Lords Sitting of 24 November 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  3.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for consideration of the Commons Amendments in lieu of the Amendments on which the Lords have insisted.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments in lieu of the Amendments on which the Lords have insisted he now considered.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED
  [The references are to Bill No. 93.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED

    LORDS AMENTAMENTS
    Clause 11, page 10, line 21, leave out ("May") and insert ("July")
    Clause 11, page 10,line 22, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("fifty-one")
    Clause 11, page 10,line 23, leave out ("passing") and insert ("coming into force")
    Clause 11, page 10,page 11, line It, leave out ("May") and insert ("July")
    Clause 11, page 10,line 12, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("fifty-one").
    Clause 60, page 62, line 10, at end insert—
    ("() This Act shall come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty.")
    The Commons insist on their disagreement with the above Amendments but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof—
    Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end, insert—
    ("(3) The Minister shall not appoint any member of the Corporation before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty.").
    Clause 11, page 10, line 21, leave out from ("of") to ("as") in line 24, and insert ("January, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, or such date later, but not more than twelve months later, than the date aforesaid");
    Clause 11, page 11, line 11, leave out ("May, nineteen hundred and fifty") and insert ("January, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.").
    Fifth Schedule, page 69, line 10, leave out from ("appointed.") to end of line 14, and insert ("not later than two months before the date of transfer.").
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, in moving that this House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments proposed by them in lieu of certain Amendments on which the Lords have insisted, I would ask your Lordships to allow me to deal with the Amendments as a whole. I think that would be more convenient, as they all relate to the same topic—namely, to the date on which the Act should come into operation and the date subsequently on which the securities should vest in the new Corporation. It is a fact, and the Government authorise me to say that they recognise that fact, that it would not now be possible to bring the Bill, even if it were on the Statute Book, into effective operation by May I next year. Some time next year—say in the first half of the year, or thereabouts—there will be a General Election. If the result of that General Election is that the Labour Party are still in power, then will he desirable to proceed with the Bill, and I do not anticipate that your Lordships will further object. On the other hand, if the Party opposite change places in this House—well, whatever they desire here or elsewhere it will he the better for them to determine. I think this discussion might proceed on the recognition of that governing fact.
    Your Lordships' Amendments provided that the Bill should not come into operation until October 1, 1950. If it then arose that the present Government—or the present Party, at any rate—were still in power (because according to the law the General Election will have taken place before that date) it would be clearly desirable, on my assumption, that the Minister should be to liberty to make such anticipatory arrangements as might seem necessary. But in order to make it clear that the Government have no desire or intention to go behind the obvious fact that the Bill cannot come into effective operation until there is a new Parliament, my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply gave this assurance in another place:
    "The Government halve … decided not to make any approaches, formal or informal, inviting individuals to become members of the Corporation, until we have emerged into the calmer atmosphere that gill follow the election of the new Parliament"—
    that is, until after a General Election. After that time, if the Minister is still

    959
    there and wishes to take steps, plainly it will be desirable that he should be able to do so. But in order to ensure that the Bill shall not come into effective operation until October 1, 1950, we would ask your Lordships to agree to amend your Amendment by accepting the Amendment in lieu passed in another place, providing that the Minister shall not appoint any member of the Corporation before October 1, 1950.
    Then there is that other matter, connected with that business. Your Lordships insisted with an Amendment to the effect that the vesting date shall not be until July 1, 1951. However, on the assumption that the General Election will result in the Labour Party remaining in power, that date would clearly involve an undue delay, which would be inconvenient to the industry and all concerned with it. Therefore, the other place have suggested a further Amendment in lieu of your Lordships' Amendment, the effect of which is that the vesting day, instead of being in July, 1951, shall be January, 1951, or such date later, but not more than twelve months later, as may be appointed. That would bring forward the possibility of the vesting date to January, 1951.
    These Amendments, I think, accord with the main contention of your Lordships, and they present a workable arrangement in the eventuality that I have been considering. I feel they are a reasonable approach to what your Lordships insisted upon, and they are in accordance with the realities of the situation. I therefore trust that your Lordships will agree to this Motion. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments in lieu of certain Amendments on which the Lords have insisted.—(Viscount Addison.)
    3.44 p.m.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, let me say at once that we do not intend to reject the Amendments to our Amendments which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has recommended to your Lordships. Indeed, why should we? They give us, in effect, everything for which we have asked. There is, of course, a slight difference over the vesting day, but that is all; and it is
    960
    entirely satisfactory to us. Much though we dislike this Bill—and I would emphasise that we still regard it as thoroughly pernicious, and likely to be disastrous to one of our greatest and most prosperous industries—we have not throughout these discussions, as noble Lords opposite know, regarded it as our function to reject the Bill. If we had wished to do that, we should have voted against the Second Reading. And that we did not do. On the contrary, we went to considerable pains to amend and improve the Bill as best we could. But we did regard it as vital, and we have said so from the start, that the British people should be given another opportunity of looking at this measure—which, I would remind the Government, is, in fact, quite different and far wider than that envisaged at the last General Election—and of expressing a considered opinion upon this new proposal.
    Up to now, as this House knows, the Government have felt unable to agree to this. That was the cause of the unhappy difference that arose between us. Yet now, under the Government's present proposal, as I understand it, the Iron and Steel Board will not begin to function, and the nationalisation scheme will not become effective, nor, as I understand from a statement made in another place, I think by the Minister of Supply, will any approach be made to individuals in regard to the membership of the Steel Board, until after the whole of this nationalisation scheme has been examined by the electors at a General Election. That is all we have asked for and, in my view, all we were entitled to ask. We have, in fact, been successful in performing our allotted duty under the Constitution.
    I do not regard this—nor do I think the majority of your Lordships—as a victory for the House of Lords. That is quite a wrong way to look at it. It is, in our view, a victory for constitutional procedure and, I believe, a complete justification of the existence of a Second Chamber. Indeed, I should have been inclined to welcome it as a triumph of common sense, had it not been for the arguments with which the Minister of Supply and the Lord President of the Council sought to recommend it to their supporters in another place. I must say I read their words with growing bewilderment, and I am glad the noble Viscount

    961
    the Leader of the House did not repeat some of them to-day. The two Ministers to whom I have referred told Parliament and the British people that the only reason why the Government were introducing this Amendment was owing—and here I use the Lord President's own words—
    "to obstruction and interference in another place"—
    and in this connection he used the word "intolerable." if by that the right honourable gentleman meant that in no circumstances should a Second Chamber ever disagree with the House of Commons, then why have a Second Chamber at all? The only real justification for this House, as we have often heard it said here before, is that under the Constitution there should be some body that can provide a measure of protection to the British people against hasty and ill-considered legislation by a Government with a temporary majority in the elected Chamber, on questions about which the view of the electorate is in fact doubtful.
    I have always understood that the Government took the same view. Even in the new Parliament Bill, which we are going to discuss next week, they make provision for dealing with the case of a difference of view between the two Houses. In that Bill, in the event of disagreement, they provide a period of one year from the Second Reading in the House of Commons before a Bill actually becomes law. As your Lordships know, that, in our view, is not a sufficient period of delay to allow public opinion to crystallise on difficult issues but I take it that the provision is inserted for the purpose of affording, at any rate, a brief period for reflection. In this particular case of the Iron and Steel Bill, as your Lordships will remember, that period has not been exceeded—the year is not up. If we are told by the Lord President and others that the action of the House of Lords has been intolerable, the only explanation is that the Government do not consider that a Second Chamber should disagree with the House of Commons in any circumstances. That means, in plain words, that what they want is single-Chamber government. The sooner the country knows that, the better.
    Certainly there has been no obstruction by this House in the ordinary sense
    962
    of the word. I am glad that the Leader of the House, who is always fair in these matters, agrees with that, but it is not what has been said in another place, and for that reason I feel bound to give the dates in order to make our position abundantly clear. The Steel Bill reached your Lordships' House for the First Reading on May 10 of this year. It received its Second Reading on May 24. It was dealt with—and I am sure noble Lords opposite will assent to this—with the utmost efficiency and despatch. The whole of the Committee stage of this long and complicated measure was completed by July 4. It received its Third Reading on July 20. We sent down to another place eleven Amendments—I think that is the right number—and when the other place rejected all those Amendments we dropped all but two, one which dealt with the date of the coming into force of the Act and an ancillary Amendment dealing with the vesting date.
    Those were sent back to another place on July 28, and from that moment the Bill was out of our hands: the ball lay with the Government, They could have accepted those two Amendments or they could have rejected them and thrown the responsibility for further delay on your Lordships. But in fact they did neither. They did not submit those Amendments at that period to the House of Commons at all. What they did was to go away on their holidays. The Lord President, who is now adopting so shocked a tone, went, I understand, to the south of France. The Minister of Health, who is equally interested, went to the north of Italy. I do not quite know where the Minister of Supply went—whether he also sought refreshment in a foreign spa, or whether he preferred taking his holidays at home At any rate, he and his colleagues all left the Parliamentary scene.
    I am not complaining in any way that Ministers should have gone away on their holidays. They had had a gruelling session and no doubt they badly needed a rest—as if I think we mil did—after that very heavy summer. But, in view of what has been said in another place, I am bound to point out that it is not the fault of the House of Lords that our Amendments were not dealt with at that stage. The responsibility is the Government's and the Government's alone. Then, quite unexpectedly, out of the blue, another opportunity presented itself for dealing

