The big landowners are limited now by a law, which started to be implemented in July, to 15 hectares, which is 45 acres. They cannot sit in Saigon and have hundreds of acres any more. This is very much better than the Communists have been offering to the
64
peasants for many years. They have offered them land, but they have then collectivised the land, as in North Vietnam; in other words, they work for the State for ever after.
On top of that there is a programme called the Chien Hoi programme, which is aimed at rallying the V.C.I. particularly back to village life, back from the V.C.I. back to village life. So far they have rallied 162,000, which is a lot of people. They are doing it at the rate of between 30,000 and 40,000 a year. If you do a little arithmetic and find that there are 100,000 V.C.I., it will not be more than a couple of years before there are practically none left. The great advantage of this programme, if it works, and it is working at the moment, is that it isolates the V.C.I. from its supply line, observing that the Americans knocked the sanctuaries to bits, destroyed them completely. The Communists in the southern half of South Vietnam are very short of ammunition; they have guns and no ammunition. In other words, they are in a very bad position.
Lastly, one thing which you could not help noticing if you were in Saigon for ten days was the economic crisis. It was mentioned by
every Minister I met. They are maintaining 1,100,000 men in the armed forces. It is a U.S. induced inflation; the dollar has been revalued from 118 to 275 and that has made a terrific difference. When I was there the poor people, and they were really poor, could not afford to buy their own oranges because of inflation, and it is the poor people in the towns who always suffer first. The conclusion I came to, as did the Air Marshal with me, was this: admittedly we cannot go to war with them, but we ought to give them priority in any practical aid we can, and I suggest that at the moment we ought to give them agricultural aid.
The conclusions I came to as a result of my visit—and I hope I went with an open mind—were, first of all, that these people are really fighting a heavy war against the Communists. They have had Communism once. It is a thing people are inclined to forget. They had it for several months between the Japanese surrender and the arrival of General Gracie, the Indian Commander, and his troops. It was a very painful business.

65
They never want it again. The word "coalition" is a dirty word in Saigon, and I do not blame them. Give—shall we say?—a 10 per cent. share in a coalition to the Communists, a share which happens to include the Minister of the Interior and therefore the police, and we all know what happens. We all know what happened in Czechoslovakia, which is a salutary recent reminder. It has happened many times before, but the case of Czechoslovakia is the last. The people who protest about Vietnam and how the people there ought to patch up their quarrel and come to a solution have never lived under a Communist régime. The people in the American universities and in Grosvenor Square have never lived under Communism; they have never tried it. I do not recommend it.
Another matter which perhaps has been forgotten is that the United States, when they turned from being military advisers to providing armed forces, staved off obvious defeat in a matter of weeks; they went in and did a magnificent job. Unfortunately the Communists do not include the word "defeat" in their vocabulary, so they do not know when they are beaten. I believe that there are great difficulties in Hanoi and North Vietnam. The fact that the North Vietnamese Regular army contains boys of 15 and 16 years of age in quite a high proportion is a sign that they are up against it. On top of that, when they are rather short of ammunition it must be frightful. They do not know when they are beaten, but the conclusion that I came to was that the Viet Cong Infrastructure (the "V.C.I." as they are commonly known) are the key to the situation. Therefore the steady American withdrawal and pacification programme—"Vietnamisation" as I believe they call it—plus the Chien Hoi programme, are absolutely on the right lines, and if they are only given time to work they will show results. Land reform will be better than bullets, and it is much more likely that we shall persuade the V.C.I. to live in the villages than to live outside them.
In contrast to what I found in South Vietnam, I went afterwards to Hong Kong, Manila, Singapore and Bangkok, and I asked businessmen the same questions wherever I went. The businessmen
66
are all terribly busy making money in their own little booms; they are primarily interested in their own little booms. I asked the question: What would you do about it here "—and this was in Bangkok particularly, which is only 400 or 500 miles away from Saigon, "if the war went wrong and the Communists took over South Vietnam?". They invariably changed the subject; they always put up their coat collars and hoped that the storm would blow over. In other words, they are doing nothing about it. I ought not to include the Singapore Government in that because I never met the people at the top of the Government, for they were elsewhere.
Now I should like to come to the conclusions about British policy. We often hear about a political solution, and that it is the only way out. The word "coalition" is often used. I found out—and I entirely agree with the South Vietnamese—that the word "coalition" cannot be included. I have a deep sympathy with the Government and the people who are fighting against Communism. I do not believe that coalition is either desirable or possible in South Vietnam, and I think we ought to stop talking about it. I do not believe that it is any more possible between North and South Vietnam than it has been between East and West Germany for the past 25 years. Trade, culture and sport, yes, but politics, no. Political régime, no. Anybody who has had dealings with the Russians or Communists knows that democracy can meant two entirely different things, and we ought to remember that.
As to the outcome, nobody would be so foolish as to predict it. The South Vietnamese are on the crest of a wave at the moment. And, by the way, going back to the villages, I may say that 63 per cent. turned out to elect half the Senate. Could you imagine 63 per cent. turning out in the middle of a war to vote for half your Lordships' House, if it were on a voting system? I do not think the comparison would be a very good or optimistic one. I thought they were marvellous to turn out in such numbers. Incidentally, the Australians were proud of the fact that they were in the worst province, and the turn out there was 73 per cent. The Government is gaining ground in the villages and it should be helped as much as possible to gain ground.
I therefore think that practical British aid, short of war, is what we ought to offer. It may be possible to rid the country completely of Communists. We may not reach a political solution; we may not reach complete military victory. It will be like other places and rather like a disease of the human body; you fight it because you have better corpuscles in your body. It is distinctly possible that the South Vietnamese will get rid of most of the Communism in their country if we support them and give them the chance to do so. I hope for a strong Government Statement on this part of the world. We cannot do better than remember the original United States aid, which was to ensure for the people of South Vietnam a free choice as to whether or not they wanted to be reunited with the North. That was put very well by my noble friend Lord Shepherd—I think he was quoting from another place—in the debate on May 14, when he said, speaking of withdrawals of foreign forces:
"… as soon as we have secured the elements of a lasting and honourable settlement which assures to the people of Vietnam their own inalienable right to decide for themselves their own future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/5/70; col. 762.]
The year 1971, to my mind, will be the crucial year.
5.57 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be very interested in the report that my noble friend Lord Bourne has given of his visit to South Vietnam. It is natural that the noble Lord, as a distinguished General, should devote much of his visit and, therefore, his speech here to-night on the military aspects in South Vietnam and Cambodia, although I was pleased that he touched upon the question of land settlement and other political matters which, in my view, are of considerable importance in a settlement. I well remember the words that the noble Lord quoted. They were the words of my right honourable friend who was then Prime Minister, setting out the Labour Government's view for a settlement in Vietnam. I certainly have not changed my views since May 14 when we had that debate. I am more and more convinced that there will not be, and cannot
68
be, a military settlement in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos, and for the long-term peace and settlement of that area a solution at the conference table is a vital necessity.
Before saying a few further words on this matter, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that some of us in the debate which preceded this Unstarred Question found ourselves increasingly in difficulties. Certainly my noble friend Lord Shackleton and myself have always taken a very consistent view on Vietnam and on our attitude to the United States. Certainly I came here this afternoon either with the intention of abstaining or of voting against the Bill. In the course of the debate, serious matters of concern were raised, and the more and more the debate went on the greater became my disquiet. In those circumstances I voted for the Bill, so that we should at least have an opportunity to explore the position more thoroughly than we have been able to this afternoon.
Having said that, I wish to state again that my feelings on Vietnam are that the United States went in there on very honourable grounds, and they became increasingly sucked into a conflict which was, I am certain, even to their own military commanders, a situation which would not, and could not, be solved by a military solution. Therefore we applauded the United States, the South Vietnamese Government, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, the N.L.F., when they agreed to go to Paris for talks. Throughout the months we, who were then in Government, did what we could to encourage both sides to talk and to reach a settlement, and certainly we shared everyone's disappointment—particularly that of the United States Government—that progress could not be made. We have applauded every initiative that the United States Government have made in an effort to de-escalate the conflict. We certainly applauded President Nixon's declaration, and in fact implementation, of the withdrawal of United States forces from South Vietnam. We believe that Cambodia and Laos are entitled to a neutrality respected by all countries within the region. We believe that the people of Vietnam, whether North or South, should have ways and means of having a Government of their choice, whether it be Communist or otherwise.

69
We felt, and still feel, that there is unlikely to be a permanent solution in that part of the world until China has been admitted to the United Nations. I must express, as I am certain the Government will, deep regret that the United Nations have once again barred China from the comity of nations. I was not going to speak this afternoon, as I felt that what. I said on May 14 was sufficient, since circumstances had little changed; but I must say—and I wish to ask a series of questions of Her Majesty's Government—that the recent bombings of North Vietnam by the United States Air Force in retaliation, as I understand it, for the shooting down of a reconnaissance aircraft, must be deeply disturbing. Much as one may sympathise with the search and rescue mission, this also must be regarded in the general situation as a matter for deep concern. At this moment of time anything that can increase tension, or that creates a situation where the other side may decide to escalate the conflict, will not only make it more difficult for the United States Government to withdraw its forces but will clearly reduce any possibility of early progress at the Paris Conference table.
Having said that, and expressed concern, I hope that it will not be construed as criticism, because certainly at this moment of time very little information is available to us other than what has been reported in the newspapers. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he replies, could give us any information as to what the United States authorities had in mind when they undertook those two particular operations. I should also like to ask the noble Earl whether the United States Government consulted, or informed, Her Majesty's Government of their intention to carry out those operations. I shall leave it there for the time being. As I understand it, the bombing operation of North Vietnam has been concluded and I hope it will not be resumed. Here again, perhaps the noble Earl can give us some information.
I conclude by hoping that we shall have some information from the noble Earl and by impressing upon him and his colleagues the need for consistent pressure on all sides in this conflict. In the light of that, I wonder whether the noble Earl can say anything about the conversations
70
that his right honourable friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, will have had with Mr. Gromyko, who, of course, is co-chairman, with him, of the Geneva Conference of 1954.
6.6 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it is with some trepidation, and certainty with humility, that I take it upon myself, at this late hour for your Lordsips, to address this House. I hope, therefore, that I shall be brief. May I say that I know of the wonderful work of the noble Lord who asked the Question. I was swanning around what was then known as Batavia (and I have been there a number of times since), and also Djakarta, when he too was doing a job of work there.
The question I want to address myself to in the ten minutes I intend to take—and at the moment I find this a difficult question as I am writing about this very part of the world—is the pertinent one which has been asked: what is the Government's policy? I sincerely hope that, in the blinding light of the nuclear age, that policy will be adjusted and considered in the light of the experience of one of our own great leaders. I remember the 1954 Geneva Conference, and there are now in this House noble Lords who were then in the other place. I stood up and paid a tribute at that time to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Anthony Eden, now the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I would call noble Lords' attention to his book, Full Circle, which contains guide-lines for this Government. I shall try not to be controversial, but I hope that our foreign policy will be less abrasive than the Government's home policy at the present moment, if I may be allowed that remark, en passant.
If noble Lords will turn to page 108 of Full Circle, they will see these words:
"The Americans continued to believe that some action must be taken outside the conference."
That was the Geneva Conference. Some of us were in Geneva listening at the time.
"They wished to encourage the French to keep fighting and prevent a steady Communist advance in South-East Asia."
The then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, was asked what his policy was,

