My Lords, it was a great shock to me, as it will have been to the House, to learn of the death on Saturday of Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. I am sure that the House would not wish to proceed with business until tribute has been paid to the noble Baroness. She came to this House in 1970 and held positions of responsibility almost continuously until forced by ill-health to retire. She has made an indelible impression upon the work of the House and was responsible, in particular, for a major and lasting achievement in the development of the Select Committee on the European Communities.

I have already referred on another occasion to the elegance, good humour and hard work which the noble Baroness brought to the task of Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees and Chairman of the European Communities Committee when she succeeded Lord Diamond. To those qualities I should like to add the mixture of a sound judgment and enthusiasm which she displayed in this work. Under her guidance the Committee became a byword both in this country and in Brussels due to the exceptional quality of its reports. However, that achievement, substantial though it is, was only the latest in a life full of achievement.

For 20 years the noble Baroness was the Member for Aberdeen South. I vividly remember the first day when she was introduced to another place. During that time, among many other things, she was proud to have piloted the Protection of Birds Act through another place and from 1962 to 1964 she was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. That experience was to prove valuable to her when, in this House, she became Minister of State for Scotland in 1970. That office was followed, in 1972, by Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—a post which she held until 1974. In both Departments she is remembered with great affection.

In closing this tribute to the noble Baroness, I should like particularly to stress the affection which she inspired. Those who worked with her or who came into contact with her were immediately struck by her personal qualities and especially her unfailing cheerfulness and openness. Those qualities will cause her to be remembered by an extraordinarily wide circle, in all Parties, in both Houses of Parliament, in the country and abroad. She will be very much missed in this House. I know that noble Lords, in all parts of the House, will join with me in expressing deep sympathy to her husband, the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and to her family.

My Lords, we, on this side of the House, are grateful for the generous tributes which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has made about our late colleague and friend. I would associate myself entirely with the sentiments which the noble Lord has expressed about the noble Baroness. She led a most distinguished life in politics, first in another place, and then in your Lordships' House. She was one of those rare people who managed to be very successful in all that she was asked to put her hand to and yet who remained intensely modest and humble in her work and in her achievement.

As a colleague on the Front Bench, whether in Government or in Opposition, she was always fun to work with, and what a difference that makes. She had a dedication to duty which, far from being serious, was always laced with an engaging humour and a happy laugh. Her real testing time came over the cod war which was a difficult task which she carried out with firmness and with dignity.

As a Deputy Chairman of Committees she guided your Lordships through many Bills and never once, to my knowledge, made a mistake—something which, when it is done well, looks so easy, but which everyone knows is only the result of careful preparation and attention to detail, which was, of course, one of the hallmarks of the noble Baroness in all that she did. Then, when she took on the office of Chairman of the European Communities Committee, she became the servant of the House and again guided your Lordships and the various Sub-Committees, which were her responsibility, through a maze of complicated legislation which would have defeated many of a seemingly more robust nature. When she spoke from her seat below the gangway, where latterly we became used to seeing her sit, she spoke with authority which time and knowledge had bestowed upon her, and with almost a majesty which was born of experience and humility.

Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie was a friend of all of us in whatever part of the House we sat. We knew her in her political work and, although that was important to her, her real love was the love of her family and her home in Scotland. It was the love of her family which was so noticeable to others and which gave to her that gentleness of character and infectious happiness which we were all lucky enough to witness.

Our deepest sympathy goes to her family and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. It is he who will inevitably bear the brunt of sorrow, but I hope that he will, nevertheless, take some comfort from the fact that there are those of us in this House who rejoice in the fact that we were able to know, appreciate and share the friendship of such a fine lady.

My Lords, I should like to support to the full the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir. Like the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I first knew the noble Baroness in the 1945 Parliament, and, like many others, I was delighted when she came to this House in 1970. We have all lost a valued and distinguished colleague, and a very lovable person. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, she brought to bear all the strength of her mind and her cheerful personality to introduce for the benefit, not only of this Parliament at Westminster but of the European Community as a whole, a scrutiny system of which we are all justly proud. We extend our deepest sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and the family.

My Lords, I wonder whether I might echo the sentiments so aptly expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I first knew Lady Tweedsmuir when she came to the Scottish Office with all the variety of work that that entails, which she handled with the greatest of ease. It will be a long time before her constituents in Aberdeen, South, and in particular the fishermen of Scotland, forget her for she did wonderful work for them. Then she came to the Foreign Office as Minister of State and, whenever we were faced with a real difficulty in any part of the world, I used to ask, "Where is Lady Tweedsmuir?". Whether it was in Europe, Africa, or at the United Nations, she was about the best ambassador that this country could have sent and she always returned having held the respect of those with whom she went to deal.

My noble friends and the noble Lord the Leader of the House have mentioned her qualities. I think that there are two qualities which were conspicuous—a natural authority and a clear and incisive mind. She brought those qualities to bear in every situation that she handled She will be enormously missed in this House in particular where we owe a great debt to her. I, too, offer my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir.

My Lords, I am sure that it would be the wish of all my noble friends on the Cross-Benches that on their behalf I should express their sorrow at the passing of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and their sympathy for her husband, my old friend—with whom memories go back to our schooldays when we shared a common tutor at Eton—the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir.

Of the Cross-Benchers who served under the noble Baroness on the Sub-Committees of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which is concerned with European affairs, I am the only one present today. Therefore, it seems appropriate that I should pay tribute to that very gracious personality that she always brought to bear upon her noble colleagues—graciousness which noble Lords have experienced many times, whether or not in Sub-Committee—on those occasions when she presided over our affairs from the Woolsack. We shall all mourn the memory of a very gracious lady whose departure we view with great sadness.

My Lords, I know that all the Members of the Select Committee would wish me to express on their behalf the grief that we feel at the loss of one who not only has done so much for her country, for both Houses of Parliament and for Europe, but still had so much to offer. Last Tuesday in the debate on the Bill for Direct Elections to the European Assembly I was privileged to pay tribute to what the Lady Tweedsmuir had done. Only a week before I had spoken to her over the telephone and she was as gay and as indomitable as we had always come to think of her. It is hard to realise that we shall no longer know that sense of fun and that infectious enthusiasm which she always had, and that we shall not have the pleasure of her company or the benefit of her always wise advice.

I should like to join with those noble Lords who have referred to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. If we are grieved, how much greater is the burden of grief that he and Lady Tweedsmuir's daughters are bearing at this time. May I conclude by saying that, after all her suffering, I know it will be the wish of every one of us in this House that she should rest peacefully in the Scotland that she loved so much.

My Lords, I do not intend to detain noble Lords, but as one who sat for many years in the neighbouring constituency of Lady Tweedsmuir's—Aberdeenshire, East—I should like to say in what high regard she was always held by all the people of the North-East of Scotland, irrespective of Party. On their behalf I should like to pay a tribute to her.

My Lords, perhaps as a Back-Bencher it would not be inappropriate for me to say a few words on behalf of my colleagues, and in particular to express our deep sorrow at the departure of the noble Baroness and our sincere gratitude for her friendship and all her work. My own memory of her goes back to my early days as a Member of Parliament when her father was senior officer holding a posting in my constituency. I first heard her—and I may say my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—speak at a Unionist rally in Dumfriesshire. Very soon afterwards, in 1946, she came to the House of Commons. I well remember the impact that she made in the House of Commons. Whenever she started to speak all the lady Members flocked into the House to admire—possibly to emulate—her eloquence, her charm and her personality. She was of them all, I believe, the ablest speaker and the bonniest. I was also with her at the European Movement meeting in The Hague in 1948 and she captivated The Hague by her oratory then. She really made her mark for the first time then.

I should only like to add that I think she reached her greatest powers here in this House, as was most fitting, both as Minister of State at the Foreign Office and as the Chairman of the European Communities Committee. In her closing months, she showed tremendous cheerfulness, courage, and imperturbability, as indeed she has shown throughout her life. I should like to join with those who have offered the deepest sympathy to my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir. He too has shown the greatest steadfastness in these last few months. While feeling the greatest sympathy for him, and I hope showing it, we shall certainly be glad to welcome him back.

My Lords, as I came into the House today, one of our newer Members said to me, "What happens when a sad event like this takes place?" I said, "I hope, and I feel sure, that there will be an opportunity to pay tribute to Lady Tweedsmuir". I should like to pay my small one. I sat in another place with her. She was a wonderful friend. I think one only had to look at her to realise that she was intensely competent, but one also knew at the same time that she was nice, and those two things do not always go together.

She was completely fair. I looked on her as a very real friend. I had a long letter from her about only a week ago, and one would never have thought that there was anything wrong with her at all. I think it was quite wonderful. I should like to send my sympathy to her husband. I am not a women's "libber", but I should like everyone to know how much the women of both Houses admired her, and how much we shall miss her.

My Lords, as one of the Sub-Committee chairmen, may I just add a reminder that when she managed a committee, contentious moments were dissolved in laughter. Her management technique was a smile, and, if discipline there was, it was imposed by a frown, which happily melted in a moment.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, it is not for the present Government to deal with allegations concerning the actions of previous Governments more than 30 years ago, other than to release for public scrutiny the official papers bearing on these events. This has been done for the period up to the end of 1947.

My Lords, arising out of the Answer of my noble friend, may I ask him whether he is aware that good books—and both these books are good books—are apt to stick; and that if nothing at all is done about it they could leave a stain on the British name which might last for generations to come? May I ask him further whether he realises that this would be quite unjustified, because the British people had no idea of the terrible things that were being done in Europe during the years 1944 to 1947, nor indeed had the British Parliament, of which I myself was a Member at the time? Finally, I should like to ask him whether he does not think that a Statement on the part of Her Majesty's Government, who, after all, have no responsibility for any of this at all, would, even if it amounted only to an expression of regret for what happened during those years, do us, and indeed the world, a lot of good?

My Lords, I very much appreciate and respect what the noble Lord has said. I know that he speaks with complete sincerity and integrity, as indeed do those who had access to the papers and have written substantial books on these happenings—that is, Count Tolstoy and, certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to whose integrity and sincerity in these matters I should like to pay testimony. However, there are of course other interpretations of the available documents. Already they are beginning to become available. I suggest that it might be helpful if we all reflected on the nature of the request being made to Governments officially to pronounce on happenings which took place some time ago, and to say that one interpretation is to be preferred to another. Not everybody would agree, and I do not think that, in a democratic country, it would be for the Government to lay down as a final statement what is to be regarded as historical truth.

My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that at least part of the trouble was that the Government of the day, and naturally still more so Parliament and the nation, did not sufficiently appreciate the essentially barbarous nature of the then Soviet régime? Does the noble Lord think that, in the generation that has elapsed since these sad events took place, the nature of that régime has substantially altered for the better?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is of course putting forward his own interpretation of the extant evidence and asking me to adopt his interpretation, as others have asked me this afternoon to adopt theirs, as the official view of the Government. I may have my own personal views, but Government cannot. The duty of Government in a democratic country is to make available as fully as ever possible all the extant evidence, and that we have done.

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is aware that the stain is there. I was concerned at the time with some of these unhappy Yugoslavs. It cannot be erased. But I think almost all of us—

My Lords, I will put it in the form of a question. Is the noble Lord not aware that, with few exceptions—and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, then a junior Member who had lost his seat, was one of those exceptions—we allowed our admiration for the heroism of the Russian people to gild our conception of the infamy of their régime? The things that we did were sincere and in the interests of peace, and the Russians had to be treated as a civilised power, which, plainly, they were not. Is any good served by trying to dig up these things from the past?

My Lords, I was almost in agreement with my noble friend until he reached his last sentence. Yes, I think good is done by an impartial, meticulous, responsible examination of the evidence, and it is the duty of Government in democratic countries to make that evidence available. This we have done. I think I agree with him that we must not be too selective about what we dig up and comment on. Some things may appeal more to some people for investigation than others. Equally, we must bear with one another's interpretations of the same facts. My noble friend has added his. We have had at least four this afternoon.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, speaking as a member of the Cabinet between 1945 and 1947 when some of these events occurred, I had no knowledge of the matter at all? I noted my noble friend's remark about some of the papers beginning to be made available. Is he aware that, while this is being done, serious allegations have been made against the late Lord Avon, formerly Anthony Eden? Why do we not get all the facts so that blame is not imputed to the late Lord Avon, because other Members associated with the Foreign Office were responsible? Let us get the facts right. In order to do that, let all the publications be made available.

Certainly, my Lords, and that is what I have been endeavouring to say. The documents have been made available. If any Member of your Lordships' House or another place or in any other quarter can bring to my notice or that of the Secretary of State an omission which is inexplicable, then by all means attention will be paid to it. I looked into this before coming to the House this afternoon; the documents are available and indeed have been made available for some little time. That I think is the right inquiry, that in a country like ours everybody can have access to the facts and everybody can publish his interpretation. No doubt there will be other interpretations. All I am saying is that Government should not pronounce on historical fact and select one interpretation as being the absolutely true one. The alternative is that everybody should be entitled to his interpretation and publish it.

My Lords, is the Minister now able to reply to the letter I wrote to his right honourable friend Dr. David Owen about three weeks ago, in which I made a 'number of positive and I hope constructive suggestions? First, I asked whether the Government would now consider asking, through the proper local authority, for a memorial to be erected at Newlands Corner near Guildford where a number of Russians were detained, some of them illegally, men and women, before being, some illegally, returned by force to the Soviet Union to execution or Stalin's camps. Secondly, I asked whether the Government would consider setting up a fund, to which the dependants of these persons could apply for assistance, of recompense and to which those few individuals who were repatriated by British Forces—illegally, contrary to the Yalta Agreement—could apply and to which their dependants could apply. Thirdly, I asked whether the Government would, in announcing these measures, make it clear that they would be carried out as a symbolic gesture of the responsibility of Britain for what happened, and an indication of the uneasiness felt about it by many people in this country.

The noble Lord is almost writing another book, my Lords, but I recognise the seriousness and responsibility with which he put forward those suggestions. The Secretary of State has expressed to me—indeed, I think we have conveyed this to the noble Lord—his regret that, because of his many movements in the past week or so, he has not so far been able to reply to the letter which the noble Lord sent him. However, I can assure the noble Lord that a full reply is now on its way to him, and no doubt most if not all the questions he has put this afternoon will be satisfactorily answered in that reply.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister to give some clarification of the numbers involved? There were the Soviet citizens who had fought on the German side and who were returned to the Soviet Union, until that was stopped, and we had a debate about them in this House some months ago and that is a matter of concern. However, does not the word "millions" which appears in the Question have to include all the Soviet prisoners of war and forced labour who were released by the Western Allies when they overran Germany and the rest of Europe?

My Lords, I understand perfectly well the import of the noble Lord's question. I would not wish to go into a full categorisation of the unfortunate people involved; they varied very much in their circumstances, background and the motivation for what they did. I think the term "millions" may be very much exaggerated. Nevertheless, there certainly were some thousands or more, and that is far too many to deal with with any equanimity. If the noble Lord would wish me to give a categorisation by numbers of the various types of person involved, I will see what I can do. I have no great confidence that my categorisation, any more than that of others, would finally be found to be the right one. One comes back to the same point, that really the duty of Government is to make available all the facts and figures for everybody to interpret with responsibility and punctiliousness, as I am bound to say those who have already commented have done—that is, the inquiry—and then to leave it to the democratic conclusion. Otherwise, if we have formal inquiries leading to a formal official Statement of what is the truth by Government, we shall I think be untrue to our own democractic tradition. Moreover, where does one stop and how far back does one go; about whom, when and for what reason?

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, discussions are continuing between the Government, the British Steel Corporation and the TUC Steel Committee on how best to deal with the losses currently being made by the Corporation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry hopes shortly to make a Statement announcing the action it is proposed to take.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he can given any indication of the deficit for the current year? Can he also say when the White Paper is likely to be published?

My Lords, BSC's latest estimate is that it will make a loss of about £520 million, including the provision of £50 million for contingencies, in the current financial year which ends on 1st April. I cannot at the moment anticipate when the White Paper is likely to be published, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making a Statement before Easter.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether the value is accepted of Select Committees probing into nationalised industries, and whether in future both Ministers of the Crown and chairmen of nationalised industries will be absolutely frank with Parliament?

My Lords, have no reason to believe that either the Secretary of State or officials of the Steel Corporation have not been frank. As was said in relation to the previous Question, a great deal depends on interpretation. Certainly it is the intention of these gentlemen to be frank.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while industrial expansion is at a standstill and has been for many years, and when so few new jobs are available, it is natural that, if we are to reduce the degree of over-manning in both public and private industry, there should be some generosity of compensation? However, in view of certain figures that are being bandied around, would it not be in the interest of the public for us to be given the facts and to be told exactly how much is being offered in compensation terms to those made redundant?

Certainly some of the figures quoted seem high, my Lords, but I am not in a position to give the noble Lord exact details as to the number of people to whom the high figures mentioned in the Press apply and what the average figure was. I understand that the very high figures quoted related in certain circumstances to long-serving, highly-skilled men in the industry, but that they were a small part of the whole.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, in the six months to 31st March last year, English local authorities disposed of the first 33 acres of land for development under the Community Land Scheme. For the current financial year disposals are likely to total between 300 and 400 acres, and receipts exceed £4 million.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that the figure for the first year was extremely disappointing, particularly when one remembers the promises of positive planning and, indeed, promises on the speed of planning? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government accept that there is a relationship between the release of building land and the builders' banks of land, and house prices? Further, can she say whether, within the framework of the Community Land Act, the speed of planning can be examined?

My Lords, I do not accept the first statement made in the noble Earl's supplementary question, to the effect that the figure in the first year was very bad. There were, in fact, only six operative months in the first year, bearing in mind the situation regarding the first appointed day and the introduction of DLT. I would say that, considering the circumstances and taking into account the economic situation of the country, it was certainly not a discreditable achievement. The noble Earl also made a point about the price of land. The national average price of land for building rose by only 5 per cent. last year, and the national average price of housing land in 1977 was £18,000 per acre. Even in the South-East the average price was only £25,000 per acre. There have been one or two exceptional cases reported in the Press, but I do not consider that these exceptions can throw doubt upon, or knock very hard at, the Community Land Act.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many people were employed in ad ministering the Community Land Act to achieve that figure of 33 acres?

