With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the development of facilities for treatment of patients suffering from chronic renal failure by intermittent dialysis on artificial kidney machines.

On 7th March last year, I said in answer to Questions by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) that 95 National Health Service patients were being treated in England and Wales and that I hoped to provide facilities for not less than 100 additional patients within the next 12 months. At present, 116 patients are being treated either in National Health Service hospital centres or in the home under the supervision of a centre. In the next few weeks I hope that new units will be opened which are designed to treat about another 60 patients. Home dialysis will also be extended. The service is growing slowly at present, but will grow more quickly as schemes on which we are pressing ahead with the highest priority come into use. Three main causes have conditioned the rate of growth; the need to recruit and to train staff, the time unavoidably taken to plan and build or adapt specialised accommodation, and outbreaks of infection in existing units.

Training of staff inevitably takes time, especially while working units in which they can be trained are comparatively few. But more doctors, nurses and technicians must have the opportunity to acquire the experience that is vital for this kind of treatment, to enable the service to grow more rapidly. The present planned provision for training accommodation and equipment is not governed by availability of money.

The medical profession recognises that this treatment carries with it the danger of spread of disease carried in the blood—particularly jaundice which can be infectious and can be serious; and it is difficult to control. In recent months there have been outbreaks of jaundice in hospital dialysis units affecting both patients and staff, and there were deaths among staff. It was necessary to close one unit and to make emergency arrangements for patients already being treated: it was not possible to accept new patients. In another case, expansion of the service has been unavoidably delayed.

These setbacks reinforce the view of medical experts in this field, which my advisers accept, that it is most important that units should not start treatment of patients until adequate facilities are available. Otherwise we place in danger not only the patients, who will doubtless be willing to accept the risks, but the staff on whom many lives may depend.

I want to emphasise that the rate at which this service can develop, whether in the hospital centres or in the home, is not at present governed by considerations of money. Funds raised privately cannot, therefore, make a significant contribution, at the present time, to the more rapid expansion of facilities for intermittent dialysis in the National Health Service. I appreciate, however, that many generous people wish to express their support for the development of this service by giving money or by organising collections.

I welcome these manifestations of people's concern for the welfare of others, and I am anxious only that their gifts should be used to the best effect. This can be ensured if organisers of appeals would inform the regional hospital board for their area before any appeal is launched and then arrange that the terms of the appeal enable the money to be used at a hospital at which intermittent dialysis is to be carried out. Alternatively, the money could be used for research into the cause, detection and treatment of diseases which can cause chronic renal failure.

I am sure that the whole country will welcome the Minister's statement and his assurance that the development of this treatment is not being held up by financial considerations. Do we understand that, within 12 months, facilities will be provided to treat about 220 patients in all, and is it not the fact that there are between 1,500 and 2,500 people in the country with serious kidney complaints? In that context, therefore, I am sure that the Minister will agree that a great deal of extra money will be needed in the long run to extend the facilities and the training of people needed in this service. We accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this will be done, and the House welcomes his statement.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that she slightly under-estimated the number of people suffering from chronic kidney disease, but the number she quoted represents very roughly the range of the present estimates of those who could be treated by intermittent dialysis. The initial aim in the development programme is to establish up to 20 main centres, each having at least 10 beds, capable of maintaining 25 to 30 patients on twice-weekly dialysis. This service is certainly not at present being held up by lack of money.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's important and valuable statement. May I ask three brief questions? First, will he assure the House that no limit will be placed on the facilities for dialysis of patients requiring it purely for short-term use in the course of an acute illness? Secondly, will he see to it that all possible publicity is given to his valuable statement about donations? Thirdly, will he increase the priorities for home dialysis in view of the very much lessened risk of infection of staff using the apparatus?

I am very glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that facilities for the treatment of acute renal failure are perfectly adequate, and of course this is a treatment of much longer standing than intermittent dialysis for chronic renal failure. I hope that my statement will receive the greatest publicity, because I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the problems involved in this treatment, and certainly misunderstanding which has led to a number of appeals being made all over the country.

As for home dialysis, as the problems are successfully tackled, I think that inevitably home dialysis will play a considerable part in the expansion of the service, but there are special problems here which it is important to evaluate before its widespread extension can be commended.

So that my right hon. Friend's statement shall not be misunderstood, will he confirm that where the organisers consult the regional hospital boards in advance some of the generous donations being made privately may accelerate the provision of these machines?

I think that I have explained the position with regard to the acceleration of the programme, but certainly I would not do anything to discourage these expressions of generosity, provided that they are done in association with the regional hospital boards which can ensure that the money is directed to the object for which the contributors give it.

Can the Minister say whether any advice of a general nature is given to regional hospital boards about the allocation of these units in view of all the competing claims which there must be? Secondly, is he aware that there is a desperate and critical shortage of these units in Scotland? Are discussions going on between his Ministry and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make sure that a similar advance takes place throughout the country, and the shortage is equally shared?

There is the closest consultation on this, as on other matters, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Any question relating to Scotland should be asked of him.

As for the development of these units, there is certainly no hesitation on the part of the regional hospital boards to co-operate in the first stage programme which we have laid down, and which I have described to the House. They certainly do not need any urging to provide this service. They are only too anxious to do so as soon as trained staff and accommodation can be made available.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, in your opinion, hon. Members have been given sufficient notice of the Minister's intention to make this statement this morning? I know that a memorandum was published on page 7,206 of the Notices of Questions and Motions, but there was no notice in the Lobby until this morning. It seems to me that more hon. Members might have been present to question the Minister on this important subject if it had been possible to place a notice in the Lobby at, say, 6 o'clock last evening so that hon. Members would have been aware of this before they went home. Hon. Members do not necessarily read all the papers put before them, but I think that they take note of notices in the Lobby, and there is more chance of their doing that at 6 o'clock in the evening than at half-past nine in the morning.

That is an interesting point, but Ministers usually do not have to give notice that they are going to make statements. I find it rather curious that the hon. Gentleman should complain when the notice is in fact on the Order Paper. This is the first time that I have seen a notice on the Order Paper about an intention to make a statement. Perhaps it is the fact that this is a morning sitting which has complicated things a little.

Further to that point of order. Was it not understood, and were we not told by the Leader of the House, that only unimportant statements would be made at morning sittings, and is not this a statement of a quite different category?

Order. That is certainly not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Further to that point of order. I said at Question Time on Monday that I proposed to make a statement on this subject later this week. At the time I did not say I would make it on Wednesday morning because it was not then certain that it would be made today.

Surely that does not meet the point, Mr. Speaker. We were told that only unimportant statements would be made. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to make a statement at some unstated time does not meet the objection, which ties up with the objection put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

That is an interesting point, but it is not one for Mr. Speaker.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect a person from any unreasonable and serious interference with his seclusion of himself, his family or his property from the public.

The purpose of my Bill is to give a right of action in the civil courts for damages for any unreasonable and serious invasion of privacy. Hon. Members may be surprised that this is necessary at this time in the development of our English legal system, since they may have been misled by the adage that an Englishman's home is his castle. But they will have noticed that even those who live in castles often have occasion to complain about interference with their privacy by long-range photographers, and it is even more true that in a humbler station of life there are many who have had occasion in the past, and in the recent past, to complain of increasing invasion of their privacy from many people and in many ways.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with his privacy. The curious thing is that our English legal system has never given an explicit right to privacy. It is true that the subject is covered partly by the law of trespass, the law of nuisance, the law of defamation, and I suppose it could be said by the law relating to patents and copyright. But this is only a partial solution to this difficult problem. It touches only the fringe, and there ought to be in the law a right to be left alone if one wishes to be left alone.

This right has already been accepted by most of the States in the United States. It has been accepted by Canada, South Africa, and several continental countries. The history of its development is rather interesting and rewarding. It started in about 1890, when a certain Mrs. Samuel Warren, a lady in Boston, was giving a reception for her daughter's wedding. Because of the activities of some of the yellow Press she was incensed by the accounts given of that wedding. She got on to her husband about it. It so happened that he was a distinguished legal academic, and that his great friend was Louis Brandeis, who was then Dean of Harvard Law School. Between them they wrote an article which was, perhaps, the most successful piece of legal academic writing. They insisted that there was a right to privacy in American common law. It was some years before the courts accepted this, but eventually they did accept that there was such a right.

That right has been developed ever since, the most recent example being Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy's use of it to see that her personal grief was not displayed for the interest and prurient curiosity of millions in William Manchester's book. The moral is obvious; if I am to get anywhere with this Bill I should secure the support of Mrs. Harold Wilson and Mrs. Roy Jenkins.

There have been valient efforts to establish this right. Professor Winfield, in his book on tort, started the agitation about 30 years ago, and it has since been taken up by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. The only attempt ever to express this right in statutory form was by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in another place in 1961, when, by an overwhelming vote, a Second Reading was given to his Bill relating to intrusion by the Press into personal privacy. The Bill was severely criticised by the Press at the time as an attack upon its liberty; indeed, it is possible that it could be misinterpreted in that way.

In my view, that Bill was too limited, because it appeared that it was an attack on only one kind of invasion of privacy and also because in recent times there have been many occasions when different kinds of invasion of privacy have occurred which would not have been covered by such legislation. It is necessary that legislation in this respect should cover the latest developments, and my Bill therefore establishes a general principle which the courts could act upon and which would enable them to decide in a concrete way whether there had been an invasion of privacy.

I would define an invasion of privacy as any unreasonable and serious interference with the seclusion of a person himself, his family, or his property from the public. Because of some of the publicity about my Bill hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that I am bringing in more Bills than the Prime Minister. It has been reported that I am bringing in a Bill about doorstep salesmen; that I am bringing in a Bill about telephone tapping; that I am bringing in a Bill about industrial espionage—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with this Bill.

—and a Bill about Press intrusion.

My Bill covers all these subjects. It would establish a general right, which could be interpreted by the courts in certain situations. The right would be restricted by reasonable defences. We all remember the scenes at the hospital when the late Aneurin Bevan was recovering from an illness, and we would all agree that that was an unnecessary invasion of his privacy by some elements of the Press.

I am aware that the Press say that matters have improved since then, especially as a result of the setting up of the Press Council. That is undoubtedly true, but there are still lamentable lapses from good taste on the part of some members of the Press. Only last year, when two Vietnamese children were brought to East Grinstead Hospital for plastic surgery, some members of the Press tried to get into the hospital to try to photograph them, although the children were disfigured.

It was unnecessary, from the point of view of the public interest, that Mrs. Donald Campbell should have heard the news of the death of her husband in the full glare of television cameras and publicity. It is unnecessary that inquiry agents should resort to the use of bugging devices and tape recording in hotel bedrooms to obtain evidence of adultery, or use party lines to listen to the telephone conversations of co-respondents. The large extension of telephone tapping which has come to light in recent months is unnecessary and undesirable.

Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the protection it affords against forms of industrial espionage, which have become all too common in recent months.

The most poignant scene in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was when Winston Smith retired from all the mechanical devices that had been established to invade his privacy to a little neglected wood, only to find later on that even there bugging devices had been installed. In a civilised community, where we are living on top of each other, there must be an area of life which an individual has the right to keep to himself. The Bill will protect that right.