71
and he replied in these words—and they appear on page 111 of the same book:
"Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to give any undertakings about United Kingdom military action in Indo-China in advance of results of Geneva. We have not entered into any new political or military commitments."
Foster Dulles had asked the then Sir Anthony Eden if we would back him in his occupation of Indo-China, and he was asked what kind of action they were going to take. The story is told in the book, on page 111. Foster Dulles said—and it was like the South Sea Bubble:
"We do not know yet, but we want your backing."
Certainly the Churchill Government had more sense than to follow him in that kind of agreement.
The then Sir Anthony Eden went on to say:
"Meanwhile Mr. Robertson (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State) whose approach to these questions is so emotional as to be impervious to argument or indeed facts, was keeping up a sort of theme song' to the effect that there were in Indo-China some three hundred thousand men who were anxious to fight against Vietminh and were looking to us for support and encouragement. I said that if they were so anxious to fight I could not understand why they did not do so. The Americans had put in nine times more supplies of material than the Chinese and plenty must be available for their use. I had no faith in this eagerness for the Vietnamese to fight for Bao Dai."
Lord Reading then indicated to Foster Dulles that his policy would mean that war in Indo-China would be on the boil for years and years—and that is to be found at page 113 of Full Circle. Mr. Dulles replied that this would be a good thing. My Lords, I leave it at that. I do not want to bore you with masses of pregnant phrases from that constructive job of work which was done by the then Foreign Secretary.
Some time later I spent a long time in Peking with Chou En-lai. For hours we discussed the work of the then Conservative Foreign Secretary, and he praised him for having achieved neutrality in Laos and Cambodia and for the pacification which hitherto had been unknown for some 20-odd years. We must remember that there has been almost perpetual war for 30 years in that country, to say nothing of revolutionary activity against the French, which some of us knew about
72
long before World War II. In other words, the constructive work of Lord Avon at the Geneva Conference was being destroyed by the emotional stress of the then Secretary of State, Foster Dulles. That is not casting aspersions on the Americans at all; it is simply pointing out that at this juncture in the blinding nuclear age in which we live we want no more geological politics.
The geology of politics is strewn with fossilised ideas about defence, fossilised ideas about the world in which we live to-day. The first axiom is that one half of the world is Communist; the second is that the dropping of the atom bomb in 1945 has changed the history of the world. We are at a watershed of man's destiny. I hope that I am not being didactic or pontifical. I shall finish in about three more minutes, but this is a very difficult subject to pack pregnantly into a constructive, coherent statement in a brief time. But I sincerely believe that, whatever policy the Government initiate, it must be shot through with this fact: that the logistics of World War II are as dead as the dodo. Liddell Hart himself said:
"You must never get your opponent into a corner. Give your opponent an opportunity to save face."
With all due respect, this is what the Americans are failing to do. They have piled Pelion upon Ossa by their increase in bombing, in their effort to reach the Kingdom of Heaven and peace. But the more they have piled this mountain upon mountain, the further away they are from peace.
So I come to my last two minutes, having swept aside quite a number of arguments which I should have liked to deploy. I look to the roof of this marvellous building, and I see some of the coats of arms of the barons who made King John sign the Magna Carta in 1215. But in 1215 the Khmer civilisation, right from the borders of Pakistan to the arc of Indonesia, was dominant. There are about 600 temples at Angkor Wat, which were occupied by some 80.000 priests, and Pnom Penh had a million population. They believed in something, but we are living in the 20th century with the apotheosis of growth. I am a Celt myself, and my nation lived in guerrilla war against the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons for about a thousand years. The art of guerrilla warfare was picked up

73
from Llewellyn the Great. Most Celts believe in something, thank God! and it seems to me that the more we worship economic growth and power, then so, in inverse ratio does man's spiritual content seem to shrink, and we are losing a lot which Oriental man could teach us.
Another night I may be a little more controversial, but to-night I would say to the Minister who is going to reply: if a policy is being struck, then for heaven's sake! do not let us have the platitudes about having to protect the Indian Ocean from the Russian ships; having to protect Indonesia; having to protect Indo-China. We can no longer do it. If you take the mighty arc of the Indian Ocean from Latitude 40 South, Longitude 30 East, which passes roughly through Cairo, and go up to about the Tropic of Capricorn further North to the Sunda Trench or the Java Trench, you will see how foolish it is to believe that with a few ships you will solve the problems of man's peace.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say from this side that we must get China into the United Nations. Our fundamental policy should be, out of friendship and understanding with the Americans, to show them that there is a new China emerging. I was in Canada talking to Trudeau and to U Thant only a few months ago, and inside Washington there are men who know that they must get a modus vivendi with the Chinese; they must be brought into the comity of nations. If we want to do a job of work, let us get on with the Mekong project. Finally, I wonder whether noble Lords will agree with me about a first-class job of work which was mooted 70 years ago. I should like to see the modern United Nations at work cutting a canal 10 degrees North of the Equator at the Kra Isthmus. I believe that it would make such a difference to the economy of that area.
Whatever answer we receive from the Front Bench to-night, I hope that it will be qualified with the fact that, as much as anything, we will help to encourage the United States, in its mighty strength, to remember the formula of Liddell Hart, "Give your opponent a chance to save his face, and do not push him into a corner"—though that is what the
74
Americans, by increasing the bombing, seem to be doing.
6.18 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken started with an expression of humility. I should like to echo that expression in my capacity as a former public servant by welcoming to one part of the Legislature a new noble Lord who has done a quarter of a century's service in another. We have already heard something of his great knowledge in the field of history and we welcome to this House something of a rarity—someone who has an expert knowledge of the Far East and South-East Asia. From the way he spoke I think we may say that if at any time we feel dispirited he as a Celtic Member of our House can "call spirits from the vasty deep".
Before the events of this weekend, I had hoped that we might be discussing in an atmosphere of comparative tranquility the situation in Vietnam, and with reference to possible long-term progress towards a solution. With that in mind, I would express great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for having initiated this debate and given us a feel of South Vietnam which one does not often get, either from reading or from people one meets. This has been most valuable. Of course, during the weekend we have had a bit of a jolt. Vietnam has become for a moment topical again; and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should be careful how we comment. I hope that the noble Earl who winds up the debate will be able to tell us a little, if he has been told, of what went on to bring about these rather melodramatic events. Of the rescue act, I think perhaps we should be wise to judge it in this way: to say that this is one of those things which, if it had succeeded, would have been hailed as a piece of resourceful heroism. As it did not succeed, everybody is bound to ask why it was attempted at all. I think that we can view it in those proportions, and not let it disturb our consideration of the longer-term objectives.
Now, if I may, I should like very briefly to allude to the current situation in the three countries of Indo-China; to say a word, if I may, and ask a question, on possible steps towards peace; and,

75
finally, say a word on what Britain can and should do. On the present state of affairs in Vietnam, it is really very difficult to give a summing-up of how things really are. You can take the version of an Australian General whom I heard on the radio and who said, in a clipped voice, "The war's over"; or you can read articles in American newspapers which say that the North Vietnamese have regrouped with fantastic efficiency. I should think, from what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, told us, that the true situation is somewhere between the two.
In Cambodia, one is bound first to think back six or seven months in a wry kind of way at the hysteria which greeted President Nixon's moves to mop up the sanctuaries in the salient near Saigon. It was an hysteria which, I regret to say, made it, in another place, very difficult for the then Foreign Secretary to be heard and, in Oxford University, impossible for him to be heard at all. But now I think we have recovered from this emotional reaction. We have seen that the Americans did an economical operation of considerable service to the South Vietnamese, and retired 24 hours before the deadline which they had announced. So I think we can consider all these things with a certain calm which was absent at
that moment except in your Lordships' House. In Laos, all one need say is that we have the continued deadlock of Princes.
The question is whether, in this situation, with, as I say, comparative calm and with, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, almost a cessation of casualties, anyway of American casualties, one can once again look forward to some effective search for peace. The obvious way to do this, if it can be done at all—and it is a very real "if"—is through the framework which already exists: the framework of a Geneva Conference, or a variant upon it. On this score, both Her Majesty's previous Government and Her Majesty's present Government have an excellent record. In other words, our half of the co-chairman-ship has been ready to go, and has been ready to go for years. The other half, the Soviet Government, has always refused. The argument has always been that the time was not ripe. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us a little encouragement out of the visit of
76
Mr. Gromyko, although I am not over-hopeful myself. I hope that, if the argument still is that the time is not ripe, the Government will continue to question the validity in this context of the principle of perpetual unripe time, and I will quote to the noble Earl, although he probably knows it already, that excellent little phrase:
"Remember, Sir, that time is like the fruit of a medlar—rotten before it is ripe".
That may well be the case in this part of the world.
However, if we are blocked, is it worth considering, in the context of this debate and in ruminating about longer-term prospects of peace, whether there are any possibilities that the fighting in all these three countries might somehow grind to a stop; that the whole weariness of war might cause fighting to die out? I think that in Laos this might be the case. It would, of course, leave these three countries divided; it would make a mess of the map; it would leave a lot of Cambodia in somebody else's hands—in the hands, in fact, of the invaders, if people would be courageous enough to say so; it would leave Vietnam divided, as we have it now. But it is just conceivable that the weary people of that part of the world could arrive at a settlement on that basis. I mention it only as something which would perhaps be more tolerable than going on simply because we cannot at this stage have a formal negotiation. It is not an easy thing to work for, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, the hard-core Communists are not likely to agree to give up. But, still, it is a possible dimension in which we can think if, as I say, the formal approaches to peace are blocked.
In this connection, I thought that one or two noble Lords—if I may very mildly criticise the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—were a little unfair. During this period the Americans have indeed made—perhaps, wisely, not proclaimedx2014;very conscientious efforts precisely to enable the other side to save face, and I do not think it is on that point that negotiations have failed. I should also like to say something which I had hoped to say at one time in this House: that another evidence of the earnestness of the Americans in trying to bring this situation to a close is the fact that their frontline negotiators, Mr. David Bruce, in Paris,