My Lords, I cannot say so off hand. All I can say is that the administrative costs have been comparatively small considering the size of the scheme, and they certainly have not risen above what was expected during the passage of the Act.

My Lords, the noble Baroness gave figures of what had been released in the way of land. Can she give the figures for what land the local authorities have acquired within the Community Land Act provisions?

My Lords, in the first year 1,500 acres were bought and 33 acres were sold. I will be able to give the noble Earl the figures for this financial year after the year has ended—but not until then. As the noble Earl is aware, the figures vary tremendously from region to region and from authority to authority. It is up to the local authorities themselves to implement the Community Land Act.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the capital strategy recently agreed by the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority makes provision for a major building scheme of some £9 million to begin not later than 1985–86. The scheme is likely to involve the replacement of some of the hospital's least satisfactory departments.

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, which I do not think he will expect me to regard as wholly satisfactory, I should like to ask whether he is aware that, although this hospital attracts large numbers of qualified doctors from every country in the world for training as consultants and specialists, it is still housed in "poor law" buildings more than 75 years old—many of them, indeed, considerably more than 75 years old? Is the noble Lord aware that plans for the rebuilding were approved by the Department, the decanting buildings set up, and a date agreed, I believe, for the commencement of rebuilding before the reorganisation of the Service nearly five years ago? Will he impress upon his right honourable friend and upon the Area Health Authority the urgency of starting this rebuilding before the plans already approved are so far out of date that it becomes necessary to start the whole long process again ab initio?

My Lords, we would accept without question that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. We recognise that the buildings are old, cramped, and inadequate. We recognise that a hospital like the Hammersmith Hospital, with not only its national, but also its international reputation, certainly deserves far better buildings than it has and much better accommodation and facilities. Having said that, I am sure that the noble Lord will know what was the position in 1974. I do not want to say to the noble Lord that it is a pity that something was not done about this between 1970 and 1974; we will let that pass. But in 1974 it became necessary to curtail expenditure severely, as noble Lords know. This was for reasons quite beyond the control of the Government—I do not want to go into the oil situation. This hospital, along with a large number of others, has suffered consequently. I know that it is the Government's intention to do for Hammersmith what it wants at the earliest possible opportunity.

My Lords, as a friend of Hammersmith Hospital, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that, despite the remarkable reputation of the hospital for surgery and matters involving heart complaints, blood circulation, and kidneys, as well as in other respects—which brings consultants from all parts of the world—the state of the buildings now represents absolute chaos, notwithstanding the splendid accommodation for Commonwealth students, while wards which were in the old infirmary are being occupied and conditions are crowded and cramped, as I know from experience? Will Her Majesty's Government give priority to the rebuilding of this famous hospital?

My Lords, I thought that I had been through most of those points in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, and I thought that I also said that provision is being made, in agreement with the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority, to spend £9 million on providing some of the buildings needed. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, also referred to a point regarding the future—and I missed this earlier. I believe that we must look at the plans, because it may be necessary to undertake some revision of them to take account of the new developments in treatment and in medical and nursing techniques which perhaps will call for a different type of accommodation in the 1980s from that which would have been the case a few years ago.

Perhaps it is a small comfort that I can say that in the meantime the Government are providing £450,000 in the authority's programme, starting in 1978–79 (the current year), for interim improvements to the radio-diagnostic and the radio-therapy departments and for the continuation of a programme of major improvements to the existing wards.

My Lords, as a senior member of the staff of the post-graduate medical school at Hammersmith for 30 years, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is fully aware of what is involved in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe: the stark contrast between the new Commonwealth building which was opened 12 years ago by Her Majesty the Queen, and the completely outdated and utterly incongruous buildings to which the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Brockway, referred? Is the noble Lord aware how that new school building was made possible—through donations received from all over the world, including donations from the Governments of no fewer than 12 Commonwealth countries, which in its way must have been a unique event in the history of the new Commonwealth—and, so far as I know, such a tribute has been paid to no other institute in the country? Is the noble Lord aware that it was very naturally assumed by all concerned that the Government would play their part in providing worthy buildings for the hospital for which they were responsible as an integral part of the whole rebuilding project? In view of these facts, can the noble Lord give any reason why the Hammersmith Hospital should not receive the highest possible priority for rebuilding as an outstanding centre, not only for the National Health Service but also for world medicine?

My Lords, there is a simple answer to that, and it is an unsatisfactory one from the noble Lord's point of view. It is that Hammersmith Hospital is not the only hospital in the United Kingdom. There are hundreds of hospitals in a similar position, and there is a limited amount of money which must be distributed in those areas where there is a very high priority. While we recognise and pay tribute to the contribution which Hammersmith Hospital is making and has made, nationally and internationally, for a good many years, and while we want to see that it gets what it wants, we cannot do that to the total exclusion of the needs of other hospitals.

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government have altogether given up the idea of rebuilding Hammersmith Hospital on some alternative site and using the existing site as an overspill for Wormwood Scrubs, for which the present antiquated buildings could be admirably adapted?

My Lords, that is a very long-term project. Anyone who knows the Hammersmith Hospital knows that there is a very substantial complex there. One cannot just pull it down and rebuild. As the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said, there is the whole question of decanting, and he will agree with me, as will the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, that there is very little ground there on which to do any real decanting. Unfortunately, therefore, one has to do this piecemeal, but we should like to be able to do it as quickly as possible.

My Lords—

My Lords, I think we have had a long innings on this particular Question.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement regarding the conclusions of the Belgrade Conference on the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act."

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will make a Statement on the Belgrade Conference:

"My Lords, the course of the Belgrade meeting, the British contribution to it and the Government's view of its outcome are described in detail in a White Paper which was published on 10th March. This includes as annexes the full text of the concluding document, of the speeches that I made during the opening and closing phases of the meeting, and of the various proposals put forward by the United Kingdom during the meeting.

"When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made a Statement last December in another place on the progress being made at Belgrade, he emphasised the Government's desire that the meeting should end constructively, with all the participants subscribing to a balanced and substantial concluding document. The meeting proceeded throughout by consensus, and in the event this proved impossible. Western countries were prepared to negotiate on the basis of a draft document put forward by the neutral and non-aligned group of countries, but the Russians and their allies refused to do so and showed no disposition to make any concessions of substance in the key areas of human rights and human contacts which have always been central to Western interest in the CSCE follow-up process. Faced with this unbalanced Soviet approach, the United Kingdom and its partners and allies were left with no option but to agree to a short and mainly factual concluding document. I should like to put on record the Government's deep regret that, despite the best endeavours of our own and other Western delegations, and neutral and non-aligned countries, an opportunity to further the development of détente has thus been missed.

"However, the results of Belgrade should not be dismissed as without value. Preparations for it concentrated the minds of all concerned on the need to honour their commitments, which led to some progress being made, both in the run-up to the Belgrade meeting and during it. The successful completion of the review of implementation has firmly established the right of all the participating States to criticise quite frankly the record of all other CSCE States in implementing the Final Act; and the discussion of proposals for improving implementation has focused attention on the areas where improvement is most needed. The ideas put forward at Belgrade remain for future discussion.

"The concluding document itself, moreover, is by no means worthless. It contains both a reaffirmation by the participating States of the validity and importance of the Final Act, including the human rights provisions, and a commitment on their part to meet again at Madrid in 1980. It also contains agreement to convene three meetings of experts: at Montreux in October 1978 to discuss the peaceful settlement of disputes; at Bonn in June 1978 where a "Scientific Forum" will be held; and at La Valletta in February 1979 to discuss various economic, scientific and cultural questions affecting the Mediterranean.

"The CSCE process thus remains very much alive. In the run-up to the Madrid meeting the Government will continue to implement their obligations fully and completely. They will expect others to do the same. And, as in the past, and as at Belgrade itself, they will not hestitate to speak out in those cases where the provisions of the Final Act are inadequately implemented or ignored by others."

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Statement, may I say that, while we are all disappointed at what happened at Belgrade, I do not think it should be regarded as disastrous. The Helsinki Final Act recommended co-operation, and indeed integration, in many wide spheres—military, economic, environmental and cultural, as well as in the fields of science, technology, information, education and human rights. The Belgrade Conference did many constructive things on these issues, but world opinion and the media have almost entirely concentrated on the issue of human rights. My Lords, I welcome the pressure on human rights. To deny freedom of human rights—

My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I respect my noble friend when he asks Questions and, indeed, makes speeches on international affairs, but a Statement which is made by a Minister leads to questioning of the Minister. I know there are arguments about whether we should have a little latitude, but I would hope that my noble friend would confine himself to questioning.

My Lords, as I understand it, when a Statement is made comments can be made upon that Statement. That has always been the precedent in this House, from both the Front Benches and from others. I do not want to keep the House long. I was saying that I welcome the pressure on human rights. To deny freedom of expression is to imprison the mind and to mutilate personality—a spiritual crime—and to deny freedom of movement is to deny the human family. But what I want to say is that when there are between 80 and 100 nations denying human rights, we have to keep a balance. In my view, at Belgrade the British delegation did so: the American and Soviet Union delegations did not. I particularly regret the action of the Soviet Union in refusing to accept the declaration of the non-aligned Governments.

I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government this: Before the conference at Madrid in 1980, will they bring pressure to bear that negotiations will proceed on a bilateral and multilateral basis for agreement on the Helsinki Act; and especially if the conference on integration of energy, transport and pollution under the auspices of the United Economic Commission will still take place?

My Lords, the answer to the last two questions is, yes. The answer to the multilateral question put by my noble friend is also, yes. I welcome his contribution, whether in interrogative or assertive form, and I am sure that the appropriate quarters, where-ever they are, will take due notice of everything that he has said.

My Lords, may I from this side of the House welcome the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, from Belgrade where undoubtedly he personally made a very valuable contribution on behalf of the United Kingdom? I should like to say that from these Benches. His Statement has been a very full one—possibly more full and explanatory than the final document which came out of Belgrade—and for this we are grateful.

I understand that I am really only allowed to put a question, but in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has made a few comments, perhaps I, too, could make one or two comments before putting a question myself. The main point which I should like to make is that, reading the balance sheet of the meeting in Belgrade, it would look as though the Soviet has gained considerably and the West has lost ground. I should like the noble Lord the Minister to comment on that. The Soviet has gained recognition of Eastern boundaries, they have gained Western technology, they have gained time to re-arm, they have systematically, continuously and daily violated human rights in the Soviet Union, and they have got away with it once again.

When are the West going to cry halt to this continued disregard of the values which we hold in the West at the expense of the West and indeed at the expense of the rest of the world when we look at what is happening in Africa? Was the situation of the Horn raised during the Conference at Belgrade, and what do Western Governments propose to do about the continued intervention of the Soviet Union in other parts of the world?

Détente is not just for Western Europe; détente is for the whole of the world, and the Soviet must be made to recognise this fact. Finally, as a question to the Minister, what, if anything, does he think the West has gained from the meeting in Belgrade, and what do they propose to do to make a better balance in East/West relations by 1980 when the next meeting is held in Madrid?

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind references to my efforts. I think I may say impartially that the White Paper to which she refers will bear study. We have presented all the relevant documents, except of course that they are not yet available for printing by Governments. As regards the final statements of the various delegations, I think that when we take this White Paper which contains our statement in conjunction with the various statements made, not only by individual Western delegations but also by neutral and non-aligned, and possibly by one or two Eastern European delegations, we shall find that, despite the brevity of the concluding document, the totality of what was said in the closing sessions of the conference must on balance represent a gain for the West and its objectives.

Anyway, I commend the study of the totality of the documentation to the House. Certainly, I think your Lordships will agree that the very balanced leading article in The Times last Friday would reflect the general view of most delegations at Belgrade. As to the other questions raised, I agree with the noble Baroness that détente, like peace, is indivisible, and strongly and frequently did we say so and will continue to say so.

My Lords, in view of the evident failure of this conference—because whatever the Government may say, it has, in the full sense, been a failure—would the Government not agree that we may shortly have to come to a conclusion that, whatever our hopes may be, the long-term objectives of the East and the West are incompatible? In other words, is it not the case that détente, for instance, has one meaning on one side of the Iron Curtain and a totally different meaning on the other side? If that is so, and if we should come to that conclusion, would they not also agree that it is not necessarily the end of the world, and that it is far more important—as I have always thought myself—to get agreement on MBFR at Vienna and, indeed, in the disarmament talks generally than to try ineffectively to reconcile totally irreconcilible political philosophies?

My Lords, I think I am right in saving that Standing Orders lay clown that there shall not be debate on a Statement unless the House is so resolved. Is the House resolved that there should be a debate on this Government Statement?

My Lords, we are not debating this; we are having questions.

My Lords—

My Lords, I think I ought to answer the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, first. I do not agree that this was a failure. It did not reach the expectations of the West, but perhaps our expectations were too high. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a very big chasm, a dichotomy of philosophy and system in Europe, that cannot be bridged overnight or at one conference. To that extent I do agree, but we must start and we must persist.

As to concrete measures of disarmament, I agree, and the proper fora for those discussions are the fora of experts—that is, MBFR in Vienna and CCB in Geneva. However, as we have constantly said, the support and the proportion of détente through CSCE can have a very good effect upon the practical discussions both in Vienna and in Geneva, and indeed on the United Nations Special Session on disarmament which is due to begin on 23rd May. As for this conference having been a failure, I could not disagree more. I think it fell short of expectations, but it was by no means disastrous. Indeed it was not discouraged.

My Lords, the noble Lord twice referred to non-aligned countries. In a sense I thought he was referring to countries that attended the nonaligned conference in Algiers. Is he aware that, if that is his intention, he is either misleading the House or misleading himself? Not one single country that is non-aligned in that sense was a party to the proposition advanced by the Minister. Or is it a fact that his Department has misled him, and that when he is talking about "non-aligned" he really means "non-committed"?

My Lords, I will accept the occasional instruction from the noble Lord on the use of the English language; after all, he is an Englishman, I am not. It may be that in my imperfect knowledge of the English language I mislead myself into thinking that non-aligned is probably non-committed to one side or another, but perhaps there is some shade of difference that he may instruct me in, in greater detail. The point is perfectly clear to all noble Lords—is it not?—that, so far, we have all been confronted by the fact that, up to now, the so-called Third World has almost automatically been committed to the Communist posture. This is no longer true; it is gradually changing. I saw this for myself in Belgrade and I, for one, welcome this situation.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his efforts, in many respects successful efforts, to keep the question of human rights open instead of being closed by filibustering on the part of the Russian authorities. In view of the fact that there are so many immediate problems related to inhuman treatment, particularly with regard to an attempt to introduce once again trials founded upon no foundation at all in the USSR and actions in other countries, may I ask whether he will take immediate steps to continue the bilateral approaches to which he has referred, and, in particular, not only with the Soviet Union but with other countries which are practising violent breaches? Would he be good enough to say that he will take up these matters as speedily as possible and try to stop an attempt, for example, to bring a case against Scharansky which we all know is a faked-up case?

My Lords, we have made absolutely clear to the Soviet Union and others that the kinds of trial described by my noble friend would have a deplorable effect on the prospects of détente. Indeed, we have made it clear that we should not be able to see a congeniality between practices and procedures of that kind and the whole purpose and future of the Final Act. We have made this clear and will continue to do so.

Before I sit down, I would say to my noble friend, as to this sickening history of religious as well as other forms of repression and discrimination, that if before that conference anybody was ignorant of the attitude of the British Government and people, he can hardly be so now.

My Lords, in case there is any dispute between myself and the Minister on this question, will be publish in the Official Report a list of those countries which fall within his conception of "non-aligned"?

Certainly, my Lords, I think that I can pretty certainly undertake to do that—in the best English.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I announce that it is planned that the House should rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 23rd March, when the House will sit at 11 a.m. The House will resume on Tuesday, 4th April.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass; and I would add my thanks to those Members of the House who participated in our debates on this matter, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others who have, I think, secured some improvement in this rather useful Bill.

My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches that we have sought to support this Bill for the simple reason that we believe that it may prove to be an effective contribution to the fight of civilised nations against the very real menace of international terrorism. I should like to add that it is of considerable significance that one of the few remaining countries which have not yet signed the Convention is the Republic of Ireland. Mr. Lynch's good faith is called into question by the refusal of his Government to sign and ratify the Convention. It is not a generally recognised principle of international law that extradition is not granted for political offences. It depends entirely upon the municipal law on extradition. The rules of international law are established by the evidence of, among other elements, the international Convention. This Convention is an important step in the formulation of international law on the behaviour of States in relation to terrorist offenders and the treatment that they should receive. The fact that so many leading Member States of the Council of Europe have signed the Convention is evidence of a consensus of opinion as to the steps to be taken.

Even in those States which have made reservations, as in the case of France, which may prevent the extradition of offenders euphemistically and wrongly labelled political when they are criminal, the Convention provides in Article 7 for the requested State to prosecute the offenders. If the Republic of Ireland claims that it does not harbour offenders, why does it not sign? If it does, it can change its own extradition laws or, indeed, prosecute under the Article that I have already referred to. Therefore, we support the Government and urge them to ratify this Convention as soon as possible after the Royal Assent is given to this Bill. We believe that thereby they will contribute with other Western States to the fight against international terrorism.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill which I have pleasure in presenting to your Lordships is comparatively short. But it represents a vital step forward towards implementing the Government's new housing strategy.

We have not had the opportunity of debating in this House the key document which sets out that strategy, the Green Paper Scottish Housing (Cmnd. 6852). This document—produced at the same time as a corresponding Green Paper for England and Wales—sets the essential background to the Bill, particularly in relation to the provisions for reform of the system of subsidies for public sector housing authorities in Scotland.

The Green Paper was the outcome of the most comprehensive review undertaken in recent times by any Government of housing policies and finance. The Green Paper describes the main features of Scottish housing at the present time, assesses and evaluates our achievements as well as our problems and proposes a number of changes in the context of a strategy which is as paragraph 4.25 of the Green Paper says:

"wide ranging and coherent and has many inter-related components".