I agree in principle with the need for the protection of individual privacy. Nevertheless, provision should also be made for the protection of the Press in carrying out its duty—

Order. We cannot discuss Amendments to the Bill, as the hon. Member proposes. He must oppose the Bill.

I would feel inclined to oppose the Bill on the ground that if the Bill is not framed sensibly there is a danger that the Press will be penalised. The Press should be protected in carrying out its duty of telling the truth—

I am not trying to obstruct the hon. Member, but he must make a speech opposing the Bill. He can oppose it for the reasons that he is beginning to adumbrate.

Perhaps I should declare an interest in the matter, Mr. Speaker, since I am concerned with the Press. In view of what you say, I withdraw my opposition to the Bill.

I beg to move,

That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed for the ratification of the Hague Protocol of 1955, which amended the Warsaw Convention of 1929. This was made possible by Section 1 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, which gives effect in the United Kingdom to the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Protocol, but for a variety of reasons that Section has not yet been brought into force and the Protocol has not yet been ratified. It is the Government's view that this should now be done and that the United Kingdom should join the 49 countries which have already ratified.

It will, perhaps, be convenient if I remind the House of the purpose of the Warsaw Convention, which is probably the most widely ratified of international Conventions in the field of private law, and of the existing legislation relevant to it. The Convention ensures a measure of international uniformity in the law governing international carriage by air, thereby eliminating difficult and potentially expensive litigation as to which country's law applies. It also confers on passengers and their dependants, and on the shippers of cargo, the reversal of the burden of proving the carrier's negligence, in exchange for which the carrier enjoys a uniform limit of liability, which facilitates the arrangement of insurance. In the absence of wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier, his servants or agents, this limit is at present equivalent to some £3,000 per passenger.

The Carriage by Air Act, 1932, gave effect in the United Kingdom to this Convention and the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order, 1952, made under the provisions of that Act, applied the same limit of liability to domestic and other carriage not covered by the Convention. Under the Act and the Order, therefore, the same limit is applied to all carriage, whatever the point of departure and destination or the nationality of the passenger or shipper, and it makes no difference where the accident occurs or which airline is involved.

I come to the Hague Protocol of 1955, which made a number of amendments to the Warsaw Convention and, in particular, raised the limit of liability from £6,000 per passenger. With the passing of the years, that in turn has come to be regarded as on the low side, and international discussions have begun under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation with a view to the further amendment of the Hague-Warsaw system and, in particular, a further possible increase. It is the Government's hope that these discussions will be successful, but we recognize that several years are likely to pass before a new Convention or Protocol is drawn up, signed and ratified by a sufficient number of States.

How many States would the hon. Gentleman consider to be "sufficient number"?

I should have thought that 49 would be a sufficient number.

We think, therefore, as I have said, that we should, without more ado, proceed to ratification of the Hague Protocol and are planning to lodge the instrument of ratification with the Polish Government on 3rd March, 1967. Allowing for the 90 days that mast elapse before it becomes effective, the Protocol will then he in force for the United Kingdom as from 1st June next.

On the same day the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, which gave effect to the provisions of the original Warsaw Convention, will be repealed by virtue of Section 1(3) of the 1961 Act and the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) Order, 1952 made under it will accordingly cease to have effect. It is proposed that that Order, which, as I have said, applied the Warsaw provisions, with some exceptions and adaptations, to domestic and other carriage not governed by the Convention, should be replaced by the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, which is proposed to be made under Section 10 of the Act of 1961, and which is now before the House. The draft Order will, of course, apply, as does the parent Act, to all forms of commercial air service; that is, to charter and inclusive tour flights as well as to scheduled services.

The hon. Gentleman is entitled under paragraph 8 of the Order to

"…exempt any carriage or class of carriage…from any of the requirements imposed by this Order".

Does the Department have any intention of exercising that power in regard to any class of carriage?

There is an intention in regard to flying clubs, with which I shall deal.

Are we today trying to get in line with an existing Convention or are we stepping out of line in the hope that other countries will follow suit?

We are today getting in line with the Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention.

As I was saying, the main provisions of the Order are, first, that it applies the principles of the amended Convention to domestic and other carriage which is not governed by either the unamended or amended Warsaw Convention. As permitted by Section 10, however, a number of "exceptions, adaptations and modifications" are made; for example, the omission of the requirements as to documentation and of the restriction of the courts in which actions may be brought.

A matter of more general interest, and one which will be particularly welcomed by the House, is that the draft Order raises the carrier's limit of liability in respect of domestic carriage and other types of carriage to which it applies to some £21,000 per passenger instead of the £6,000 which is the limit in the Hague Protocol.

In view of the difference in liability that there will be and, therefore, the difference in advantage to the public between an international journey and a domestic one, would the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the event of a catastrophe, difficulty will be created? For example, if someone is travelling on an international journey from, say, Manchester, that person will simply be covered by the airline's £6,000 liability, while someone else travelling on an international journey, but going first from Manchester to London and then picking up the international flight, will get double cover.

That would depend on where the passenger had booked for. If he had booked from Glasgow to London, the passenger would be covered by one form of cover. If he had booked for an international route he would be covered by another form of cover. However, I am afraid to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is yet a further complication due to an agreement between airlines and the United States for this £21,000 cover to be extended to journeys across the Atlantic.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be perfectly possible for there to be, in the same aeroplane, four people with different tickets proceeding to different destinations and going on different types of journey and that all will be entitled under the Order to entirely different limits of compensation in the event of an accident?

I do not think that that would necessarily occur if they were all travelling in the same aeroplane, since the same liability would appear to apply, but I will look into that point.

Secondly, this applies the principles of the amended Convention to the carriage of airmail, with similar exceptions, adaptations and modifications. Thirdly, as a transitional provision it applies, with the necessary modifications, those principles to the diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention to which the United Kingdom remains a party. Further, it applies the Warsaw-Hague system to gratuitous carriage by the Crown, carriage by the Crown for reward already being covered by that system. Last, as permitted by Section 10(3), it gives the Board of Trade power to exempt any class of carriage from the requirements imposed by the Order.

If the draft Order is approved, and it and the Hague Protocol come into effect in this country on 1st June, 1967, there will then be three classes of carriage governed by their provisions: first, carriage governed by neither the amended nor the unamended Convention where the £21,000 limit will apply—for example, London to Glasgow, London to Gibraltar non-stop and London to Istanbul non-stop, since Turkey is not yet a party to either the Protocol or the unamended Warsaw Convention; secondly, carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol where the £6,000 limit of liability will apply. An example of that would be carriage between London and Paris, since both the United Kingdom and France will then be parties to the Protocol.

Thirdly, there is the residual and diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention where the £3,000 limit will apply. An example of that would be London to Delhi until such time as India also ratifies the Protocol, although the return journey London—Delhi—London will be governed by the Protocol. In practice, however, a great deal of this carriage, namely carriage involving a stop in the U.S.A., will be governed by arrangements under which the major airlines have voluntarily agreed to a limit of £21,000 as an interim measure pending the further revision of the Convention.

It is unfortunate, as hon. Members very well sense, that there must be these variations in the limits, but uniformity is not something that we can achieve by ourselves in advance of a satisfactory outcome of the international discussion, which I have mentioned. Nevertheless, our proposals do, I believe, represent a valuable advance on the existing situation where both international and non-international carriage is subject to the same limit of £3,000 and, having regard to the interests of the ever-growing number of the public who travel by air, I am sure that the House will wish to approve the Order.

While I do not oppose this Order in principle as such, I wish to raise a rather technical but nonetheless important matter arising out of a certain decision in America on airline liability. It is of profound importance to the airlines and, therefore, to the travelling public. First, I express my apologies to the Minister for probably having to leave before any reply is made to this debate because I have another meeting to attend. I trust that he will acquit me of any seeming discourtesy.

The position, I understand, is that the Warsaw Convention imposes an absolute liability upon airline carriers in exchange for which they can put a limit on the damages and the compensation which they pay. In this sense it has worked out to the advantage of carriers throughout the world. I understand that last May the United States nearly left the Convention, but was persuaded not to do so. If it had left, the position would have been that in the event of injury being suffered in America the passenger would have had the onus put on him to prove ordinary airline negligence.

If he could succeed in that respect, his damages might well be unlimited. The provisions of this Convention, to which the United States is still a party, provide that a carrier must deliver a passenger ticket which contains certain particulars one of which is:

"a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by the Warsaw Convention".

The Order says on page 10:

"The absence, irregularity or loss at the passenger ticket does not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this Schedule. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this Schedule which exclude or limit his liability".

In April, 1966, a case was heard in the United States courts called Lisi v. Alitalia Airlines. In that case Mr. Lisi's executors sought damages from Alitalia Airlines in respect of a crash at Shannon in Ireland. The decision of the court was that Alitalia had failed to comply with the provisions of the Convention in that the notice put on the ticket delivered to Mr. Lisi and others was in such microscopic type that it was impossible to say, according to the court, that he had had sufficient notice of the excluded provisions on liability.

The case came to appeal before the Appeal Court in America last December. As a result of that appeal, great confusion now arises in the minds of those concerned with air carriage. The appeal decision said in effect that a carrier has a duty of conveying the actual notice of the exclusion of liability to a passenger "in such time"—those are the relevant words—as the passenger can take self-protective measures against such exclusion of liability. Examples of that would be that the passenger could take out certain insurance, could come to a decision whether to travel or not knowing that this exclusion of liability existed, or have an opportunity to enter a special contract.

The practical position is that all over the world tickets are delivered very often only a few moments or a few hours, or perhaps a day or so, before actual departure. From an administrative point of view I am informed that it is entirely impracticable for airlines to give greater notice than they do now. Often it is a day or even hours or minutes before a plane departs. There is no certainty what the words "in such time" mean. If it is suggested that this should be a matter of weeks or perhaps a month to enable the passenger to consider all the ramifications of a separate contract and whether to travel or not, this would place an intolerable burden on the whole business of air travel.

If the case is upheld—and I under—stand that there is a possibility of it going to the Supreme Court in America—it would have the effect that a British airline which crashed or caused injury to a passenger in America would get the worst of both worlds. It would have the onus of absolute liability and the onus would not be on the passenger. It would be subject to the Convention in that respect, but the airline would not be entitled to limit the damages.

On this basis I am advised that it would be better if the United States were out of the Convention. Then, although an airline would have unlimited damages to pay, the onus of preventing negligence would be on the passenger. For that reason the Government should be aware of the very great increase in costs which might arise if this decision before the Supreme Court were upheld. The first question which I put to the Government on this Order is whether they are aware of the litigation and decision in the Lisi v. Alitalia case. Do the Government realise that, if the decision is unreversed by the Supreme Court, it will lead to an enormous increase in airline claim costs in the United States? If the decision is unreversed, will the Government give consideration even to withdrawal from the Warsaw Convention on these grounds? What steps are being taken to reverse the effect of this decision?