77
and Mr. Ellsworth Bunker, in Saigon, are two diplomats whose capabilities would put them at the top of any Diplomatic Service anywhere at any time—and if that is not an earnest of good faith, I do not know what is.
There is one snag about this idea of the war petering out. I think it would mean that at some moment there would be a crunch in the process, because there would certainly be some among the Communist leadership who would think of this situation in the terms, "The Americans go: we do not shoot at them while they are going, but the moment they are gone, in we go". It may be that in course of time the South Vietnamese may be able to cope with this situation, but it might mean—and I think it is as well that we should have this in the back of our minds—a very difficult dilemma for the United States Administration, who in those circumstances might have to retain some small stiffening in Vietnam to make sure that the war really did grind to a close and was not simply reopened the moment their last transport ship and aircraft had left.
Finally, my Lords, the British role. There has been considerable controversy about whether the dispositions made by the present Government for retaining a modest presence in South-East Asia are the right ones. Militarily, this is disputable: diplomatically, it is not, in this sense. We are bound to have a little more credibility in our advice, which we give so freely, if we are modestly on the spot and say that we propose to remain there, than if we are in full flight shouting advice over our shoulders. It may not make a great difference, but it makes a little difference—and our credibility as advisers is just that much greater. And this may, in the end, help the situation. What we can do, however, is not very great. We can go on urging a conference; we can go on urging restraint. But, equally, in this urging we must always be careful not to be naive and not, as one noble Lord said, just produce clichés because they are virtuous ones.
There is one other thing that we can do, and I hope that we shall do it. It has also been urged that we should continue in a small way—and it will have to be a small way—to show our interest in the furnishing of aid; and that in the
78
furnishing of aid we should continue any programmes in Vietnam and in Laos and not neglect to furnish some aid in Cambodia. That little country has shown extraordinary bravery and an unexpected access of national feeling in this situation, and deserves a little friendliness and support. So, my Lords, while one cannot foresee early developments in the direction of peace, we can keep our eye on both the possibility, which always exists, of getting the existing framework working again and also on the possibility that the hostilities may somehow eventually die of their own inanition. In the meantime, by giving a little understanding aid we can show that we have not lost interest in the suffering people of that area.
6.31 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but before the noble Earl rises to reply I should like to ask one or two questions. Can be tell us what is the position of the British medical mission now working in Saigon? When we were there two years ago they were working under appalling difficulties; they were a small group of British volunteer workers, deprived of a great deal of assistance that they badly needed. May I ask him whether the Government are now willing to look favourably on their humanitarian efforts, and, if at all possible, enable their activities to be extended?
On the wider issue around which this debate has ranged, my own lasting impression was of the terrible complexity of the situation in Vietnam. We were out there two years ago, and nothing that has happened since has tended to simplify the situation. Quite the contrary: everything that has happened during the last two years has only increased the complexity of the whole position in that unfortunate country. Whatever may have been the motives that first brought America into the war, the position to-day is that it is virtually impossible for America suddenly to extricate herself from Vietnam.
I believe that the problem of Vietnam could be settled to-day if it were not bedevilled by outside intervention by Russia and China on the one hand, and America, on the other. If only the Vietnamese were deprived of all forms of outside activity on behalf of either North

79
Vietnam or South Vietnam, I believe that, inevitably, they would have to learn to live with one another and to reach some solution. I am still under the impression that the South Vietnamese would be willing to accept partition at the level of the 17th Parallel—just as in Korea the final solution was reached only on the basis of partition, and just as, nearer to us here in this country, Germany has been prepared to accept partition for the sake of peace, partition on the Oder-Neisse line, to enable its two halves to continue existing together somehow on the basis of some sort of a peace.
I can only pray that the United States, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other, may get together, whether through the admission of China to the United Nations, or even if China remains outside the United Nations, to bring pressure on the Vietnamese to force a settlement of this dreadful, horrifying, destructive war. Many of the people we met in Vietnam two years ago were youngsters of 20 and under who had never known any condition other than war, who had never known what it is to be given a chance to live together in peace. To me this is not at all an issue of Communism versus capitalism or free enterprise, or call it what you will. It is not even an issue of politics. It is simply an issue of millions of fine people, decent, simple, humble people, longing for peace and begging the whole world just to give them the chance to live together in peace.
6.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, before the noble Earl rises to reply, and with the approval of the House, may I ask a very brief question? I am not sure that he will be able to answer it. Can the noble Earl tell us what is the American commitment militarily to Thailand? My thought is that should the war flare up again and go wrong, and should Communist troops advance into Thailand, our small force in Singapore will find themselves on the flank of this operation and, I should think, in a very awkward military position.
6.36 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, for asking this question in the House this evening, not least
80
because I think he has given us the opportunity of a very interesting short debate. It was particularly useful for all of us to see through the informed eyes of a very experienced observer something of the scene in Vietnam, speaking as he was from a background of fresh firsthand experience. This came through very much in the speech of the noble and gallant Lord. We have heard from a senior colleague of mine—if I may say so in, I hope, not too patronising a way—a very thoughtful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. We have had the usual moderate and sensible speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who gave his explication de vote which he dragged in somehow (I do not know with what precise relevance), and, to use a phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, en passant, but much more than en passant, I should like not only to welcome Lord Davies to your Lordships' House but to congratulate him on a charming speech and to assure him that we were far from bored by it. He speaks with real knowledge of this whole area, and we look forward, again to use his own words, to many more of his "pregnant phrases".
I am also grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, because his Question gave me a peg on which to hang an explanation of Her Majesty's Government's policy and attitude towards these appallingly complicated problems of Indo-China and of the area. Let me say, by way of background—and I am not mincing words, and this may not be very acceptable to all noble Lords—that I think we must remember that wherever the historic causes in history may lie, the prime cause of the fighting in Indo-China lies in the efforts of North Vietnam to take over South Vietnam by force. Those efforts, which have continued for many years, include the invasion of South Vietnam territory by North Vietnamese Regular troops and the active encouragement of insurgency and insurrection in South Vietnam. Those efforts have also involved the illegal use of Laotian and Cambodian territory by the North Vietnamese to provide base areas and supply routes.
This has resulted in the spread of hostilities to those two countries. Restoration of peace and stability to Laos and

81
Cambodia must, in Her Majesty's Government's view, ultimately depend on a settlement of the war in Indo-China as a whole. Although the fighting flares and dies away and flares again in intensity from time to time, we can find some comfort in the fact that the general level of hostilities in South Vietnam has been declining steadily during the past year. The fighting in Laos and Cambodia is also at a relatively low level at the present time (I will come later to the question of the bombing); this we must all be thankful for. Nevertheless, my Lords, the killing will not stop entirely until there is a comprehensive and negotiated settlement covering the whole of Indo-China; and I think that on one matter we are all agreed: this slaughter just has to stop. Save for brief intervals Indo-China has been the centre of armed conflict for almost thirty years. Most of us who read our history know of the state of Europe after the Thirty Years War and it would not be too difficult for us to imagine, even those of us who do not have first-hand experience of the area, what this endemic struggle has meant to the gifted people who inhabit this very large area of South-East Asia.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always believed in the desirability of a negotiated settlement of this war. That continues to be our belief, and I do not think that in this we part company in any way from the attitude taken by the previous Administration. For this reason Her Majesty's Government welcome, and have welcomed, President Nixon's latest proposals for such a settlement. In our view these represent a reasonable basis for negotiation. For that reason we are, naturally, disappointed that the other side has rejected them so quickly and so categorically, without any apparent attempt—I use the words "apparent attempt" advisedly—to explore their possibilities. This example of North Vietnamese intransigence means that although the talks in Paris have been going on for nearly two years, a peace is still no nearer.
In Paris the Communists continue to make two unrealistic demands as preconditions for the discussion of other issues. These are the unilateral and unconditional withdrawal of all American troops from Soul h Vietnam and the setting up in Saigon, in advance of fresh elections, of a coalition Government from which the
82
leaders of the present elected Government in Saigon would be excluded, and which the Communists obviously would hope to control. The first of these preconditions amounts to a call for American surrender and the second (here I agree entirely with the noble and gallant Lord) amounts to a call for a South Vietnamese surrender.
At this point I should like to dwell for a moment on President Nixon's five-point packet of proposals. First, I would remind your Lordships that he called for the immediate negotiation of a cease-fire in places throughout Indo China. Accepted by the other side, this would put a rapid stop to the killing and destruction. Secondly, the President proposed a peace conference covering the whole of Indo-China, because he recognises that any future settlement will have to include not only Vietnam but also Laos and Cambodia. Until such a conference can be got going he will continue, as I understand it, to work for a Vietnam settlement at the Paris talks. Third, President Nixon has offered to negotiate a complete withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam as part of an overall settlement. My Lords, we hold this to be a fair proposal which could lead to the end of the American presence if only the other side would agree to negotiate seriously.
Fourth, the President has invited the Communists to join in the search for a political settlement in South Vietnam which would reflect the will of the South Vietnamese people and also the existing relationship of political forces there. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that in the same context President Thieu of South Vietnam has committed himself to abide by the result of internationally supervised elections in which the Communists would take part and which they could help to organise. This again, in our view, is a very fair offer to which, surely, the other side might be expected to respond if they were as confident of their popular support in South Vietnam as they sometimes suggest.
Lastly, President Nixon has proposed the immediate exchange of all prisoners of war held by both sides. This is a gesture of humanity which, if agreed to by the North Vietnamese, would certainly help, in our view, to lighten the atmosphere for negotiation on other issues. I