    963
    with these Amendments. Parliament, as your Lordships will remember, was called together at the end of September to discuss the situation arising from the devaluation of the pound. There was a heaven-sent opportunity to deal with the Lords' Amendments on the Steel Bill. It would have taken only a very few hours, and probably hardly more than a few minutes. But did the Government take advantage of it? Not a bit of it. They dealt with the devaluation of the pound—or they had their debate upon it anyway—and off they went on their holidays again; and they never gave Parliament an opportunity of discussing your Lordships' Amendments until last week, in the very middle of November. Now the Lord President and others have the audacity to charge your Lordships' House with obstruction! I must say that I never heard anything so hare-faced in my life.
    What is the reason for this strange delay I, of course, do not know. Neither do I know what finally induced the Government to change their minds. We in this House, as we frequently tell your Lordships, do not seek to interpret the mind of the electorate, and much less do we aspire to fathom the tortuous mental processes of the Government. The Daily Herald, with its usual genius for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, said in a leading article on November 17:
    "The House of Lords has made lavish use of its powers to hold up the Government's Steel Bill. These powers to interfere with decisions of the people's elected representatives will be drastically curtailed henceforth by the new Parliament Bill which is about to become law."
    That implies, if it implies anything, that the machinery of the 1911 Act, with its two years' delay, was still in operation with regard to this Bill. If that had been true that might have been an explanation of the Government's anxiety to get a quick settlement. But in fact it is not true, as your Lordships know. Owing to the inclusion of the retrospective clause in the new Parliament Bill, the Steel Bill would have been dealt with under the machinery of the new measure and not of the Act of 1911. If, therefore, the Government had stood pat in their original position, which they adopted up to the end of July, they would have lost at the most two months and probably less. They would have got their Bill probably some time in
    964
    February, or at the latest by the beginning of March.
    That cannot be the explanation of what must inevitably have been, for them, a rather painful volte face. It may be that the Lord President (who, whatever his other merits or demerits, is certainly a political tactician of no mean order) sensed subconsciously—we know he did not do it consciously, because he has told us so—that it might be necessary to reach a compromise with your Lordships' House in order to clear the ground for an early Election. We shall know more about that perhaps in two months' time. If an Election does take place very early in the coming year, it will be an example, very interesting to psychologists, of a case where the subconscious has operated almost as second sight.
    Or there may be another explanation. As the Leader of the House seemed to indicate in the remarks he made to us this afternoon, it may merely be that the Government have come to realise, too late, that even if they forced this Bill through now under the new Parliament Act, they might be placed in the absurd position of having denied the people a chance of declaring on it, and yet not being able to make the technical arrangements necessary to bring the scheme into operation before the General Election. That may be the answer. I do not know what is the right explanation or the right combination of explanations, and on the whole I do not very much care and I do not suppose any of us does. What is important is that the people are now able to declare their view on this Bill before it comes into operation. It is for this we have pressed, and it is this which has now been achieved. There remains, therefore, nothing for me to do but to urge your Lordships to accept the Amendments which, as I explained earlier, give us in effect all that the Government felt unable to grant us in the earlier stages of the Bill.
    3.58 p.m.
    LORD RENNELL: My Lords, we on these Benches supported the Amendment the substance of which has now been accepted by the Government. But in agreeing—as I hope my noble friends on these Benches will—with the proposed modifications, we wish to make it abundantly clear that the Bill which will now shortly become an Act remains a

    965
    bad Bill, an unjust. Bill, and one which, if it were ever carried into force, in my view at any rate (and I think it is a view which is shared by most of your Lordships on this side of the House) would produce administrative chaos in one of the most prosperous and important industries in the country, by comparison with which the chaos in certain other national corporations would seem like a small blot on the table. The vice of the Bill does not lie in the date upon which it is to come into force; it lies in the fact that no proper machinery has been provided to carry into effect what the Government themselves wish to see done. I would not have anybody, here or elsewhere, believe that in supporting these Amendments we depart one iota from the opinion which we held—and which I in particular held—that this is a wholly unworkable proposition.
    In the four years which have elapsed since the first of these nationalisation schemes were introduced into Parliament, there has come, at least in my case, a sad and increasing disillusionment about what His Majesty's Government have been trying to do. If we compare the experience which we have already had of the national corporations which have recently been brought into existence, with our experience of the several national corporations which had previously been brought into existence and which worked with great efficiency and credit to everybody concerned—I refer, in particular, to examples such as the Port of London Authority, the London Passenger Transport Board (as it was), and even the B.B.C.—little further argument is required to show clearly why we on these Benches oppose, though not always or necessarily the objects of nationalisation measures, the method that has been adopted to carry them into effect.
    As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said before now, we have not opposed such nationalisation of public services as, in the development of our social economy and in the interests of efficiency, had become inevitable. We have opposed only the method adopted—until we came to the proposals to nationalise the iron and steel industry. In this case, from these Benches we opposed both the purpose and the method, because it seemed to us that the time had come to call a halt to a process which, in our view, could lead only to chaos and bad administration.
    966
    Here then, with the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book, we have come, in my view, to a parting of the ways. Those of us on these Benches who had sympathy with a great many of the social services which the Government have had in mind, find ourselves faced with the necessity of opposing the Government, because their present plans do not coincide with what in our view is the right direction for the Government of this country to take. This Bill is the first example we have had of one which we oppose in both purpose and method. We are unalterably opposed to the purpose and the goal which this Bill seeks to achieve, as we are to the method—or the lack of method—by which the Bill proposes to achieve it. I, for my part—and here I speak personally—find that the experience of these last four years in watching this proem of nationalisation and the direction in which His Majesty's present Government are going, has created in me sad disillusionment. I am sorry that we can no longer support the Government. We on these Benches had greater hopes than have been achieved; and it is with much sadness that I find myself in the position from now on of having to oppose not only the method but also the direction in which His Majesty's Government are seeking to go.
    In asking my friends on these Benches to support the Amendment which is proposed, because it will give the people of this country an opportunity of reconsidering this matter. I trust that noble Lords and all who share my view will do their hest to ensure that in no circumstances will a Government tie returned who consider that the way in which we have been proceeding is the right way, or allow the supporters of the present Government that unqualified power which has been shown to lead to a greed for more power. It is in these circumstances that, although we support this Amendment, we wish it to he made abundantly clear that we remain opposed to the Bill, to its principles and to its methods. We will support the Amendment, however, for the reasons which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has stated.
    4.5 p.m.
    LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before we part with this important matter, I should like to be allowed to make a few observations on the speech

    967
    of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. In the first place, he took credit—not for the first time—for the fact that there had not been obstruction to the various stages of this Iron and Steel Bill, though he and his friends, as we know, dislike it. This is not the first time, as I say, that the noble Marquess has claimed credit for not obstructing. I happen to be an older Parliamentarian than the noble Marquess. I have had more experience of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House; and I want to make it clear—and I do not think any experienced Parliamentarian will disagree—that obstruction in the House of Lords is not practicable. It would defeat its own ends. Any majority or determined minority in this House—even a determined handful—if they cared to obstruct could easily do so, and could completely dislocate the whole Government business. Let the noble Marquess take no further credit for not obstructing; obstruction, I say, is not practicable. Take, for instance, to-day's Order Paper. Half a dozen men who wanted to upset the business could talk on each item on this Order Paper ad infinitum they could keep this House sitting till all hours of the night and do it every day of the week. Some of us did that once when we were sitting on that side of the House; eight of us held up the House of Lords on the Official Secrets Bill all night. What we did once could be repeated again and again. No, my Lords, real obstruction is out of the question.
    VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then, why does the Lord President say we engage in it?
    LORD STRABOLGI: I was coming to that point. I have raised this second matter in your Lordships' House on one or two occasions on a point of order, but I do it now a little more formally. I have noticed a growing habit in this House of late of breaking the old established Parliamentary rule of not making direct attacks on members in another place, usually Ministers. It would not be allowed in the other place if attacks were made on Members of this House. It is laid down most clearly in the Rules, and has been held again and again by Mr. Speaker, that attacks on members of this House shall not be made in the
    968
    House of Commons. The noble Marquess is far too courteous to make direct attacks, but reflections have been made. One word which was applied to the Lord President was "audacity." That is not Parliamentary courtesy. Another word which the noble Marquess used was "barefaced." We ought not to refer to Ministers in another place as "barefaced"—as "having the barefaced audacity" to do this or that.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Lord President did refer to us on this side as "intolerable." I do not see very much difference.
    LORD STRABOLGI: There is all the difference in the world. He referred to the actions of this House as being "intolerable." That is quite different from attacking a person by name, as the noble Marquess did. I submit that that is against the customs and Rules of Parliament. I have taken this opportunity of denouncing this practice. I believe it to be very wrong, and it will not tend to sweeten the relations between the two Houses. Moreover, it does not really do any good.
    As for the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I was very grieved to hear that he is at the parting of the ways. He has managed to dissemble his love in the past very successfully. We are sorry—but we hope for the best.
    VISCOUNT ADDISON: In view of the last two speeches, I do not think it desirable that I should be drawn into any controversy. I welcome the acceptance of this Motion by the noble Marquess and the somewhat qualified acceptance by the noble Lord below the gangway. I hope that it will be agreed to. In leaving this matter, perhaps it will be convenient if I ask your Lordships to agree to these Amendments as a whole, as they all deal with the same point.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COAST PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
    4.10 p.m.
    Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
    LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now consider the Commons Amendments to this Bill. In doing so, I desire to make a brief statement about our procedure to-day. This