Above all, it is a strategy which inter-links the public and private sectors of housing.

Your Lordships will be aware that housing and housing needs do not stand still and we have had to get ahead with some major changes, notably in introducing a new system of housing plans. These will be the new vehicle of policy and programme planning to meet assessed housing needs in different parts of the country. Housing plans have been introduced for the first time for 1978–79 and they are designed to be complementary with housing support grant in directing both capital and current resources more effectively to meet needs in the different parts of the country.

The main parts of the Bill deal with the determination of total housing support grant for local authorities and its distribution; similar new grants for the Scottish Special Housing Association and the New Town Development Corporations; financial aid to voluntary organisations which have a contribution to make to housing, whether through training for management, housing advice or research; amendments designed to strengthen the existing code for the repair and improvement of older houses; the increase from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. of Government subsidy towards the costs of rent rebates and allowances; arrangements for relieving local authorities of the financial burden of reimbursing to the Department of Health and Social Security the rent rebate elements of assistance paid to people on supplementary benefit; and a general reserve power to enable the Government if required to restrict exceptionally high increases in rent for local authority houses.

This is an important package of legislative provision for improvement of Scotland's housing situation. But the major feature of the Bill relates to those clauses dealing with housing support grant which creates the framework for our radical reform of the system of subsidies for housing authorities. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities requested urgent action to reform the present subsidy system nearly two years ago and the Government have worked together with the Convention to bring forward proposals for a new system which were outlined briefly in the Green Paper (Chapter 6). We have subsequently worked through carefully with the Convention various working details of a new system and we hope to complete our consultations with them very shortly.

It is fair to ask: Why do we need to alter the present system of subsidies which relates to the 1972 Act? The present subsidies are complex and give differing encouragement to different forms of housing activity and they are due to be reduced drastically in 1982–83. The drop in subsidy entitlement which would occur in that year would amount to over £100 million as a result of the phasing out of housing expenditure subsidy. The new housing support grant is designed to secure greater fairness of distribution, so that authorities have to face up to more consistent expenditure burdens; greater flexibility in meeting local and specialised needs for housing; and a reduction in detailed Government oversight of projects.

The new grant will be paid annually to local authorities following approval of an order laid before Parliament each year: that order will be accompanied by an explanatory report. The housing support grant procedure is a radical departure for housing subsidies, but we think that, involving as it does the closest collaboration with local authorities, it should result in a far more effective and lasting form of support for the necessary expenditure of housing authorities. It will enable grant to be based logically on the difference between authorities' expenditure on meeting housing needs and their reasonable local income from rents and rate fund contributions.

Estimates of aggregate expenditure will take into account interest rates and other economic factors which affect expenditure for the grant year and estimates of aggregate local income will be related to the broad principles set out in the Green Paper, that over a period of years local contributions to housing costs for Scotland as a whole should keep broadly in line with the rise in the general level of earnings. The distribution of grant will be worked out in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and allow for adjustment to reflect changing circumstances or anomalies.

The new arrangements will mean a redistribution of grant and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is obliged under the Bill to make transitional arrangements to moderate the effect of this redistribution in the first few years of the new system. The Government intend that the effect of redistribution should be limited in any year to the equivalent of 1p in the pound on the rates (according to new rateable values).

This Bill is a vital part of the action which the Government are taking to implement their Green Paper strategy. It does not deal with the full range of issues, but in its reform of the system of support for local authorities it is at the core of a new approach to housing which relates much more closely to the range of people's housing needs and the effective direction of resources to meet these needs. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining the purposes of the Bill so carefully and clearly. The housing subsidy system in Scotland is now due for review and what the Government are proposing is the logical next step. It is an attempt to rationalise many of the subsidies into a single one and to simplify the whole process. I suggest that the House accepts these proposals, but I want to make two cautionary comments later.

1 noted the noble Lord said that the Bill did not attempt to cover the full range of issues raised in the earlier Green Paper, and I regret that it is modest in content. In particular, there is an omission that there is nothing to enable, or make easier, home ownership in what is at present the public sector in Scotland, although the Bill is dealing mostly with the public sector. While the Government were about it, arrangements to encourage the selling of houses in the public sector to willing buyers with preference being given to tenants in circumstances where no harm can be done to anybody else, including applicants on a housing list, would have been very welcome. I would remind your Lordships that tenants are likely to remain in council houses for years or the rest of their lives and, while they do so, those houses are not available to anyone else.

Such a move would have probably been the most important step that could be taken in Scotland at present in public sector housing. The amount of home ownership in Scotland is small in comparison with the rest of the country. It is about 33 per cent. in Scotland, whereas it is about 55 per cent over the whole of Britain. Indeed, Scotland is unfortunately at the bottom of the league for the whole of Europe in the percentage of home ownership.

I declare a general interest, my Lords, in homeownership as I am the chairman of the Scottish board of a building society. I am glad to say that there are at least two noble Lords on the Benches opposite who have in the past been on the board of the same building society. We are not divided in our support on both sides of the House for home ownership, and I think it is now generally accepted politically, except where the Far Left is concerned. But there is a difficulty and, I think, a difference between us about the application in the public sector. I am not suggesting that home ownership should be forced upon anyone; but the noble Lord will know that there is a large and growing demand for home ownership in Scotland where there is so low a proportion of it at present, especially among young people.

I should like to say in passing that the example that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, set during the years when he was chairman of the new town corporation of East Kilbride in successfully selling a huge proportion of houses in that first Scottish new town, has shown how popular the move was and how the offers were taken up. Some individual houses have been sold in Scotland with the permission of Labour Governments. I can remember some in my area in the 1960s. Then, suddenly, in the late 1960s a doctrinal edict seemed to have been issued to stop it. We had a curious situation where identical houses in the same street in a town near me produced the effect where two or three had already been sold with the permission of the Secretary of State and then, a few weeks later, when the other requests were made, they were refused because these applications had come just after this edict had been issued. I hope that the Government can now relax on this subject.

The present Government have accepted a good deal that is sensible in housing and housing finance—and I include this Bill in that—and are thus taking much of the doctrinaire side of politics out of housing, which is very welcome. They should give more thought to, and look more kindly upon, home ownership. The circumstances of each house and of each group of houses should be considered; I am not suggesting mass approvals. This would relieve local councils and officials of many of the minor tasks of maintenance and management, and the new owners would voluntarily carry out those tasks with reduced cost to the public purse.

I fully recognise the aims of the new housing support grant which this Bill would being forward. One of them is to reduce the need for detailed scrutiny by officials from the Scottish Office. Another is that the local authorities would be able to use the grant for whatever housing purposes are most necessary and appropriate in their own areas. It is no longer just a matter of how many new houses can be built in Scotland as a whole. I remember in the past that the measure of success appeared to be the numbers of new houses—sometimes simply boxes without amenities—that could be built each year in Scotland. Numbers were certainly necessary in the years after the war when there was a shortage, but I am glad the Government acknowledge that other factors now must be taken into account. As the noble Lord knows, it is some years since I was myself enumerating these factors and he used some of the same words today.

Of course new houses are needed, but they are needed in particular areas and not just anywhere in Scotland. Also, different kinds of houses are required: for example, flats in tower blocks that were built in the 1960s are not to everyone's liking as a home. Then there are housing estates without proper amenities that have been built and have not been welcome, either. Above all, we must make better use of the existing stock of houses in Scotland, and we must make sure that they are kept in good repair and prevented from falling into decay. Improvements to the older houses can be made where they are needed.

The housing support grant appears to take into account that kind of assessment of the housing position in Scotland, together with the new provisions for special repair grants that are included in the Bill; and I commend these proposals to your Lordships' House. They mean that in future the main housing subsidies in Scotland will consist of this housing support grant and the rent rebate grant. Of course tile latter applies in the private sector as well, and I must record some gratification that it has been working successfully, because I introduced that system into Scotland in the 1972 Act. When that Act entered into force no family in Scotland, in the public or the private sector, needed to pay a rent more than they could afford. The Government, through the rent rebate subsidy, can exercise some control in the light of inflation and earnings by raising the levels of eligibility

There are two points I should like to make as matters of caution concerning the new housing support grant. First, under the Bill Parliament will have very little control in future over the way in which the amounts for housing subsidies are decided and distributed. As the noble Lord told us, once a year an order will come before another place and the Members of another place can only accept or reject that order; they cannot change it. No one, in particular in another place, is disposed to vote against an order which is bringing forward many millions of pounds of money in subsidy form. Therefore I suggest that the Government ought to bring in this order annually, with plenty of time to spare, and that there should be a new approach so that the Government would be prepared to withdraw the order and resubmit it, duly changed, if a valid point has been made and accepted at that stage. It should not be a matter of losing face or Parliamentary time to withdraw an order if, in discussion, it is found that it can be improved, particularly as regards the distribution formula. Certainly no Parliamentary time will be lost in future because the procedure under this Bill—and I am sure it will be welcome in another place as well as here—will mean that less Parliamentary time will be spent on scrutinising housing subsidies in connection with future Bills. It also means that when an order goes before another place time will be of great importance.

The determination of the amount and the distribution formula will be worked out between the Government and a single body outside Parliament: the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am sure that there will be genuine attempts to meet the needs and situations of different areas in Scotland, but it could be that one or two areas will have special problems that do not arise elsewhere. Local authorities concerned may feel that the formula which is being arrived at does less than justice to their circumstances, and so I suggest there must still be an effective Parliamentary system for making a change, if the need for it is seen and accepted late in the proceedings.

My second point is that there are apprehensions now among some local authorities in Scotland—those who have been active and efficient in housing in the past—that they will suffer in comparison with other local authorities whom they feel have been laggards. Where certain needs still exist in certain areas, those needs could have been satisfied in past years if a local council had done more and run its housing revenue account more respectably. That could be an argument that some of the former group of local authorities might put forward. I suggest, therefore, that when present needs are being considered, while the orders and the formula are being worked out, what has happened in the past should also be taken into consideration. That will be a great step towards getting the new system accepted and above suspicion for all local authorities, particularly those with good records in housing. It will encourage all local authorities in Scotland to be paragons in future, and that must be in the Government's interest.

As regards the particular provisions in the Bill, my honourable friends examined them in great detail in the Scottish Standing Committee and also in debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. As a result, a considerable number of Amendments and additions were made to the Bill, which has been much improved since it was first introduced. The principles in the Bill are to be commended but the test will be how those principles are put into practice. I wish all those engaged in the negotiations on the first housing grant order the wisdom of Solomon; it looks as though they will need it!

My Lords, I should like to add my voice of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. At the same time I should like also to add, if it is correct, a word of congratulation to the author or authors of the Green Paper, the consultative document. It is one of the few Government papers which appear to be written as though it was intended to be read, unlike some others, which are long and turgid tracts of departmental prose which seem primarily designed to be as uninformative as possible. That criticism cannot be made of this Green Paper or indeed of the strategy as laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill.

I should like to refer to one particular section of the Green Paper which I believe exposes a new line of thinking, or at least a new principle, which I should like the noble Lord to confirm. Perhaps I may read from section 2.19:

"The type of house which people require is partly a matter of family circumstances and partly one of personal preference."

I detect here a major change in thinking front the Government, or rather the Government Department concerned; that is, that the householder is allowed some rights as regards deciding on the kind of house he is going to live in, whereas previously those of us who have applied for planning permission for even the smallest type of alteration have often wondered whether or not we are capable of deciding these decisions for ourselves, or are forced to have the type of house which a departmental member or a Government subsection paper decides we should live in. I hope that this principle will be taken right through, including, when this Bill is implemented. I know that it is very convenient, for administrative purposes, for us to live like peas in a pod, and at times we are inclined to get the impression that this is what the Government want us to do; but this new step forward increases my welcome to the Bill.

Also, the consultative document goes on to say in paragraph 4 that,

"It is the Government's policy to liberalise the management policies of public authorities."

Again, more flexible thinking can only help those people who are in need of housing, or are in housing which needs attention. I fully go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said. The intentions of the Government here are good and have our support from these Benches.

But I did not see in the consultative document any mention of planning permission, or hear anything about it in what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said to us this afternoon. In my very limited experience in this field, planning permission is the area in which most misunderstandings occur, and in which there are the most unfortunate occurrences when people want to make even small alterations to their houses. For instance, when an elderly person wants to move the bathroom from upstairs to the ground floor, or someone wants to build an extension to house a kidney dialysis machine, planning permission either takes a very long time to come or is refused, for one reason or another. I hope that the liberalisation, which is referred to in the consultative document, will filter through to the planning permission authorities, because they are sometimes staffed by people who make one wonder what qualifications they have, and one often queries the reasons for refusing planning permission.

To return to the Bill before us, I wish to speak very briefly only on the repairs grant section in Clause 8, which consists mainly of the Government Amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974. It appears to me—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, can clarify this—that we need some form of financial criteria for deciding whether or not a householder is entitled to the grant. Does this clause mean that the Government, or a local authority, wish to engage in some kind of means test before a grant of up to £1,500 is allowed for someone to do repairs to his house? If that is the case, I ask the noble Lord to reconsider, because it would be unfortunate to bring in a means test in connection with this kind of Bill. It might undo a lot of good work, and a lot of good intentions which this Bill is meant to fulfil. Furthermore, it may be almost impossible to implement. How is one to judge whether or not someone should get a grant? Perhaps the noble Lord will put my mind at rest on this aspect.

But, maybe, this is just a window dressing clause, because, in my experience, the money must be paid out before one gets a grant. if this grant is intended to help those who are in need, they must first pay out the money to get the repairs done before they are entitled to get a grant with which to pay for them. So what happens if a person does not have up to £1,500? He may get the grant but he cannot pay the builders to do the work. I am sure the noble Lord may see this as a very small and almost trivial point, but it is in regard to small alterations of this kind that an ordinary citizen, or an elderly householder, seems to run up against bureaucracy—if that is the right word—at its worst. So that I shall increase my welcome to the Bill if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, can clarify this clause, and give some of the reassurances for which I have asked. It only remains for me to say that we give a general welcome in respect of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House.

My Lords, as one who has always taken a very keen interest in Scottish housing, and who in other days had a considerable responsibility for it, I should like in my opening remarks to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the manner in which he has introduced this Bill. I fully support every single word that was spoken by my noble friend Lord Campbell, and I want particularly to support him in regard to house ownership, which is vital to the whole future of our country. I also support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, whose last remarks were so true. Much more would be done if the financial resources of the person asking for the improvement were not to be a bar.

The position has been quite ridiculous. I know of many property owners, particularly landed property, in Scotland who provide houses for their employees. They do not gain anything by altering their houses, putting in bathrooms and so on, but the tenants who live in the houses gain and they often live in them for a very long time. But why on earth the financial resources of the owner should be taken into account, I cannot imagine. It is absolutely mad and completely stupid, and unjust to the people who will live in the houses. I can speak with some feeling on the matter, because I myself suffered from that situation for many years and I had to support, out of my own pocket, improvements to a great number of cottages, which were greatly welcomed by the people who occupied them.

As regards house ownership, I hope that the Government will pay attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell and by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I suggest that these are not criticisms; they are helpful remarks. There has been nothing done or said which, in any way, criticises the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, or the present Government. But if the Government will pay attention to what has been said, and break away from some of the old practices that continue to worry the Housing Department of the Scottish Office, the better for Scotland and its people. I again thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he introduced this Bill.

My Lords, may I just say one word in support of the Bill, since I have spent a lot of my time being chairman of a housing committee and dealing with housing matters. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on this Bill. It seems to me that it has admirable purposes. I should like particularly to support the clauses that deal with repairs to good, solid but, sometimes, old-fashioned houses. They very often turn into very much nicer and more agreeable houses to live in than some of the modern ones, especially the groups of flats which have often proved to be highly unsatisfactory. I think that more people and more local authorities, particularly in small towns where there are often a lot of very nice, old, well-built but rather old-fashioned houses, would prefer to modernise such houses, rather than knock them down and start all over again. The Government are to be congratulated on that aspect, because it is something that is wanted very badly, and I am sure that people will respond, too.

I should also like to back up the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Campbell about house ownership. To me, it has always seemed extraordinary how few privately-owned houses there are in Scotland as compared with England, especially as, on the whole, we in Scotland like owning our own houses. We are just as keen about that as any other people, and it is a very good thing that this Bill encourages home ownership. Also, in the way of repairs, I hope that this Bill will encourage people to put better insulation in to old houses. As we all know, the cost of heating today is enormous. Whether one lives in a large or a small house, it is a very large proportion of one's expenditure. Insulation can now be provided quite cheaply, and it makes a tremendous difference. So I hope that that is something that will be encouraged. I do not want to delay the House. All I wish to do is to add another word of congratulation. I hope that this Bill will prove to be highly satisfactory for everyone concerned.

My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, for her very agreeable remarks—as, indeed, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in our short debate this afternoon. If only for the sake of appearance, I have to stand aghast at the charge that my Government are yet perpetuating an edict of doctrinal narrowness and rigour. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that, as he well knows, legislation is not necessary for making home ownership easier in the public sector.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way because I feel that he has misunderstood me. I was recording the previous time of Labour Government. There was an interval from 1970 to 1974. There was a moment, however, when the selling of council houses was stopped in about 1968 or 1969. In fact, it stopped in the middle of the sale of a batch of houses in my own area. I was hoping that no such doctrinal edict applied now. I hoped that there would be something in the Bill which would positively encourage home ownership. Something like 54 per cent. of all the houses in Scotland are now in public ownership. It means that some of those houses will have to change their ownership if we are to encourage home ownership as a whole.

My Lords, if I have misundestood the noble Lord, I apologise. I shall read his remarks very carefully in the record tomorrow. I had thought that there was a carry-over belief in his own mind about doctrinal narrowness on the part of my Government, and I was going to say—and I shall continue to say it—that legislation is not necessary for the sale of council houses where a local authority wishes to sell. I agree that, at present, authorities are required to secure the approval of the Secretary of State to the sale of individual houses. It is fair to say that approvals are being made in certain cases and in certain areas.