83
should like to make clear that this Government, again like their predecessors, have very real sympathy for the tragic plight of those American servicemen captured or missing in Indo-China; and not least for that of their relatives. Because of the continuing North Vietnamese refusal to divulge complete information about the prisoners they hold, many of these men's relatives do not even know, after years of waiting, whether their kinfolk are alive or dead.
My Lords, perhaps it is not for us, who are not so directly involved in all this issue as are others, to pass judgment on these matters, save as human beings. However, as human beings, I think that all of us must feel that the refusal of the North Vietnamese authorities even to say when they are holding a prisoner is a form of mental cruelty practised on the innocent and unhappy relatives of those who are missing which all of us would condemn. It is against that background that I think it would not be unreasonable to consider the recent abortive attempt to liberate American prisoners from a supposed camp near Hanoi. In any event, like our predecessors, we have kept in close touch with the American Government on this particular issue and we are ready to seize whatever opportunity presents itself to assist them in their efforts to get the North Vietnamese to accord at least the minimum standards of the Geneva Convention in the treatment of their prisoners. Unfortunately, of course, our opportunities for influencing the North Vietnamese are very limited.
President Nixon's proposals, which have been supported by the Governments of Laos and Cambodia and South Vietnam, reaffirm his desire for a negotiated settlement which would restore peace and security in Indo-China. If accepted as a basis for negotiation by the other side, they would also ensure that the peoples of the area would be able to decide their own future, free from all outside interference whatsoever. This we believe to be absolutely right, and that is why the efforts of the American Administration to achieve a settlement on this basis will continue to have Her Majesty's Government's wholehearted support.
84
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—in very moderate terms, for which I am grateful—whether I could accord himself and your Lordships any further information about the recent bombing attacks carried out South of the Nineteenth Parallel by the United States Air Force. I am afraid that so far as the background and the actual operational context is concerned I cannot add any more to what the noble Lord will have seen reported by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Laird. The noble Lord asked me whether Her Majesty's Government had been informed, and I can tell the noble Lord in return that we were not told in advance by
the Americans about these air strikes. The noble Lord would not expect me at this stage to elaborate very much on this operation, which, so far as I know, is now concluded. All I would say is that operations of this limited kind have taken place before; and I am not saying whether I feel this is right or wrong.
Secondly, I would urge that prime responsibility for the continuation of the war and all that it entails must rest primarily with the North Vietnamese because they have not responded to the many offers made to them to bring about a peaceful settlement, the most recent being the offer made by President Nixon on October 7. That, I feel, and I have summarised the proposals briefly to your Lordships, was an offer which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, provided a way out for both sides. As I see it, there is no great loss of face for either side in the acceptance of the broad line of President Nixon's proposals. But so long as the other side continue to frustrate a settlement, it is my understanding that the Americans will continue with their policy of Vietnamisation.
This involves, as the noble and gallant Lord reminded the House, turning over to the South Vietnamese responsibility for their own defence on a phased and progressive basis. I was interested to hear the noble and gallant Lord say that, save for logistic backing, it was his feeling that the South Vietnamese land forces would be able to cope with the position by themselves by the end of 1971. I would merely remind your Lordships that this policy has enabled the Americans to withdraw a very large number of their

85
men from South Vietnam. By the spring of 1971, the total of United States forces in Vietnam will have been reduced by nearly half, compared with the position when President Nixon took office. From a maximum of just over half a million troops at its highest point, the United States forces will be reduced, according to present plans, to just over a quarter of a million by the middle of next year.
Unfortunately, we must recognise that for their part the North Vietnamese have as yet made no really constructive proposals for a just and peaceful settlement. Madam Binh's recent amplification of the National Liberation Front's position amounted to no more than a restatement of their unrealistic preconditions. I find it sad that for a long time the negotiators in Paris have been saying that the fact that Mr. Lodge has not been replaced shows that the Americans are not in earnest. Now they have in the person of Mr. Bruce a diplomat of whose quality we are all well aware. It is sad that that particular argument has been so transparently punctured. In any event, it is our earnest hope that the Communists will reconsider their position and respond to the American desire for meaningful negotiations. If only for humanitarian reasons, we urge them to do so. Whatever else we feel about this, we must all feel that the people of Vietnam have suffered quite enough. I would just remind your Lordships of the casualties, although you are probably well aware of them. Dealing only with war casualties and not with the countless civilian casualties, on the American side there have been nearly 44,000 killed, more than in the whole Korean campaign. On the South Vietnamese side, there have been 117,000 killed. This is from January 1, 1961, to November 7 of this yeas. On the Communist side, it is estimated that no fewer than 682,000 have been killed.
After this general sketch, I turn to our specific concern with the problems of Indo-China in our capacity as cochairman of the Geneva Conferences. On a number of occasions, like our predecessors, we have already urged the Soviet co-chairman to join with us in convening an international conference on Indo-China. The noble Lords, Lord Gore-Booth and Lord Shepherd, who have asked me about this, do not feel, I expect, that I shall be able to give a
86
very optimistic reply and I am afraid that I am not able to do so. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the matter again with Mr. Gromyko, when he was in London recently, but Mr. Gromyko, I am sorry to say, again declined to co-operate, maintaining, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, anticipated, that the time is not ripe for such a conference.
While, therefore, we are frustrated for the present from fulfilling our role as Geneva co-chairman, nevertheless we are ready to assist in the search for peace in any other way which would be acceptable to the parties directly concerned. Here I should like to repeat again our conviction that a peaceful solution which would take just account of the interests of all parties concerned in Indo-China is perfectly feasible, perfectly on the cards, but it will not be achieved until both sides, not merely one, realise that their own interests, as well as those of others, will be best served by serious negotiations instead of continued bloodletting.
In any event, we are encouraged in certain other, perhaps peripheral, respects, not on central issues—for example, by the contacts which have been taking place between the opposing parties in Laos. This is a country which I have had the pleasure of visiting, and I feel that your Lordships will agree with me that Prince Souvanna Phouma, the Prime Minister of Laos, deserves our praise and support for his skilful and sustained efforts to preserve the neutrality and integrity of his country. We very much hope that the present contacts between the Royal Laotian Government and the Pathet Lao will develop into meaningful talks and that these will lead to an improvement in the situation in Laos. We had discussions with Prince Souvanna Phouma when he was in London in the autumn, and as Geneva co-chairman I should like to make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government are ready to play their full part in helping to make these talks, if they come about, a success. But there is, of course, an obvious limit to what they may achieve, because the situation in Indo-China is to a large extent indivisible. A final, comprehensive settlement will only be made possible by the ending of the war in Vietnam.

87
Coming to the wider regional and economic contexts, may I just say this? We have welcomed action by the countries of South-East Asia to get together to tackle their own regional problems. The initiative earlier this year by the group of Asian countries which
met in Djakarta to discuss the situation in Cambodia was an important instance of this. But in the economic field the South-East Asian countries are likely to continue for some time to need assistance from more developed countries outside the region. We fully recognise this and are doing what we can within our limited resources to help in Indo-China, as in the rest of South-East Asia. I should like to instance, as an illustration of our support of regional economic development, the support (of which I have some personal knowledge) which Her Majesty's Government have been extending and are still extending towards the Asian Development Bank.
Finally, may I turn to some other matters which I know are close to your Lordships' hearts and which have been mentioned in this short debate? Our civil aid to South Vietnam over the last five years has been considerable, covering the provision of a pædiatric medical team in Saigon, the building of primary schools, the provision of a substantial amount of road-building equipment and aid over civil police training. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that so far as the pædiatric team are concerned we are now considering, in consultation with our South Vietnam friends, what further contribution might usefully be made in this important field.
While we are on this subject, I should like to pay tribute to what the British voluntary agencies have been doing in South Vietnam. They have been working there in extraordinarily difficult circumstances for a long time. I should like to mention what the Save the Children Fund have been doing in running a clinic for the post-operative care of children near Hanoi. In this and in other ways we can bring some assistance, within our limited resources, to the people of South Vietnam; and it is certainly our intension to continue these efforts.
Now that the security situation in South Vietnam is better, we are considering what other help we can give, particularly
88
to promote South Vietnam's economic development, not least in the field of agriculture, to which the noble and gallant Lord referred. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Royle, has reaffirmed in another place our support and sympathy for Cambodia. We are also considering ways in which we might help the Cambodians, including, in response to a request from the Cambodian Government, the setting up of an English language teaching centre in Phnom Penh.
I should like to remind your Lordships that we contribute to the extent of something over £710,000 a year to the Foreign Exchange Operations Fund for the stabilisation of the Laotian currency. This is an important contribution to the economy of Laos. We have also assisted the Laotians, and will continue to do so in other ways.
LORD BESWICK: I was interested when the noble Earl spoke of the postoperative clinic. Near to Hanoi? Did he mean that?
EARL JELLICOE: No; I did not mean that. Near to Saigon. It is at Qui Nhon to be precise.
To sum up, Her Majesty's Government believe that the conditions for a peaceful settlement in Indo China exist. We believe that President Nixon has put forward proposals which, if taken up by the other side as a basis for serious negotiations, could bring the fighting rapidly to an end. The South Vietnamese Government has offered the Communists the opportunity of taking part in free and fair internationally supervised elections, and has committed itself to abiding by the outcome. North Vietnam, which has itself suffered grievously as a result of this war, has as much to gain by responding positively to these offers as any of the other parties involved. We must hope that the North Vietnamese will soon come to realise, as the Americans have already come to realise, that a military solution of this war is not possible, and that they will then indicate their willingness to join in serious negotiation to try to reach a settlement acceptable to all the parties concerned. For our part, I can assure your Lordships of one thing: that we will do anything within our power to promote that process.