    969
    Bill was introduced originally into your Lordships' House, and following its passage here it has been undergoing revision in another place. The Amendments there inserted in the Bill are now before us. They are largely agreed Amendments, which will not give rise to discussion, and I think it would meet the wishes of your Lordships if, instead of going through the eighty-odd Amendments that I am bound to ask the House to adopt, we took them in batches as they appear in each clause. I Would then move formally that we agree to the Amendments. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
    Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
    LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have been carefully through these eighty-three Amendments which have been made to this Bill in another place. So far as I can see, no controversy is raised by any of them. If I may say so without being called out of order, I think that in this case the other place have acted as a very good revising Chamber to our original work. I do not believe that any noble Lord wishes to speak on any Amendment until we reach those to page 55, line 11; at the end of the Marshalled List. I understand that my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir would like to make a few remarks on behalf of Scotland upon that group of Amendments. If it is convenient to your Lordships, I should be content if down to that point these Amendments were put to the House en bloc.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    [The references are to Bill No. 79 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
    Clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert ("and in relation to such an order, the last foregoing subsection shall have effect as if, for the reference to the Minister, there were substituted a reference to the Ministers concerned")
    Clause 2, page 4, line 3, leave out from ("section") to the first ("the") in line 6
    Clause 2, page 4, line 25, leave out ("the last foregoing definition") and insert ("this subsection")
    Clause 3, page 5, line 26, leave out from ("Scotland") to ("for") in line 28.
    Clause 5, page 6, line 37, after ("work") insert ("and containing a sufficient indication of the effect of subsection (3) of this section")
    Clause 5, page 6, line 38, at end insert (", and shall serve a like notice on any river board or other drainage authority in whose area any of the work is to be carried out")
    Clause 5, page 6, line 41, after ("such") insert ("other")
    Clause 5,page 7, line 5, leave out from ("proposal") to the end of line 9.
    Clause 5, page 6,line 11, after ("withdrawn") insert (",and the ground of objection is that the proposed work will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice, or- will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment other than this Act,")
    Clause 7, page 9, line 43, leave out ("levied")
    Clause 7, page 9,line 45, leave out from ("if") to the first ("that") in line 1 on page 10, and insert ("on any such arbitration it is determined")
    Clause 7,page 10, line 5, leave out ("by the arbitrator or arbiter") and insert ("on the arbitration")
    Clause 8, page 10, line 27, leave out ("and")
    Clause 8, page 10, line 28, after ("hours,") insert ("and containing a sufficient indication of the effect of subsection (3) of this section")
    Clause 8, page 10,line 32, after ("out") insert ("on any river board or other drainage authority in whose area any of the work is to be carried out")
    Clause 8,page 11, line 2, leave out from the first ("scheme") to the end of line 19.
    Clause 8,page 11, line 20, leave out from ("under") to ("and") in line 21, and insert ("the last foregoing subsection")
    Clause 8,page 11,line 21, after ("withdrawn") insert ("and the ground of the objection is—

    (a) that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary;

    (b) that the carrying out thereof in the manner provided by the scheme would cause hardship to the objector;

    (c) that the land indicated by the scheme as contributory lane includes land which ought not to be so indicated or does not include land which ought to he so indicated;

    (d) in the case of a scheme which specifies the persons by whom coast protection charges are to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, that any other provision of the scheme as to such charges is inequitable or unduly onerous; or

    (e) that the work provided for by the scheme will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice of objection, or will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment.")

    Clause 8,page 11, line 45, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (3)")
    Clause 8, page 12, line 20, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 23 and insert ("any person on whom notice is served as aforesaid

    971
    may object to the proposed modification, and the provisions of subsections (3) and (5) of this section as to the service of notices of objection and the determination of objections shall, so far as applicable, apply accordingly with the substitution, for references to the scheme, of references to the proposed modification.")
    Clause 10, page 14, line 19, after ("may") insert (",at any time after it has fallen due,")
    Clause 10, page 14, line line 37, at end insert—
    ("(5) The making of an order under the said subsection (2) as respects a coast protection charge shall not prevent the charge from being discharged at any time by the payment to the coast protection authority of the unpaid balance of the charge together with any accrued interest thereon.")
    Clause 10, page 14, line 39, leave out from ("mortgage") to end of line 40, and insert ("then, at any time while")
    Clause 10, page 14, line 42, leave out ("instalment") and insert ("any instalment in respect thereof for the time being due and remaining unpaid")
    Clause 10, page 14, line 44, leave out ("the") and insert ("a")
    Clause 10, page 14, line 45, leave out ("payable") and insert ("due and remains unpaid")
    Clause 10, page 15, line 20, at end insert—
    ("(9) References in this section to the payment or recovery of an instalment in respect of a coast protection charge shall be construed as including references to the payment or recovery, as the case may he, of any accrued interest in respect of the charge.")
    Clause 12, page 17, line 7, leave out ("to which this section applies")
    Clause 12, page 17, line 8, leave out from ("may") to ("without") in line 9 and insert ("take all necessary steps for repairing them")
    Clause 12, page 17, line 12, at end insert—
    ("(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise a coast protection authority to carry out any work of maintenance or repair on works which the British Transport Commission, or an Executive established by or under section five of the Transport Act, 1947, have for the time being power to maintain.")
    Clause 13, page 17, line 17, leave out ("is in force under this section") and insert ("under this section has come into operation,")
    Clause 13, page 17, line 32, after ("jurisdiction") insert ("on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say")
    Clause 13, page 17, line 43, after ("that") insert ("any of")
    page 18, line 12, after ("make") insert ("such one or more of the following orders as may appear to the court to be appropriate, having regard to the grounds of the complaint, that is to say")
    Clause 13, page 17, Line 21, after ("that") insert ("any of")
    Clause 13, page 17, line 35, leave out ("to be carried out") and insert ("for which provision is made by the scheme;")
    Clause 13, page 17, line 45, after the first ("that") insert ("any of")
    Clause 13, page 18, line 47, at end insert ("and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of this Act to subsection (3) of that section shall be construed accordingly")
    Clause 15, page 20, line 5, leave out subsection (1), and insert—
    ("(1) No person shall be liable, by reason only that he is subject to an obligation to which this section applies, to maintain or repair any works being either works constructed, altered or improved under a works scheme or works for whose maintenance or repair provision is made by a scheme under section thirteen of this Act.
    (2) This section applies to any obligation to carry out coast protection work to which a person would be subject by reason of tenure, custom, prescription or otherwise if this Act had not been passed.
    (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, nothing in this Part of this Act shall operate to release any person from any obligation to which this section applies.")
    Clause 16, page 20, line 35, leave out ("this") and insert ("the next following")
    Clause 16, page 21, line 18, leave out subsection (5).
    After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
    Notification to coast protection authority of coast protection work to he carried out by certain authorities.
    (".—(1) Subsection (I) of section sixteen of this Act shall not apply to the carrying out of work

    (a) by a coast protection authority;

    (b) by any body or person upon whom any powers or duties relating to the protection of land have been conferred or imposed by or under any enactment other than this Act;

    (c) by a highway authority for the protection of a highway;

    (d) by the British Transport Commission, or an Executive established by or under section five of the Transport Act, 1947, for the protection of a railway; or

    (e) by a harbour authority.

    (2) Work excluded from the operation of the last foregoing section by virtue only of paragraphs (b) to (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following provisions of this section; and any body or person who contravenes the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    (3) Before carrying out any such work as aforesaid the body or person in question (in this section referred to as 'the undertakers') shall give to the coast protection authority in whose area the work is to be carried out, to any coast protection authority whose area adjoins that area, and to any river board or other drainage authority whose area comprises the whole or any part of that area, not less than twenty-eight days' notice of their intention in that behalf, specifying the work

    973
    to be carried out; and where notice is so given—

    (a) the undertakers shall not carry out the work before the expiration of the notice; and

    (b) if before the expiration of the notice any authority or hoard to whom the notice has been given serves notice of objection on the Minister and on the undertakers, the undertakers shall not (unless the objection is withdrawn) carry out the work except in accordance with any direction given under the following provisions of this section.