I gladly acknowledge in the presence of your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, did indeed introduce a rent rebate system which has stood the test of time. It is effective, it has functioned well and it continues to function in a satisfactory manner. I gladly acknowledge the good work which the noble Lord did at that time in the Scottish Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked about possible safeguards for authorities which stand to lose subsidy because they have been prudent in the past. The Government's aim is to distribute the available grant so as to reduce the substantial differences which have grown up between authorities in the level of their local rent and rate fund contributions to housing costs—that is, the balance of housing expenditure over and above Government grants and subsidies.

These differences have arisen for two main reasons. First, the average cost of council housing is many times greater in some areas than in others. It is obvious that authorities which have had large building programmes over the past decade face a much bigger financial burden than those which have had little need recently to increase their housing stock. Authorities have built houses recently largely because the need to do so did not exist before. Examples of that type of authority are those which control areas where North Sea onshore development is taking place.

The second reason for differences in locally borne costs lies in the present subsidy system. It has some quirks which work to the disadvantage of authorities which concentrate on new housebuilding and to the advantage of those which concentrate expenditure on their existing housing stock. In other words, authorities with small building programmes have done unfairly well out of the present system.

Distributing grants so as to produce a more even pattern of locally borne costs inevitably means some redistribution of existing subsidy. Authorities which have been doing too well in recent years will receive a smaller share of grant in future in order to help those which have suffered unduly large local burdens. However, I repeat to the noble Lord the assurance that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave in another place. We shall introduce the new system gradually so that no matter how low the existing level of rent and rate contributions no authority will have to face an unacceptably large increase.

I welcome, of course, the kind manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, welcomed not only the Green Paper but the Bill which is presently before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord posed a specific question regarding planning permission, referring it to type of house, et cetera. I have to say to the noble Lord that planning control in this detail is delegated to local authorities by the planning legislation. However, I am sure that they will note what the noble Lord has said this afternoon regarding the need for a perhaps more liberal administration of this control. I certainly hope that they do.

The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is also worried about a possible means test. I cannot entirely reassure him on that point. Nobody really likes a hardship test, but responsibility for repairs lies with the householder, and, initially at least, he should meet the cost from his own resources. In some cases, however, it will be beyond the scope of the householder so to do and the execution of repair work might lead to the need for some expedition, otherwise increasing decay of the building will occur. Then the local authority will have to assess the position. One might argue that this is a form of means test, and if one were to adopt that construction I could not cavil. However, I should hope that the matter would be approached in a liberal manner. Loans will be available from local authorities for the balance between the cost and the grant to the owner.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also generously welcomed the Bill. Again touching upon the question of home ownership, I can say to the noble Lord that the Government are taking other steps to encourage home ownership by means of the savings bonus and loans scheme which is incorporated in the Great Britain Bill that is at present being considered in another place.

In winding up, I should also like to comment on a matter which was raised in another place and again this afternoon in your Lordships' House by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy; namely, the question of Parliamentary control over the Secretary of State's proposals for housing support grant each year. Unusually for a housing Bill, this Bill does not specify details of the rate of the subsidy for which it provides. Experience has shown that against the background of changing housing needs and of inflation, the fixing of subsidies in a Statute can lead to distortions and unwanted effects, and so to the need for further legislation. The Bill therefore provides a framework for evolutionary arrangements for grant.

As I have just said, it is the Government's intention to pay grant which in aggregate is sufficient to meet the balance of local authorities' necessary housing expenditure, after allowing for local contributions rising broadly in line with earnings. The question has therefore been asked whether such an arrangement affords sufficient Parliamentary control. I hope to assure your Lordships that it does. The arrangements arrived at each year in consultation with the local authorities will be subject to due scrutiny by Parliament and in due course, if it gets under way, by the Scottish Assembly.

The calculation of the grant and the basis of its distribution will be set out each year, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned, in a draft order which will require confirmation in another place. The order will be accompanied by a report fully explaining the basis of the calculations. The Affimative Resolution procedure which is to be adopted is the one which affords the maximum level of scrutiny of subordinate legislation by Parliament. It has been said, however, that even this procedure is unsatisfactory since Parliament's sanction, the rejection of the order, can result only in holding up payments to local authorities. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, touched on that particular point. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, I can assure your Lordships that, as respects the housing support grant order, Parliament will, if it thinks fit, be able to reject the initial draft order, which it is expected will be debated in November or December, without fear of deferring money due to local authorities. The main order will relate to the coming financial year and payments under it would not be due until the end of April. There would be time for a revised order to be prepared, in consultation with local authorities, to meet, so far as possible, the points to which Parliament may have objected, and for it to be presented and debated in either February or March.

I should like to take this opportunity of forewarning your Lordships that it is the Government's intention at Committee stage to introduce a new provision. This will enable home loss and disturbance payments to be made to households displaced from dangerous buildings. Apart from that, I envisage little in the way of amendment from the Government side at Committee.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the statement which he made towards the end of his speech in response to my question about the Parliamentary procedure, because, although it does affect another place, it is very important that this kind of timetable which he has outlined should be adhered to, and that rejection of the order should not be regarded as a disaster but simply as an arrangement whereby a revised order can come forward.

My Lords, I having taken about five minutes to explain that, it will readily be understood that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, most decently gave me advance notice that he would ask that question.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

I would wish to seek some information on this particular clause. I did not set down as Amendment at this stage but the Committee may remember that in the debate that we had last Thursday I did ask the Minister to tell me:

"Whether there will be a breakdown of security costs by category and amount? If so, to whom will these details be made available—to Parliament, to the airlines or to the airline users?"—[Official Report, 9/3/78; col. 986.]

Towards the end of his remarks, my noble friend the Minister said that he was not in a position to give me an answer then and he would be glad if I could leave it until today.

Clause 1(3) states:

"The Secretary of State shall prepare accounts of the Fund in such form as the Treasury may direct."

It is information on that point that I am seeking. The Committee may also remember that at Second Reading I quoted at Col. 986 from one of our EEC partners. Quoting from the particular country in question, I read:

"The nature of the security operations taken into account in calculating the amounts to be charged to the users was not indicated; obviously what is involved is not merely the screening and searching of passengers and their baggage, the cost of which is far less expensive. It would appear that the British Government intends to recuperate at least part of the airport police costs."

The third point I would wish, without going into detail, to make, is this. I have had prepared for me some detailed statistics on the airport security levy. They may or may not be correct; I think they probably are, but I would not be competent to say at this stage. But I am rather disturbed by them. I am disturbed by what it is suggested should be paid by passengers. I am disturbed at the way in which this is rounded up. I am disturbed at the surcharge which airlines propose to charge for collecting this, and I am not happy about the resultant profits from the figures which have been given to me. It does, therefore, seem that the only way of getting this settled is to have a breakdown of the costs, and I have asked the Minister for this.

If I may make one other point, I do not propose today to say anything about the major point of principle on which I based my remarks last Thursday. I hope to return to this matter on Monday next, because, as the Committee will realise from looking at the day's Minute, we have that little asterisk which indicates, most unusually for our House, that the Report stage of the Civil Aviation Bill has been set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages. I have not had time fully to reflect on the matter of principle. If my noble friend can enlighten the Committee and me about the breakdown of costs and what publicity will be given to these, I should like to return to the point of principle next Monday.

I regret that other duties prevented me from being present in the House on Thursday during the Second Reading debate. If I had been, I should certainly have supported the noble Baroness in her onslaught—I do not think that is too strong a word—on the principle embodied in this clause and those which immediately follow it. I have, however, read her speech, and I think those who were present and those who have read it will agree that it does amount to a devastating attack on the whole principle of the charge.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, when he moved the Second Reading, said something which suggests that there is a good deal of confusion about not only the principle—to which I will come in a moment—but indeed about what is being done. At col. 976 of the Official Report for last Thursday the noble Lord is reported as saying:

"The Government decided in November 1976, as part of the public expenditure cuts, that the burden of aviation security expenditure should be transferred from the taxpayer to the industry from 1st April 1978".—[Official Report; 9/3/78, col. 976.]

This is not a public expenditure cut. The expenditure remains and indeed is being increased. What it does amount to is the levying of a tax in order to finance the additional expenditure. It really is to confuse counsel—I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Lord—to suggest that what is intended here is an expenditure cut. What it amounts to is setting up a special allocated tax to support a particular kind of maintained and indeed increasing expenditure.

Certainly when I was at the Treasury, the Treasury had an intense dislike for allocated taxation, which they thought, and thought rightly, introduces a rigidity and inflexibility into the tax system. It is, of course, perfectly obvious to anyone who has been for any length of time in Whitehall what happened here. The Treasury in performance of its duties pressed the Department of Trade to reduce its estimates, and the Department of Trade, rather than reduce its expenditure, rather than reduce its staff, thought out the ingenious idea of simply transferring the cost from the Department's estimates to a new tax falling directly upon the industry.

Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will discuss this issue not from the point of view that this is a worthy reduction in expenditure—such as apparently was suggested in another place, and was suggested by the noble Lord here in the sentence I have quoted from his Second Reading speech—but, on the contrary, from the point of view that it is a device for raising further funds in order to maintain and to expand expenditure.

I should like to take up, if I may—and this argues at least my impartiality—my alarm at the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne from the Conservative Front Bench during Second Reading. I shall summarise what he said in his presence so that he can correct me if I get it wrong. I understood him to say that the civil avaition industry ought to stand on its own feet and that this was apparently some additional means of its so doing.

I agree with the first part of my noble friend's proposition. Indeed, I spent five years of my life moving the Civil Aviation Authority into a position in which, in fact, in all areas where it controls its income and charges, it was able to balance those against its expenditure. However, with great respect to my noble friend, this is a totally different matter. No one suggests that protection against attack by the Queen's enemies is an ordinary expense of an industry or an individual. Indeed, now coming to the principle of the matter, the protection of the citizen against attack by violent persons, whether outside or within the realm, is the original basis upon which society was formed. Our earliest sovereigns gave their protection in return for allegiance.

It is the basic duty of the Government to protect the citizen against attack and violence. It seems to me quite extraordinary to say that this industry, an industry which incidentally, is making a major and increasing contribution to this country's balance of payments, should be subjected to a special levy for the purpose of enabling the Crown to discharge what is the basic duty, under our Constitution, of the Crown. Therefore, as a matter of principle I think that this is wholly wrong.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, in his wind-up speech on Second Reading, sought to justify the situation by saying, in effect, "Oh well, shops, restaurants and railways, et cetera, have to do the same". With great respect, he was blurring a distinction. It is perfectly true that the railways have their police and that both shops and restaurants in this day and age sometimes employ security men. However, the noble Lord will appreciate that those organisations run their own systems of security at their own discretion to meet what they view as their own needs.

The security precautions that protect the airline industry are those decided—and their scale is decided—by the Government which then pass on the charge, under this Bill, to the industry. There is surely all the difference in the world between an industry supplementing the security that it receives from the Government with additional provisions which it pays for up to the extent it thinks justifiable, and an industry being saddled with a charge determined by the Government in order to maintain the level of protection which the Government, in their wisdom, think is required in the public interest. There is a very real distinction.

For the reason which I think I rightly suggested a few moments ago, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will appreciate that what he is doing is, in principle, very wrong and very unfortunate. How far will the noble Lord carry it? After all, in certain offices, Ministers of the Crown traditionally are granted, and very properly granted, protection. However, on the noble Lord's principle the Home Secretary should pay for his detective. It is exactly the same principle as is involved in this case. If, when performing perfectly legitimate activities—never mind in this case activities which conduce very much to the public interest—we are really to pay separately special charges to enable the Government to protect us, we are really making a nonsense of a basic constitutional principle. I do not know what will happen to this clause at this stage or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, indicated, perhaps at another stage. However, I think that it is a very bad clause—bad in principle and introduced for the wrong reason.

I shall speak briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has added a powerful voice to the devastating case, as he so accurately described it, put up by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on Second Reading. The noble Lord has gone to the heart of the principle involved. After all what is concerned here is estimated to be about £19 million. At present, the Government lay down the standard of security to be observed at airports and they pay for it. As has been pointed out, under this scheme they will still lay down the requirements, but they will pass the charge, by a form of taxation, to the airport owner who will, in due course, pass it on to the passenger.

The adoption of this principle leads to a number of inequities that are not evident under the existing system. It is estimated that 80p will be the sum which will be charged by the airport owner to the airline. There is already substantial evidence that the airline will make the sum £1. That sum of £1 is to be added to arrivals, whether the distance travelled has been long or short. The sum is to be £1 whether the passenger comes from Sydney or Singapore, or from Paris or Ostend.

Such a charge is not insignificant in the case of short journeys. I know that £1 added to the fare from Sydney is trivial and is scarcely noticeable. However the fare from Ostend to Southend is £10 and in that case it will mean a 10 per cent. increase in the charge. Furthermore, if European countries follow our example, those who go on holiday to such countries will pay £1 on arrival and another £1 on return home, making a £2 addition to, say, the package holiday charge. Finally, if someone goes to Newcastle for the day on business or for a funeral or whatever, he will pay £1 extra for the journey to Newcastle and another £1 for coming back. Therefore, it seems to me that these inequities, which are not trivial in some cases, only arise because of the adoption of a bad principle. Indeed, it is also bad—and I think the noble Lord had this in mind—in the sense that whereas at present the Government decide on the standard and then pay, in the future they will decide on the standard but not themselves pay, and that may possibly lead to lack of economy or even to extravagance.

I believe that the fundamental principle is wrong. The action of hijackers and terrorists in this area is against Governments; it is not against passengers. It is absurd to compare the problem with that of the restaurant owner or the café owner who is expected to look after the security of his own premises. Such a comparison, to say the very least, is utterly inadequate.

I am aware of the fact that there is a lone voice on the Government Benches, a lone voice on the Opposition Benches, and not least of all, a lone voice on the Cross-Benches and I can, at present, see no prospect of seeing such Parliamentary action as will defeat Clause 1. However, I still hope that something will emerge when it is realised that the principle of charging the individual passenger as though he is in any way responsible, rather than of regarding it as an international duty to look after these and other passengers as part of the basic responsibility for maintaining law and order, is a bad principle which will lead to trouble as well as to the inequity to which I have referred. I hope that at this late stage the Government will realise that, important though other parts of the Bill are, this part is ill-based, unwise and unfair.

I must confess that the case advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on Second Reading, and indeed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, this afternoon, is a powerful one. None the less, I am persuaded that on balance the principles that I hold dear—no less than the principles held dear by the other noble Lords—are those that ought to prevail on this occasion. Perhaps I may recite them shortly. First, on the question of public expenditure, I certainly accept that the Government's choice of words in this matter is unfortunate. But the fact remains that if we were to take the course which they advocate, the £18 million or £20 million sum which we are presently considering would fall upon the general burden of public taxation.

If my noble friend would allow me to intervene, is not that argument equally relevant to any other reduction of taxation, such as we are told the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now contemplating?

I am sure that my noble friend is right; but I rest on what I said, that if the money that is to be raised under this measure were not to be so raised, it would fall on the general burden of taxation. It is true that this argument could well apply to other items of Government expenditure or to private expenditure, but that is not what we are considering this afternoon. We are considering the precise proposal that the Government have put before us in Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill.

I find this a little difficult. Is the noble Lord really telling the Committee that if a tax or a charge is imposed on any group of people and it is considered to be an unfair and selective tax, it cannot be removed because the general public would have to pay for it?

No, I am not saying that it cannot be removed; I am saying that perhaps it ought not to be removed. I believe that each and every case of this nature must be considered on its merits, and, as they appear to me, the merits of this one are that the expenditure ought not to be placed on the public at large.

The second point—and it is one which I thought my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also dismissed rather lightly— concerns the general principle of the 1971 Act, which he administered with such distinction for five years, that the civil aviation industry must pay for itself. In this particular case there is a peculiar item of expenditure which does not fall on the general public. The cost and difficulties of policing and protecting civil aviation are particularly large because the threat is particularly large. Therefore, I think that is it right that the industry should be seen to cover its own special costs in this field.

Connected with that I would ask your Lordships to consider that very many—perhaps 50 per cent.—of the users of British airports are not British nationals and make no contribution to the general taxation of the nation. I think it is right that those who enjoy the excellent security services of this country ought to make some contribution towards the cost. For those three reasons I believe that the Government are right in bringing forward these proposals and including them in the Bill.

On a matter of procedure, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has not suggested today that she wants to omit this clause; she told us that she might return to the matter at another stage. She reminded us that the Report stage is to be today week—next Monday. I speak without advice on this matter, but I hope that she will be able to do that because, if my memory serves me right, I understand that we cannot raise on Report a matter which was not raised during the Committee stage. Whatever the noble Baroness decides to do, I shall do my best to assist her procedurally. However, if there is a difficulty, she may want so say more about the principle of the matter this afternoon. Like her, I regret that the Committee stage has had to be taken so soon after the Second Reading, and I recognise the difficulties which she is under in this matter.

I do not want particularly to enter into this controversy, but one noble Lord pointed out that one Member of the Government, one Member on the Cross-Benches and one Member from my side of the House—that is, part of my side of the House—has spoken. I thought that that was rather a pity and would, therefore, like to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so that those figures which some have calculated are altered. It is very difficult always to be in one's place; I do my best, but I cannot always be here. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether he made the statement that he has just made after my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter spoke last week?

I did not speak last week.

Well, whenever my noble friend did speak. I should like to know whether the Opposition spokesman today, who seemed to be supporting the Government's view, spoke on the last occasion? Could he answer that?

It is not normal for questions to be answered from the Opposition Dispatch Box, but for the information of the noble Baroness, I spoke on Second Reading in broadly the same sense as I have spoken today.

All I can say is that it cannot have been a very good speech. I certainly do not remember it. I was very interested in what the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said when he mentioned Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

If the noble Baroness will allow me, is a good speech one that agrees with her point of view or are there others as well?