FOWL PEST
7.3 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: What further action they propose to take in order to ensure the more effective control of the disease fowl pest? The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have discussed this afternoon a whole host of far-ranging subjects, from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to defectors from the United States Forces. I would ask your Lordships to take off your long-distance glasses for a moment, and to try to focus your minds on something a little nearer home. It may not be of quite such world-shaking impact as the other subjects that we have been discussing, but it is nevertheless of great importance to that section of the community which is affected by the subject matter of the Question that I have put down on the Order Paper.
It would be no exaggeration to say that the disease of fowl pest has gone through the poultry industry, especially in East Anglia, like a scythe. The disease is still spreading, and it is spreading outside East Anglia into other parts of the country: It has spread to such an extent that it has been identified in 35 counties. Indeed, so great has been the spread of this disease that even the Irish Republic are requesting people who enter their country and who have been on poultry farms in Great Britain to report to the veterinary officer at their ports of disembarkation on arrival. The object of my Question is to draw to the attention of your Lordships the devastating effect which this disease has had upon the whole of the poultry industry—and by "poultry industry" I do not mean just the producers and the keepers of poultry; I refer also to the packing stations, the hatcheries, the retailers, and all those who are affected by it. My object is to see whether there is any way in which this disease can be more effectively controlled in the future.
I would say here that my Question is not intended at all to imply any criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or of their veterinary officers, who have done, and indeed are doing, a magnificent job in trying to tight this disease. There are those who offer criticism: of course there always will be. It is only human nature to try to find a peg on which to hang your hat, and in
90
this matter the Ministry are an obvious choice. But I believe that the veterinary officers of the Ministry have done an extremely conscientious job in the most trying circumstances, and often at great personal inconvenience to themselves.
At the outset, I should tell your Lordships that I myself keep poultry. My poultry, like so many other poultry in East Anglia, have been affected by the disease—although I am bound to say that I have come off lightly. But I hope that the generosity of your Lordships will enable you to refrain from concluding that the fact that my poultry have been affected is the reason why I am raising this matter to-day. It is not for that reason, but simply because this disease has given the whole of the poultry industry, of which I happen to form a very small part, an almighty blow.
When one talks of fowl pest, one is apt to think of a farmer whose birds are struck with a disease from which they will either get better or die. But the repercussions from this disease go far deeper than that. As regards table poultry or broilers, the whole operation, from before the egg which produces the chick, right through to the packing station and the retailer, has to be coordinated. The packing station is the centre around which all the operations function, and it is essential that the packing stations should have a continuous throughput. Accordingly, the birds which
are being produced for a packing station have all to be at a certain age at the time of slaughter. Therefore, in order to fit into the cycle of the packing station the grower must have his chicks on a certain day. In order for the grower to receive his birds on an appointed day, the hatchery has to set the eggs which produce these birds on an appointed day. In order for the hatchery to have the eggs to produce, it must ensure that there are supplies of eggs from the breeding farms. And in order for the breeding farms to be able to supply the eggs, they have to have assured quantities of mature laying birds.
When a site of broilers, which may be anything from 4,000 to 150,000 birds, is smitten by this disease, then this quantity of birds is plucked out of the cycle of the packing station. Your Lordships will see that the effect of this disease,

91
therefore, goes much deeper than the financial and the physical loss which may be sustained by the grower of the birds. For, like a goods train shunting, it bumps all the way down the line. When one realises that farms containing more than 12 million birds have been affected by fowl pest since September, and that 7 million birds have died from the disease, one begins to get an idea of the hideous enormity of the problem. Most of these outbreaks have been in East Anglia. In my own county of Norfolk alone, 3½ million birds have died, while birds which are usually not the subject of this disease have also been dying from it. There have been reports of pheasants contracting the disease, as well as pigeons and sparrows; and there have even been cases of owls and rare buzzards being affected.
I am bound to say, in passing, that I had hoped on this occasion to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill (who is not here this evening), who has always shown such an interest in the control of brucellosis in cattle because of its effect on humans. She may not know that fowl pest is also transmissible to man. Some years ago, when the slaughter and compensation policy was in operation, my farm manager happened to contract fowl pest, and I was sufficiently injudicious to suggest to him that he also ought to be slaughtered and I be duly compensated. I am bound to say that on that occasion I found that my sense of humour was in marked contrast to his.
The way in which this disease strikes is one of extreme savagery, and it differs from the way it has struck in the past. Since the slaughter and compensation policy was replaced in 1964 by a policy of voluntary vaccination with a dead vaccine, there have been outbreaks of fowl pest in vaccinated stock attributed to the mesogenic or mild strain of the virus, and losses in these cases have been up to about 20 per cent.
But the picture in the present outbreak is very different. It has struck far more sharply and far more speedily, and the losses have been immense. One packing station has had losses on its sites of up to 95 per cent. of birds in 24 hours. Another has recorded losses of 98 per
92
cent. and the remaining 2 per cent. of birds were so useless and so distorted that they had to be killed. On 22 sites supplying one packing station, 20 have been affected by the disease, one of them
twice. One firm has already lost three quarters of a million birds, and is still losing 90,000 to 100,000 per week. Another firm has already lost over 14 million birds. The point is that these birds have all been vaccinated with a Ministry approved vaccine.
This gives rise to a whole host of questions. Has the broiler industry been wasting its time over the last six years in vaccinating its birds if, when there is a field challenge, the birds succumb? I think it probably has not, but it makes one wonder. It costs about ¾d. per "shot" to vaccinate a bird, and since 1964 one company has spent £300,000 in vaccinating its stock in order to protect them from fowl pest. Yet, when there is a challenge, not only have they succumbed to the disease, but the company has sustained losses from fowl pest of 150,000.
The Ministry of Agriculture have always stated that there must be 80 per cent. of the national flock vaccinated to ensure total security; and because of the initial scare of fowl pest in 1964 and the subsequent effectiveness of the vaccination policy, producers have become slack, and the percentage of vaccinations of total stock has dropped. In Essex, where this current outbreak started,
under 50 per cent. of the poultry had been vaccinated, and the poultry industry may well stand, therefore, to share a large proportion of the blame for this current out break.
I am bound to say that I have never quite understood the logic of the 80 per cent. requirement, though I appreciate its objective. If I wish to be vaccinated against measles I go down to the doctor and get a jab; but I do not expect that the whole of Chelsea and Kensington and South Ealing should be similarly treated. Of course it is desirable to have 80 per cent. of flocks vaccinated, but a policy of protection leaves much to be desired if the effectiveness of it to an individual depends not on his participation, but in the active and voluntary participation in it of everyone else over whom he has no control.
If the vaccination policy has been worth while, has the virus mutated and changed, as viruses sometimes do, so that the vaccine which was effective against the virus as it was originally constructed is now not effective against the virus as at present constructed? It is a normal practice to test the efficiency of the methods of vaccination by subjecting a sample of vaccinated birds to a laboratory test. In samples of about 20, three or four birds would normally die; and in the past those who have vaccinated the birds—frequently they are contractors—were blamed for these deaths because of poor vaccination. But recently a sample of vaccinated birds was subjected to a laboratory challenge and all of them died. Is that the fault of the vaccinators, or is the vaccine not proof against the virus? Are the Ministry sure that the present outbreak is wholly and totally of the Newcastle disease—the name commonly attributed to fowl pest? Are they quite certain that there is no evidence of the Peracute form of fowl pest which is still subject to the slaughter and compensation policy? When one used to inquire what the difference was between fowl pest and the Peracute form one was always told, in a rather sinisterly succinct fashion, that with the Peracute form the birds just die en masse, and very quickly too.
I suggest that this is exactly what has been happening, and if no blood samples are taken by the Ministry at every outbreak, how do the Ministry know with any degree of conviction that this is not Peracute fowl pest? There have been reports of lesions being found on dead birds examined by independent veterinary surgeons which are indicative of the presence of Peracute fowl pest. The Ministry have always been adamant that this is not the Peracute fowl pest, but I am bound to make it clear that, over this, they are not carrying the industry with them. The opinion that many of these outbreaks are of Peracute fowl pest is one held by a great number of respected people in the poultry industry, and I hope that my noble friend, if he contends that they are not of this type of disease, will make out a better and more convincing case than has been made out by the Ministry up to now.
If we are to have an effective vaccination policy, with a dead vaccine, we come
94
up against the problem of how to vaccinate effectively. Here one has a distinct difference between broiler birds and laying birds. If chicks are to be grown for laying stock it is recommended that they are vaccinated at 18 days, 10 weeks and at point-of-lay. Then, if there is a further outbreak, they can be re-vaccinated. This has proved, on the whole, to give a fairly effective, albeit not a total, immunity from fowl pest.
But broilers present a very different problem. Their life is only eight weeks and they can be vaccinated only once or possibly twice. But it is now considered that they will never have a full immunity from the disease for, by the time the immunity has been built up in the birds, they will have been slaughtered. The result is that in the case of broilers a large part of their life is spent unprotected, and yet they live in conditions most likely to incubate the disease and, by the nature of the powerful fans which are used to ventilate, they are perfect disseminators of the virus. This type of bird, therefore, is the largest section of the poultry industry in numbers, the least protected by the vaccine, the most susceptible to the disease and the best spreader of it.
The fact that we must fully appreciate is that the present system of protection against the disease has broken down and we might as well recognise the fact openly. Confidence in the dead vaccine has also been shaken very badly indeed. Fowl pest is still a notifiable disease and when it is found on the premises the owner is by law bound to inform the Ministry of the presence of this disease. The Ministry will then prevent the removal of the infected birds from the house until the disease has passed. But birds in other houses on the same site may be removed as quickly as possible to avoid their contracting the disease.
Therefore, birds are going out into the packing stations at present at all ages and sizes wherever they can be processed, which leaves the packing stations empty at the time when the birds would normally have been processed. This, combined with the fact that many sites are not being restocked for fear of reinfection, has thrown the packing stations into complete jeopardy, and many are in real threat of closure. My information