    (4) Where notice of objection has been served under the last foregoing subsection and has not been withdrawn, the Minister and any other Minister being a Minister concerned, after affording to the undertakers and to the objectors and, if the objectors are not the coast protection authority in whose area the work is to be carried out, to that authority, an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the said Ministers for the purpose, shall determine the objection.
    (5) Where an objection has been determined under the last foregoing subsection, the appropriate Minister shall either direct that the undertakers shall be at liberty to carry out the work (whether as specified in the notice given by them under subsection (3) of this section or subject to such modifications or conditions as the appropriate Minister may think fit, having regard to the determination of the objection as aforesaid) or shall direct the undertakers not to carry out the work.
    (6) A coast protection authority in England or Wales shall have power to institute proceedings for a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.
    (7) Nothing in this section shall prevent any body. or person from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them or him to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land; but where any work is so carried out, being work to which subsection (2) of this section applies, the undertakers shall, before or as soon as possible after the commencement of the work, give to the coast protection authority in whose area the work is carried out notice of the nature of the work.
    (8) In this section the expression 'the appropriate Minister' in relation to a notice of objection served under subsection (3) thereof,—

    (a) if the undertakers are a body or person mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section means any Minister concerned with the exercise by that body or person of their or his functions under the relevant enactment;

    (b) if the undertakers are a harbour authority for a harbour to which the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, applies, means the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; and

    (c) in any other case, means the Minister of Transport;

    and any question arising under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall he determined by the Treasury.
    (9) For the purposes of subsection (4) of this section, a Minister shall be deemed to be a Minister concerned if he is the appropriate Minister or, in a case where the notice of objection was served by a river board or other drainage authority and the appropriate Minister is not the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, if he is the appropriate Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    (10) In the application of this section to Scotland, paragraph (b) of the last but one foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for the words from 'to which the Fishery Harbours Act' to the end of the paragraph there were substituted the words principally used by the fishing industry, means the Minister; and'")
    Clause 17, page 21, line 28, leave out from ("than") to the end of the line.
    Clause 19, page 24, line 28, leave out ("such") and insert ("a")
    Clause 19, page 24, line 28, after ("expenditure") insert ("of such amount and payable at such time")
    Clause 19, page 24, line 30, at end, insert ("subject to the following provisions of this section")
    leave out lines 31 to 38, and insert—
    ("(2) The amount determined by the Minister under the last foregoing subsection of a contribution towards any expenditure shall not, without the consent of the county council—

    (a) exceed the amount of the grant which the Minister has made, or has undertaken to make, under the next following section towards that expenditure, or

    (b) be such that the amount of the contribution, together with the amount of any other contributions which, by virtue of any agreement or determination made under the last foregoing subsection, the county council have paid or have become liable to pay (whether to the same county district council or to any other such council) in the same financial year, exceeds the product of a rate of one penny in the pound levied over the whole county;

    Provided that in the ease of a contribution determined by the Minister to be of a capital nature, paragraph (b) of this subsection shall apply as if the amount thereof were the amount so determined to be the annual amount which would have to be provided for the payment of principal and interest in respect of a loan, made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the council and repayable by twenty equal annual instalments of principal and interest combined, being a loan of an amount equal to the actual amount of the contribution; and where this proviso has effect, then for the purposes of the said paragraph (b) (but not for any other purpose) the council shall be deemed to have become liable as aforesaid to pay, in each of the next nineteen financial years, a contribution of the amount determined as aforesaid.
    (3) So much of any contribution as is agreed between the county council and the county district council to be attributable to the protection of any highway for which the council

    975
    was the highway authority when the relevant expenditure was incurred, or in default of such agreement so much thereof as is determined by the Minister to be so attributable, shall be disregarded for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection.")
    Clause 19, page 25, line 38, at end insert—
    ("() Subject to such conditions as aforesaid the Minister may make grants to the Seaford Urban District Council for the provision of funds for meeting expenditure incurred by the Commissioners for the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defence Works.")
    Clause 19, page 25, line 40, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section")
    Clause 22, page 26, line 37, leave out ("three") and insert ("fourteen")
    Clause 23, page 26, line 45, leave out from ("to") to first ("Rules") in line 47, and insert ("the Lands Tribunal. (2)")
    Clause 23, page 27, line 1, leave out ("that Act,") and insert ("the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919")
    line 2, leave out from ("acquisition)") to ("shall,") in line 4.
    Clause 23, Page line 4, leave out ("this subsection but,") and insert ("any such arbitration.
    (3) For the purposes of any such arbitration section five of the said Act of 1919 (which relates to costs) shall have effect.")
    Clause 23, Page line 5, leave out ("in the said section five")
    Clause 23, Page line 8, leave out subsection (2), and insert—
    ("(4)This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution for the words 'the Land Tribunal' in subsection (1) thereof of the words 'the Lands Tribunal for Scotland':
    Provided that until sections one to three of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, come into force as respects Scotland the expression the Lands Tribunal for Scotland' shall be construed as meaning an official arbiter appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the following provisions of the said Act of 1919 that is to say, section three thereof (which relates to procedure), section five thereof (which relates to costs) as modified by sections five and ten of the said Act of 1949, but with the substitution for references to the acquiring authority of references to the coast protection authority, and section six thereof (which relates to the statement of special cases) modified by section ten of the said Act of 1949, shall apply for the purposes of the arbitration.")
    Clause 24, page 27, line 36, leave out ("of entry")
    Clause 24, page 28, line 17, at end insert—
    ("(6) Any power of entry conferred by paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall include power to authorise the entry or passage of such persons, vehicles, plant and materials as may be necessary, and
    976
    to authorise the carrying out of work for facilitating their passage.")
    Clause 24, page 28, line 22, leave out ("of entry or inspection conferred by,") and insert ("conferred by or under")
    Clause 24, page 28, line 23, at end insert—("() If—

    (a) any person who in compliance with the provisions of this Act or of a warrant issued thereunder is admitted into a factory or workplace discloses, otherwise than in the performance of his duty, to any person any information obtained by him in the factory or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret; or

    (b) any member or officer of a coast protection board to whom by reason of his official position, any information obtained as aforesaid is disclosed, discloses, otherwise than in the performance of his duty, that information to any person;

    he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.")
    After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
    Acquisition by coast protection authority of right of passage for facilitating coast protection work
    (".—(1) Where, for providing convenient access to land on which any coast protection work has been or is proposed to be carried out, it appears to a coast protection authority necessary to obtain a right of passage over other land, the authority may, by agreement or compulsorily, secure the creation of such a right in their favour either in perpetuity or for such term (whether fixed or determinable by notice) as they consider requsite.
    (2) In this section the expression 'right of passage' means a right of passage for persons, vehicles, plant and materials, and includes a right to carry out work for facilitating their passage.
    (3) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the acquisition of land by agreement or compulsorily, the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and the Lands Tribunal Act. 1949. and the provisions of this Act relating to the acquisition of land, shall with such adaptations, exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister apply to securing the creation of such rights as aforesaid as they apply to the acquisition of land.
    (4) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, regulations there-under may provide—

    (a) in the case of rights created for a term, for the payment of compensation either in one sum or periodically, or partly in one way and partly in the other;

    (b) for authorising or requiring the coast protection authority to carry out such measures for reinstating the land as may be specified by or under the regulations, and for adjusting compensation accordingly.

    (5) A coast protection authority may acquire by agreement, whether by way of purchase, feu, lease or exchange, any land required by them for providing convenient access to land on which any coast protection work has been or is proposed to be carried out, or may purchase any land required by them as aforesaid compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section fourteen of this Act,
    (6) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, there shall be substituted a reference to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947.")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 45, after ("or,") insert ("across whose land it is reasonably necessary")
    page 29, line 1, after ("out,") insert ("to exercise the like rights as can be created in favour of a coast protection authority under section (Acquisition by coast protection authority of right of passage for facilitating coast protection work) of this Act")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 3, leave out ("enter upon that land,") and insert ("exercise such rights")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 14, at end insert ("or across which the rights in question are required to be exercised")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 20, after ("entered,") insert ("or across which the said rights are required to be exercised")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 36, after ("land,") insert ("or exercise the said rights")
    Clause 28, page 31, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to ("as") in line 30, and insert ("shall make such provision (if any) as the Minister may require")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 32, at end insert—
    ("(2) References in the last foregoing subsection to an order constituting a coast protection board and to an agreement setting up a joint committee shall be construed respectively as including references to an order and an agreement varying the constitution of such a board or committee, as the case may be.")
    Clause 26, page 28, line 37, at end insert—
    ("(b) in relation to an order or agreement varying the constitution of such a board or committee, the board or committee, the constituent or appointing authorities, and any authority which on the variation taking effect will be one of the constituent or appointing authorities.")
    Clause 31, page 33, line 37, leave out ("charge,") and insert ("discharge")
    Clause 33, page 36, leave out lines 1 to 6.
    Clause 37, page 37, line 40, at end insert—
    ("(2) Section twenty-two of the said Act of 1866 (which confers on persons interested in certain mines and quarries power, on giving notice, to make use of the foreshore in order to carry out certain operations) shall as from the appointed day be amended by the substitution—

    (a) for the words "under the management of the Board of Trade," of the words "the
    978
    management of which was transferred to the Commissioners of Crown Lands by the Coast Protection Act, 1949";

    (b) for the words "to the Board of Trade," of the words "to the Commissioners of Crown Lands."