I try to be quite generous in assessing speeches, but I thought it was neither a very good speech nor very well put; that was all. I did not think that it was nearly as attractive a speech—if I can use the word "attractive"—as the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches. In any event, I doubt whether passengers from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which always seems to be daubed even by my own side of the House, will be at all pleased if they have to pay £1 extra to travel from Newcastle to London. We get enough legislation from London; I should like a little to be passed from my own part of the world. They always seem to forget about us, so that is why I am speaking.

I do not think that businessmen—I am saying businessmen and not really referring to women, as so often women get forgotten altogether—will be pleased, even if they have to come to London, to pay an extra £1 to come and an extra £1 to go back again. I do not like that at all. It seems to me that we have got to quite an interesting position in this discussion. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, did not even look round to see whether anybody else wanted to speak. I always try to speak for my part of the world. I am doing it today, and I am supporting my noble friend here, my noble friend on the Cross-Benches, my noble friend as she used to be—and I hope I am a friend of hers now. I like their idea very much better than I like the rather unattractive speech made from the Opposition Front Bench.

I am sorry that I rose to my feet before the noble Baroness had a chance to speak. I usually keep a close eye on her but I missed the point this time. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, referred at that stage to three lone voices—there have been some other voices heard since. He referred to the speeches of my noble friend behind me, his own, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as being effective attacks on the principle of the levy. I am glad to have the support of the one lone voice from the official Opposition, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has clearly stated the support of the official Opposition in the same terms as were clearly stated in another place. I am sorry that that has brought the wrath of his noble friend Lady Ward on his head about the quality of his speech. If his speech was bad, then speeches in another place which were in identical terms were bad. Different people have different judgments and I think that both the noble Lord's speech and those in another place were highly acceptable from my point of view.

May I first refer to the point that my noble friend Lady Burton raised. I had of course noted the request which she made at Second Reading, to which she has referred today. During the course of the morning I have sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and have copied it to all Members who spoke in the Second Reading debate. It may be that my noble friend has not yet had an opportunity of studying that, but she will find in that letter that there is a breakdown of the security expenses. I hope she will find that it is in the form that she was hoping for when she raised the point on Second Reading.

May I interrupt my noble friend, although it is rather early days? I am sure that it is a most excellent letter and I am very glad to have a copy of what has been sent to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, although I must say that he has turned coat over the weekend. But leaving that aside for the moment, with regard to this letter which my noble friend has sent me, it would be rude to say that I am not interested in it, but the fact is that I think that the Committee and the House should have the information for which I asked, and a letter sent to me is no substitute at all. Will the noble Lord be kind enough now to read us that part of the letter, because after all it was I who asked about this matter? I am not interested in what went to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when I asked the question. Could we have it read out so that the Committee is in possession of the facts?

No, it is a very long copy of a letter from my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to Mr. Norman Tebbit in another place setting out the way in which the 80p levy was calculated and giving a very detailed table for five different years of the breakdown of the expenses.

The letter to which the noble Lord referred was addressed to me, and I have acknowledged that I have received it and am grateful to him for it, nevertheless I support the noble Baroness on this point. It is information that ought to be in the Official Report. Therefore, would it be possible for the noble Lord to answer a Written Question from the noble Baroness at short order, so that tomorrow or the next day we could have it in Hansard?

I am sorry to keep getting up on this, but it really is not good enough. I am not a bit interested in what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place has written to a Member of the Opposition in another place. I am interested in the question I have asked. I think I have a right to the answer; I think the House has a right to the answer, and the Committee has a right to the answer. It should be contained in today's debate, even if it is taken out of context there, and put in the Report. I would resent very much it not being made available today.

I was being as helpful as I could in response to the point the noble Baroness made on Thursday last. I was just about to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has made, that this seems certainly material which should be available to your Lordships' House, and I have no hesitation whatever in suggesting that it should be made available. I think that the method that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has suggested is the only practicable one.

I am sorry; I know I am being a nuisance, but I think the House does believe in the rights of Back-Benchers, and this is a right. I am not prepared to have this stuck at the back of the Official Report in a Written Answer. I have asked a question, I gave notice of asking a question, and I think it should be included in the reply, and in the noble Lord's speech now.

I am trying to be as helpful to my noble friend as I can. I also have in mind the convenience of your Lordships in general, and I believe that if I were to read out these detailed figures then I would be subject, and rightly subject, to a good deal of criticism from your Lordships. I have already made it available to all Members who took part in the Second Reading debate. I am fully willing that it should be placed on the record as soon as is practicable. I believe that I have the sense of the Committee that they would not wish me to read out whole categories of figures.

Would the noble Lord allow me to put a suggestion to him? Would not the matter be made very much easier and more convenient for all of us if, instead of pushing on with the Committee stage today at what is inconveniently short notice anyhow after Second Reading, the debate were to be adjourned and resumed some days later after we have had the opportunity to study this massive document? If he circulated it in Hansard, we should all have it and we could come back to the debate on this clause and the rest of the Committee stage at another day.

I know that the noble Lord intends to be helpful in that suggesttion, but I am afraid it is not one that I can accept. There is an important timetable point in relation to putting this Bill on the Statute Book. I note what he says about the need for the House to be able to give consideration to the figures which will be in the Official Report, but there are further stages to be taken on Monday of next week, and I think that would be the opportunity for any points in relation to these figures to be brought forward.

Could I follow the noble Lord's suggestion there? Could he comment on the suggestion, made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, that if we let this clause go today it would be impossible to sustain, under the rules of procedure, a Motion to take it out at the Report stage? Can he, in making the suggestion he has made, give a firm assurance that that is not so?

I believe the noble Lord is right; that is, to leave out a clause would need to be done today. I am not absolutely sure.

I am now advised that it would be possible to do it on Report.

I think that I ought to correct myself. I think I was mistaken when I spoke earlier on this matter. As I understand it, one cannot raise new topics on Report if one has not already raised them in Committee. Clearly we have raised the topic today. It has been discussed most effectively. Thus, if the clause is not deleted today there will be nothing to prevent the noble Baroness, or anyone else, putting down an Amendment to leave out the clause at the next stage. I hope I am correct in saying that—I see the Clerk at the Table nodding in assent—and perhaps we can proceed on that basis.

I am glad about that and I thought that was the position. I am sorry to be tiresome but I want to be quite clear about this. I have been in Parliament for some time, but one can get caught by these matters, not that I am suggesting that my noble friend wishes to catch me; suffice to say that one can wait for something and it never arises. Would my noble friend answer my question: Will there be a breakdown of security costs by category and amount? If so, to whom will the details be made available—to Parliament, the airlines and to the airline users? My noble friend said that this lengthy letter will be made available as soon as possible. How soon is that?

I imagine that my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, could table a Question for Written Answer on the subject today.

I am sorry; not a Question for Written Answer.

We have gone through this before and there is no other way, other than my reading all the details out now, and that I refuse to do; I am sure the Committee would not wish to me read out such a tiresome list of figures. Nevertheless, I will see that it is inserted at the earliest possible time.

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to suggest that if this Committee continues in the manner which the noble Lord wishes it to continue, between the usual channels it might be open to your Lordships' House to have the Bill re-committed for next Monday, if that were required.

The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, took advice on what is possible on Report and, as at present advised, I can say that noble Lords will have full opportunity of taking note of the information that will be in the Official Report and will therefore be able perfectly adequately to deal with the matter at the next stage.

Will my noble friend answer the short question I asked him and which I do not wish to repeat for the third time?

I was about to do so 10 minutes ago and perhaps I may do so now. I was about to explain that the information which my noble friend seeks was before a very wide consultative meeting which the Government consulted before reaching the figure of 80p. Included at that meeting were representatives of the airlines, airport authorities, travel organisers and trade unions—indeed, a wide spectrum from throughout the industry—and of course Members of Parliament on the Committee which dealt with the Bill in another place were also informed and entered into discussions.

Moreover, concerning the future, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to consult on regulations for the levy in subsequent years. To this end, a working party consisting of representatives of British airlines, IATA, airport authorities, the travel industry, the Airline Users' Committee and the trade unions, under Department of Trade chairmanship, has been set up. Its first meeting to discuss the terms of the regulations for 1979–80 will be held next month. Thus, the kind of information which my noble friend will find in the letter to which I referred, in respect of subsequent years regarding the decision about the levy, will be put before that broadly based and soundly based working party. That is the degree to which this information will be widely known.

I turn to the broader arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I recognise that he was not able to be with us on Second Reading and therefore we welcome the fact that he has been able to give us the benefit of his views about the principle of the charge in the debate on the clause stand part. I do not dissent from what he said in quoting me when I said that it came in the cuts in public expenditure. I agree that this is not a cut in expenditure; it is expenditure which was there, was paid for, will no doubt increase and will need to be paid for. What is being brought about by the Bill is the imposition of a levy—or a tax, as he called it—and I do not think we need argue that point; it is clear that it is the introduction of a new levy to transfer the cost of security from the general taxpayer to the industry. This was made clear in many debates in another place and I think was germane to a part at least of our discussion on Second Reading.

The noble Lord went on to support the argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and others; namely that this levy—or tax, call it what you will—is wrong in principle; that it is wrong for this payment for security to be put on the shoulders of the industry rather than on the general taxpayer. We have argued this, but in view of the forcefulness with which the noble Lord deployed his argument perhaps I should again spell out the Government's position. It is a fact that the private person engaging in his day-to-day business in a public place enjoys the full protection of the forces of law and order and it is right that the costs of that protection should be borne by the taxpayer or ratepayer. However, when he is in a private place the individual is not protected unless the owner of that place is prepared to pay for that protection.

For example, during the IRA bombings in London and elsewhere during 1975, shops, theatres, restaurants and railways provided a degree of protection similar in concept to what is provided at airports, but the Government did not bear the cost. Another example that has been repeated many times in another place but a valid one is that at football grounds the football club pays for the police to patrol the stadium; the ratepayer pays for the police in the streets leading to the football ground but the security arrangements in the stadium are paid for by the football club. Perhaps I might say in a topical vein that, as a taxpayer, I would not be too disposed to feel I had direct responsibility for what happens in the Lions' Den on Saturday—I think it is for Millwall Football Club to meet that responsibility—and that is the basis of the Government's case in justifying the transfer of this expenditure, this cost, from the taxpayer to the industry, and it has been well discussed with the industry. I know that they have difficulties about accepting it, but in view of the progress that we have made in the discussions with the industry, and in view of the support which has been forthcoming, with perhaps one lone voice in another place, I feel that your Lordships would be well advised to accept the principle in adopting Clause 1.

I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. While accepting the apparent reasoning for the distinction which he is drawing, I must ask whether it is not one which is quite capable of becoming blurred. What about the protection afforded by the police to banks or to jewellers, which they certainly enjoy? Would it be regarded as legitimate to impose special levies on them as being more liable to violence? I do not think this is a frivolous point.

I should like to ask the Minister one question before he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I thought made a first-class and most convincing speech. I may have missed this point because I was not here for the Second Reading, but can the Minister say whether, as we are a Member of the Common Market, other Governments of the EEC were consulted, and how do they feel about this imposition of a levy as it could affect their nationals when landing here or leaving here? Further, can he say whether there is any precedent for such a levy or tax at other international airports in the eight other Member countries of the European Community?

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I should say that this point was dealt with on Second Reading when I indicated that other Members of the European Community had not implemented proposals like those we are implementing, but that when we put our proposals before them they showed a considerable interest and there was some indication that they may wish to follow suit; that the noble Lord will find if he cares to look at the reply that I gave on Second Reading. Of course that does not mean that I am able to quote the Community in support of what we are doing, but I hope it gives the noble Lord some indication of the position.

With regard to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I would agree that these are difficult matters of definition, and that there is always the possibility that a decision along one line may lead to difficulties in some other cases. But as I understand the position in relation to the kind of shop that he has in mind—a jewellers, for instance, where there is an excessive risk of violence or robbery—it is still the jeweller's responsibility to provide his protection. The police will go along and will give advice on how that security should be achieved, but it is still a security which has to be provided and paid for by the owner of the private property. I think that that is the position, although I recognise that the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, have validity.

Would the noble Lord clear up one point for me? Is there not a distinction between the example he gave in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and indeed the examples he quoted to me, and what is done in this clause? In all those cases mentioned it is the threatened person who determines the standard, and therefore the cost, of protection. In this case it is the Government who determine both the standard and the cost. Is there not a second distinction, that in this case, and in this case alone, the threat is not from internal trouble or crime, but from the Queen's enemies?

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, must have known what I was about to say. I know that my noble friend is in a difficult spot, but is he really and truly telling the Committee that the action of hooligans at a football match is in any way comparable with an attack by the Queen's enemies with bombs and by hijacking?

I would not say that they are comparable in terms of severity, but in terms of principle I believe that they are comparable. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I should say that the Government give advice to the airport authorities in the same way that the police give advice to the jeweller. But I will concede that there is a difference—and this supports the noble Lord to a degree—in that in the case of the airport, if that advice is not followed, the Government have reserve powers to see that the advice is followed, whereas that would not, I understand, be the case in regard to private property.

No noble Lord has given notice that he wishes to raise any matter on Clauses 2 to 7 so—

The notice that we have had to consider the Committee stage has been abominably short, and I myself wish to raise a matter on the question of clause stand part in relation to Clause 2.

As noble Lords wish to debate these clauses separately, I will now call Clause 2.

I wish to raise a matter of the practicability. We have been discussing the principles, but I am concerned with the practicability contained in Clause 2, which tells us that the levy will be on passengers arriving and departing. I can well understand a levy on passengers departing, but I wish the Minister to be so good as to tell me how in practice this proposal will work in relation to passengers arriving, particularly from overseas bases. Let us assume that a passenger in Tokyo is booking by Japanese airline an all-through flight to London Airport. When he books that flight, is he told that he is incurring a debt of 80p, due when he arrives at this end? If he is not told, it may well be that he arrives with no British currency at all. This will apply not only to Japan, but to many other foreign countries. We can imagine the long queue of passengers passing through passport and immigration controls and the other formalities, with a passenger who perhaps has no money. What is to happen? Will the whole queue be held up? Is he to give his name and address? Will the authorities try to recover the sum? When the passenger left Japan he would have been searched under the Japanese regulations. Upon arrival at London Airport he could well ask why should he be asked to pay 80p when he is not going to see any security people, or have his luggage searched, or himself be searched.

I believe that these practical matters which affect the wellbeing of our passenger traffic should be explained by the Government. It would be no refuge for the Government to say that they were just making the various airports responsible. We have as a Parliament, indeed as a nation, a responsibility to see that the reception of those from overseas is reasonable and fair. I cannot see how someone arriving from a distant place, not having been told of the levy, not requiring the services of security officers here and having no currency on him at all, can be expected to pay that 80p.

I should also like to ask the noble Lord a question. Am I right in assuming that subsection (8) contains the answer to the question why the noble Lord and the Government regard the passage of this Bill as so urgent that it is worthwhile seriously inconveniencing noble Lords in their discussion of it by taking the Committee stage on the Monday following the Second Reading on a Thursday? Subsection (8) brings in the date 1st April 1978. In addition to that question, may I ask whether it is really seriously intended to operate this Bill from 1st April 1978—if, of course, this clause finally becomes law?

As I understand subsection (9), in any event, even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its present form, regulations subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure will have to be laid and carried through both Houses. In view of the fact that we shall be proceeding to the Report stage on 20th March and that it has already been announced that we shall be very shortly thereafter rising for the Easter Recess, it seems inconceivable that the regulations will be approved by both Houses before that date, whatever happens to the Bill.

May I ask whether the Government are seriously contemplating what I would describe as the impropriety of retrospectively imposing taxation; and, if they are, whether it is a justifiable thing to do? Are the Government really in such financial difficulty that the yield over a few weeks in April is of crucial importance—so important as to justify ignoring the normal decencies of Parliamentary procedure? If so, it is rather surprising to be told at the same time, in the hints which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dropping about the place like confetti, that he has so much revenue that almost anybody can apply for tax remissions, which in the present political situation he is likely to grant. Could the noble Lord clear that up?

I can and I will. There is not the financial stringency to which the noble Lord points. It is not a financial question that we have in mind in urging your Lordships' House and Parliament as a whole to pass this before the Easter Recess: it is the not unimportant question of retrospective taxation. This was debated considerably in another place, and I think that, as a result of that debate, it was realised on all sides that the common-sense thing to do would be to get the Bill on the Statute Book by 1st April. We appreciate the views of the Opposition on this timetable point, and I am sure we shall have them from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with his experience of financial administration, equally. That is why, 1st April being in the Bill and the timetable being such as it is, I believe it is in everyone's interest that we make considerable and orderly progress in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, raised again the point which I think it was he raised during the Second Reading debate. In one part of what he said just now he recognised that, of course, so far as the Bill is concerned, his point is really not made, in that the levy imposed by the Bill is on the airport authorities. But now the noble Lord goes on to ask the more detailed question as to what happens lower down the scale. As I have indicated on several occasions, very detailed discussions have taken place about the practical application of this Bill when it becomes law; the airport authorities have been closely consulted on the practicalities throughout; and, so far as I am aware, they have not raised the kind of difficulty which the noble Lord now raises.

I think that the situation he envisages would be similar to that in the case of someone who had lost their ticket or who in some way was raising some difficulty about coming through Customs, or something of that kind. There would then be a delay, and there would have to be procedures for dealing with it. But one does not anticipate that this will in fact be an enormous difficulty. Once the scheme is well known, people will readily pay the levy in the same way as they recognise that if they want to travel they have to buy a ticket and pay for it. I do not think that, in the long run, this will pose the kind of difficulty that the noble Lord suggests.

For the sake of the record, it was I who raised that point on Second Reading.

Yes. I apologise to the noble Earl; it was in fact him.

May I press the Minister, please? It is really no good the Minister saying, "Of course, the Government are making the airports responsible for this". The Government are responsible for seeing that practical measures, capable of reasonable execution, are put forward in the Bill; and I submit to the Minister that he has given no explanation of the arrangements for dealing with the very real difficulties that may well be met every day, many times a day. I asked him whether, when somebody booked in Tokyo, they were going to be told they were incurring a debt to the British airport when they arrived. So far as I know, there is no proposition that those countries which have not adopted anything like this scheme will levy and then repay to Britain through IATA or some other international fund. I think it is only fair to the Committee to ask that, when we reach the next stage, the Minister will come armed with some answers which will satisfy your Lordships and allow us to be quite sure we are not passing regulations which are going to do great harm to our good will overseas.