95
is that there is not a packing station in East Anglia (of which there are some 15) which is not on short time or which has not closed down. Equally, because in many instances houses are not being restocked, hatcheries have in turn a much reduced call for chicks and shortly they will be running on part time. Meanwhile, the birds in the infected houses on the site continue discharging the virus through the fans and reinfecting the other birds. The one great advantage of the slaughter and compensation policy was that, if there was an outbreak, the source of infection was destroyed immediately. Now the source of infection continues to thrive and to threaten others.
The outbreaks are so numerous that the Ministry cannot physically deal with the number of reported incidents quickly enough. In one case the Ministry were informed on a Friday of an outbreak of fowl pest in 25,000 birds, and they said that they would come and inspect the site the following Wednesday. When they appeared on the following Wednesday, out of the original 25,000 birds only 150 were left on the site alive.
The dilemma was graphically put to me by a member of one company the other day, who said that they are restocking their houses but they know that within a fortnight the chances are very high that these birds will all get the disease. When I asked why such a risk was taken he replied that, as a packing station costs between £1,000 and £2,000 per day to run, the risk of having a packing station with no birds to process was even greater. If no birds are being reared or processed, then the business folds up—it is just as simple as that. The losses which people are sustaining as a result of this disease are absolutely crippling, and they cannot continue to stand these losses.
This situation is having two major effects. First people are now just not notifying the Ministry when they have the disease. As soon as growers realise that this disease is on their premises, in many cases the birds are sent immediately for slaughter and the Ministry is not told about it. However wrong this may be, one can understand any person not being prepared to suffer the huge financial loss of informing the Ministry and then waiting
96
and watching the birds die. Secondly any method of protection for the birds is bound to be used, and this includes the illegal use of live vaccine. This is being brought in from the Continent at the moment. Live vaccine used to be manufactured in England and exported for use by the Continent. It is now manufactured, as I understand it, on the Continent by a similar company or the parent company of the firm which manufactured it in England, and it is now being brought back into this country, which is legal, but is being used in poultry, which of course is illegal. The live vaccine is a very different creature from what it was in 1964, and there are many eminent veterinary officers outside the Ministry who feel that, if strains such as the Hitchener B.1 vaccine were used, because of their nature and easy application the disease would soon be brought under control.
It is true that the Ministry are doing tests with live vaccine at the moment, and I believe that they have now completed vaccinating all the birds which they intend to put on trial. But they will now have to sit back and wait for some 12 to 15 weeks to assess the results. Their caution is understandable, and they may well be considered by many to be right. I felt that the Ministry were wrong to try such an experiment at the time of a virulent outbreak. Why, if the live vaccine was so good, was it not tried before? Are we sure that it will not transmit many sub-clinical diseases such as leukæmia, which was transmitted by the use of live vaccine in America? What will happen to the Cordon Sanitaire which this island enjoys, and the protection from cheap imported poultry which is one of the results—although not one of the objectives—of a dead vaccine policy? These are all very pertinent views and ones which I hold strongly.
However, I suggest that we are living in critical times, and I am going to suggest to your Lordships what I never thought I would suggest—and, indeed, what I did not intend to suggest when I first put down this Question. But my researches have subsequently assured me that what my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture ought to do now is to authorise the use, under his control, of live vaccine. This is a real and virulent epidemic, as I have tried to explain to

97
your Lordships, and the disease is speading like a forest fire. I do not believe that in these circumstances the Ministry of Agriculture can, or should, move with the caution which in normal circumstances would rightly be expected of them. In my judgment (and I repeat that I have altered entirely the view which I originally held over this matter; and in this I do not think I am alone) live fowl pest vaccine should be used in the badly affected areas, under Ministry supervision, forthwith and without delay, in order to bring this disease under control. Unlike the dead vaccine, it can be administered even to day-old chicks and gives a greatly increased resistance over the dead vaccine when it is met by a challenge.
I would put forward as one of the most important factors in this argument—and I realise that in the poultry industry this is a controversial argument—that in this outbreak the dead vaccine can no longer be expected to control the spread of the disease. The earliest at which one can reasonably vaccinate a chick is at 12 days. This does not give an immunity, but it sensitises the bird so that it is more responsive to the second vaccination, which cannot be done for a further fortnight, bringing the bird to 26 days of age. By the time an immunity has been built up in this bird it is another 10 days older. So with a dead vaccine the bird is 36 days old before there is any reasonable chance of immunity. Yet birds are getting fowl pest at 14 days, and at 8 days, of age. Therefore, if we keep the dead vaccine policy this disease must continue and birds must continue to die. And, at the present rate of progress, each day the Minister delays the decision to use live vaccine, 60,000 birds will die.
I do not believe that the Government can, or should, stand by and watch this disease rampage through the industry and through the country, crippling good and efficient firms in its wake, and ruining hardworking people who are doing the best that they can, without taking drastic action when they have a possible remedy in their hands. I am not one of those who believe—
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl will tell us whether the live vaccine has an immediate effect so that at the first vaccination it will get immunity. Is that what he is telling us?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is a complicated subject and involves also the immunity which the chick receives from its parents. But one can vaccinate at a day old, and my understanding is that one obtains a very much quicker immunity having vaccinated the bird with a live vaccine, because a live vaccine gives to the bird, by way of an eye, or through the drinking water, the actual virus, and so it stimulates the antibodies in the bird very much more quickly than does a dead vaccine.
I am not one of those who believe that the live vaccine is the panacea for all our troubles, but I do believe that at the present moment the advantages of its use far outweigh the disadvantages. It may be that the use of live vaccine permanently would not be necessary, and that it could be kept for use in an emergency and in case of an outbreak, when its use would enable the outbreak to be contained within an area. But if that is to be so, and if the dead vaccine policy is to be continued, I should wish to be far more convinced than I am at the moment that the dead vaccine really works, and especially in broilers. If, after due research, the Ministry continue to believe that an 80 per cent. vaccination of all the stock will protect the industry from fowl pest, then vaccination should be made compulsory, with very heavy penalties on those who fail to do so and, by so failing, put the livelihood of others at risk.
I do not accept the argument that just because checking on vaccination would be difficult to police, therefore it should not be made compulsory. Of course there will be people who will try to get round it—there always are. But they will be in the minority and will be exposing themselves, if caught, to very heavy penalties. After all, we have a speed limit on the roads which is fairly, if not totally, effective, and nobody would seriously advocate its abolition just because it cannot be enforced in every single instance. The penalties for infringement are pretty severe.
My Lords, the Ministry have the power to enable the industry to extricate itself from this dreadful mess, but I respectfully suggest that they need to change their tactics. I believe that, in the interests of the individuals and of the industry—and of the disease itself—these tactics should be changed. Most organisations will be

99
able to overcome the losses which they have suffered to date, but what will ruin them is when they cannot re-stock their houses because of fear of re-infection. This will render the houses empty, the packing stations empty, the hatcheries empty; and the eggs which are produced specially for hatching will have to go, at financial loss, for consumption.
I apologise for having kept your Lordships so long in describing what is a sad and sorry tale, but I very much hope that my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be able, through my noble friend this evening, to make a statement on the use of live vaccine and so help the poultry industry to get back once again on its feet and out of the real trouble in which, at the moment, this disease has placed it.
7.34 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has certainly done the poultry industry a great service in bringing this acute problem to the notice of your Lordships and the Government, for it is indeed a very serious one, and I should like to congratulate him on the clarity with which he has presented a very involved and difficult case. It is difficult to understand and to follow, but he has made it very much clearer.
Until August of this year the dead vaccination programme had contained this disease in England and Wales. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers said, it is necessary that 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the birds in the country must be vaccinated in order to give control. It is rather a long and involved story to explain how the Ministry get that figure of 80 per cent., but it is quite a sound figure scientifically for them to reach. In midsummer, however, this figure of vaccinated birds had fallen to as little as 53 per cent. There is the immediate root of the troubles with which we are faced now; but the long-distance reason why we are in trouble in the poultry industry now is that we have brought it on our own heads.
The Departmental Committee on fowl pest policy sat from 1960 to 1962 under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Plant, and perhaps there is no more expert committee
100
chairman than he, in many spheres of economics and commerce and industry. On this complicated subject this Committee produced a unanimous Report, and that is very significant. The Committee was not a large one, but it was composed of quite diverse persons. The main recommendation, and the one to which most space is devoted in the Report, is to this effect:
"We recommended that in the future the cost of compensation should be met by the poultry industry. We consider that the most satisfactory method of securing a contribution from the whole industry would be a levy on production of day-old chicks, turkey poults, ducklings and game chicks. We recommend a levy on hatchery turnover and, for this purpose, the registration of hatcheries."
The Report also recommends the possibility that by this means there might be the financing of the vaccine and, in addition, a contribution made towards the cost of research.
Despite this clear and absolute recommendation, the principal recommendation indubitably of this Report, the Government of the day did not take it up. Whether they yielded to pressure from the industry or from the Farmers' Unions, or something like that I am afraid I do not know, but there must have been some reason why they did not take up such a strong recommendation. If the recommendation had been adopted, the proportion of unvaccinated birds would never have risen to the high point which it did last summer and which made this present outbreak virtually inevitable.
My noble friend was quite right when he described the nature of the present virus with which we are faced as being extremely virulent. It has changed from the one that was troubling us at the time the Committee was investigating the matter. It is not only a very virulent type but it is one which spreads easily. Formerly the more virulent types were not so infective. Now we have a combination of a virulent and infective type of virus, and we are facing a more lethal one than we have had in the past. That might in part account for the failure of the dead vaccine to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred.
The situation about our vaccines as a result of the research work
which has been done in the Ministry's laboratories by the veterinary researchers has also