    (3) Any notice given under the said section twenty-two before the appointed day shall thereafter have effect as if it had also been given to the Commissioners of Crown Lands.")
    Clause 40, page 38, line 17, leave out from ("The,") to ("shall,") in line 19, and insert ("following authorities, that is to say—

    (a) the council of every borough in England or Wales having functions under this Act,

    (b) every coast protection board, and

    (c) every joint committee appointed under subsection (1) of section three of this Act, not being a committee in whose case all the appointing authorities are authorities in Scotland.")

    Clause 40, page 38, line 20, leave out ("such functions,") and insert ("functions under this Act")
    Clause 43, page 39, line 34, after ("by,") insert ("or under")
    Clause 43, page 39, line 36, at end insert ("or to the creation of such rights as are mentioned in section (Accuisition by coast protection authority of right of passage for facilitating coast protection work) of this Act.")
    Clause 45, page 41, line 8, at end insert ("and is to be carried out on the area of that coast protection board.")
    Clause 47, page 41, line 29, at end insert ("'coast protection charge' has the meaning assigned to it by section six of this Act.")
    Clause 47, page 41, line 33, at end insert ("and includes the sowing or planting of vegetation for the said purpose.")
    Clause 47, page 41, line 36, at end insert ("constituent authority,' in relation to a coast protection board, means a body or person represented on the board by virtue of an order made under section two of this Act.")
    Clause 47, page 42, line 12, leave out ("growing seaweed") and insert ("turf")
    Clause 47, page 41, line 13, leave out ("drift")
    page 45, leave out lines 27 to 30.
    leave out lines 35 to 39, and insert—
    ("3.—(1) In the case of an order which by virtue of the provisions of this Act is required to be made jointly by the Ministers concerned, references in the foregoing paragraphs to the Minister shall be construed as references to, the Ministers concerned.
    (2) Where, in the case of an order not falling within the last foregoing subparagraph, objection to the draft order is duly made by a body mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule, the last foregoing paragraph shall have effect as if it required the objection to he considered, and authorised a local inquiry to be promoted, by

    979
    the Ministers concerned instead of by the Minister.")
    Clause 47, page 47, line 14, leave out ("2"), and insert ("3")
    Clause 47, page 47, line 14, leave out line 16, and insert—
    ("(2) Where, in the case of an order not falling within the last foregoing subparagraph, objection to the draft order is duly made,")
    line 20, leave out from ("of") to the end of line 23, and insert ("paragraph 1 of this Schedule, the last foregoing paragraph shall have effect as if it required the objection to be considered, and authorised a local inquiry to be promoted, by the Minister and the Minister of Transport, instead of by the Minister")
    Second Schedule, page 48, line 28, after ("Act,") insert ("or
    (b) by any person having an interest, right or privilege conferred on him by any local or private Act, on the ground that any such interest, right or privilege of his specified in the objection would be affected by the order,")
    Clause 47, page 49, line 17, after ("area") insert ("or lying to seaward there-from")
    Clause 47, Page 49, line 43, leave out ("confirmation,") and insert ("coming into operation").
    Fourth Schedule, page 51, line 13, after ("Blyth,") insert ("Northumberland")
    Clause 47, page 47, line 16, leave out from ("drawn.") to end of line 17, and insert ("across The Narrows from Lloyd's Hailing Station to the Commissioner's Staiths")
    Clause 47, page 47, line 29, leave out ("southern boundary of,") and insert ("northern boundary of the parish of Wain-fleet Saint Mary in")
    Clause 47, page 47 line 36, after second ("the,") insert ("old")
    page 52, line 8, leave out from ("above,") to end of line, and insert ("the confluence of Stonar Cut and Flagstaff Reach")
    Clause 47, page 47 line 16, leave out ("breakwater,") and insert ("pier")
    Clause 47, page 47 line 25, after ("50° 47,") insert ("30"")
    Clause 47, page 47 line 34, after ("Stour,") insert ("(Hampshire)")
    Clause 47, page 47 line 35, leave out ("in the County of Southampton")
    Clause 47, page 47 line 35, leave out line 37, and insert ("the north pier to the seaward end of the south pier")
    Clause 47, page 53, line 6, leave out ("Banthask,") and insert ("Bantham")
    Clause 47, page 53, line 6, leave out line 21.
    Clause 47, page 53, line 6, line 40, leave out ("Penarth Ferry,") and insert ("line of the subway at Penarth Dock")
    Clause 47, page 53, line 6, line 42, leave out second ("north,") and insert ("south") page 54, line 9, leave out ("River")
    Clause 47, page 53, line 6, line 22, leave out ("Forad,") and insert ("Foryd Road")
    Clause 47, page 53, line 6, line 22, leave out line 31.
    Fourth Schedule, page 55, leave out lines 5 and 6.
    Clause 47, page 53, line 8, leave out from first ("the,") to end of line, and insert ("New Pier and the seaward end of the North Jetty").
    LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Shepherd.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Fourth Schedule, Page 55, line 11, leave out the first ("breakwater") and insert ("pier")
    Fourth Schedule, Page 55, line 11, leave out the second ("breakwater") and insert ("pier")
    Fourth Schedule, Page 55, line 11, line 16, leave out from ("drawn,") to end of line end 17, and insert ("from the seaward or western end of the Princes Pier, Greenock, to the seaward end of Craigendoran Pier.
    The River Dee (Aberdeenshire), above a line joining the seaward end of the south breakwater and the seaward end of the north pier at Aberdeen Harbour.")
    Fourth Schedule, Page 55, line 19, at end insert—
    "The Water of Leith, above a line drawn from the seaward end of the east breakwater to the seaward end of the west breakwater at the entrance to the harbour and docks of Leith.
    The River Tay, above a line drawn from the northern end of the east pier at Tayport Harbour to the point where the centre line of Strips of Craigie Road, Dundee, produced in a southerly direction crosses high-water mark of ordinary spring tides.")
    Fourth Schedule, Page 55, line 26, leave out subparagraph (2).
    LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Shepherd.)
    LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I wish to raise only one point, and there is no controversy involved. The two Amendments at page 55, line 11, relate to certain definitions of boundaries. As I raised the point in this House at an earlier stage on behalf of the Clyde Navigation Trust, I should like to acknowledge that in another place the points of view of this and other authorities have been fully met. There are six authorities concerned—first, the Clyde Navigation Trust and the Clyde Lighthouses Board; then, in the next

    981
    Amendment, the Leith Dock Commission and the Corporation of Edinburgh and further on there are the other two authorities, the Dundee Harbour Trust and the Corporation of Dundee. The result of discussions between these authorities has brought about an arrangement which is satisfactory and, as I raised the question originally, I should like to acknowledge that it has been met.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    NURSES' BILL [H.L.]
    4.18 p.m.
    Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
    VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
    Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Addison.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    [The reference is to Bill No. 116]
    Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out from ("Minister") to ("constitute") in line 28 and insert ("shall by order").
    VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in moving that the first Amendment be agreed to, I am sure that it will be in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships that I should express our sorrow at the death of Lord Rushcliffe, who did so much for the nurses. We found hint, not as a Minister in this House but for many years in another place, a most sympathetic Minister of Labour during an exceedingly trying period. He took over the Public Assistance Board, and acquired a unique reputation, for his humanity, sympathy and administrative skill were never better exemplified than in his work in that sphere. From that time onwards, he presided first over one and then over another Committee and Commission, in all cases seeking to make recommendations to improve the conditions of the people in the public services, particularly those associated with the health services. The nurses of this country owe a great debt to Lord Rushcliffe. I am sure that your Lordships would wish us on this occasion to express our regret at his death, our sympathy with his friends and our lasting appreciation of the services which he rendered.
    LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I desire to associate myself completely with the words that have just fallen so aptly from the Leader of the House. As your Lordships are aware, and as has already been referred to, the last good piece of public work which the late Lord Rushcliffe did—and he did many in his time—was as Chairman of the Nurses' Salaries Committee, As a result of the work of himself and his colleagues on that Committee, not only the remuneration but also the status of that most self-sacrificing of professions, the nursing profession, was greatly improved. But as the Leader of the Howe has told us, Lord Rushcliffe gave many services to his country, and some of who knew him and served with him wren he was Minister of Labour in another place know how much he was respected there by all, even though his political views and theirs might differ. I suppose the greatest achievement standing to his credit was the creation of the Assistance Board, which removed the taint of the old Poor Law on the unemployed man. He put that on a sure footing by himself giving up ministerial office to act as its first Chairman.
    We missed him only recently in this House when we were dealing with the Legal Aid and Advice Act, which was of course based on the recommendations of a Committee—one of the many—over which he presided. We shall see him here no more; but we look back with affection on a man who, though modest and self-effacing, was always competent and always steadfast in doing the right thing. It is true to say, I think, that he was universally respected because he was invariably engaged in, giving of his best in the service of others; and that is why we all join in the tribute to him to-day.
    4.22 p.m.
    VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I would join in the tribute that has been paid to Lord Rushcliffe. He was a man of benevolent mind, abounding good will and unremitting devotion to the public service. His name will remain living in the social history of our times, connected in particular with two great achievements. One was the establishment of our system of Public Assistance. That problem, which was one of the most controversial of our time, arousing the most