I share my noble friend's concern about this matter to this extent, that certainly the arrangements ought to be as convenient as possible. However, I am not quite convinced that the difficulties are going to be as great as my noble friend imagines. This is neither the time nor the place to go into the details of how airports and airlines collect their revenue. Suffice it to say for the moment that I do not think individual passengers are going to be charged 80p or £1 specifically as they arrive. Having said that, I still think it would have been more convenient generally if it had been provided in the Bill for the charge to be raised against departing passengers and not arriving passengers; because, certainly, if airlines wish to levy a specific charge against each and every passenger, it is more convenient to do so on departure than on arrival. However, having said that, I still think that the arrangements contained in the Bill are workable, and I do not think my noble friend has cause for fear on that account.

As to the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made, about the arriving or departing passenger, we dealt with this on Second Reading and I explained then that, since there are landing charges in relation to arriving passengers, it is clearly much more convenient administratively that it should be arriving passengers on whom this particular levy is charged. But I recognised that there were two views on this, and I repeated the assurance that this matter will be reviewed; that the Bill provides for either way, either arriving or departing passengers, or some combination of the two; and that my right honourable friend would review the situation in the light of experience.

In support of my noble friend, as I see it there is certainly a risk that airlines will seek to recover these additional levies by making a specific charge on arriving passengers. If they do that there will be problems exactly like those my noble friend has described. Without wishing to make an enormous issue of it, I would much prefer the charge to be calculated on departing passengers and collected from passengers by the authorities. After all, there are a great many airports in the world where passenger tax of one sort or another is levied and it presents no difficulty anywhere else, so why should it here?

I take note of the noble Lord's personal view on this point. It is covered by my undertaking that this matter can be reviewed at a later date. I am sorry if, in my earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in referring to the passenger paying for his ticket, I did not make the matter perfectly clear. I really do not think that there is the likelihood of the difficulty to which he refers, since it is not proposed that the passenger shall pay at the airport. The levy is included in the landing charge and is then included in the price of the air ticket. The passenger has to buy an air ticket in Tokyo or wherever, and the price of the ticket includes the security levy.

Therefore the noble Lord is saying that when Japanese Airlines sell a ticket to London airport they would allow for the 80p in the price of the ticket?

Yes, as I understand it, that is the position. The price of the ticket will include the levy on the passenger, so that the individual passenger will not be bothered beyond having to find the 80p.

Does it follow from that that a ticket from Tokyo to London will be at a higher price than a ticket from London to Tokyo? Will that not introduce throughout the world a very disturbing element into the elaborate structure of air fares, which the noble Lord knows are agreed through IATA? Have the Government contemplated that? While I am asking him to reply to that question, may I press him a little further on the retrospective point. He said to my noble friend that the question of whether it should be dealt with by arriving or departing passengers would be considered. Presumably that will be dealt with in the regulations under subsection (9). Will he therefore answer the question which I put to him: Do the Government really think that they are going to get these regulations through both Houses before they rise for the Easter recess? If not, are they not in fact going to be imposing from 1st April the retrospective taxation for which he showed such horror?

The noble Lord is quite right. It is not intended that the regulations will be laid before Easter. There will be a short period at large, but this has been discussed with the airport authorities, and provided that the Bill is on the Statute Book and provided that the general powers for the levy are clearly there with the approval of Parliament, they see no difficulty about a short delay afterwards. I agree that it would have been more satisfactory if there could have been time for the regulations also to be laid, but in practice that will not be so. On the other point about the difference in the price of the air ticket one way as against the other, I imagine that that would be so. I will inquire about this and if there is any difficulty in the matter I shall let the House know at the Report stage.

On this clause may I express a measure of welcome to the proposals of the Bill. In particular I refer to the proposal, as provided in the clause, to extend the borrowing powers of the Civil Aviation Authority. I think it was said in another place—and no doubt the noble Lord will confirm this—that some of the additional borrowings will be used to finance the improvements which the Authority is undertaking at Sumburgh. Perhaps the noble Lord in due course would confirm this. In that context, particularly reminding him of the debate we had on 8th December last, perhaps I might say how delighted I am that the outcome has been that this airport and the other seven owned by the Civil Aviation Authority are to remain in the ownership and control of the Authority, at least until that remote era when Scottish devolution comes, if it ever does. As one who took part in that debate, when the noble Lord may recall that, completely solitary and unsupported, he put up a most gallant battle, may I say that I am glad that the view I put forward then has prevailed.

In that context perhaps I might take the opportunity—and it arises I think on this provision in respect of Sumburgh—to say that I understand that some of my observations in that debate about the failure of the Department of Trade to implement the report on the Highlands and Islands Airports which was submitted to them in 1974 by the Civil Aviation Authority, were taken as indicating on my part the view that they had been idle or dilatory as opposed to merely being misguided. May I say at once that I would never accuse them of being idle or dilatory—I am sure that they are most energetic, as energetic as a lodge of beavers—and my observation only expressed, as I still express, a regret that a carefully compiled report by those directly involved has not been implemented. I would not wish what was undoubtedly a lighthearted observation of mine—and I think taken by your Lordships as such—to be construed as a serious reflection on the industry of that department, which I am sure is as exemplary as that of the rest of Whitehall.

During the Second Reading debate I was very happy to receive the assurance from the noble Lord that the increase in CAA borrowing powers is to be used for capital purposes and not in any way for revenue purposes. The noble Lord explained—and indeed my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has reminded us of it today—that, by and large, CAA is now in balance on almost all of its activities, except I think for the air traffic services. The deficit on those services and any other minor deficits that may arise is covered by grants and not by loans.

However, this clause also provides for an increase in the borrowing powers of British Airways. It is on that that I should like to inquire at this point, with particular reference to, as we are told, the forthcoming decision of British Airways to purchase a number of new aircraft. I imagine it is for that purchase that this increased borrowing facility is required. Is the noble Lord in a position to tell us whether a decision has yet been made on the Trident 1 and 2 replacement which we are told is pressing and urgent? This matter was raised in your Lordships' House, I think by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. Certainly he spoke on that occasion, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, told us then that the choice was now between the Boeing 737, the DC9 or a new, improved version of the BAC 1–11. This is apparently an urgent matter for British Airways. A decision has to be taken, we are told, within the next month or so. Indeed, the decision had been expected by now; but nothing has been heard. Can the noble Lord tell us how this matter is going, and can he perhaps confirm that this new facility is required for that purpose?

I took note of the point that the noble Lord has now raised arising out of his speech towards the end of our debate on Second Reading. I am afraid that I have not any real new development to report following the exchange that we had when the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised the matter in an Unstarred Question. The British Airways Board as yet have put no proposals to the Secretary of State for Trade. All acquisitions of aircraft by the airline require the approval of the Secretary of State and I assure the Committee that he will naturally take into account the interests of the British aerospace industry and environmental considerations. Further, recalling what I said when we had that Unstarred Question, the views expressed in that debate will certainly be taken into account also by my right honourable friend. But in terms of hard news, so to speak, I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

May I say how much I welcome the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the change in tone from earlier interventions he has made. It took me back to the relationship that we developed while he was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority when he used to pass me complimentary notes about how I handled the interests of the Authority in the House. I hope that that friendly relationship can be maintained throughout the rest of this Bill.

There is just a small point on this clause which confers powers upon the CAA to lease equipment, no doubt on a fairly grand scale because it is not something that one ordinarily sees written into legislation of this sort. Can the noble Lord say what sort of equipment it is proposed to lease under this agreement? We note that these operations will require the approval of the Secretary of State, which I think is right. Otherwise, we may have a situation where massive capital expenditure is incurred without ministerial approval. I should like to know what is in the Authority's mind in this matter and how it hangs with the previous clause we have just approved.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is under some misapprehension about the purpose of this Bill. It does not presage any massive new policy or any new leasing. It is simply that it extends the Secretary of State's oversight of investment so as to include leasing as well as purchasing. The CAA already may lease equipment and there is no particular extension of leading envisaged through the new arrangement in this clause. It is not an indication that a new policy is being embarked upon; it is simply to put the leasing and purchasing under the same oversight powers of the Secretary of State.

I accept what the noble Lord has said, but I find it hard to believe that the odd leasing agreement for the odd motor car, for example, really ought to be under ministerial control. I should have thought that the facts which caused the Government to bring this clause into this Bill would have indicated that some significant leasing operation was envisaged—perhaps in the way of computers or air traffic control equipment. However, if the noble Lord says that that is not the case, then I have nothing further to add and the matter rests.

May I again welcome this clause and, in response to the noble Lord's agreeable personal references a moment or two ago, remind him that the amiable notes that I used to pass to him for his speeches when r was chairman of the CAA were, at least in some measure, connected with the fact that he was speaking very accurately to the brief that I had provided for him. He would be the first to assure the Committee that he is not doing so now.

I should like to welcome this provision. It is a thoroughly sensible one inasmuch as it will enable the Authority to enter into an agreement with an airports authority to provide navigation services for a definite charge paid by that airport authority which would then be free to collect it from airlines in the way which it thought most conducive to developing the airport. When I was chairman of the CAA, we found a difficulty in one particular case that we had not the power to do so. I asked the Department to note this for future legislation and I am delighted that it is in the clause.

There are two points that I should like to make on this. One is that it seems to have a retrospective effect. I am not quite sure why that should be necessary and perhaps the noble Lord can explain. Also, may I inquire whether the clause will empower the Authority to enter into agreements with airlines as well as with airports? My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter explained how the Authority is now empowered—rightly, in his view and in mine—to enter into agreements with airports; and Manchester is one that springs to mind. But the Authority provide and are solely responsible for air traffic services at a number of airports; for example, at Gatwick and Heathrow. Are they now empowered to enter into agreements with airlines which can perhaps get the benefit of a contract rate of some sort? This sort of provision has been difficult, if not impossible, under past legislation. If a change in this direction is envisaged, I should welcome that also.

I noticed in the Second Reading debate that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to agreements with airlines. These are not involved in this particular clause. The agreements here envisaged are with aerodrome authorities. On the retrospection point, there have been agreements already entered into in respect of the provision of navigation services at Liverpool, Glamorgan and Bournemouth and it may be that there was some little doubt about their validity. If there was any doubt, then what we are now proposing to pass will remove that doubt.

As to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may I say, in view of what he said about the excellence of the briefs that I used to receive, that I will take his speech as my brief on this occasion and merely say "ditto".

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 7, line 33, after ("above") insert ("or within 10 miles of").

With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I have two reasons for saying this. First, when an aircraft is 10 miles from the airport it is not unreasonable to expect the captain to have liberty to use all the power he requires in order to conform with his flight plan. Secondly—and more important—the noble Earl is suggesting that the airport authority should have power to pass by-laws which will affect other local authorities who have their own particular areas.

It is always recognised that the air above a particular area belongs to the particular county or local authority, as the case may be. If one goes back to the 1930s, there was a skywriting Act which was passed by Parliament as a result of an enterprising gentleman writing: "Buy Kensitas Cigarettes", or some such thing in the sky. It was admitted in Parliament that the air above an area belonged to that area. It would be wrong to give the airport authority the power to make by-laws in areas which did not belong to it.

I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchyre, in resisting this Amendment. I acknowledge also the moderate way in which the noble Earl moved it, although I not do think that I can in any way recommend the Committee to accept it. This is partly for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, stated, but also because it is the Government's view that it is generally inappropriate to allow aerodrome authorities to control the operation of aircraft outside the boundaries of the aerodrome by laws carrying criminal penalties. The Secretary of State has power to require aircraft operators to comply with certain requirements which appear to him to be appropriate for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effect of noise and vibration from aircraft either taking off or landing at such aerodromes as he specifies. He has these powers under Section 29(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, and the Secretary of State has used his power to require aircraft at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick to follow routes and observe operating procedures which minimise disturbance to people on the ground.

In addition, Her Majesty has power by Order in Council to prohibit aircraft from operating into the United Kingdom unless they have certificates of compliance with certain noise standards and comply with any conditions on those certificates. Two orders have been made in exercise of this power and a third is due to be made shortly. In the Government's view statutory control over aircraft noise where it is needed outside aerodromes should generally be exercised under these powers.

The noble Earl referred to three local authorities who have these powers. I agree that Luton, Manchester and South Glamorgan have obtained power under local Acts to make by-laws controlling noise in the vicinity of aerodromes. But it is not now considered desirable that this rather loose power should be extended; and, indeed, the Secretary of State will oppose any new enactments in these terms.

The noble Earl will recognise that when he quotes them in support of his plea that it should be extended to other local authorities, and I am saying that we are not too happy with those powers in those three cases and we will oppose any extension of them, that really meets his case on this particular point. It is not a case of whether there should be such powers, but who should exercise them. It seems clear to us that the person who could properly exercise this power is the Secretary of State. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

I am grateful for that very full and helpful answer. In reply to the Bench of experts on my left who are against the Amendment, I would say that it is wholly wrong to put up the argument that the captain of an aircraft must have the full control. Of course he must have the full control for safety aspects, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, knows that at the present time if the captain of an aircraft is landing at Heathrow he has to comply with regulations regarding the flight path, and so on. It is wrong to suggest that this is some new, undesirable power. So far as the rights of the three individual cases are concerned, is it the intention of the Secretary of State to revoke these powers or are they at the moment working satisfactorily?

I did not go so far as to suggest that. What I am saying is that we do not wish to see other local authorities having these powers and we will resist those.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I have no wish to press this matter any further, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

There is one small point that I should like to put to the noble Lord in connection with this clause. In the Government's recent White Paper on airport policy, which was published just a few weeks ago, conclusion No. 25 on page 47 says that the Government have decided to prohibit the use of non-noise certified subsonic jet aircraft required by any United Kingdom operator after 30th September 1978 and to prohibit from 1st January 1986 the use of all non-noise certificated subsonic jet aircraft on the United Kingdom register at that time. I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain how legislatively it is proposed to implement that decision of the Government, which I think, on balance, is a good one.

I am afraid not; not without notice. But I am glad the noble Lord has raised the point. I will look into it and let him have a reply in due course.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or").

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I have some sympathy with the purpose and intention of my noble friend's Amendments, although I apprehend certain difficulties that might arise. None the less, they may not be insuperable, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say.

It seems to me that at least one of the effects which would flow from this Amendment, if passed, would be, for example, that an operator of a noisy aircraft which visited Heathrow only occasionally would not be penalised by paying higher charges on the ground that he came only once a month and that no significant difficulty was caused thereby. But following that path might introduce—dare I mention it?—an element of hybridity into this provision which might perhaps be undesirable, because I believe it is necessary for all operators to be charged on the same basis: that is, all those operating the same type of aircraft. To follow the example given by my noble friend, if a Japanese airline were operating particularly noisy aircraft—I am not sure whether they do, but I take them just as a possible example—and if other operators were using the same type of aircraft, they should all be equally penalised. The other difficulty I foresee is how one would calculate the rebate. Or, putting it another way, at what point would the frequency of landings be considered such as to justify a penalty on the landing fee? If those objections could be overcome, I would be happy to support my noble friend.

Of course, I endorse the closing remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the nuisance of noise, and I would assure him that the Government, in introducing this clause, intend to deal with it. There is no disagreement between us in that respect: nor indeed have I any objection in principle to the Amendment just moved. Incidentally, I notice that it refers only to landings and not to take-offs. Presumably that is because the noble Earl recognises that airport charges are generally levied only on landings. That is a point which we were making earlier in another connection.

However, although I go along with him in principle and I understand what he is seeking to do, I assure him that the Amendment is unnecessary because, if he will read the clause again following what I am about to say, he will see that the frequency both of take-offs and landings is covered by Clause 9(1)(b). In other words, it is a fact which is relevant to the extent or nature of any inconvenience resulting from the noise caused by the aircraft. The frequency of landings, I suggest, is covered by the wording, and the clause as drafted already provides that airports can take account of this in fixing their charges. So, although I understand why the noble Earl has raised the point, I think there is really nothing between us, since what he seeks to achieve can, in fact, be achieved by means of the powers incorporated in the clause as it stands.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, and I hope that the Bill really will be clear not only to the operators but also to the airport authorities who will have to put this clause into practice. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I should like to ask the Minister a question on this clause. While the idea of an economic penalty on noisy aircraft is attractive—it seems a more sophisticated method of dealing with the noise problem than the blanket restriction of numbers imposed in the curfews at Heathrow and Gatwick, among other places—I wonder whether in putting this clause forward the Government have reflected a little on the possibility of international repercussions. After all, as the noble Lord knows so well, British civil aviation is basically an international activity; its domestic routes are relatively insignificant in importance. Given, for example, the problems involved in the introduction of Concorde on international routes, I wonder whether the Government have taken into account the risk that some foreign Powers might pay them the compliment of imitation. It might well be that, for example, the Port of New York Authority—to name one of the less attractive controlling bodies in international aviation—would take a leaf out of the Government's book. Has this been considered?

To me it is a new point, but I have no doubt that it has been taken note of, and it is a valid point. Off the cuff, I would say that we should have to accept retaliatory action, in view of our need to deal with the problem that confronts so large a proportion of our population. I do not think that the possibility which the noble Lord raised should make us hesitate in bringing forward a proposal which has had, and I hope still has, general acceptance on all sides of the Committee.

I have just one detailed point to make. During his Second Reading speech, the noble Lord referred, as did my noble friend this evening, to curfews at Heathrow and Gatwick. He also referred to curfews at Stansted. As I understand it, there are at present no curfews at Stansted. Can the noble Lord say whether there is intended to be any change in this arrangement and, if so, when it is likely to come into force?

Yes. It is intended to have these regulations in respect of Stansted, as at Heathrow and Gatwick, and I believe that the date is 1st April.