101
changed. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, noted, the vaccines have spread other diseases through the egg. We have had fowl paralysis spread through the live vaccine, infectious bronchitis and respiratory diseases. But now the live vaccines, thanks to the work of the veterinary investigators, are, so I understand, much safer to use. There is a method of using them which is perhaps in danger of catching the imagination of the industry: that is, spraying the birds with this live vaccine, or putting it into their drinking water. There are dangers if this policy is adopted, because one cannot ensure that every bird is immunised by such cheap means of administering the live vaccine. Too big a proportion of the birds are not immunised.
I would ask the Government whether it is not a possible solution to allow the use of the live vaccine in certain counties only for a limited period, say twelve months, and after that try again to contain the disease by the dead vaccine only. The noble Earl, Lord
Ferrers, referred to the importation of broilers and other birds from other parts. At the present moment because the disease is not endemic in this country the health regulations do prohibit the importation of the carcases from countries in which the disease is endemic; that is to say, the United States of America and most European countries. If a live vaccine policy becomes general in England, there will be no argument for keeping out the carcases from other countries that are carrying the disease. That is the dilemma: either to have the additional cost to contain the disease in this country, or be prepared to face the hard truth that if frozen poultry are allowed to come in, both from America and elsewhere, the broiler industry will not merely be badly hit, it will be in grave danger of collapsing altogether.
It would not do if I were to get up and speak in your Lordships' House without mentioning the peculiar situation in Scotland. It is in this case the same with Northern Ireland. There we have a slaughter policy which has been left from previous times, as we were rather less open to infection than those counties of England which are open to the infection from the Continent. So long as Scotland buys dead birds from England, so long are we somewhat at risk, and
102
indeed we have some outbreaks at the present moment. But the surprising thing is that during the last eight years Scotland has been relatively free of fowl pest, and it looks as though to a certain extent, with some exceptions, the present outbreaks in Scotland are the result of the dead birds which have been imported from England, or which turn up as swill. In these circumstances there is, therefore, I think, reason to continue in Scotland and Northern Ireland the present policy of slaughter and compensation; and consideration might perhaps be given to the extension of that policy to Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland and perhaps sonic other counties in the North of England.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said that this is indeed a most serious situation, and the whole of this important industry, an industry that is essential to the welfare and the health of nearly everybody living on these islands, is in jeopardy. I should like to pay tribute to the work both of the veterinary surgeons who are working in the field and of those who are working in the laboratories. They have been doing a fine job. Great strides have been made since the Report came out in 1962. More knowledge has been discovered about the disease, and we are better able to combat it from the scientific angle. But I think veterinary surgeons would welcome a lead from the Government, to know fairly soon what policy it is proposed to adopt, because the present outbreak has brought us up against problems and we just cannot let them ride out—they will not. The whole industry is in jeopardy, and I hope it will not be long before a new and a positive policy can be handed down to the industry.
7.47 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we all thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for raising this matter, even though by our standards it is getting a little late. It seems to be a fact that this outbreak of fowl pest has not attracted the interest of the general public as did the plague of foot-and-mouth disease in 1967–68. Yet to those concerned it is clearly equally serious. The personal loss involved is just as great, and to see this disease spread constitutes an appalling tragedy. I am sure that what has been said both by the noble Earl, Lord

103
Ferrers, and by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, about the veterinary services of the Ministry is absolutely justified, but what we want from the Minister who is to reply is an assurance that the whole resources of the Department are being mobilised in order to contain this outbreak.
I am not in a position to comment at all upon the merits of the dead or live vaccine, but the noble Earl has posed a number of very relevant questions which I hope are going to be answered this evening. I want simply to add this. The first step must be to contain this outbreak, but I think we are aware that this is an industry which has seen an enormous growth in a comparatively short space of time, and I am not at all certain that the conditions under which it has grown or the policy that has been directed towards the containment of disease is based on sufficient knowledge. I want to ask the Minister what steps are being taken to ensure, not simply that this outbreak is contained, but that we try to prevent another one in the future. Is there going to be a thorough-going inquiry into this? Shall we see some report afterwards which tries to find out how it all happened and whether any change of policy is required? I feel that this matter is so serious that some special steps ought to be taken.
7.50 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I apologise for detaining your Lordships at this late hour, but I should like to add a word or two to this debate. First of all, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for raising this debate and for his tribute to the veterinary service. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, because in my experience at the Ministry, which extended over a fair period, I can testify to the efficiency with which the veterinary service works. I remember the tremendous tributes paid to the veterinary service at the time of the foot-and-mouth outbreak in this country. At that time the Ministry called in the advice, work and labour of many vets. outside the Ministry altogether. They called for their support to help stem the tide of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the same thing is happening with
104
fowl pest as was happening with the brucellosis outbreak. I should like to know what other assistance has been called in, because the Department and its veterinary service must be strained to the very utmost. I should also like to ask what estimate the Ministry have made of the number of poultry that have had to be destroyed as the result of these outbreaks. The noble Earl who opened the debate mentioned figures of 7 to 8 million infected birds, and quoted cases where hundreds of thousands were dying even on particular farms or packaging stations. As I understand it, since August the number of outbreaks notified is nearing 2,000—about 1,950. If that is so, quite obviously outside assistance must be required to deal with the problem.
So far as Scotland is concerned, the policy is different because there you have the policy of slaughter and compensation. I understand—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that only five cases have been notified in Scotland in that period, as against 1,950 in the rest of the country. The number of birds that had to be slaughtered is about 5,340 and compensation of something under £4,000 had to be paid to meet that situation. One has to consider what is the correct policy for meeting this problem. We had this policy of dead vaccine, and it was interesting to hear the noble Earl say that even when birds had been vaccinated death was taking place. Apparently even vaccination has not given us the results that we had hoped for. If it is true that only 53 per cent. of the birds have been vaccinated, then obviously the field is wide open for a spread of the disease. That is one other problem that has to be tackled.
I understand that the Ministry have been carrying out tests on birds, inoculating them with live vaccines. If I remember correctly, there were three or four places designated in which this vaccination was taking place. I am certain that your Lordships will be interested to hear what the results are so far from these experiments. I know it is very tempting, and I can understand, when the disease reaches the dimensions that this one has, the noble Earl saying that perhaps we have or might have a probable cure for the disease with live vaccine, and that the Ministry should not take quite so long as they normally take to

105
carry out this policy. It is not for me to defend the Ministry—they are well able to do that themselves—but they have to consider that if they pushed ahead with this new treatment by live vaccine and we then had repercussions that might be even greater than the disease, we should come along to your Lordships' House to tell the Ministry that they had no right to take action for which they did not have proof.
I should like to know, and I am certain that your Lordships would like to know, what estimate the Ministry have made of the number of birds that have died as the result of this disease. Also, what are the results from the tests that they are making? Further, we should like to know whether the Ministry can hold out any hope of these efforts meeting the situation. Lastly, we should like to know what policy the Government propose to pursue in future as a result of their investigations so far.
7.55 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I also apologise for keeping your Lordships at this late hour, but before the Minister replies I have a few questions that I should like to ask. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us of the uncertainty regarding the efficiency of the dead vaccine system aid the possible breakdown of this system. I understand that there is widespread satisfaction within the industry over the decision to introduce field trials with the live vaccine. I understand also that it is felt that these trials are moving too slowly to combat the present particularly virulent type of outbreak.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked whether it would be possible for live vaccine to be made more readily available. I wonder if it could be made more readily available to reputable breeders within certain areas, and possibly for a limited period of time. They could then administer and experiment with other methods of inoculation under the direct supervision of the Ministry veterinary supervisors. But, according to my information, the present methods
of administering this vaccine to the young chicks is not giving them the immediate and complete protection that is necessary. Other methods must be found, for, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, there is a tremendously high mortality rate in the very young chicks, those up to
106
two, or three or four weeks old. This is causing immense problems both to broiler producers and to the whole cycle of industry.
The ban on movement from infected areas has now been in operation for some two months or so. This is causing considerable hardship to all poultry keepers, especially to breeders and rearers of pullet replacements. I should like to ask the Minister whether it would be possible, if not to remove the ban on all properly vaccinated pullets, to extend the areas in order that the pullets may be more easily sold and disposed of. I know of breeders who have large numbers of these birds, reared under contract, and who now suddenly find that they have them all on their hands: they cannot move them. It is causing considerable financial loss, and also enormous management problems.
If it is impossible to extend the areas, could not a total ban be placed on the movement of birds, both in and out of the infected areas? It would appear that these breeders and rearers are labouring under the most unfair competition if birds are let in from free areas, thereby greatly accentuating their own difficulties. These producers are unable to move birds outside and can move them, under licence, only within the area. Surely it would work on a reciprocal basis, that the people who have contracted to sell birds into the area could take over the contracts of the people within the area. That is a little involved, but something like that could be worked out.
8.0 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, quite a number of noble Lords have spoken on this important subject from their great experience. If what I have to say does not entirely satisfy them, I should like to assure all noble Lords that my right honourable friend and his advisers will consider very carefully everything that has been said in the debate to-night. My noble friend Lord Ferrers covered a wide field in his speech and gave us all a very full account of the effects of the fowl pest epidemic on the poultry industry. I accept a great deal of what he has said about the serious nature of this epidemic. He has mentioned some of the difficulties of taking further action, and I shall be mentioning some more. But it may help