In addition, a meeting has just taken place—I believe that it has been adjourned—of an international panel of experts in Montreal which has been looking into the whole question of amendment to the Convention. Could the Government delay their decision until the experts have had a chance of considering the ramifications of this case? Is it possible that the United Kingdom could postpone the ratification of the Hague Protocol in order to see whether it is worth staying in the Warsaw Convention if the Lisi case remains part of the law of the United States?

I appreciate that the Government might well say that it is vital that we get on with this Order in order to comply with the requirements of the Hague Protocol. If that is so, they should be alerted to the fact that, although we do not oppose the Order in principle. there are a number of imperfections—this is a very profound and important one—and they should seriously consider the possibility of producing an amending Order later when the result of this very vital decision is known.

It would be extremely ungenerous of me to do anything other than welcome this very timely Order. Hon. Members will remember that on the Report stage of the 1961 Act I proposed an Amendment upon which this Order actually improves. My Amendment was lost by one vote. Therefore, I cannot do other than welcome an Order which on many domestic flights—that is, those which are not subject to the exemption procedure—raises the limit of damages to £21,000.

I must state, however, that the Order still leaves the slight anomaly, which was brought out in 1961 that if someone is killed in a railway train the limit of damages is £24,000 but if someone is killed travelling by air the limit is £21,000. I should have been happier if the figure had been consolidated at £24,000 so that the limit was the same by air on domestic flights as it is for rail accidents. However, I repeat that it would be extremely ungenerous of me not to welcome the very considerable improvement to £21,000.

In the 1961 debate it was immediately apparent from the reaction of hon. Members that nobody understood the import of the statements on an airline ticket about the limit of liability. Article 8 of the Order reads:

"The Board of Trade may, subject to such conditions as they think fit, exempt any carriage or class of carriage or any person or class of person from any of the requirements imposed by this Order."

So far, so good, but it is very important that anybody flying on a domestic flight should know whether his carriage on that flight is or is not exempted; and, if it is exempted, what the effect of the exemption is.

I must apologise to the Minister of State, Board of Trade for the fact that, as I was due at a meeting of B.E.A. earlier this morning than now, I shall probably have to leave before he commences his winding-up speech. However, I should be very grateful if he could put on the record in that speech what his own guidelines within his Department will be for operating Article 8, so that the public at large can know in what circumstances flights are likely to be exempted, what notice will be given to people that they are exempted, and what the result of such exemption will be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) stated that there are four different classes of potential passenger from the point of view of limitation of liability. My count makes it at least six. There are domestic flights which will be subject to the Order—that is, with a limit of £21,000. There will be domestic flights exempted from the Order under Article 8. There will be domestic flights which do not fall within the provisions anyway, because they are subject to concession—for instance, an airline employee travelling under concession on that airline. Then there are international flights subject to the Order. There will be international flights subject to the Guadalajara Convention. There will be international flights which are not subject to the amended procedures—Turkey being one. Those are six different classes of passenger. I do not claim that it is an exhaustive list.

I ask specifically not only that the Minister should give the House the guidelines for the rules he makes but that in making those rules there should be a prominent notice, not just a fine print statement, on all tickets issued under the exemption provisions of Article 8, drawing effectively to the attention of the would-be passenger the fact that it is exempted. Sometimes a ticket contains an announcement that the flight is subject to certain exemptions or conditions, the details of which can be obtained from the ticket office. This notice appears, for instance, on a railway ticket. If the intending passenger asks the booking clerk for a copy of the conditions under which the ticket is issued, he is told that he must go either to Paddington station or somewhere equally remote to obtain the copy. Therefore, to issue, for example at a flying club, a ticket having on it a notice stating that the flight is subject to exemption from the provisions of the Order, without also having prominently displayed a statement of the effect of the exemption, is what I call a lawyer's notice rather than a reasonable person's notice.

In defence of a very great profession of which I am a member, I point out that it is lawyers who draw attention to the smallness and obscurity of type on notices.

That is true, but lawyers have to be employed before they draw attention to it. Reverting to the subject of notice, it is particularly important that it should be comprehensible.

Where there are such exemptions, which are exemptions from a reasonable limit, it is relevant to rehearse again why it is just and desirable that there should be different limits on domestic flights from those which apply to international flights. The reasons are basically these. It is not only difficult and expensive, but also sometimes impossible, to prove negligence, even in a British court, because so much of the evidence of the cause of the accident is destroyed in the accident.

It is difficult enough to prove negligence in the case of air accidents in a British court—in the cost of which, incidentally, if people are impecunious they may be assisted through the Legal Aid Fund. It is very much more difficult to prove negligence in a court thousands of miles away where the standards of justice and the court procedures are, to put it mildly, not entirely consistent with our own. The advantage which passengers or their dependants receive under the Warsaw Convention, the Hague Protocol, and the Guadalajara Convention, is that it is no longer necessary to prove the negligence of the airline concerned. It is necessary only to demonstrate that the damage or death resulted from the accident and there is then an automatic entitlement.

I remark in passing that the limit of damages does not apply when wilful misconduct can be proved against the pilot or aircrew. But this also is extremely difficult to prove when all the people concerned are dead and there is just wreckage left on the ground. Therefore, one may say that, to all intents and purposes, the limit applies and the balance of advantage lies with Measures of this kind.

On domestic carriage, this is not so to the same extent because people have access to the British courts and they are not debarred for financial reasons. Nevertheless, one must bear in mind that a substantial proportion of the traffic on domestic flights is business traffic rather than holiday traffic. It is fair to say that people who use internal air routes in the course of their profession or occupation are most unlikely to be earning less than £1,000 a year. Capitalising that at, say, 6 per cent., it comes to more than £21,000. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the normal basis of compensation is to capitalise the income which the dead person was receiving.

I say that merely to show that £21,000 is not an over-generous figure. I hope that the Minister, whoever he may be and whoever the Government may be, will not feel that, now that this excellent Measure has been brought in, it must necessarily run for the next 10 or 15 years unamended. As the level of incomes rises so does the damage suffered by someone incapacitated or by the dependants of a person killed on a flight.

I welcome the Order, therefore, though without prejudice to pressure for increases in the limit of liability in the future pro rata with the fall in the value of money and the rise in average earnings.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the limit of compensation now to be available for the domestic passenger will create an anomaly in relation to someone travelling, for instance, from the United Kingdom and flying in the United States? It will be an international flight, but the flight across the United States will be a domestic flight. There is a great difference between a domestic trip within the United States, which can be as long as a journey from the United States to the United Kingdom, and a domestic trip within the United Kingdom. Is there not an anomalous distinction here created by the difference between compensation paid for an international flight and compensation paid for a domestic trip?

With respect, no greater anomaly is created than is already the case in travel by surface transport in a foreign country, which is subject to the domestic law of the country concerned. I say, in passing that, as I read the present law as amended by the Order, if one is making a journey from one British territory to another without calling at an airport in the United States, it is immaterial whether one overflies the United States or not. It is certainly true that there are many different classes of carriage, but what my hon. Friend says applies whether one travels by ground transport or by air transport. What we are endeavouring to do is to reduce the restriction on damages in so far as we are able to do so, and this Order undoubtedly does that.

I mention one further matter en passant. Many people take out insurance to cover themselves in excess of the limit of liability imposed. It is all the more important that this insurance cover should be available when Article 8 of the Order is invoked and there is exemption by Ministerial licence. The normal way of obtaining this further cover is by putting a coin into a slot machine with a time-stamping device inside. Out comes a ticket selling the cover, beginning at the time stamped on it by the clock.

It is common knowledge that the times of greatest risk are on landing and takeoff. It is particularly important, therefore, that the clocks stamping the time are not fast. If a clock is fast it can have the result of marking a time for beginning the insurance cover after the person has taken off in the aircraft. This is not hypothetical. Twice I have been to an airport in the United Kingdom at which the clock was as much as 15 minutes fast. If someone purchased insurance cover immediately before boarding the aircraft and the aircraft then crashed on take-off, the insurance company would not, except ex gratia, be at risk although the passenger believed that he had covered himself. I do not know how far it is possible to deal with this, but it is one of the considerations which the Minister would do well to bear in mind in issuing an exemption under Article 8.

I end as I began, by welcoming the Order. I wish that it had been brought in much earlier. A long time has elapsed since the passage of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, and I have badgered successive Ministers of successive Governments to be more expeditious in the matter. We shall all be grateful for the Order, and the fewer the exemptions granted by the Minister the more certain will the law be in the knowledge of the average passenger.

I am sorry, though the House may be glad, that my remarks must on this occasion be very brief. I am serving on a Standing Committee in which there are liable to be Divisions, and I may be called suddenly. That control is an unfortunate control, but I feel that I must at least say "Thank you" to my hon. Friend the Minister, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The hon. Gentleman and I five years ago emphasised to the Minister at that time the need to amend the provisions covering carriage by air, and now, like him, I rejoice in the raising of the limit. I endorse every word the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that the Minister will remember that it is not a final sum. We recognise that travel by air is getting safer every day and is now much safer than it was even five years ago. Those of us who use air transport realise that. But the result of an accident in the air is so comprehensive and final as compared with an accident in almost any other medium of travel that the compensation must bear relationship not only to the falling value of money but to that finality. That must be a factor in estimating the compensation.

I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that there is a particular quality about death in an aircraft accident which means that the liability limit should be higher than for death in a car or train accident?

I may not have expressed myself very well. I believe that travelling by air involves the possibility of finality in an accident, but that an accident is not so liable to occur as in travel by sea or road. In the event of an aircraft accident, the number of survivors is generally very small, if any. It is merely a matter of observance, and from my knowledge of accidents in the air I have no reason to change what I have said. There is certainly always the chance of finality in a railway or bus accident, and so on, but the risk is not so great as it is by air, and therefore I believe that that should affect the figure of damages when an accident occurs.

I notice that liability starts at the terminal, according to Article 18(3) of the Convention. If I read that accurately, the passenger is regarded as being covered by the liability for compensation from the moment he leaves the terminal.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought forward this improvement in the Carriage by Air Acts, but I feel that the Explanatory Note might have been more comprehensive. I hope that when there is an amendment of the Order the Explanatory Note will tell us exactly what it means and will be fuller than the rather brief comment that this Explanatory Note gives.

I must disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) over the implied suggestion in his speech that travel by air is more dangerous than travel on the roads. If he looks at the statistics he will find that the number of people killed on our roads every year is many times larger than the number of people killed in air travel in the whole world.

I did not say anything of the kind. I did not say that travel by air was more dangerous. I said that in the event of an accident the outcome was more certain.

That is indeed what the hon. Gentleman said. I disagree with him on that as well, because many minor accidents take place on the airlines which do not result in either the injury or death of a passenger. Perhaps they are not given the same prominence as accidents in which the whole aircraft is lost with all the passengers, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the tables published periodically in Flight and other aviation magazines, he will see that quite a number of accidents occur in which there is no injury to any of the passengers or crew. It would be misleading the public if we suggested that in the event of an accident on an aircraft their chances of being killed were very much higher than in other means of transport. That will not help what both the hon. Gentleman and I wish, which is to encourage more people to travel by air.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to expand what I said beyond what was contained in the words I used.