I rise only to ask the noble Lord whether he will give us some explanations of the necessity for this clause. It was not my impression that any problems had risen as a result of the provisions of the 1971 Act. Yet I assume that the Government must have encountered some difficulty, actual or prospective, to influence them to introduce this provision. Can the noble Lord tell us exactly what it is?

I will give the explanation in these terms. It will take me a little while, but I think that the noble Lord would wish to have a full explanation. When the Civil Aviation Authority was set up, it was intended that the Authority should be made legally responsible for all aspects of national security within its boundaries, and should adopt the same security standards and procedures as the Civil Service. Thus the CAA would be fully integrated in the Government's security arrangements, on the pattern of the UKAEA and the Post Office.

Though, originally, it was thought that this integration could be achieved by a direction under Section 4(3) of the 1971 Act, it was realised subsequently that what the Department wanted to do could not be effected without a power of general direction, since directions relating to security are likely to be general in character. A general direction on security given to the CAA under this new clause would fall to be published in the Authority's annual report, under Section 20 of the 1971 Act, except in so far as the Secretary of State has notified the Authority that, in his opinion, such publication would not be in the national interest. I hope that that explanation is welcomed by the noble Lord.

Of all the clauses in this Bill, this is the one to which I attach importance. That is not to say that between now and the next stage, I shall not change my view on the relative importance of the different clauses. But for tonight at least, it is the matter that I want to explore in the greatest detail.

The Government are seeking in this clause to tighten up their powers of prosecution in respect of those persons who are alleged to have contravened the terms of an air transport or an air service licence. I fancy that their intentions in this matter derive from an unhappy experience which befell the CAA a year or so ago, in connection with a company called Pearl Island Tours. I do not intend to go into all the details of that case. They were recited at length and in detail by my honourable friend Mr. Norman Tebbit, during the proceedings in the Standing Committee in the other place, and any noble Lord who is interested can, if he wishes, refer to that record for the information.

Suffice it to say here tonight that Pearl Island Tours thought that they had a licence to carry passengers, and the airline which carried the passengers—Pearl Island Tours being a tour operator—also thought that Pearl Island Tours were duly licensed. It so happens that the tour operating company had failed to take out the necessary bond and thus, it was later alleged, were not licensed. Indeed, on that point I do not think there is now any doubt. The question at issue is whether or not the airline—in this case Dan-Air—could have reasonably known that Pearl Island Tours did not have a licence. In due course, Pearl Island Tours were prosecuted and duly convicted as, I believe, was their managing director; and later Dan-Air were prosecuted for carrying the passengers.

The prosecution against Dan-Air failed and, in due course, the Department came forward with this Bill to tighten up the law on the matter, so that had that prosecution been initiated under what is now proposed as the law it might have succeeded. Indeed, the wording of the proposed new clause follows almost exactly the words of the judge in summing up the case against Dan-Air—the case which was later dismissed.

There are two points that I want to put to the noble Lord. First, will be explain precisely the difference between the provisions of the 1971 Act and the provisions of this new clause, as he now proposes it? In parenthesis, I want also to ask about the position of TriStar Travel which was another company involved in the Pearl Island Tours difficulty. I confess that my information on their position is somewhat sketchy. However, it seems to me to be odd that they were prosecuted. Indeed, I am told that ruin was brought upon the proprietor of that company, and the company was closed down as a result of unwitting participation in the Pearl Island Tours affair. I recognise that the noble Lord may not have the information about TriStar Travel at his finger tips. If, therefore, he wishes to write to me about that matter at a later date, so be it. However, I should like to know exactly what is the effect of the proposed new clause and how it is an improvement upon the old one.

I wonder whether it would save time if I added a further word. To a layman, it seems that the change of wording is quite significant. I am wondering whether the noble Lord or the Government have considered inserting the word, "reasonably", so that it reads, "ought reasonably to have known", instead of reading, "ought to have known". There is a difference.

The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is quite right. The stimulus for the Government writing in this new clause was what happened in relation to the Pearl Island Tours case and Dan-Air. I am grateful to him for suggesting that I can deal by correspondence with the question of TriStar Travel. The noble Lord says that his information is sketchy. My sketch is even vaguer than his.

The noble Lord quite reasonably asked for an explanation of the proposed change in the law. As Section 21(5) of the 1971 Act stands at present, the test of whether a person is guilty of an offence is whether he knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that the use of the aircraft was likely to contravene the licensing requirement or any term of the licence. A defect in this test became apparent from the acquittal at the Old Bailey in July of an airline on six charges of offences under Section 21. That is the case to which the noble Lord refers.

In his summing up, the judge told the jury that the prosecution would have to establish, first, that a responsible officer of the airline knew the facts which it was alleged amounted to a cause for suspicion and, secondly, that those facts would raise in a reasonable man a suspicion that the conditions of the air transport licence would be contravened. From the acquittal, it seems that the jury took the view that it was not proved that the facts were known to a responsible officer of the airline. The present wording—"knew or had reasonable cause to suspect"—has been shown to present difficulty of proof. If the licensing system is not to be rendered unenforceable by the Civil Aviation Authority, this difficulty needs to be removed, and the most satisfactory way is to amend the text to read "knew or ought to have known". This amendment imposes no unreasonable burden upon operators, since the CAA publishes lists of ATOL holders, and it is always open to an operator to inquire of the Authority in any case of doubt.

On the point which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised, I understand that the wording which I have read out—"knew or ought to have known"—is a generally accepted phrase in a fair amount of legislation of this kind. Therefore it is reasonable to stick to it and not to include the word "reasonably", as the noble Earl suggested. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the point and that in the light of my explanation, noble Lords will allow Clause 11 to stand part of the Bill.

I hope that my noble friend will not press his point. I thought that the justification of the clause given by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, was sound. From my own experience, I should like to add very briefly a word as to the importance of the law on this point being clear and enforceable. My noble friend referred to the Pearl Island Tours case. I saw something of that case. It had the consequence that at least some hundreds of people of modest means lost holidays for which they had saved up. In many ways, this was a series of personal tragedies. It is necessary that the licensing system should be enforceable not for its own sake but for the sake of the people whom it is designed to protect. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has made a good case for these words with that intent.

I wonder whether I may revert to TriStar Travel, because I now have advice on the point and it might save bother and correspondence later. I understand that the TriStar Travel point is not related to Clause 11. TriStar Travel wrongly sub-chartered space to Pearl Island Tours. This is one of the reasons why TriStar's licence was not renewed. I hope that is a sufficient explanation. If it is not, we can go into the matter in further detail by correspondence.

I will not pursue the TriStar Travel matter now. I accept what the noble Lord has said. I shall study the matter carefully and will write to him if I see cause to do so.

Regarding the general matter of this new clause, in so far as I am aware of the details the great difficulty that confronted Dan-Air at the time of the Pearl Island Tours case was that the Authority were just introducing the requirement for the licensing of air tour operators. The lists which the Authority were then publishing at regular if not frequent intervals were said to be unreliable. No doubt that problem has since been resolved. Thus, if there are now accurate and regularly amended lists of licence-holders, there is no reason why airlines should not know who has a licence and who has not. However, what is to be the position in the future if, for example, there is a printing dispute and the lists are not regularly and adequately published? I think the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has considerable merit.

Between now and the next stage may I ask the noble Lord to consider again what would be the position under this clause if airlines or, indeed, members of the public were put in a position where it was not easy to ascertain who had licences and who had not as a result, as I have suggested, of the difficulties created by a printing or postal strike. In those circumstances, it would be regrettable if the Authority were empowered to proceed with prosecutions against alleged breaches of the law in this regard.

I shall certainly look at the point which the noble Lord has made. However, one hopes that not all means of communication with the Civil Aviation Authority would be completely precluded by a series of disputes. I think that it would be possible to get in touch with the CAA. If it were not, I think that factor would be taken into account in deciding whether or not to prosecute. However, as I have said, I will look into the matter and deal with it, if need be.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 15, line 10, at end insert (" "In sub-section (2) of section 1 for the word "twelve" there shall be substituted "fifteen"." ")

I think my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has very cogently and effectively argued the case for his Amendment. I hope the Government will accept it. I was particularly impressed by the suggestion that this would make accommodation of part-time Board members easier. Indeed, I remember that there have been one or two part-time members of this Authority who have made a very significant contribution to the Authority's work, not least among them Group Captain Sir Douglas Bader and others. Having said that, I really think there is nothing more to be said except that I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.

One, of course, listens with very great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on a point such as this; there is no one in your Lordships' House, or indeed in the country, who could move such an Amendment with greater authority because he has presided over this body very successfully in recent years. But I am afraid I must disappoint him; I am not able to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. It is a matter of judgment, and as we see it there is no real need for this Amendment.

The original provision that 12 should be the figure does still seem to us to be well judged. I myself have not had the opportunity of presiding over bodies as important as the CAA, but I have presided over many bodies. In my judgment, once you get beyond about 12 then further members can be an embarrassment—although I agree that even in a committee as small as two or three you can have embarrassing members. But there comes a point where size in itself is an embarrassment, though I readily recognise the force of the argument that the noble Lord put forward.

I certainly take his word for it, in the light of his experience, that 15 would enable a wider spectrum of experience to be gathered round the table. That is a point which I am sure the Government would wish to ponder considerably in the light of the noble Lord's speech just now. I would ask him not to press the Amendment at this point. After all, the main purpose of this Bill is not Amendments to the constitution of the CAA. It is an important point that he has brought forward, and I think it merits more detailed consideration. One would wish, for example, to take the view of the noble Lord's successor in the chair before making any such change. As I say, I accept that he has put forward a case well worthy of examination.

The noble Lord says that we do not know when a new opportunity would arise. Of course, we cannot know, but I am sure that another opportunity for legislation would arise in the not too distant future. I certainly do not think that it is opportune to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment at this stage. However, I assure the noble Lord that the points which he has made will be taken very thoroughly into consideration.

Before my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter replies, I should like to raise one matter. Does it really require a change in legislation to alter the number on the board or can it be done by ministerial order or whatever? It seems to be such a small but very important part of the running of the Civil Aviation Authority. However, if we miss this opportunity now, as my noble friend said earlier and as regards which the noble Lord tried to reassure us, there is no evidence at all that we shall have another opportunity for another five years.

On the first point, I think that it is clear that it would need to be included in a Bill. It would be an amendment of the present Civil Aviation Act which includes the figure 12. Therefore, I would not rest on the point that it could readily be changed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would endorse what I have said in that respect.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on the law, and that is why I put down the Amendment. It can be done, as he and I understand it, only by amendment of the 1971 Act. On the whole, in this sphere of legislation, we fortunately do not have the position by which governmental orders can alter legislation and I hope that that situation will continue.

I found the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, uncharacteristically unhelpful. After all, all that I have offered him is additional flexibility for his Secretary of State and for future Secretaries of State. If his Secretary of State thinks that 12, or whatever the present figure maybe, is enough, he would be perfectly entitled to maintain that position. It is amiable of the noble Lord to say that he will consider the matter, but it is, after all, nearly seven years since the last Civil Aviation Act. We shall probably not have another until well into the 1980s. In those circumstances, I think that the objection of the noble Lord to this Amendment does not seem to be very well reasoned and perhaps indicates more an unwillingness to budge than any logical objection. I take his point about consulting the present chairman of the Authority. I think that that would be a useful thing to do. Of course, in view of the speed with which we have proceeded from Second Reading to Committee it will not have been possible for the Government to have done so. I could not, after all, put down an Amendment or at any rate have it published, until the Bill had received a Second Reading which it did not receive until about 7.30 p.m. on Thursday last, and that was certainly not my fault.

If the noble Lord, Lord Oram, rests on the need for consultation, particularly with the chairman of the Authority, why cannot he do so in the week which I understand will elapse before the next stage of the Bill? If that were to happen, I would be only too happy to seek leave to withdraw this Amendment now and to table it again for next Monday. I do not think that he has provided any logical objection for a wholly non-partisan proposal based on a little experience of practical difficulties met in the past and which are likely to recur in the future. I would hesitate to accuse the noble Lord of obstructiveness; but if he is prepared to give quick consideration to this matter in order to be able to discuss it further a week today, then that might be the sensible method of proceeding.

That is a reasonable request. Certainly we have a week in which a message could be passed and, I would hope, a reply received. However, I make the point that it is not something which the present chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has raised hitherto. When he has brought forward recommendations for legislation, he has not included this matter in the list. However, that is only a negative answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. His view has not been sought and I shall see whether his view can be ascertained before a week today.

In those circumstances I shall seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment on the basis that it is likely to be tabled at the next stage of the Bill.

rose to move, That the draft Mobility Allowance Up-rating Order 1978, laid before the House on 7th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This order is straightforward and, I hope, non-controversial. It honours the Statement which I repeated to the House on 6th December last, to increase mobility allowance from £7 to £10 weekly. The operative date will be 5th July this year. The cost of mobility allowance will, as a result, rise by £11 million to £44 million in 1978–9.

My Lords, as always the House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the courtesy and care with which he has outlined the Government's plan to uprate the mobility allowance for the disabled. We are especially glad to hear of the major new advance which he mentioned in speaking about Motability, which is providing help for finance by way of the charity called Motability. It seems a remarkable achievement on the part of the clearing banks to advance the figure of, I believe, £100 million on very favourable terms for the purchase of vehicles which can be leased to disabled persons. In another place, when explaining the order, the Minister pointed out that the Government simply could not cover the entire cost of providing mobility to the disabled, and this newly-formed charity under the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—this scheme of Motability—fills this gap neatly and, we believe, very effectively.

There are one or two points which I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I hope that I have not caught him, as we might say, entirely "cold" on these matters. First, could he confirm that the tricycle—or should I call it "trike" for those experts in this matter?—will continue to be available to those disabled drivers who prefer the trike to a converted car? Can the noble Lord tell the House of any developments of something similar to the existing trike? Mention has been made of some sketchy, outline developments which are being looked at in Manchester, although whether it is at the university or the polytechnic I am not absolutely sure. Possibly the noble Lord may be able to inform us about that at a later stage, if not tonight.

It may seem strange to your Lordships that many drivers of trikes—particularly the more experienced drivers—prefer this machine, its defects and all, to a converted car. Possibly it may be thought that a car is expensive to run and that the drivers do not enjoy driving one of them. But there are flaws in the mobility allowance at present and we hope that at least one of the flaws in respect of the trike can be cured.

Secondly, could the noble Lord confirm that the allowance will continue to be taxable? If that is so, it seems that there are one or two loopholes or even anomalies here. For example, a disabled driver who receives the new £10 per week allowance will be able to assign to the charity, Motability, only about £450 per annum and would pay tax of about £70 per annum if he was in work. Together with all the VAT and the road tax, which, of course, is not payable on trikes at present, and the cost of insuring a small motor car, the annual cost to the disabled person of leasing a motor car would appear to be in the region of £550 to £570, which rounded up is about £11 per week.

That is one less attractive facet of the new allowance being only £10 a week. These calculations provide the basis for the point made in another place by my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker as to whether the allowance might be raised to £11. It may be a niggling point, but I think that Mrs. Chalker did her sums, and possibly I could go into the figures at a later stage with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, may have noticed that during consideration in another place the Government undertook to find means of inflation-proofing the allowance. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether this must remain a merely verbal promise or whether we can look forward to some amendment of the Social Security Act 1975?

There is one other rather complicated point which I should like to raise. It concerns a number of disabled persons, such as epileptics and sufferers from multiple sclerosis, who I understand at present do not receive the mobility allowance. I wonder whether the noble Lord could help us by publishing the regulations, or giving us any information as to which types of disability should be included within the scope of the new allowance. I think that that is enough of a waspish comment from me. Instead, I should like to welcome this continuing effort to provide a very reasonable, modern and indeed effective method of mobility to those who are, as the noble Lord said, totally immobile and disabled. Therefore, we welcome this order.

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the increase in the mobility allowance from £7 to £10 a week from next July and we also support the order. However, we regret that the allowance is taxable. We understand, and also welcome, the news that the allowance will be inflation-proof from November 1979, but we feel that that is rather a long time to wait. There is a need for an increase in real terms as it is still not adequate for the purpose.

We are glad that the mobility allowance now goes to a wider group of people, but we believe that there is no substitute for a vehicle. We hope that Motability will be able to solve this problem, but ask whether the scheme will allow adequately for insurance, maintenance and the running costs of the vehicle, as well as for the purchase of the vehicle. In conclusion, I repeat that we also support the order.

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on the uprating of the mobility allowance. While doing so, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there may not be a proportion of the new disabled—that is to say, the disabled since July 1976—for whom the trike, although not entirely perfect, since nothing is entirely perfect in this world, would be the most appropriate form of mobility. I am thinking in particular of 16-year-olds. If there are new trikes in store, as I understand there are, could not these be issued on a temporary basis until some better form of vehicle is found? Is it not better to be in orbit in a not altogether perfect satellite rather than to be entirely grounded?

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by the three noble Lords with regard to their reception of this order. I shall try to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in the order in which he raised them. It is perfectly true that we are phasing out trikes, but I made it clear on a previous occasion—I think last December—that they would not be completely phased out until 1982 or 1983. What it boils down to—and I hope that I shall not get into difficulties for saying this—is that trikes will be with us for many years to come, because it will not follow at the end of that time that all the trikes will be unworkable or unmanageable.

I know that my noble friend the Minister for the Disabled has been looking at what one might call a trike in Manchester, but I do not know what the outcome of it is. We know, however, that Motability is making very substantial progress, and RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—as noble Lords may know, have been able to get a fairly effective discount from various motor firms. For example, I believe I am right in saying that Chrysler, British Leyland, and Vauxhall are prepared to give a discount of 15 per cent. on new cars, and I believe that the Ford Escort 1300 has a discount of something like 18 per cent., which is even better. I think that we can say that there is a good deal in the pipeline at the present moment so far as what RADAR and Motability are doing to try and meet the needs of (shall I say?) the disabled people who, for one reason or another, feel that they want a vehicle rather than just the mobility allowance.