107
if I start by outlining the basis of our present policy to control the disease.
The policy stems from the Report of the Committee, chaired by Professor Sir Arnold Plant, which reviewed our measures for control of fowl pest and reported in 1962. This Committee concluded that the policy of compulsory slaughter and compensation which was then in operation had failed to control the spread of the disease and was subject to other important objections. In particular it had entailed the unnecessary destruction of birds, many of which would otherwise have recovered from the disease, and this had caused disruption of the industry. Its cost has been extremely high, and it had placed an intolerable load on the Ministry's veterinary service. The Committee concluded that we should adopt a policy of control rather than eradication. The Government of the day accepted this recommendation and introduced a policy of voluntary vaccination by the industry in England and Wales, using an inactivated vaccine. Compulsory slaughter was retained only for the peracute form of the disease and fowl plague in England and Wales, and for all forms of fowl pest in Scotland, where the incidence of the disease was very low.
There can be no doubt, my Lords, that until last August this policy was an unqualified success. It had been estimated, as my noble friend has said, that to achieve satisfactory control of the disease not less than 75 per cent. of the national flock should be fully vaccinated. In the early days of the vaccination policy a large proportion of producers followed the Ministry's advice and vaccinated their flocks, and by 1965 it was estimated that about 80 per cent. of the national flock was then being regularly vaccinated.
This high level of vaccination continued until last year, and the effect on the number of outbreaks of the disease was impressive. From the 2,000 or more outbreaks commonly experienced in the years 1960 to 1964 the number of outbreaks fell to 495 in 1965, and gradually reduced still further, until in 1969 only 36 cases of the disease were notified in England and Wales. I believe that these figures speak for themselves. They convincingly justify the change of policy made in 1963, and they show the effectiveness
108
of the inactivated vaccine when used properly and sufficiently widely.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment to ask whether he would say that the vaccine has been immensely successful when in fact there have been 495 outbreaks, albeit the number fell to 35 or 36 a year?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I should say that if, over a period of years, the number of outbreaks reduces every time, this shows that the policy was successful. I think it is a fairly impressive drop from over 2,000 outbreaks to 36 in a matter of six or seven years.
Unfortunately, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the success of this policy may have contributed to its undoing. In 1968 and 1969, producers began to ease up on their vaccination programmes. Some have said that this was due to complacency bred from the success of the policy. Others claim that producers took this means to make a saving on costs necessary because of tight margins. Whatever the reasons may have been, the fact was that by mid-1970 only half the national flock was vaccinated, and this was far below the level necessary for protection against the disease. There can be little doubt that the extent of the present epidemic can be attributed to this cause, and many expert veterinary surgeons consider that the epidemic would not have taken serious hold at all if the vaccination level had been higher.
The Ministry issued a number of warnings of the danger of failure to vaccinate, and an outbreak of the disease occurred in Kent in 1969, with a similar degree of virulence to the disease experienced in the current epidemic. In spite of these warnings, there was no significant rise in the level of vaccination. The incident in Kent was quickly brought under control, since it was in an area with a lower poultry population and the proportion of vaccinated birds was then much higher than it was in Essex when the disease struck again in August of this year.
The noble Earl made a comparison with vaccination against measles, but the situations are not analogous. No fowl pest vaccine is 100 per cent. effective, and the efficacy of the vaccine is bound to be reduced if there are numbers of unvaccinated flocks becoming infected and

109
producing a high output or the virus. The sort of challenge which
is consequently produced would be difficult for any vaccine fully to resist. As the noble Earl said, young birds are capable of only a limited response to vaccine, and broilers are, consequently, vulnerable. It is they, in particular, that need a high general level of protection in surrounding flocks. It has been fully demonstrated in this epidemic that the effect of the virus in most properly vaccinated adult and growing birds has been minimal. The vaccine, when given a proper chance, has effectively resisted the challenge.
I should emphasise that the disease being caused by the present virus is not the peracute, Asiatic, type. Repeated clinical inspections, postmortems and other tests have been and are being carried out by the Ministry, and it is quite clear that the virus—although it is virulent—is not the Asiatic type for which the Plant Committee recommended (and the Government of the day accepted) a slaughter policy.
The present epidemic began in Essex on August 25, and since then there have been 1,943 outbreaks of the disease. We have no evidence to suggest that producers are not informing the Ministry of outbreaks. The main areas in which the disease has been concentrated since then have been in Essex and the Eastern Counties, but it has spread to many other parts of the country and now involves 33 counties outside the present infected areas. I should like to express my sympathy to the many farmers whose flocks have been affected. This is a very serious matter for them, as I fully recognise.
Since the epidemic began, the Ministry have imposed infected area restrictions in the whole of East Anglia, including Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, and have applied appropriate restrictions to the affected premises. Every opportunity has been taken to urge producers to vaccinate their flocks. Arrangements have been made with the vaccine manufacturers for supplies of inactivated vaccine to be greatly increased. The manufacturers have assured the Ministry that they are producing vaccine to their maximum capacity and are distributing it as speedily as possible. We understand that supplies of vaccine were greatly increased during
110
October and are continuing at a much higher level than usual.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me to assure him that all the Ministry's resources were being put into stopping this disease. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked what other resources were being called in. Additional Ministry veterinary manpower has been allocated to areas affected by fowl pest, and special centres have been set up to assist producers in diagnosing and dealing with the disease. We have made full use of all the Ministry's resources, not just veterinary, and we are now making use of the private veterinary profession to augment our own service. Detailed advice is being given on methods of prevention and control, on the treatment of waste food, which can be an important agent in spreading the disease, and on safety precautions in poultry slaughterhouses and egg-packing stations. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given most generous tribute to the Ministry's veterinary service, which I am sure has been very well earned.
On October 29 my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture announced that he was initiating a field trial of live Newcastle disease vaccine. This is being carried out under close Ministry control on selected farms in the infected areas of East Anglia. The purpose of the trial is to assess the efficacy of live vaccine in the present severe disease situation and in the conditions prevailing in the poultry industry in this country. One of the principal reasons for carrying out this trial is that in recent years there have been scientific and technical advances in the production of live vaccine which have eliminated some of the undesirable side effects formerly associated with it. It is now possible to produce live vaccine of a higher standard of purity than was the case a few years ago, and in consequence it is less likely to introduce other infections.
Nevertheless, the efficacy and side effects of the vaccine in our conditions are not known and need to be assessed in the field before any conclusions on it can be properly drawn. The trial is being carried out under the close control of the Ministry's veterinary officers, and the flocks which are being treated with the

111
vaccine have been scientifically selected to ensure that the vaccine is given a rigorous test in a variety of conditions, including flocks of different sizes and types. The necessary supplies of vaccine have been obtained and the trial is now well under way, but it will be some weeks—we hope not as many as 12 weeks—before the results can be evaluated. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said that there should be no delay in bringing in this live vaccine. There are these other considerations, and although the Ministry will do as much as it can to bring the tests to a satisfactory point as quickly as possible, to go quicker than that would be to risk more serious trouble than before.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting again. Is my noble friend saying that it will take less than 12 weeks to evaluate the results of the tests? And by that, does he mean that it will take less than 12 weeks for the Minister to make up his mind and to state what the future policy will be?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, that is what I meant. My noble friend wondered why this trial was being undertaken at this time. He will know that the industry is divided on the question of whether or not the general use of live vaccine should be approved. This reflects the fact that there are arguments for and against the live vaccine. It would be cheaper and easier to make and administer. Moreover, it might have advantages in giving somewhat quicker protection to very young birds than is achieved by the inactivated vaccine. But we do not know whether it would be any more effective in British conditions. It could well have adverse side effects, particularly in exacerbating latent infections, and it would reduce the effectiveness of our diagnostic and control measures. There is much, therefore, to be said on both sides. The field trials should permit the force of some of these arguments to be assessed more clearly and should consequently help to point the way to future action. We are testing it now because only now is it possible to give it a really rigorous trial in a disease situation in the field. There is little value in a field trial when there is no fowl pest about.
112
My right honourable friend has made it quite clear that he will not re-introduce compulsory slaughter with payment of compensation. I am afraid that I cannot even make an exception in the case of my noble friend's farm manager. This would provide no solution to the present problem, since it has been demonstrated in the past that compulsory slaughter has failed to control the spread of the disease. Moreover it would conflict with the present policy of protection by vaccination, since the compensation would diminish the incentive to many producers to vaccinate.
My noble friend Lord Balerno suggested that the industry should pay a levy on day-old chicks to finance the cost of vaccine. This was not the chief recommendation of the Plant Report. The chief recommendation was that the policy of voluntary vaccination should replace that of slaughter and compensation. My noble friend also suggested that the Government should distribute the vaccine free of charge and the industry would have to finance only the process of vaccination. I can see the purpose of my noble friend's suggestion, but I am bound to say that it has its drawbacks. It is very difficult to see how this could be administered, especially in view of the large number of flocks in this country and the need for repetition of doses. But probably the main objection is that it would not achieve the purpose intended. The principal disincentive to vaccination is not the cost of the vaccine but the cost of the labour needed to administer it and the inconvenience and upheaval caused by having vaccine administered to a large number of birds. The scheme envisaged by my noble friend would do nothing to reduce this.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked what were the results so far of the field trials of live vaccine. We are pressing on with these trials as quickly as we possibly can, but I am afraid that at the moment it is too early to give any results. He also asked for the number of birds slaughtered as a result of this disease, but I am afraid I do not have information on the number of deaths. The number of birds in infected flocks is about 12 million and the number of deaths is undoubtedly considerably smaller than that. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked whether there would be an inquiry into this epidemic.

113
I am afraid that I cannot answer him about that, but I can assure him that we will look into this epidemic very carefully indeed and make sure that we learn all we can from it for the future.
The best hope of bringing the present epidemic to an end and getting the disease under control once more is for producers to vaccinate their flocks quickly and properly. As I have said, no vaccine can give full protection to young birds, but in properly vaccinated adult and growing birds the record of the inactivated vaccine is excellent. Less than 10 per cent. of the flocks affected in the current epidemic have been properly vaccinated. The output of virus in unvaccinated and poorly vaccinated infected flocks is very high, and we must increase vaccination and dowse infection at its source if we are to get the epidemic under control. This is the further action that is necessary. The Government will do all they can to encourage the industry to take that action.

  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: ADMISSION CHARGES
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: ADMISSION CHARGES
  ARMED FORCES DESERTERS AND ABSENTEES
  ARMED FORCES DESERTERS AND ABSENTEES
  RHODESIA: PROPOSED PROVISION FOR LADY GIBBS
  RHODESIA: PROPOSED PROVISION FOR LADY GIBBS
  COMPUTER PROGRAMMES PROTECTION
  COMPUTER PROGRAMMES PROTECTION