I hope that I was not doing that, but I think that the hon. Member for Govan may have given that impression during some of his remarks.

The hon. Member raised the interesting question whether one is covered in transit from the terminal to the airport. As I read Article 18 (3), cover applies only in cases where the contract for carriage from the terminal to the airport is part of the contract for carriage by air from the airport onwards. I understand that one's contract in respect of the bus from the London Air Terminal to Heathrow is separate from the contract one enters into with the airline for a flight from Heathrow to Glasgow, for example.

It would be of great importance if the Minister could clarify this in his reply, because my impression is that the journey along the M4 in one of the buses is a great deal more dangerous than the journey from Heathrow to Glasgow. A great many passengers would like to know if they were covered on the bus journey as well.

I hope that my main point will not be a discordant note in the general welcome expressed for the Order. It is the question of the effect of the increased limits on the domestic air fares. I shall not argue with the principle of the Order, because I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that higher limits are necessary and are inevitable in the end. But the Minister might consider delaying the application of the increases to a date after 1st June for domestic airlines. I take it that he has power to do that under paragraph 8, although he said in reply to an intervention from me that that paragraph was intended to apply only to the flying clubs.

I have made some inquiries of experts, who have given me figures relating to various airlines, of the likely effect of the increased premiums on their domestic fares. Airline "A" says that the increased premiums would amount to £50,000 to £60,000 annually, and would mean a demand for a further increase of 3 to 4 per cent. in its fares. I shall not quote them all. Airline "C" says that the cost of increased premiums would be between £50,000 and £70,000, which amounts to about 5s. on each ticket issued.

No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will have made some inquiries of the airlines about the financial effects of the Order and will have considered the possibility that they may apply to the Air Transport Licensing Board for increases in the domestic air tariff as a result of the Order coming into operation on 1st June.

There might be a possible conflict with the Government's policy for prices and incomes, which was referred to in the last Report of the Air Transport Licensing Board. After reviewing a number of applications for domestic fare increases which had been submitted during the year, the Board concluded, in paragraph 77, that

"…on the basis of the White Paper criteria there was only limited justification for the increases proposed. But the White Paper does not consider the case of an enterprise that has for some time been operating at a loss, and is likely even with the utmost managerial exertions to continue making losses throughout the foreseeable future unless additional revenue is obtained. In such circumstances the enterprise must choose between increasing prices or going out of existence and it is under conditions such as these that the greater part of British domestic air services have been operating."

Has the Minister taken into account this situation in the domestic market and what is the likely effect on fares if operators now go to the Board and ask for increases to cover the cost of these premiums? Such applications would be allowable within the terms of the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Standstill and Period of Severe Restraint, paragraph 10 of which says that increases in costs which are the direct result of Government action may be recovered by persons offering goods or services. Therefore, the Board would be quite likely to approve applications for fare increases by the operators. But this is a longwinded process. First, a notice has to be published in the Civil Aviation Licensing Notices. Then time is allowed for objections. Finally, there may be a public hearing and an appeal from the Board's decision to the Minister. I doubt whether airlines operating on domestic routes could take steps to recover the difference between now and 1st June when the Order comes into operation. There will, therefore, be a temptation when they bring applications up not only to recover the full amount of additional premiums but also the difference in the premiums they have had to pay pending their applications being heard by the Board.

There might be a conflict with the prices and incomes policy during the period of severe restraint, which operates in the first half of 1967, and possibly with any further developments of the policy which may be agreed by Ministers for the second half of 1967. I know that it would be out of order to go into that in detail, but most of us can already see that some form of restraint on prices and incomes will be necessary for a much longer period than the first half of 1967 and this will apply to domestic air fares just as to any other commodity.

I want some indication from the Minister that these factors have been taken into consideration and that he has in mind the possibility of using the powers conferred on the Board of Trade by paragraph 8 of the Order or of deferring the increase in the limit for domestic traffic at least some time beyond the period of the ending of severe restraint, until a definite announcement is made of Government policy for prices and incomes in the second half of the year.

Many of my hon. Friends who might otherwise have wished to take part in the debate because of their interest in aviation are unavoidably absent. They are fulfilling an engagement which was fixed before today's business was announced. That other engagement will enable them to keep themselves informed on important matters in aviation. I mention this because it is an additional example of the disruption and hindrance to the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to deal with other business that the morning sittings have caused.

I have attended all three morning sittings, and I begin to understand, as I hope the Leader of the House has begun to understand, what a severe strain this must be imposing on the House's servants, inside and outside the Chamber, by no means least on Mr. Speaker. I should be glad to know in any case that this is a matter to which the Leader of the House is devoting particular care and attention.

I have a number of points I want to put that my hon. Friends would have wished to have examined. My intervention may not therefore be as short as I might otherwise have wished in the circumstances. In so far as the Order represents a move to apply the principles of the Hague Protocol to domestic and non-international carriage, it is a welcome move. It follows, of course, the decision to apply the £6,000 Hague Protocol limit of liability to international carriage by United Kingdom ratification of the Protocol and there is no doubt that the old Warsaw limit of £3,000 had long been outdated.

The Order also has the effect of raising the limit of liability for domestic and non-international carriage from £3,000 to £21,000. On this and on a number of other general and particular points, I should like to put some questions to the Minister, and I hope that he will be able to answer them at the end of the debate.

First, what prior consultation did the Department have with the airline operators, both nationalised and independent, before tabling this Order? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been some criticism in the aviation Press of the fact that the Order was brought before Parliament without adequate consultation with or warning of the operators. This way of proceeding is not exactly improving the confidence of airline operators in the sort of treatment they are to expect from the Board of Trade now that it has taken over responsibility for civil aviation matters. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has chosen this point of time to raise the non-Convention limit—the limit for domestic and non-international carriage—to £21,000? I recognise that B.E.A. has to some extent forced the pace by—and I quote the word—"voluntarily" agreeing to the terms of the Montreal Agreement of 1966 for all its international services. But I am by no means sure that the introduction of the new £21,000 limit under this Order and at this point in time will help to simplify or clarify matters.

It may be the Minister's view that the £21,000 limit should come to be accepted by all British domestic carriers. But does he feel that he has increased the chances of this by his timing of the Order? Has the Department any powers over British air operators to oblige them to conform in this respect? If so, is it the intention to use such powers? Will he consult the operators before doing so? If he has not got powers to do that, has he any intention of seeking them?

He has them.

I hope that the Minister will take up these points because I am not sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is right in saying that he has these powers.

Is the Minister aware, further, of the effect of the introduction of the £21,000 limit upon the costs of airline operators? This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington, and it seems—and I have had access to the same sort of figures—that this will cause an increase in insurance premiums which cannot in many cases be absorbed. The remarks of the Board in its report about obligation are open to question but they have some relevance in the present context. It is clear that many operators are up against severe pressure for fare increases and this is likely to be greatest, possibly, in the case of operators whose route pattern is shortest—in other words, which have the least revenue per flight and upon which the cost of the increased premiums will represent the greatest percentage increase in costs.

The Minister must recognise that the existing licensing processes would prevent the operators from introducing higher fares until the end of this year, even if they were authorised to do so. This must make it very questionable whether this was the right time or the right way to introduce a new domestic limit. There are some other reasons to which I shall return.

I ask the Minister to clarify the use to which he envisages putting Article 8, which provides for exemptions. Has he any intention of using this to postpone the application of the Order to domestic services for a transitional period, say, until January, 1968, by which time operators might have been able to adjust their tariffs to the increased premium costs? If so, what procedure does he propose to apply for granting exemptions, and for advertising exemptions when granted?

If it is not his intention to use this Article for that purpose, then for what purpose is it intended? I understand that the Order applies to gratuitous carriage, as well as to carriage for reward, but in the past exemptions have been made in the provisions of existing Acts in favour of bona fide flying clubs.

In principle, this clearly makes sense, but the making of exemptions can lead to difficulty if the exemptions are not known. Will the Minister undertake to arrange to publish, in some prominent and accessible place, the details of any exemptions which he may make under Article 8? This is a point which was made forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).

There are two other points of detail in the Order. First, can the Minister tell us how the provisions in the Order relating to air mail are to be applied in practice? Clause 4(b) of Schedule 1 of the Order applies to the carriage of mail or postal packets, and Articles 24 and 30 of the Schedule appear to restrict the rights of action to the consignor or consignee of cargo, as airmail has to be treated. Who, in this context, are the consignor or consignee? Is the consignor the member of the public who sends something by air mail? If so, evidently some consequential amendments to the Post Office Acts will be needed. Or is the consignor and the consignee the Post Office in each case? If so, then in this respect the Order seems to be useless to the general public, and, indeed, it could have the effect of enabling the Post Office to be entitled, in the case of loss, to recover more in damages from the airline than they would be obliged to pay out under the very limited international compensation scheme for the senders of air mail. There seems to be the need for clearer drafting. Certainly a definition of who is to be regarded as consignor and consignee would help to reduce the future danger of unnecessary litigation.

On another point of clarity and definition, can the Minister explain some of the terminology which is used on page 12 of the Order under Part B of Schedule 2? Here we have the terms "The amended Convention", "The amended Warsaw Convention", and "The unamended Warsaw Convention", all appearing within the space of five lines, and all apparently intended to mean much the same thing. This seems to be quite unnecessarily confusing. It should surely have been possible to tighten up the draftsmanship and to eliminate this kind of terminological imprecision.

Regarding the overall effect of the Order, the Minister is presumably aware that it will not greatly reduce the number of anomalies which already exist in the limits of liability in individual cases. Different passengers sitting next to each other in the same aircraft may be eligible for quite different limits, depending on the type of their ticket, their point of departure, and their ultimate destination. I hope the Minister will take up this point. I put to him the case of a B.K.S. Airlines flight from Leeds to London. There might be a Mrs. X, a Leeds housewife, on a day trip to London. She would be entitled to a limit of £21,000. A Mr. Y, on a weekend trip to Paris, would be entitled to a limit of £6,000, and Herr Z, returning to Vienna, would be entitled to a limit of £3,000 If, however, he flies on from London via B.E.A., he would then find that his limit goes up again to £21,000.

This seems to be a confusing situation, and it certainly emphasises the importance of securing greater international standardisation, as well as domestic standardisation. Does not this in itself make it premature for the United Kingdom to have introduced the £21,000 limit domestically and for non-Convention carriage in advance of international agreement?

Can we possibly support a lower limit of liability internationally, and, if not, does this not make it difficult to enable us to enter into any future diplomatic conference with any room for manoeuvre? Will not our commitment to the £21,000 limit make it difficult to persuade other nations to accept the existing Conventions and Protocol? There are still over 30 nations involved in international air transport which are parties to none of these agreements.