    983
    passionate feelings and, therefore, one of the most difficult with which any Minister could have to deal, was settled under his auspices, and was administered by him with calm efficiency. And, owing to his wise leadership and administration, his solution received general assent. The other great achievement with which his name will be connected is in the nursing service, one of the finest of all professions in any civilised land. There, as we all know, he found many real grievances and much discontent, and once more he achieved most successful measures of reform. He was a friend of many of us and esteemed and respected by all. We grieve at his passing.
    4.24 p.m.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will not mind if I add my tribute, because in more recent months I saw a great deal of Lord Rushcliffe. We were very old friends, and he rendered not only the two conspicuous services to which the noble Viscount who has just spoken has referred, but also most conspicuous service in the sphere of legal reform. He presided over that Committee which helped so much in the passing of the Legal Aid and Advice Act. As so often happened when he presided over a Committee, he succeeded in securing a unanimous Report. I think the secret of that was that he was so intensely human; he was so approachable; he did not live in an ivory tower and he saw other men's problems from their own point of view.
    I like to recall that in his last days, when I visited him on his bed of sickness, I found that his enthusiasm and his interest in the Legal Aid Bill had not one bit abated. I was pleased to be able to tell him what we had done, and your Lordships will be glad to know that he agreed with what we had done. It is to his efforts, very largely, that that measure is due. I was not, of course, able to tell him at the end that we had had to postpone the operation of certain of the new services; but that, I hope, will be only for a short time. In his early days Lord Rushcliffe was a member of the Bar, and I think he was very happy to be able to render to his own old profession such signal service as he did in fact render. All of us who knew him realise that we
    984
    have lost a very dear and a very good friend.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out from ("Minister") to ("constitute") in line 28 and insert ("shall by order")
    Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("an area")
    Clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out ("that area") and insert ("each hospital area; and before making an order under this subsection with respect to any such area the Minister shall consult with the Council")
    Clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("the area")
    Clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out ("A standing") and insert ("An area")
    Clause 2, page 2, line 15, leave out ("for a jps[ota; area")
    Clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out ("standing") and insert ("area")
    Clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out from ("area") to end of line 35.
    Clause 4, page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("expenditure") in line 12.
    Clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a hospital")
    Clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out ("or") and insert ("and expenditure")
    Clause 4, page 4, Line 15, leave out ("the") and insert ("a hospital")
    Clause 4, page 4, line 15, after ("being") insert ("in each case")
    Clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out ("standing") and insert ("area")
    Clause 4, page 4, line 21, after ("committee") insert ("for the area")
    Clause 5, page 4, line 28, leave out ("A standing") and insert ("The area")
    Clause 6, page 4, line 34, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("an area")
    Clause 7, page 4, line 37, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("the area")
    Clause 7, page line 40, after ("or") insert ("between the area nurse-training committee for a hospital area and")
    Clause 7, page line 41, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("discharge")
    Clause 7, page line 41, leave out ("first-mentioned") and insert ("area nurse-training")
    Clause 8, page 5, line 3, leave out ("members of the Council") and insert ("such number of persons, being members of the Council, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under subsection (1) of section three of the Act of 1919 and such persons other than members of the Council (not exceeding two in number) as may be nominated by the Minister, after consultation with the Council, for appointment to the committee.")
    Clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
    ("(2) The term of office of the members of the finance committee shall be such as may be prescribed as aforesaid.")
    Clause 8, page 5, line 10, leave out ("standing") and insert ("area")
    Clause 15, page 10, line 4, after ("in") insert ("relation to")
    Clause 16, page 10, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
    Clause 16, page 10, line 16, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
    Clause 16, page 10, line 16, leave out ("respectively")
    After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
    Penalisation of Acts falsely implying inclusion in the list.
    (". Any person who, not being a person whose name is included in the list, takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that his name is so included shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, ten pounds, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, fifty pounds.")
    After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
    Membership of the Council, &c. not to involve Parliamentary disqualification.
    (". A member of the Council, the Assistant Nurses Committee, the Mental Nurses Committee, an area nurse-training committee or a sub-committee of an area nurse-training committee shall not, by reason of his membership, he rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting and voting, as a member of the House of Commons.")
    Clause 19, page 11, line 10, leave out ("standing") and insert ("area")
    Clause 19, page 11, line 10, after ("committees") insert ("(other than expenditure incurred by such committees in conducting examinations on behalf of the Council)")
    Clause 19, page 11, line 14, leave out from ("defrayed") to end of line 15 and insert ("by the Council")
    Clause 21, page 11, line 29, at end insert—
    ("'area nurse-training committee' means a committee constituted by an order of the Minister under subsection (1) of section two of this Act;")
    Clause 21, page 11, line 35, at end insert—
    ("'chief male nurse' means a male nurse in charge of the male nurses employed in a mental hospital;")
    Clause 21, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
    ("'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made by the Council under this Act;")
    Clause 21, leave out lines 24 to 26.
    First Schedule, page 13, line 16, after ("persons") insert ("(hereinafter referred to as the general electors')")
    Clause 21, line 20, leave out from ("children") to end of line 21 and insert ("whether or not they are also registered in either or both of those parts)")
    Clause 21, line 37, leave out ("by local health authorities") and insert ("in services provided under Part III of the National Health Service Act, 1946")
    First Schedule, page 14, line 28, leave out ("general elector") and insert ("of the general electors")
    First Schedule, page 14, Line 34, at end insert—
    ("Provided that the first members appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall hold office for a term of three years.")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 16, leave out ("A standing") and insert ("The area")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 36, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("the area")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 44, after ("payments") insert ("as may be specified in the order")
    Second Schedule, page 16, line 6, leave out from first ("be") to end of line 7.
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 16, leave out from ("area") to ("to") in line 17.
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 18, leave out the first ("committee") and insert ("area nurse-training committee for that area")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 21, leave out from ("area") to ("on") in line 22 and insert ("to provide the area nurse-training committee for that area")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 26, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("an area")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 33, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("an area")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 35, leave out ("a standing") and insert ("an area")
    Third Schedule, page 17, line 9, leave out from ("a") to ("such") in line 10 and insert ("chief male nurse of")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 24, leave out ("be filled")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 25, after first ("Minister") insert ("be filled by a person appointed")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 26, after ("case") insert ("shall be filled by a person appointed ")
    Second Schedule, page 15, line 26, at end insert—
    ("(2) Where a vacancy occurs in the place of a member that was originally filled by a registered mental nurse elected to membership of the Council by registered mental nurses, the person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be the person appointed to fill the corresponding vacancy on the Council, and a person appointed to fill any other vacancy shall possess the same qualification as that by virtue whereof the person who originally filled the place vacant was qualified for appointment or election under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.")
    Fourth Schedule, page 18, line 7, leave out from ("from") to ("referred") in line 8 and insert ("the date of the first coming into operation of such rules as are")
    LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, it has been suggested that your Lordships might like to deal with this Bill as we dealt with the Coast Protection Bill, inasmuch as I gather the Amendments made in