The taxation situation, it would be easy for me to say, is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leave it there. I do not propose to do so for this reason. We have to face the fact that a Government must see that their money is spent in the best possible way to provide the greatest amount of relief, if that is the right word, for the greatest number of people. We know that more than half the disabled people in receipt of the mobility allowance do not pay tax. Therefore, they get the full benefit of the £10, inadequate though it may be. Now, would it be right to put people who, notwithstanding the fact that they are disabled and working and paying tax, in a privileged position whereby they do not pay tax when, as I say, the need—if there is a need at all—is probably greater among those whose income is not sufficient even to pay tax? I think that we might be in a position of spending some money in a direction where it may not be needed quite so much as it is needed at the other end.

With regard to exempting them from paying road fund tax and insurance, we have in fact noted what has been said in another place. When I say that we have noted it, it means that it exercises our minds: it is not just looked at and put on one side. I do not think I can take it any further than that. As for inflation proofing, it is true that we intend to do this by relating future payments from November 1979 to prices. In the circumstances it would not be right, for reasons I have just given, to set it against income because some disabled people have no income at all. Therefore, we have decided to relate it to prices, which seems to me to be the right way of doing it. The noble Lord said that the Government had made a promise in this direction. I do not have to remind him that this Government always keep their promises, so consequently I say that we are going to do this from November 1979. It cannot be done this year. It is going to impose a heavy burden financially upon resources, and it is the earliest we can do it.

The noble Lord raised the question of the regulations, to which I made some reference I think some weeks ago. An appeal was made to the National Insurance Commissioner some considerable time ago regarding a child that was suffering from Down's syndrome and, as noble Lords will know, the decision went against my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, who then felt that this whole matter had to be looked at more closely to give some sort of guidance by way of regulations in the future. We hope to be able to present the regulations to the National Insurance Advisory Committee as soon as possible.

We are seeking to achieve in the regulations the position that the independent adjudicating authorities will consider an individual's condition at the time of the decision without reference to causation; that is, without having regard to whatever caused that condition. We are trying to get those regulations out, and they will be put before Parliament in due course. I think I ought to say, having said as much as that, that there is a misconception that we are trying to extend, or will be extending, the criteria for the allowance. This is not so. The allowance was designed for those who are physically incapable, or virtually incapable, of walking and the purpose of the regulations is to put that beyond doubt.

The regulations will not widen the scope of the allowance to cover people who can walk but who have an outdoor mobility problem. If we were to consider extending the allowance in such a way, not only would we have to find a very considerable sum to meet this but we should be faced with a difficult problem of deciding priorities between the various diagnostic groups. I can hold out no hope of the allowance being extended in this way in the foreseeable future. I think I have made the position perfectly clear on how my right honourable friend feels in this matter. What we are concerned about is the ability of a person being able to walk. This is really the acid test.

May I pass on to the noble Earl, Lord Grey. Before doing so perhaps he would allow me to congratulate him on what I think is his first speech from the Liberal Front Bench. If I say that it is nice to see a new face it is not because I am tired of the old ones. One likes to see the load being shared. I think I have dealt with the inflation proofing, which is the main point he raised. I hope he will feel that this has been satisfactory.

May I pass to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. We are in a difficulty about the 16-year-olds. We are not unmindful of the fact that many of them need some kind of mobility help, but we found it necessary as from 1st January 1976 to take a hard and fast line—and I accept that it is a hard and fast line—that what we wanted to do was to bring in and provide not only for people who were drivers but for non-drivers, so that they could get the benefit of an allowance which was a real mobility allowance. On that date we decided that we would not issue any trikes. In point of fact we did for the first few months, as the noble Viscount knows, but we are not issuing trikes to 16-year-olds.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that we want to encourage the use of the mobility allowance for all disabled people and we want to phase out, and are going to phase out, the trike. But we have to face the fact that there is an exceptionally high accident rate among 16-year-olds who have had trikes in the past. It really is quite frightening. It is far worse than among any other age groups who have had tricycles. On that score alone there is a good case for saying—although we are not supplying any more trikes in the future—that we will not supply them to 16-year-olds. I am afraid that unless something can be found to take its place, then one can only hope that Motability will be able to make some real suggestion which will help the 16-year-olds, as others, who want special vehicles that have been specially adapted.

rose to move, That the draft Hire-Purchase (Increase of Limit of Value)(Great Britain) Order 1978, laid before the House on 8th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is simply to raise from £2,000 to £5,000 the upper limit of application of the Hire-Purchase Acts. The Hire-Purchase Acts give consumers very valuable protection in connection with hire-purchase, conditional sale and credit-sale agreements. Somewhat similar provisions apply to all three types of agreement but, for convenience, I will refer in my remarks only to hire-purchase agreements.

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for explaining the order so clearly and concisely. As he pointed out, it is intended to give consumers the protection which the Acts, both in Scotland and in England, intended should be given to them. As he explained, where £2,000 was mentioned in regard to limits in Section 2 of each Act, this should be raised to the more realistic level of £5,000 and we are grateful to the Government for suggesting this figure.

I am not sure I fully understood the noble Lord's opening remarks. When he referred to the hire-purchase price of £2,000, was that the cash price or the price which would be paid inclusive of all charges after the period of hire had elapsed? I am thinking particularly of a motor-car or caravan—the noble Lord mentioned mobile goods. Would the limit apply to the cash price or to what I might call the gross price? This is a minor matter and the noble Lord may have explained it. We welcome the order.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for those remarks. As for the question he asked about the figure of £2,000, to which I referred, that is inclusive of charges. In due course the Consumer Credit Act will come into operation and then the £5,000 mentioned in the order will equate with the figure of £5,000 mentioned in that Act. I cannot at this stage say when that Act will come into force because a great deal of negotiation is still taking place.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress made in regard to community service orders and analogous alternatives to prison. The noble Earl said: My Lords, not long ago I was taking my leave of a prison governor of much experience. He asked me whether I had any specific criticisms to make, and after a moment's hesitation I replied, "I am afraid I think the whole situation is wrong. I would like to see half your prisoners dealt with outside prison, and then you would be able to provide constructive treatment for the other half". He looked at his companions—the deputy governor, two assistant governors and the chief prison officer—and said, deliberately and rather to my surprise because he was essentially a conservative prison governor, "I think you would find that all of us here agree with you" That prison governor was about to retire after a most distinguished career in the Prison Service. That story cannot spoil his promotion prospects and is hardly likely to affect his pension, so the House will forgive me for telling it.

My Lords, I am sure the House is most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for asking this very important Question; and I must say that, in view of the number of questions he has already asked his noble friend, he leaves me no room at all to ask the Government any more. So I am quite happy to put my points personally and from this side of the House, together with those of any of my noble friends who care to take part, in the hope that we can contribute something to the noble Earl's inquiries as to what is going on in this sphere. This is my third debate in recent weeks. I listened to, though I did not take part in, the debate on law and order; I took part in the very interesting debate, ably instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on crime prevention, which I then said was the "nitty gritty" side of law and order; and now we come to the noble Earl's important aspect of how some of this punishment is being doled out.

My Lords, I shall range a little widely during my opening remarks because I really feel that we ought to know what is going on and what is being said; I think it is vitally important. During the last 25 to 30 years we in this country have been experiencing an epidemic in crime which has the hallmark of becoming completely and utterly out of control unless we within Parliament can now start to talk about it and act on it as soon as possible. This means, I am afraid, that the punishment must fit the crime or the crime must fit the punishment. We must look at the matter from all angles.

I should here like to mention a further serious problem which has arisen over those years; that is, that our cities have become increasingly larger, and the populations in those cities have become alarmingly larger. That has brought with it great difficulties for the administrators: the Government, local government, public authorities, the police and all the different organisations that have to handle the daily problems of the cities and the alarming rate in the growth of population.

I say that, my Lords, because I think there ought to be a background to this. Within the city explosion of population comes the alarming and terrifying increase in crimes such as violence and mugging. This weekend we saw a section of the crowd at an ordinary football match in London go completely berserk, and the situation was indeed very nasty. It is difficult to know how magistrates are to deal with these young people. It must be a problem as large as one can make it. The problems are now openly discussed in public. The public are demanding to know what is going on in Parliament to create a society free from some of the things that are happening. They are asking not only what goes on but what punishments if any are being doled out.

I wonder whether we have gone too far, and if treatment by psychiatrists and sociologists is now becoming an obsolete weapon. I believe that we have become a little too soft and punishment must be toughened up in every way. With such an upsurge in crime as is going on I do not believe that the psychiatrist and the sociologist can continue to make excuses. This morning in the Daily Telegraph I read an article by a young man called John Wheeler. I should like to read one paragraph out of his article, because I felt it was relevant to our debate this evening. He wrote:

"With all the massive efforts of reform and resources we have been rewarded by natural levels of lawlessness that have reached record heights and give every indication of going on to worse things to come."

This is what we have been on about for some time. Certain criminals who constantly turn back to crime are almost immune. It is an extraordinary thing that rats which have been poisoned now are immune. We are now having to search our minds to stop the prisons from becoming so full, to try and go back and stop the crime at its early stages. We have seen that rats now have to be given other poisons. I make that analogy because I believe that prisoners, young, middle-aged and old, are becoming somewhat immune.

Following what the noble Earl has been saying, we have been looking a great deal at the idea of short-term sentences for prisoners. It is very natural to say that the psychological treatment and humiliation of prisoners and the irritation of short sentences should well stop them from going any further, but I do not think it is happening. I do not believe that these community service orders are working as well as we want them to. I believe that they are a good idea. I can understand the irritation of someone who has committed a crime having at weekends to leave his family at home to do a weekend job as punishment. I can see that this is an aggravation, but it is a two-edged sword and the wife could be very angry with the husband for committing the crime and leaving the children and her at home when they might be going down to the sea. I can see that situation, but I do not believe it is really working. The fact is that our prisons are still filling up and I shall be very interested to hear comments from the Government on this. If it is beginning to work that is for the good. If it is working at 100 per cent.—which I do not believe—we would not be debating this matter this evening. I do not believe we have yet got down to the correct type of punishment.

There are other points regarding these community service orders. If they have not had an impact on the level of crime then what is the next stage? Is it a fact that the Government realise that we are short of people to operate these community centres? Is it a fact that people are given too severe sentences and therefore we are not seeing the number of people going into the community service centres which might prove them? We have to consider the expense; we have to look at the voluntary associations which deal with these community centres and see if we have the money to pay them, and, if we have the money, whether we have the manpower to do the job. In theory they should work, but in practice I do not believe that they are doing any good at the moment. Perhaps in another five years we may see this happening, but I doubt it at the moment.

I do not wish to say very much more because the noble Earl has said so much with which we can agree or not agree. I come back to the fact that we cannot let loose on the severe punishment, the deterrent, which is prison. Last week I mentioned the cane and the glasshouse, and I still maintain that we must talk about these things in order to frighten the criminal and stop him from breaking up society as he is doing. I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I am sure that there is a great deal more which we will want to say in two or three years' time if we can see this approach is working, but I still maintain that we have a long way to go yet.

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, encouraging me to speak this evening because it gives me the opportunity to ask a number of questions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is always extremely courteous and takes a great deal of trouble to write to me on various points which I have raised in the past. It can be a shattering experience for any family when the father or a child goes to court and gets sentenced. I agree with the noble Earl and the noble Viscount that for the adult, in very many cases, prison is no deterrent. On the other hand, borstal most certainly is a deterrent, and community service orders, day centres, et cetera, may be successful with some. I shall be interested to hear about this from the noble Lord.

We are bombarded daily on television, in the newspapers and on the wireless with details of the appalling increase in crime, especially in urban areas and in certain parts of those urban areas. Crime is committed by the young and the very young. Surely nasty medicine now would be preferable, otherwise it seems to me inevitable that these youngsters will end up in jail. The Isle of Man has the birch, rarely used, but no Liverpool boy who has had it ever returns. Should we consider it here? I am putting this as a question; I am not stating it as my own opinion. I agree with the noble Viscount that glasshouses are a possibility with regimental sergeant majors or the equivalent—short and sharp treatment, strict discipline. Parents would understand this. In many areas—and I know this for a fact as I visit the wives—parents are scared of their own children, so what sort of society are we living in?

Noble Lords know that I have never advocated revenge or an eye for an eye, even though I have had very good cause to do so. Prevention, please, now so that the less serious cases—men, women and children—can be dealt with by other means. I feel strongly that we must back up the police—who have not been mentioned this evening—who often despair of real action on the part of this Government or any other Government. Something I do not understand is why senior ranking officers in the Metropolitan Police have to retire at the age of 55 while in the Provinces the age is 60. This seems utterly crazy, and especially so now when we need the really experienced officers. All measures to combat crime must be tried and, hopefully, many will succeed. We must hope for a more peaceful society. A nephew of mine was mugged the other day by four white boys. He said that one was no more than 13. He was stabbed twice in the liver after his money was taken. They are 13 or 14, many of them. They are hard and must be treated as such. This they will understand.

Professionals and volunteers do so much to try to help. Perhaps the Government can stop them from being swamped by the increasing burden which is placed upon them. I wonder whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the results of the generic course recommended by the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in 1968—he was Mr. Seebohm then—is working well; or should training be more specialised? I can only repeat what I have said previously: preventative medicine now, please! Indeed, why not put it to a referendum?

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was kind enough to ask me to take part in this debate and I accepted because I thought he was doing me an honour rarely done to me in this House since I have been here—and certainly never by the Front Bench. Secondly, I accepted because I have spent with him (sometimes in disagreement with him) many years of labour, of which I was proud, in the field of penal reform. In these moments of enthusiasm I forget that I am an aged man of failing qualities, a matter which is constantly in the mind of the Labour Front Bench although they realise I can still walk through a Lobby if I am asked to do so and if someone indicates the direction I should take—without promoting anything other than something in the way of revolt.

I admire immensely the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. I admire what she has said. No one has a right more than she to say what she has said. No one has a right to be heard with more respect than she. I myself know that the situation in respect of violence is such that it cannot be dismissed as something to be dealt with lightly. But I have to say quite firmly to the noble Viscount—who knows that I have a great regard for him; for he is one of the Front Bench which treats me with exceptional courtesy and charm—that I have heard his remarks made before. They were made by a gentleman called Lord Justice Goddard who acquired great fame and esteem and who had many qualities that I admired. I do not want to criticise; but it was he, and he alone, who said—and he was followed by the judges—"We are going to wipe out crime by punishment."

It was he who took that view over that period after the war when we were dealing with a difficult situation—where husbands were coming back from the Far East to be reunited with families they had not seen for years, when kids were brought in from playing in the back streets during the war because their mothers had been drafted into work and so on. We had problems of refugees still more terrible than those referred to today. I put down a number of Questions at the time and I found out the extent to which sentences were being increased by the Judiciary. Quite a few little bulwarks of society were destroyed at that time. The result was overcrowded prisons. I can understand the argument that punishment may have some deterrent effect. I have never seen much evidence of it. I wish that it were available. But putting people three in a cell does not cure anybody because—and I have said this before, and I apologise for repeating myself—the theory that Little Lord Fauntleroy may redeem Bill Sikes does not work out. I have no doubt the noble Lord is bearing a note to point out that Little Lord Fauntleroy was too young to be classed with an adult offender—although it has happened to a remarkable extent.

The fact is that we have tried heavy punishments. We tried them. And we were told that we could not spend any more money on prisons because of the increasing cost of all this. I do not suggest that that was the cause. That would be nonsense. There were many causes. A lot of crime comes from America, organised crime. Mass organisation of drug trafficking came largely from America, although quickly more rapid routes were established.

I am not proposing to put forward any favourite theories of my own today. I have always said and I have always agreed with the noble Lord to this extent. There are crimes so grave and severe that when you are trying to deal with a situation such as we have today, you have to have a form of punitive segregation which prevents the criminals from mixing. We always give them the chance by long good conduct of getting some possibility of improved penal conditions. But if there are overcrowded prisons, then you mix the unredeemable with those who can be redeemed.

I think that I have to say as an Agnostic—and I do not often speak as an Agnostic—that sometimes deep-seated religious principles are a bar to reform. The theory that you must endeavour to treat everybody evenly is a good Socialist foundation, but there always comes the point when you face the ultimate dilemma of society when the boat is sinking and only a small number can be saved. Then you have to pause for a moment to determine to save those who can be saved and to abandon for the time being those who seem beyond redemption. I do not believe that in this situation you can go very far beyond that.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, with great courtesy, has given me a great deal of information. It was an impertinence on my part to accept his invitation although I did so with gratitude and appreciating the courtesy. I would very much like to see this man, whose principles no one doubts, with whom I have found myself in my life in agreement on at least 50 per cent. of the causes—which is a high percentage for me—continue to fight them with courage and sincerity, obvious sincerity and earnestness.

I thought he was a little hard today on the noble Lord, who does not seem to have suffered very much in his normal placidity because of it. I think that what has been done in connection with the community service orders is a very remarkable achievement. After all, I came into this House about the time when the Criminal Justice Act 1972 was being discussed. That made out in two or three successive sections the procedure for community service orders. It was a major departure. It was one which, if it had been over-publicised, might have attracted criticism from the same people who always start a public campaign in this way; that is, to the effect that some mental sufferer is given a chance which proves to have been, on later reflection, injudicious. It is a great reform.

I said that I agreed about fifty-fifty with the noble Lord. There is one person with whom I agree 100 per cent.—and only one now; that is, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. The reason for that is that if ever I disagree with her, she has, with a few cogent arguments, brought me to her side and I accept her arguments without question. This is another of those major reforms, mainly due to the sponsorship and authorship of this very remarkable lady. Her life seems to be devoted to nothing but service and her reputation grows with her age.

I said I had not intended to intervene at all, but I see from the clock that nine minutes have already gone. I think the clock is always inaccurate when I look at it, but I will at least bow to what it says. I hope the noble Lord has time to mention something about the short community service for young offenders, generally speaking, in borstal. I think a figure of 100 was reported from 1972. Not much information has been coming forward since. There again, I can well understand that to some extent the full light of publicity should not play. My noble friend Lord Longford has put questions of high importance, and those of us who are keenly interested—and I apologise, for I have done little recently—anticipate that the Minister has for once and very properly been provided with an opportunity of pointing to some measure of achievement and success.