Why did the Government decide to introduce this Order before the meeting of the I.C.A.O. panel of experts in Montreal, and what instructions were given to the British member of that panel? I should probably be out of order if I were to probe too far into the Government's ideas for future progress towards a long-term solution of the problem of keeping the Warsaw Convention up to date, but what is it in the idea of a new convention which so attracts the Minister? Would it not have been possible and better to proceed by way of modification of the existing inter-carrier agreements such as that of May, 1966?

No doubt the Minister will be aware of the complications which may arise from the case of Lisi v. Alitalia, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant). I hope the Minister will be particularly careful to say what action he sees as being necessary if that case is not reversed on appeal.

Finally, in the timing of the Order, and in what I regard as the premature commitment to the £21,000 limit, there seems to be a strong suggestion that the Government are meekly following the lead of the United States. It was the threat of unilateral action by the American Government, almost amounting to an ultimatum, which forced airlines to accept last year's Montreal agreement. It seems to some people that we are again capitulating without protest to pressure from across the Atlantic. We know that that pressure may well be renewed in future. While there may well be arguments for working in an orderly and sensible way towards a domestic limit for carriage by air liability which corresponds to the railways limit, as the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out—and which domestic carriers might ultimately accept if they were properly consulted—I hope that the Minister will assure us that he sees his Department's functions in this respect as being to promote international order rather than, as it appears in some respects at this moment, international chaos.

On the last point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made, we are most anxious to try to get international order. I agree with him that some of the immediate results of this Order will be to increase the anomalies. We are doing all we can to get a full international agreement, and we shall continue to press for that in the hope of ironing out some of the anomalies which still exist.

The hon. Gentleman, as well, as his hon. Friend, the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), raised the highly technical, but very important, point about the law case Lisi v. Alitalia. I understand that there is a likelihood of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court against the decision of the lower court. The fact that there is dubiety about this is no reason for not proceeding with the Hague Protocol, because a decision in this particular case, as and when it comes, will not affect very large numbers of the routes which the Hague Protocol covers. This Lisi case is being watched by the British Government and the experts of the International Civil Aviation Organisation are watching it with the greatest care. Depending on what the final decision is, we shall have to decide then what action we can take. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising this matter which is clearly of great importance.

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), the hon. Member for Woking, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and others were concerned about Article 8 and the exemptions which we might be considering. We have no intention whatever of giving widespread exemptions under this Article. All commercial flying, both scheduled and nonscheduled, will be subject to the provi- sions of the Order. As I said earlier, the exemptions which we have in mind are for bona fide flying clubs and the movement of troops. The ordinary business of the airlines will not be exempted in any way.

The hon. Member for Tiverton made an interesting comment about clocks in the insurance slot machines showing the wrong time. That is obviously important, but it is something which is not covered by the Order. However, I shall make a point of calling the attention of the various airport authorities to it to make sure that these clocks are kept up to time.

The hon. Member for Orpington asked whether the Order covered passengers on their way from a terminal to an airport. I am advised that it does not. It deals with accidents in the plane, or when actually loading or unloading the plane, but not in the bus. I should imagine that that would be a matter for a separate contract.

The Government have recognised, as they must, that insurance costs will go up and that applications for increases in domestic fares may result. This will be considered by the Air Transport Licensing Board which has some obligation to consider increases in the light of the Government's prices and incomes policy. I do not myself want to make any pronouncement on that, because, I understand, I might be called upon to make a final decision on such applications and it would be altogether wrong for me to pre-judge them.

The hon. Gentleman says that he regards the A.T.L.B. as having some obligation to have regard to the Government's prices and incomes policy. Does it have any statutory duty to do so?

I understand that it does.

There were several consultations between the Board of Trade and the operators, B.O.A.C., B.E.A., B.I.A.T.A. and insurance interests. I cannot pretend that there was absolutely unanimous agreement, for there was not. It was agreed that the limit should be raised, but there was disagreement about the exact figure. We tried to pick what we thought was the most sensible figure and that most likely to be adopted internationally.

We have no present power to compel British operators to conform to the £21,000 limit and beyond this Order we are not proposing to seek such power at present. We intend to wait until the international negotiations are complete. A number of fairly detailed questions have been asked and I will make a point of writing to the hon. Members concerned.

In general, the House has given a welcome to the Order and I in turn give the assurance that this is not just a once-and-for-all settlement of the matter. It must be kept continually under review in view of the law cases and possible changes in the value of money and so on. We give an assurance that that will be done and in the light of that assurance I hope that the House will now agree to accept the Order.

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Salop (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 1529), dated 6th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled.

On a point of order. Can I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In paragraph 4 on page 5 of the Order there is a reference to a series of maps called the boundary maps, 54 in number. Throughout the Order there are references to these maps. I estimate that in the first four Schedules, for example, there are about 80 references to the maps and parts of them. Column 2 of Schedule 5 on page 58, for instance, refers to

"The parts of the parish of Condover numbered E 4 and E 5 on boundary maps 19, 24. 25 and 26…"

Lower down it refers to

"that part of the parish of Astley numbered E 3 on boundary map 15…"

and the final paragraph refers to

"that part of the parish of Whittington numbered E1 on boundary maps 1, 2, 5 and 6 and that part of the parish of Ellesmere Rural…"

and so on.

I have been to the Library and to the Vote Office in an effort to get a sight of these maps, or to get a copy of them. I have been unable to do so. How are hon. Members supposed to deal intelligently with an Order if they have no access to these maps which are absolutely vital to an Order which deals with boundaries?

I have had no notice of this question, but I can appreciate the difficulties in which hon. Members find themselves. I will arrange at once for inquiries to be made and I will endeavour to arrange for copies of these maps to be made available either in the Library or in the Vote Office. As soon as I have any information, I will make an announcement about it in the House.

I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for not having given you notice. However, always optimistic, I recently inquired in the Vote Office, thinking that at any moment these maps might appear. How is the House placed? I am anxious to listen to the debate with an intelligent ear, but how can the House have a discussion of an Order which is as obviously incomplete as this?

This Order was made on 6th December and laid on 12th December, which is some two months ago. I understand that the maps in question are printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, by the Ordnance Survey, and I take it that it would have been open to any hon. Member before now to have made an application on a green form for a copy of these maps.

Further to that point of order. Although I am sure that the House will treat with great respect what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nonetheless has it not been said from the Chair on numerous previous occasions that, when a matter is due to come before the House, there is an obligation on the Government to secure that the House has available such necessary documents as will enable the House properly to come to a decision? In this case, as I understand it, the Order itself refers explicitly and in terms to the maps. Difficult though the Order is to comprehend with them, it is impossible to comprehend without them. Has it not been the practice of the Chair to insist that the Government should not put the House in a difficulty by failing to make available everything necessary for the House to conduct its debate, any documents which may be necessary when the House is debating a matter?

As I understand it, the House is being asked to come to a decision whether to approve an area in this Order. It is accepted that the Order is not comprehensible without these maps, and it is apparently accepted that they are not available. Surely it is for the Chair to protect the proceedings of the House from being made, to use a colloquialism, a nonsense of, by the inability of the Government to provide the necessary materials. Can the Parliamentary Secretary help us?

Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had no notice of this point, but I am advised that this is the normal custom. If there had been any hint that any information was wanted, or any hint of dissatisfaction with the service that we were providing, we would have provided the maps immediately. We are very anxious to provide them. I am advised that we have acted in the normal way in these matters and we assumed that there was no objection. I am extremely sorry if hon. Members have been inconvenienced by this. It is not through any desire of ours to hide anything. We are perfectly happy to provide any information to any hon. Members if we have warning.

The answer to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is that it is quite definitely within my recollection, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, that directions have been given by the Chair on previous occasions that it is the duty of the Government of the day to make available to hon. Members all documents relevant and necessary for the consideration of Orders coming before the House. Each Order must be dealt with on its merits. There may be times, obviously, when it is not easy to see exactly what documents some hon. Members may consider relevant.

I would hope that in future when Orders of this kind come before the House any maps referred to in the Order are made available. In this case it is perhaps unfortunate that the request made by the hon. Member was not brought to the notice either of the Chair or of the Government until just now. In the circumstances all that we can do is to proceed as best we can, and ask the Minister to arrange for copies of these maps to be made available as soon as possible.

Further to that point of order. I seem to remember that when we were debating the arrangements for the redrawing of the various boundaries in Greater London, and dealing in particular with the amalgamation of various boroughs on other occasions, there was incorporated in the White Paper before the House a large-scale map showing these boundaries, carefully drawn so that hon. Members could understand and study them. I also remember an occasion when we were dealing with British military bases in Cyprus, when again large-scale maps were provided to hon. Members as part of the information before them in the White Paper. Here we have such a paltry and small-scale map as to make it quite impossible for hon. Members to appreciate the terms of the Order. That being so, would it not be wiser if consideration of the Order were deferred until we have these maps available?

Each case must be dealt with on its merits. We had a similar Order last night, dealing with the Hartlepools, which contained a map, which hon. Members who took part in the debate, found perfectly adequate. It is not always useful to draw analogies from previous Orders. This point having been raised, perhaps the Minister can indicate how long it would take for maps to be made available.

In the Library there is the original Report of the county review containing a very good map, but I appreciate that it is not the map referred to, and I realise that this is not an answer. I do not want to blithely suggest that we adjourn discussion of this Order, because it is on a negative Resolution and it might look as if I was playing for time, hoping that the time might expire. I am here to defend the Order and I am anxious to do so in every way that I can. If any hon. Member had so much as whispered that there was any point to be made, or any further information needed, we would certainly have made it available.

I apologise for not having given the hon. Gentleman notice of this, but I made one visit to the Library and two to the Vote Office, as an indication that I was hoping that something would turn up. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I know all the boundary changes referred to in the map, because I know the district well, but I feel most strongly that the House has a right to all the information before it reaches a decision.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to raise the point, but it is also fair to observe that neither the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in whose name this Prayer is put down, nor any of the other hon. Members whose names are attached to the Prayer, has raised the point. It must be a matter for the hon. Member for Oswestry to decide whether he wants to move the Motion.

It would be my wish to proceed with the Motion. I appreciate the point of Order that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) and I believe that it touches upon the rights and facilities available to hon. Members. I want to make it quite clear that I have no desire to see these maps. I am only too well aware, as is my hon. Friend, of the circumstances in Shropshire, and therefore I did not make any such request. At no stage did I feel inhibited by the absence of the maps, but the point raised touches upon a rather different issue of principle, namely the availability of documents to the House. I would not wish this to be a point upon which consideration of this Motion should not proceed this morning—

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but before he proceeds, may we have some undertaking from the Government that time will be made available for discussing the Order? We are limited by the 40-day rule to the 15th February, when discussion of the Order must be completed. May we have an undertaking from the Government, in view of the time that we have occupied discussing this point of order, and the time that may elapse before obtaining these maps, that an extension of the 40 days would be granted to make up for lost time, before the matter is disposed of finally?

I do not think that we can extend the 40 days. It would probably mean an amendment of the Statutory Instruments Act, or whatever relevant statute governs the matter. The question of time is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I know his keen interest in this matter. No doubt he would like to find time if this is possible. I am in the difficulty that this Prayer has been put down and I am here to defend it. I am at the service of the House, but I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he will be able to find time if there is no time. I will draw his attention to this point.