    987
    another place do not call for any controversy in this House. Perhaps it would meet with the approval of the House, if all these Amendments were taken en bloc. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kershaw).
    LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have no objection to that course. All these Amendments are non-controversial. I have been through them, and I think it is much more convenient to deal with them en bloc as the noble Lord has proposed.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
  4.28 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to dissolve the Local Government Boundary Commission, to repeal the Local Government Boundary Commission Act, 1945, and to make consequential provisions as respects certain enactments of the Local Government Act, 1933, which were amended or repealed by the Act of 1945. The Commission, who were appointed under the Act of 1945, have been reviewing their own work and their work in relation to other local government problems. The purpose for which they were appointed was to review local government areas in England and Wales outside London, and the Commission were given powers to alter boundaries.
  In the light of experience it has been felt that the powers given to this Commission were not large enough, although at the beginning it was thought that the powers were rather large and important and might give rise to important changes subsequently. The Commission could, for instance, alter the area of any local government unit, unite counties into larger units or divide counties, grant or take away county borough status, or create new county districts. It has been said that even those powers were of little
  988
  consequence, but I think your Lordships will agree, on examination, that although perhaps the powers do not go so far as they might have done they are none the less of considerable importance.
  As I have already indicated, the Commission now believe that their powers are inadequate, and they have asked for new legislation to increase these powers, new legislation which would be far-reaching in its effects. The Commission concluded in 1947 that effective and convenient units of local government administration cannot everywhere be procured without a fresh allocation of functions. The Commission recognised that they had no mandate, and in their call for legislation they asked that a mandate should be given to them for that purpose. In view of the controversy which has arisen, both in Parliament and in the country, it would be as well for me to say that the Minister took a somewhat similar view. He therefore encouraged the Commission to state certain broad conclusions about powers, in order that public opinion could be tested. And the Commission responded.
  First, they propose that there should be three main units of authority—(a) counties, (b) county boroughs, old and new, and (c) county districts. Secondly, they suggest the division of England and Wales into one and two-tier counties. One-tier counties were to be the largest county boroughs with populations of more than 250,000, and two-tier counties were to be the usual counties that we know, having other local authorities within their areas. Thirdly, it was suggested that there should be creation and allocation of functions to new county boroughs with populations of from 60,000 to 200,000, not having the status of county boroughs but having effective status to meet the requirements of their populations. Fourthly, it was proposed that the new county districts should be the new names applied to what we now know as urban district council and rural district council areas. The present names would be dropped, and in view of the re-allocation of duties the change in name in that respect appeared desirable. They would, of course, be authorities with second-tier allocation. Fifthly, the Commission proposed the preparation of schemes of delegation of functions in the two-tier counties.

  989
  It was thought that there was a good deal of sound opinion in the country which would support proposals of that kind, and that there would be some measure of support for subsequent legislation. Unfortunately, from discussions which directly followed the publication of the proposals it became evident that that was not the case. The receptions given to the proposals have been very mixed indeed. They have been mixed not only as between individuals but also as between authorities. For instance, numbers of local authorities have formed their opinions largely on the basis of their loyalties to the authorities of which they are members. That, I presume, was to be expected in the circumstances, but it would mean that any attempt to reach a settlement at this time between various types of authorities would have to meet with objections from all sides. Strange to say, within the authorities themselves there were mixed views. Many local authorities found themselves drawn almost to pieces by the discussions that ensued. One further difficulty arose over this matter. It was clear that if the Government adopted the views of the Commission, and proposed legislation to carry them out, there would not be time in the present Parliament to do that. Therefore, it would be necessary to wait for a new Parliament before legislation could he introduced. In view of these circumstances, the Government came to the conclusion which is embodied in the present Bill.
  We ought to acknowledge our indebtedness to the Commission for, notwithstanding the disappointment they may have felt that the Government were unable to take action, they decided to go back to their normal functions, as laid down in their terms of appointment, and to deal with such cases as came before them. The Commission, I think, took a proper view in relation to their duties, their feeling being that, having regard to the need for greater powers, the powers they now possess could be reckoned as only of secondary character. The Government agree now that the boundaries must be altered, but that boundaries cannot be altered unless new powers are considered and approved for them. Moreover, the Government are of opinion that the incidental changes which have taken place in local government work since 1945 complicate the issues. Therefore, the Government have decided
  990
  to have their own review of the whole local government situation and, in due course, to take full responsibility themselves for the introduction of new legislation.
  The Bill is not lengthy. It is, on the whole, a very simple document; so, I need not go into great detail in respect of it. First of all, as I said at the commencement of my speech, it dissolves the Boundary Commission, it repeals the Act of 1945 and it restores provisions, suitably amended, of the Local Government Act, 1933, which had been repealed by the Act of 1945. Amendments which are proposed to the 1933 provisions will be found in the Schedule. I had perhaps better mention one or two of them so that they can go on the record. Instead of using the census returns of 1931 for the purpose of estimating population, it is proposed that the estimates of population made from time to time, by the Registrar-General, shall be taken to enable decisions to be reached on particular cases. It is proposed that orders issued by the Minister in connection with these matters should come under the Special Parliamentary Procedure Act. That will simplify matters greatly when changes have to be considered. It is proposed to restore to the Minister the authority which he formerly had to make minor changes, but I am authorised to say that it is not the present intention of the Minister, pending Government examination and the introduction of a Government Bill, to encourage large developments or changes in local government organisation. As early as possible, but not in this Parliament, the Government will submit their own proposals. They recognise that local government is not static, and I would add that within the Labour Party which supports the Government there is a body of men, than which no sounder is to be found, who have been for long engaged in local government and who are anxious to see it reformed so far as it needs reform.
  Temporarily, the Government have taken no retrograde step, though it will sometimes be necessary, when alterations of boundaries are sought, that this should be done by means of a Private Parliamentary Bill. The Government believe that if a large measure of approval can be given to such changes when the Bill comes before the House, and if the opposition is not great, the operation need not

  991
  be very extensive or expensive. In conclusion, I desire to pay a tribute to the Commission for the skill and ability with which they and their staff have tackled a difficult job. They can be assured that though their task, through no fault of their own, has to be left unfinished, they have rendered very valuable service and have played a considerable part in assisting the final pattern of local government in this country. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  4.40 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, we have listened with great interest and attention to Lord Shepherd's explanation of this short Bill. He gave the House some of the background, but I do not think he gave it all. Though I do not intend to detain the House long, I think I should, in my own way, fill in some of the gaps I believe he has left. May I go back to the White Paper produced by the Coalition Government in 1945, called Local Government in England and Wales during the Period of Reconstruction? In it were proposals for amending the Local Government Act of 1933 relating to the adjustments of status, boundaries, and areas. But the proposals in the White Paper were admittedly of an interim character. Some two years before the issue of the White Paper, the reform of local government was raised in another place in the form of a Question. The White Paper referred to the letter written in September, 1943, to representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Council Association by the then Minister without Portfolio, who was none other than the noble and learned Viscount who now sits on the Woolsack. The then Minister resisted the demand for a comprehensive inquiry into local government and said in the course of his letter:
  "…it is not too much to say that the delays involved in a comprehensive inquiry of this character are likely to be highly prejudicial to the success of our post-war plans."
  That was the attitude adopted by the Minister of Health when he propounded this White Paper in 1945. It was considered at that time, however, that the process of adjustment started by the Local Government Act of 1933—that is, the
  992
  process of periodic county reviews—which was interrupted by the war, should be resumed, and that the question of the creation and extension of county boroughs should also be reviewed and co-ordinated by means of a Local Government Boundary Commission.
  The White Paper was debated in another place in February, 1945. It was propounded by the then Minister of Health, Mr. Willink, and Mr. Herbert Morrison wound up for the Government. In the course of his speech he said:
  "…the Government thought that the local authorities were entitled to know how the Government's mind was moving, and what our broad intentions were, in order that they should have some reasonable degree of security for the future in the commitments into which they are entering."
  In due course the Act which we are now asked to repeal was passed by Parliament. The discussions which took place both on the White Paper and on the Bill revealed no serious differences of opinion between the Parties then supporting the Coalition Government. It was agreed that although it was an interim measure, it was a proper and logical scheme, and it was approved. May I here note in passing that the present Minister of Health did not intervene in the discussion.
  The White Paper did not ignore the difficulties which might arise in the course of the Commission's inquiry. It recognised that the adjustment of boundaries might not be the complete remedy for financial and administrative weakness and made the suggestion that a partial solution might be found by a combination of authorities for specific purposes. It was proposed that the Commission should be empowered to bring such difficulties to the notice of the Minister and, in the words of the White Paper:
  "if necessary defer making any final decision on the area until some conclusion on the question of combination for special purposes has been reached."
  That was the situation when the present Government assumed office and the present Minister of Health issued his statutory rule and order for the guidance of the Commission, as he was empowered to do under the Act. He laid down that the governing principal was to:
  "ensure, individually and collectively, effective and convenient units of local government administration."