After that auspicious start, I now address myself to the Prayer. I shall keep my remarks reasonably brief because other hon. Members wish to speak and we do not have as much time, perhaps, as the House would wish.

The Salop (No. 2) Order is of great significance for the future of local government. The background is probably well known, and I apologise to hon. Members if I make points with which they are already over-familiar. The Local Government Act, 1958 provided for a series of county reviews, and it is that which has now been set aside by the establishment of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The House is this week to conclude the stages of the termination of the county reviews Measure. The Royal Commission is expected to report in about 18 months. In the meantime, however, under the 1958 Local Government Act. Shropshire, a pioneer county, had concluded its review. Many of the recommendations were generally acceptable, and are accepted, and the Salop (No. 1) Order went through the House without any Prayer.

This No. 2 Order, however, raises matters of much wider significance, and we are now, alas, presented with a situation in which the Order in its entirety must be either rejected or accepted. This was not my wish at the outset, and it was only Ministerial intransigence on certain of the proposals contained in the Order which led to the present problem.

My objection to the Order is rooted in Article 5, the article which provides that the Borough of Oswestry as now existing will lose its identity by being merged into the surrounding rural district. The merger is not desired by the borough and it was not initially desired by the rural district council. The recommendation of the county council when first made was received with considerable opposition by both these authorities, and this opposition has been persisted in with great vigour and tenacity by the borough council ever since. Moreover, the Order raises the whole question of what size a borough has to be to ensure that it has an independent future in local government.

Oswestry has a rateable value of about £490,000 and a population of about 12,000. In one sense, therefore, confirmation of this Order will immediately and categorically prejudice any borough which is of that size, or smaller. On another interpretation of the Order, only one borough retains borough status in the county of Shropshire as a result of these proposals, that is, the Borough of Shrewsbury, with a population of 50,000 and a rateable value of about £2½ million. That interpretation, therefore, must cast doubt on every existing independent local authority which is smaller than Shrewsbury.

These points are of sufficient weight and moment to have stayed the Ministry's hand on the earlier representations which were made. But when I speak of the existing size of Oswestry, this is, as it were, a static argument which does not look to the future. Yet there are many indications that Oswestry itself will grow in size, these coming not least from the county council itself which was the original author of the plan to denude Oswestry of its borough status. Only recently the county council commented that Oswestry might play a part in the solution of the West Midlands overspill problem. I hold in my hand a cutting from the Oswestry and Border Counties Advertiser which says of the County Council that,

"The meeting was held specifically to discuss the creation of a new town at Dawley, but Oswestry was mentioned by Sir Philip Magnus Allcroft, chairman of the Planning Committee".

The dismemberment of Oswestry is not a straight take-over by the surrounding rural district. The rural district will take over from the existing Borough of Oswestry responsibilities for health, housing, collection of rates and public baths, probably in terms of staff employed accounting for about 50 per cent. of the activities of the existing borough. The county council will take from the existing borough highways, lighting and library responsibilities. But the "Rural Borough of Oswestry" which remains, as it were, almost as a parish council authority left behind after the transfer of the activities of the existing borough to the surrounding district, will still have responsibility for parks, open spaces and the market.

The market is vital to the demonstration of the nonsense behind the Order. In staff terms, possibly one-third or more of the responsibilities of the old borough will be retained by the rural borough, and the market is the thirteenth largest in the country. It is equal in throughput to the Smithfield Market in Shrewsbury Initially, the argument that there would be a marriage of the natural interests of the surrounding rural area and of the Borough of Oswestry turned upon, for example, such common facilities as the market. Yet when the Order is laid we find that the market, which more than any other single facility might be expected to tie the interests of the rural district and the borough, still remains with the borough. This is proposed, as I understand it, because the market functions under charters in the Corporation Acts of Oswestry and not under the Food and Drugs Acts.

It is all very well to explain why, at the end of the day, it has not been possible to transfer the market to the new authority, but it was exactly this kind of consideration which, had it been given proper merit by the county council and by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government before its endorsement of the county council's decision, would have demonstrated that this was a botched-up job of local government reform.

On all the indications so far, the new enlarged council of Oswestry rural district, including now the bulk of the work of the Oswestry borough, will have a sizeable staff—probably 59 or so—running at an estimated annual cost of over £77,000. Is this the product of economies of scale? All the indications are that, if one takes into account the cost of the new enlarged powers of the Oswestry rural district, the powers left to the rural borough of Oswestry and the added responsibilities taken on by the county council, the aggregate cost of local government in the new situation will be far greater than it was in the situation which has been set aside by the Order. How consistent is that with the Government's general policy of seeking to restrain costs and prices? Indeed, this is a highly controversial decision and, even now, we should ask ourselves whether this dislocation of local government in Shropshire should proceed. It is a decision which is costly to the ratepayers. It is a decision which pays scant regard to local feelings or to the realities of local government finance. It certainly shows a disrespect for the prospective findings of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

A rejection of the Order would not just be a victory for Oswestry. It would be a victory for the House of Commons in the face of a paralysing Whitehall insensitivity which has so ill-advisedly set the Minister on this unhappy course.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House may be surprised that I, sitting for an East Anglian constituency, should want to say a few words on the Order. I have never found any Member of the House who has to deal with more local authorities than myself. I deal with 10—one county council, two municipal boroughs, three U.D.C.s and four R.D.C.s Eye, one of the municipal boroughs, is over 700 years old and gives its name to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, but it is the smallest borough in England.

I was about to claim that honour for the Borough of Bishop's Castle.

I do not think that it would be in order to refer either to Eye or to Bishop's Castle in connection with this Order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bishop's Castle is included within the scope of the Order.

Then I apologise. I do not think that it would be in order to deal with the circumstances of Eye in connection with the Order.

I was making that earlier reference merely to illustrate that it is the smaller boroughs which are concerned about this type of Order. The Royal Commission is sitting, and I understand that these boroughs believe that this Salop Order is the thin end of the wedge. I should like an assurance from the Minister on behalf of my constituents that, if he gets this Order through and it is not annulled, he does not have many other plans for other counties.

It is not for me to take part in debate of the details of what is included in the Order. I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. This is the sort of thing which will arise in other counties and other ratepayers will be put to extra expense. This is why I believe that this Order and others like it should be held up. This is why I shall vote to annul the Order.

I shall not follow the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in arguing about Oswestry market. Nor can I accept the argument that excessively small local authorities should survive. I should like the Minister to make some reference to two rather more important matters of principle.

The first matter has already been alluded to by the hon. Member for Oswestry, namely the fact that the Order appears to anticipate the findings of the Royal Commission. Alternatively, if it does not, what we are saying is that there will be another reorganisation of local government in Shropshire in two years' time. This would be a rather wasteful procedure. My hope is that when the Royal Commission reports we shall be in a position to set up much larger first-tier units of local government and much larger second-tier units, or district councils, too.

I would argue that some of the district councils set up by the Order are not large enough. Thus, the population of the new Rural District of Clun and Bishop's Castle is only just over 10,000. The product of a penny rate in that area is about £580. Yet, strangely, the municipal Borough of Oswestry, the product of whose penny rate was over £1,800, is abolished as a separate entity by the Order.

Not only is Clun and Bishop's Castle too small, in my view, both in terms of its rate revenue and in terms of its potential attraction to officials and, indeed, to able councillors, but the Rural District of Ludlow still will have a population of only between 23,000 and 24,000. The Rural District of Market Drayton, with a population of about 15,000, is left untouched.

With reference to the hon. Gentleman's comment about Clun and Bishop's Castle, although we may be small we specialise in quality.

I do not think that I need reply to that. These units will not be viable units vis-à-vis any very large new regional authority which could be set up after the Report of the Royal Commission. Nor would they be able to stand up to the claims and the expertise of any large town included in the same regional authority as a result of the Royal Commission's Report. In any case, it would be inefficient to have too large a number, a plethora, of small authorities under one large authority.

I think, for that reason, that the Order anticipates a particular finding of the Royal Commission, or action by the Government on the Report of the Royal Commission, whereby the rural west of the West Midlands—Shropshire and Herefordshire—would be hived off from the urban concentration to the east so that the overspill areas and the hinterland of the conurbation would still be separated in terms of local government from the conurbation they serve. The Order points to that conclusion and it is not a conclusion that I very much like. It will leave us with exactly the same problems in relation to coherent planning of overspill or of regional transport as we have at present.

Another matter is the question of representation on the new local authorities. We have improved the present situation, but we are still leaving ourselves with a semi-democratic rather than a democratic structure of local government.

Take the Ludlow Rural Distrct. Ludlow Borough has nearly one-third of the electorate of the new rural district, although it is given only one-quarter of the councillors. Half of the electorate of Ludlow Borough live in one of the four wards of that borough, but that will have only three representatives on the new Rural District Council, whereas the rest of Ludlow will have nine. Ludlow Borough as a whole is under-represented. That particular ward is heavily under-represented. In that ward each councillor will represent about 850 electors, whereas in the parish of Wheathill in the same rural district there will be one councillor for 105 electors. That is not democracy.

The same applies in nearly all the other rural districts. In Bridgnorth Borough each councillor will represent an average of 540 electors, while the egregious Quatt Malvern has one councillor for 148, about one-quarter of that number of electors.

We shall retain the present situation in which the country dominates the town, but we shall exacerbate the present situation, because we are putting urban areas into rural districts and ensuring that people in those urban areas, even when they provide a large part of the rate resources and even when a large part of the population live there, nevertheless will be under-represented and dominated by the country. If I dare mention this, this also has a political implication. It means that one party is likely to dominate these new rural district councils.

It also means, finally, that there will be a plethora of uncontested elections in some of the excessively small rural electoral areas. Thus, in the Clun R.D., Shelve has just over 60 electors. It is highly unlikely that there will be many contest for that seat. If anyone disputes what I say, I would point out that in 1964, in the then Clun Rural District, there were 31 seats at stake and there were no contests. In the Ludlow Rural District that year there were 13 seats at stake, and there were no contests. That, to my mind, does not advance the cause of local democracy; nor does this Order.

In the case of county council electoral areas which it does not touch, it still leaves us with the situation where one of the electoral divisions of Shrewsbury Borough has an electorate of 7,000. Wellington in my constituency returns a county councillor with 6,000 electors, whereas in Ludlow Rural District there are two county council electoral divisions with 1,500 and 1,700 electors. That is scarcely democratic.

This Order is not the radical reform which is required of local government. Far from being forged in the white heat of the scientific revolution, it has all the marks of being forged in Abraham Darby's furnace at Coalbrookdale, a worthy product of the eighteenth century. It will not supply the needs of local government in the twenty-first century, and I hope that the Minister will think again.

I am happy to agree with much of what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has said. He appeared to deal in much more detail with areas in my constituency than in his own. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to Shelve, for example. If he had met some of the inhabitants, he would have known that they were people of exceptional judgment, interested in their public affairs and sensibly agreed on whom they wanted to represent them on the Clun Rural District Council. That goes for a lot of that area, in which I live. Consequently, I feel myself entitled to speak about it.

I was also surprised at the hon. Member's suggestion that what had been done was done in such a way as to have some political motivation about it. I was unaware that rural parishes were supposed to be more inclined to one political party and that urban parishes were more inclined to another. Perhaps, with his long experience of Shropshire, the hon. Gentleman has made a special investigation and can explain.

I did not suggest that this had been done with any political motivation. I said quite the reverse—that there has been a lack of political motivation here which is staggering.

That explanation is more remarkable than the original speech.

As one who has witnessed at close quarters the painful processes which have had to be gone through to get this Order to the House of Commons, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not forged in the furnace of Abraham Darby, but largely in the cloistered calm of our ancient Shire Hall building, now standing semi-derelict in the main square of Shrewsbury. In the days when we still occupied it, I sat through a number of discussions, watching the different stages of embarrassment on the faces of members of our Review Panel whose task it had been to bring these recommendations before us. They were all public-spirited gentlemen, colleagues of mine on the Salop County Council, glowing with public virtue and devoting a great deal of time to what must have been an uncongenial task.

May I point out to my hon. Friend that the same process took place in the County of Gloucestershire? As a result of its deliberations, the review was abandoned and no further action was taken. Would he not agree that it is very odd that my constituents should have been put to the trouble for nothing, whereas this Order is to go through?

It is very odd, and I regret that the same did not happen in Shropshire. A lot of trouble might have been avoided for everyone. However, these are matters of main principle to which I wish to return before I leave the topic.

As the Prayer was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on the subject of the Borough of Oswestry, perhaps I might begin with a brief reference to the boroughs with which I am concerned. They are Ludlow, Bridgnorth and Bishop's Castle.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin has pointed out the unequal representation which the Order involves. There might be rather different feelings in the Borough of Ludlow itself, which is one of Britain's most famous and perhaps the most lovely to look at. Its charter was granted in the year 1189, and it is a borough in which the mayor goes officially to the parish church every Sunday and, until a few years ago, its Member of Parliament was prayed for by name. I might add that that is no longer thought necessary today.

Bridgnorth is an equally ancient and historic borough with a charter dating from the year 1157. A Stuart monarch said that it had the most lovely prospect in England from its castle walls. Bishop's Castle has a charter dating from 1203. I do not think that our discussion of the Order should proceed without some lament that these ancient and historic corporations should be coming to an end in this way.

Before coming to the general principle, there are two other places which I might mention. On page 56 of the Order, hon. Members will see a reference to the Parish of Woodhouse. The proposal in that case seems to be a bit of bureaucratic nonsense which might have been avoided. It is to abolish the Parish of Woodhouse and put it into Hopton Wafers. The Parish of Woodhouse contains precisely two inhabitants, living in the same house. The parish meeting is probably one of the best-attended and best-conducted in the whole country. It meets probably every evening in front of the television set in the drawing room of my constituent, Mrs. Childs, and there is always a 100 per cent. attendance. This piece of bureaucratic tidying-up is difficult to understand.

I also draw the attention of the House to page 60 of the Order. Schedule 6 details the number of councillors which it is proposed to allow for the different Shropshire rural districts. Among other parishes in the Rural District of Bridgnorth, one sees the name of Ditton Priors. I am astounded to see that in the case of Ditton Priors it is proposed to allow only one councillor.

The House may be aware of what Ditton Priors has suffered in the last three weeks. There has been an invasion by the Ministry of Defence, with a large ammunition dump installed, and a farmers' field invaded and arbitrarily converted into a car park. The Shropshire lanes have been invaded by great fleets of ammunition lorries. Private rights have been overriden, and there has been a total disregard of what should have been done in the interests of local farmers—in the resale to them of land which had been taken arbitrarily from them under the stress of war. In order adequately to represent the rights of that disgracefully treated parish, we ought to see provided in the Order not one councillor but twelve or twenty—

One hundred.

Even a hundred—to declare the rights and wrongs of this disgraceful matter. That is what ought now to be given greatly increased weight in the Rural District of Bridgnorth. It need not necessarily be done as a permanency, but, until the wrongs have been righted, the Order ought to be amended so that Ditton Priors can have a greatly increased representation when these matters come up for discussion by the rural district council. On account of Schedule 6 alone, the Order ought to be withdrawn and amended with a provision to that effect.

I take it that the debate on this Motion will be continued on another day, because I am only at the very beginning of my observations. If the time of the House permits, I wish to say a great deal more on the subject of the Salop Order.

And it being half-past twelve o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, being of opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the Motion was entered upon, the time for Debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)), and the Debate stood adjourned till Monday next, pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

should like, first, to congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) on his translation to the Ministry of Defence. Any hon. Member would be proud to speak for the Royal Navy from that Dispatch Box. I must admit that I envy the hon. Gentleman, but I hastily add that I do not envy him having to reply to this debate.

We are to discuss the Simonstown Agreement between Britain and South Africa. The House will recall that this Agreement was signed in 1955, and that the main terms were as follows: first, it provided for the defence of sea communications in an area vital to the free world. Secondly, it provided for South African naval expansion, and it laid down that ships would be built by British yards. Thirdly, it provided for British naval command in both peace and war, and for the use of the Simonstown base in both peace and war. It also provided for other facilities in other parts of South Africa for British forces, and it stated that the British C.-in-C. was to have operational command in a war in which both countries were involved.

In short, the Agreement provided our country with everything that she wanted if South Africa was a co-belligerent or if she was at peace. It did not commit Britain to help South Africa if South Africa alone was involved in hostilities. I suggest, therefore, that the Agreement was very much to our benefit. It is quite clear that it was a package deal, tied to the purchase of British warships, and it is inherent in that deal—certainly there is a moral obligation—that these warships should be supplied with spare parts and ammunition, and I shall come to this question a little later.

On 3rd February, at column 195–6, in answer to a Written Question from myself the Government said that representatives of our Government and of the South African Government met in Cape Town on 25th to 27th January of this year to discuss certain aspects of the Simonstown Agreement. It also said that the British C.-in-C. South Atlantic would be withdrawn, that the frigate normally on the South African station would be withdrawn, that alternative command arrangements were being worked out, and that the whole question of British naval representation was under discussion.

What does all that mean? If the C-in-C South Atlantic is to be withdrawn, what is to happen to the very important communication and intelligence facilities operated by his staff in Southern Africa? I would remind the Minister that the intelligence officer on the staff of the C-in-C South Atlantic is responsible for the whole continent of Africa from Senegal in the west, to Tanzania in the east. He is also responsible for the Antarctic and half the continent of South America. This is a vitally important intelligence post and I should like to know how the British Government will be apprised of this important intelligence if the C-in-C and his staff are withdrawn. I have a particular interest in this, because, traditionally, the S.O.I. South Atlantic has always been a member of the Royal Marines.

What is to happen to the command in war time? I have already shown the House that the Agreement laid down that the British C-in-C would have command in war. If we are not to provide a C-in-C in South Africa, or any ships, how is this Agreement to be maintained?

Perhaps more immediate is the whole question of the provision of spare parts and ammunition for the frigates and destroyers which South Africa has bought from us since the signing of the Agreement. I submit that the Government have a rather guilty conscience over this, because on 16th November last my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked about the supply of live ammunition for South African ships, and in column 107 he was referred to the Prime Minister's statement in November, 1964. On 28th November my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked much the same question. He was told that spare parts and practice ammunition were being supplied. No mention was made of live ammunition. On 1st December I asked a similar Question, and was referred to the United Nations resolution of 1964. On 14th December I asked the same Question and was told that there was no obligation under the Simonstown Agreement to supply live ammunition, which showed, by implication, that it was not being supplied. Finally, on 25th January of this year my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked the same Question and was told that only practice ammunition was being supplied. This was the first time in two months' questioning that the Government were prepared to clearly admit that they were not supplying live ammunition to South Africa.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that on page 4 of the Simonstown Agreement it says that the British Admiralty agree to act as agents for the Union Government in the matter of the supply of spare parts and ammunition, and does not he think that it is disgraceful of this Government to break an obligation of this nature?

I certainly do agree. It is not only the possibility of a legal breaking of a contract, which the Agreement is. It needs better legal brains than mine to elucidate whether it has been broken, but I am convinced, and I think that the House is, too, that we have a moral obligation here. In the past we have refused to supply ammunition to the ships of nations engaged in war, but now, in peacetime we are refusing to supply ammunition to the ships of a friendly nation which is defending the Cape route which is so important to Britain.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are moral obligations to the United Nations which should take precedence over obligations to South Africa?

I shall come to the cant and hypocrisy about moral obligations to the United Nations.

In the Yorkshire Post on 6th February there was a report that spare parts for Buccaneer aircraft, which were built in my constituency and supplied to South Africa some years ago, were not being supplied. If this is so, it is a direct contravention of what the Prime Minister promised in this House. It is also reported that spare parts for Centurion tanks were also being held up. The tanks were supplied to South Africa, in accordance with the undertaking that she would supply armoured forces in the Mediterranean area should the need arise.

I think that we have to examine in more detail the excuse for evading these moral obligations. In the past, under Conservative Governments, the policy adopted since 1954 was that we should not supply arms to South Africa which could be used for internal purposes, for example to quell civil disturbances. I am thinking of small arms, armoured cars, and so on. I think that that fulfilled our obligation to the United Nations. The Government felt that the defence of the South Atlantic was of vital importance to this country, and continued to supply weapons required by South Africa to maintain this security, but, on the advent of a Labour Government, they decided, in view of the Security Council Resolution of June, 1964, as announced by the Prime Minister on 17th November, 1964, that they would no longer supply arms or equipment to South Africa. At the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) denounced this as an abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement. This was denied by the Prime Minister who went on to threaten the Prime Minister of South Africa, who was making rumbling noises at that time, that he could not unilaterally denounce the Simonstown Agreement because the Agreement could be denounced only after consultation between both sides, which is the argument the Malta Government are using today.

I warned the House at that time after the Prime Minister's statement that if we persisted in this policy we would not only lose the orders for supplying arms to South Africa, but that decision would affect our normal industrial trade. I hope to show the House that this prophecy is being fulfilled. What worries me more than this is the denunciation of the spirit in which the Agreement was signed. Apparently we can refuse to fulfil our moral obligations, yet we expect South Africa to fulfil hers. She has been extraordinarily co-operative. She has fought on our side in two wars and her ports were of immense value to this country during the Suez crisis. Although there has since been disagreement between us about the conduct of her internal affairs, she is still willing to co-operate with us in the revised Agreement.

What is the real reason for the renegotiation of the Agreement? I suggest that there are four possibilities. The first is the official reason given by the Government, which covers a multitude of sins—defence savings. The staff of the C.-in-C. consists of 14 officers and 50 ratings. Will the Minister tell us what the saving will he in hard cash, allowing for the loss of the intelligence facilities to which I have referred? Will he also tell the House what will be the total loss due to our refusal to supply arms to South Africa? Fighter aircraft are now being supplied by the French. As a result, the French are superintending the birth of the South African aircraft industry, which will be of immense importance in the future. Italy is supplying 200 training aircraft, and there are reports that the three submarines that we all knew would have been ordered from this country are now to be ordered from another European country. The value of that order is estimated to be about £40 million.

We have refused to supply Bloodhound and the Maritime Comet. This again is another illustration of the Government's guilty conscience. On 10th February, 1966, I asked why there was a refusal of an export licence for Maritime Comets to South Africa, and the answer was that no application had been made. The Government knows that the South African Government inquires privately whether an export licence is likely to be given, and if they are told "Yes" they at once formally start negotiations to place an order, but if they feel that they are going to leave themselves open to a public snub by a Government refusal they will not ask for an export licence. I suggest that the Government statement in reply to this Written Question underlines the extraordinary policy that the Government have adopted.

I should like to know what the total loss is to British industry. It may be as much as £150 million—just about equivalent to the amount that we are spending in our economic war against Rhodesia. Why should this situation exist? Is it because we dislike apartheid? If so, how can Bloodhound or submarines be used to enforce apartheid? The whole idea is ridiculous.

The second possible reason for this procedure by the Government is, however, that they wish to demonstrate their dislike of apartheid. Let us examine that possibility. They obviously feel that the African Commonwealth is of great importance. Indeed, when there was an exchange in the House at the time of the statement on the embargo of arms to South Africa, the Prime Minister, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who had said that this announcement would have far-reaching implications, replied:

"Not to have made it"—

that is, the announcement—

"would have had far-reaching implications for our relationships with and membership of the United Nations and for our relations with a large number of Commonwealth countries in Africa and elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1966; Vol. 702, c. 201.]

In accordance with this general policy we are now offering Tanzania £7 million, in spite of the fact that they have cut off diplomatic relations with us, and £14 million to Zambia, who only last year suggested that we should be expelled from the Commonwealth.

I suggest that the Government are suffering from the disease of apartheid in reverse. They have already annoyed Canada, Australia and New Zealand because of their implementation of some of the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in respect of citizens of those countries. The Government are conducting an economic war in Rhodesia and are about to create a situation in Malta which will create an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. These are all white countries of the Commonwealth.

Is the hon. Member trying to argue that our Agreement with South Africa is sacrosanct and yet our agreements with the rest of the world, through the United Nations, are cant and hypocrisy?

I am arguing that the Government's policy is cant and hypocrisy. An excellent example is afforded by the Buccaneer deal, which they allowed to go through because they realised the industrial implications. I am glad they did, because it helped my constituency. But their whole policy is based on cant and hypocrisy and there may be more sinister reasons behind this.

My third suggested reason for the action of the Government is that they are preparing to participate in a United Nations blockade of the whole of Southern Africa. In the debate on mandatory sanctions on Monday it was clear that the Government have got themselves into an impossible position. They will either have to veto a United Nations resolution on mandatory sanctions and lose the support of many of the Commonwealth countries or agree with it. It would be very embarrassing for them to participate in a United Nations blockade and to have a British naval officer and his staff sitting in Cape Town.

The House may think that this is an exaggerated picture, but it is clear, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) has pointed out, that they are already blockading Beira. The answer was given in the House the other day to the effect that this blockade is to prevent oil tankers going into Beira. I cannot see why, because we know that Rhodesia is receiving oil by every route apart from Beira. We know, for example, that oil is passing through the Commonwealth territory of Botswana. I heard the other day that British naval forces off Beira had stopped an Italian passenger vessel and boarded it. That is not an oil blockade. This rumour is current in South Africa and has done a great deal to undermine British prestige in that part of the world. I hope it can be denied.

If the British Government contemplate assisting the United Nations in a blockade of Southern Africa it means blockading a coastline of 4,000 miles from the Congo River on the west right round the Cape of Good Hope to the river Ruvuma, in Tanzania. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has pointed out that this operation would need at least 50 warships—which we have not got—and 300 aircraft, and it would fail and would need to be backed by a military force of 93,000 which would suffer between 7,000 and 8,000 casualties on the first day of an amphibious assault.

I know that the Government would not lightly enter into this form of blockade on their own, and one wonders what American policy is in this respect. The policy of the American State Department seems to switch from day to day. After the recent extraordinary occurrence in Table Bay, concerning the aircraft carrier "Franklin D. Roosevelt", one wonders whether the State Department has any clear policy. What is clear is that the policy adopted by the present British Government is destroying the friendly relations between the British and South African navies, which has been built up over many years.

The last possible alternative behind the Government's move to renegotiate the Simonstown Agreement is that it is the precursor of a complete withdrawal of our Armed Forces from east of Suez. This would be received with delight by certain hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I admit that there is a case for a gradual withdrawal from Aden and perhaps Singapore in due course, but the worst possible way to proceed is that which the Government have adopted in, for example, Aden. I suggest that it is essential for us to retain maritime bases in the Southern Hemisphere and that these should be in areas backed by an industrial complex, from which our amphibious maritime air forces could operate. We could then secure control of Indian Ocean communications at minimum cost. From this point of view the Simonstown Agreement is of immense importance to us. I hope that a similar agreement will be brought about with the Australian Government, so that our British naval/air forces can be based, say, on Fremantle.

If we do not do this it means abandoning the Indian Ocean and abandoning our responsibiliies to the Commonwealth, particularly to Australia. This may, of course, be the price that the Government are prepared to pay for their new policy in respect of entry into Europe.

We in this country do not like the policies of the U.S.S.R. and China—their external as well as their internal policies—but we encourage trade with them. We trade with North Vietnam and Cuba, despite the annoyance that that might cause to some of our allies and, in particular, to the United States. That being so, why do we refuse to allow arms to be supplied for the external defence of South Africa, a country which is sited in such a vitally strategic area?

The refusal to supply arms to South Africa will lose Britain trade; that is trade with our third best customer. The trend to this effect is clear from the 1966 figures. Is this policy a preparation for the use of force against Rhodesia or for mandatory sanctions against South Africa? I fear that such a policy would lead to economic war and would cost us £1 million a day, and might possibly lead to a physical war which would split this nation from top to bottom. I therefore beg the Government to maintain this vitally important Agreement, not only in its letter but, more important, in the spirit in which it was negotiated—a defence Agreement between two nations which share common defence problems.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for introducing this subject and for the kind remarks he made in connection with my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as part of Ministry of Defence. We are aware of his loyal service in the Royal Marines. On a personal note, I might mention that he and I, albeit some years ago, were closely involved in visiting different parts of Africa and looking at the problems there.

I cannot help but feel that in the last six years we have drifted somewhat apart in terms of our views on this subject—and whereas the hon. Gentleman now talks about apartheid in reverse in relation to our attitude, I recall some speeches which he made, but not in the House, in which he movingly spoke of the immorality of apartheid. I wonder whether from time to time in recent years—when one recalls some of the things he has said about Rhodesia, the break-up of the Federation and so on—he has been endeavouring to give a measure of respec- tability to something which in conscience he abhors.

The debate has ranged wide afield and at times I have thought it to be a dress rehearsal for the defence debate which we will be having shortly. Perhaps the hon. Member for Haltemprice wants more that one bite at the cherry. Anyone listening to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Simonstown and the South Atlantic might imagine that our discussions had broken down in absolute failure. The plain fact is—and the hon Member knows this—that our discussions with the South African Government were conducted in the most amicable atmosphere. A conclusion was reached and we reached agreement. This has been announced in South Africa and was announced in reply to a Question tabled by the hon. Gentleman on Friday of last week.

Would the hon. Gentleman say when the details will be made known? The withdrawal of the C.-in-C. was announced to the House in an aside by the Secretary of State following a supplementary question, but we still do not know the terms of the new agreement.

The hon. Gentleman has a Question down on this topic. It may be convenient if I give him the answer now. At present the Royal Navy maintains a Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, in South Africa with a staff of more than 100 naval and civilian personnel. The Defence Review, 1966, concluded that we must reduce naval commitments in a number of parts of the world. This is the reason, and the sole reason, why we have come to conclusions in relation to Simonstown. We considered it right and proper that we should consult the South African Government about those proposals and no change in the Simonstown Agreement was or is envisaged.

Preliminary consultation began last year and in January of this year the Vice-Chief of Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Sir John Bush, went to Cape Town and there the British team, led by Her Majesty's Ambassador to South Africa, had these talks, which took place between 25th and 27th January. These discussions were concluded successfully, with agreement on the recommendations to be put to the two Governments.

One important change proposed as a result of decisions arising from the Defence Review and following the Simonstown talks is a change in the command structure. That part of the present South Atlantic and South American Command in which South Africa lies will become the responsibility of the C.-in-C. Home Fleet, under whose command we will appoint a senior British naval officer of the rank of Commodore who will act as C.-in-C. Home Fleet's representative in South Africa and will continue the existing liaison with the South African Navy.

The senior British naval officer, who will also be the naval attaché, will have a small staff and will be located in Cape Town. As part of this arrangement, the proposal is that the Chief of the South African Navy will take greater responsibility for the South African area in times of war. The maintenance of the Simonstown Agreement means that the Royal Navy will have continued use of the facilities in South Africa hitherto enjoyed. These include use of the facilities at Simonstown Dockyard and the use of communications provided by Cape Naval Radio.

Will the joint training arrangements with the South African Navy continue?

There is no question of disturbing what already exists, and joint training does take place. In this connection, I thought, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman intervened in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice in connection with the Simonstown Agreement, that he was being a little unfair in his selective quotation. I, too, nave that quotation and have read it. I think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads it again he will see that Article 3 states:

"The British Admiralty agree to act as agents … in this matter".

The phrase "in this matter" refers to decisions in Article 2 relating to equip- ment to be supplied during the period 1955–63. He must be careful not to assume something which is not in the Agreement. The question of ammunition was raised, although this and other questions connected with it have already been answered in Parliament. The hon. Member for Haltemprice will be aware that any matters relating to equipment for the South African Armed Forces come to Ministers here, must be studied by them and examined in the light of our adherence to the United Nations Resolution relating to the embargo; and any decisions are then taken. I cannot answer now the question of spare parts for the Buccaneer, I cannot answer that now, but I will look into the matter. To answer question asked about Beira and the blockade of this area, while my geography may be somewhat slight, I suggest that it is not in the South Atlantic. It is, however, important in this context and, therefore, must be borne in mind.

I am not aware of the rumour to which the hon. Member for Haltemprice referred. I will make inquiries and let him know the position. I hope that he will be one of the first to squash it if it is found that the rumour is unfounded. He will be aware that Questions have been tabled relating to the Beira Patrol. He will also be aware that the whole of the operation of the Beira Patrol does not come from Simonstown. This is Middle East Command, and it was arranged in this way for clear reasons in terms of operational ability and so on. Regarding Simonstown generally, this Agreement has been reached between the two Governments and, when one thinks of the difficulties involved in our military redeployment in other parts of the world, I am happy to inform the House that, in this case, our difficulties have been fully understood and accepted; and on this basis I believe that we can proceed.

I beg to move,

That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the following Schedule be made:—