  993
  I think the Commission clearly took this as an encouragement to consider aspects rather wider than the restricted question of the alteration of boundaries. I know the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will agree with me. The first Report of this work, for the year 1946, was issued in March, 1947. This report gave an indication of the direction in which the minds of the Commission were moving. The Commission particularly asked the Minister for guidance on three specific points—namely, the partial review of an area, the restriction on alterations to non-county boroughs, and the distinction between different types of county districts. No answer was received by the Commission. Nevertheless, no discouragement to pursue their inquiries into functions was apparent. Obviously to pursue this wider inquiry would mean delay in the main purpose for which the Commission had been set up by Parliament. Whether or not it was wise for the Commission to do so, they undoubtedly had strong grounds for presuming that the Minister favoured changes in local government administration far wider than those foreshadowed by the White Paper. Otherwise it is scarcely conceivable that the Minister should permit the Commission to spend 1947 exploring into these wider questions of functions. That expectation must have given way to certainty when the Minister used these words in another place:
  "everyone who knows about local government feels that it is nonsense to talk about functions and boundaries separately."
  In passing, I must say it is a pity that the Minister did not intervene to tell Mr. Morrison of this in 1945.
  The Commission's Report for 1947, published in January, 1948, made recommendations for dealing largely with functions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has referred, not in detail but in outline. I think the Commission must have found themselves throughout the year 1948 in a state of considerable anxiety and suspense. They must have been like "Tippy Tiptoes," who waited for the messenger who "didn't come and didn't come" from the Ministry of Health. I can imagine them sitting in Devonshire House "listening and listening" for a knock at the door. At last Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve wrote to the Minister. Perhaps the House will bear
  994
  with me while I read the letter. It is dated, November 24, 1948, and is as follows:
  "My dear Minister,
  The Local Government Boundary Commission will shortly complete its third year's work. As you may recollect, during 1946 and 1947 we investigated the problems of the counties and county boroughs in England and Wales. This year we have started to investigate the county districts in a number of English counties, and since April some 650 conferences with district councils in those counties have been held, either by members of the Commission or by assistant commissioners. Five important questions raised in our First and Second Reports now remain outstanding. They relate to the following matters:"—
  I have already referred to the first of them earlier in my speech. The other two are the functions of counties and county boroughs, and the Greater London area.
  The letter continues:
  "We have now reached the stage when we must consider both the terms of our Report for the year 1948 and our programme of work for 1949. A meeting of the Commission is being held for this purpose in December. It becomes important therefore that we should, if possible, have some idea of the Government's intentions in the matter of local government legislation. We have of course observed that the King's Speech had no reference to the reform of local government, but presumably that does not rule it out of the picture altogether. It would be most helpful if you could give some indication (in a form we could publish) whether the Government are likely either in the present Session or in the present Parliament to put proposals before Parliament with regard to all or any of the five points which I have mentioned above."
  That letter was sieved by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. The Report continues:
  "At the request of the Minister we have held back this Report, pending his consideration of these questions."
  That was on November 24, 1948. On March 29, 1949, some four months later, the Chairman received the following letter:
  "Dear Chairman,
  With reference to your letter to Mr. Bevan of the 24th November, 1948, in which you ask for an indication of whether the Government are likely to put proposals before Parliament with regard to any of the points mentioned in that letter, I am now asked by him to send you the enclosed copy of a Question and Answer in the House of Commons dated the 25th March, which sets out the position."
  That is signed by William S. Douglas, presumably a Permanent Secretary of the Minister of Health.

  995
  The Report continues:
  "The Question and Answer referred to are as follows:
  Q.—To ask the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to legislation on local government in the light of the recommendations made in the Reports of the Local Government Boundary Commission of 1946 and 1947?
  A.—This question has been under consideration by the Government who have decided that it will not be practicable to introduce comprehensive legislation on local government reconstruction in the near future."
  I must say that had I been Chairman of that Commission I would have considered such a reply a "dusty answer." Nevertheless, as Lord Shepherd has said, they braced themselves and came back to reality with a jerk. The Report says further:
  "Accordingly, we now intend to select those cases in which the Order would be both appropriate under the existing statute law and General Principles and also, so far as we can judge, appropriate if either the law or the General Principles were amended on the lines recommended in our Reports or in some similar manner."
  But there was reserved for the Commission the fate which King Henry VIII so often reserved for over-weaning favourites: it was doomed, and it was beheaded. We are now taking part in the severance of the last vertebra. Worse than this, it has now been made clear that we can expect very little change within boundaries or in functions before the end of the year 1951. Meanwhile, this investigation into an important matter affecting the lives of many citizens is to be conducted in camera. Ten years of accumulated needs since 1939 for change in boundaries is to continue for another two years. That reasonable degree of security for the future to which local authorities were entitled, according to Mr. Morrison, has now disappeared. What is more, in four years something like £140,000 of the taxpayers' money has been spent on this investigation, much valuable time of skilled and highly preoccupied persons has been taken up, and at the end we are to have the continuance of the administrative tangle which might have been at least partially unravelled during the past four years. Despite the tributes which the noble Lord has paid to the Commission, there has been what
  996
  I consider to be a snubbing of a Commission composed of able, capable and public-spirited men. I should like from these Benches to offer my tribute to the work which they have carried out, as I think, in mistaken view of the intention of the Minister. That is the wreath which I lay on their grave. But to His Majesty's Government, and in particular to the Minister of Health, we can offer no orchids but only an offering of sour and desiccated desert fruit.
  4.56 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if ever there was a Bill which put the clock back, I should have thought it was this Bill. To say that it is reactionary is a mild statement. Naturally, we have listened this afternoon to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in anticipation of being told what the Government are going to do about putting something in the place of the Commission which they are now abolishing. I must be allowed to express my disappointment on hearing that, apparently, nothing is to be done in the foreseeable or measurable future. As the noble Lord has said, the expenses of the Boundary Commission were appreciable. But the money that was spent on that Commission was nothing compared to the cost of the machinery which is going to be substituted for it—I refer to the machinery of Private Bill legislation. I have always regarded that as a wasteful and archaic form of Government. Another fault of Private Bill legislation is that it considers only the narrow problems of the authorities involved, either in favour or against a particular Bill. It takes no account of the wider and more general surrounding problems, which are always left out, but which must be taken into account before a proper solution can be arrived at. The inquiry in Private Bill legislation is altogether too narrow.
  We are entitled to ask the Government what they are going to do. As has been pointed out, as long ago as the spring of 1947, at least two-and-a-half years ago, the difficulty which the Commission propounded was brought to the notice of the Government. In that period of two-and-a-half years nothing, so so far as I can see, has been done to solve the difficulty. Moreover, it is indicated—and it is almost the only thing that has been clearly indicated—that nothing will be done until

  997
  after the end of this Parliament. One question I would like to ask about this Bill is: Why is it necessary to state in this Bill that the very meagre county review system is not to be allowed to operate until the end of 1951? We must ask, if the Commission are to be abolished and if it be accepted that there is urgent need for action, what is to take their place. So far as I can make out, we are to go back to where we were before 1945 and have the machinery which was then so rightly criticised as being inadequate and out of date. The county review machinery, under the Local Government Act, 1933, was put into operation for a period of years. In my submission, it was totally ineffective to bring about the necessary or desirable changes in the areas and boundaries of local government. It is true that in some enlightened counties the change worked moderately well, but in many counties it was entirely inadequate and produced almost no results at all. To that machinery we are now to revert.
  I ask His Majesty's Government to show that they appreciate the urgency of this problem. There are far too many small authorities in this country to-day; and the county review cannot, and has not, reduced the number. Something must still be done to effect such a reduction. In my submission, nothing but a national body, with its headquarters in London and with its field of operations covering the whole country, can solve the problem. Being a local body, the county review cannot do so. In any event, it cannot take into account county boundaries, which it is essential to take into account. I appreciate the difficulties, or some of them. One is that when you begin to review the area of the county it is difficult to know where to stop. But that only accentuates the truth of the statement that such a narrow piece of machinery as the county review is quite inadequate.
  After the passage of this Bill we have a large vacuum, and the Government have proposed nothing with which to fill the vacuum in the immediate future. It is true that they have indicated on more than one occasion that at some time in the future they will produce proposals for the solution of the problem, but, as I said before, the lapse of time since attention was first called to the difficulty does not encourage us to hope that the result
  998
  of these big deliberations will be forthcoming in anything like the time in which it ought to be. The merits of this Bill will be judged by the speed with which the Government fill this vacuum. I hope and pray that they will give us some encouragement in order that local authorities may not continue to labour under the great disadvantage of the uncertainty of the future course of events.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, all men who are practically and not politically interested in local government are profoundly depressed by this Bill. Its motives are suspect and, in spite of the remarkable qualities of clear exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, remain unintelligible. The fact which so much depresses the practical man is that that which we all know to be necessary if we are to rationalise our proceedings—namely, some easier method of rationalising units—is being denied. We had a machine which was working well, but which was diverted from its natural path; and for that single error it suffered the excessive punishment of decapitation. Why is it necessary to wait until the Government devise some more perfect method for reorganising the whole of local government before we are allowed to have a machine for rationalising the units of the system which we have to work?
  I will not delay your Lordships with a repetition of the depressing influences which are so well known in the whole local government world. There are, however, one or two particular points which I urge my noble friend to call to the attention of the Minister of Health, who is responsible for getting us out of the imbroglio of delay and confusion in which this measure has landed us. I have particular means for acquainting myself with the opinions upon this; matter of the Association of Municipal Corporations which, as my noble friend knows, covers a very wide sphere of activity and interest in the world of local government. From the point of view of the corporations of the towns, what this Association particularly regret, in the first place, is the refusal of our request (so temperately urged in another place) that at any rate some activity or some function might be left to the Commission for dealing with county districts. I may say that we are acting in close agreement with the county

  999
  districts in the rationalising of the units of the county districts under the Act of 1945. More particularly, speaking from the point of view of the municipal corporation, we do urge that we should be given some more effective means, in substitution for those of which we have been deprived by the abolition of the Commission, of putting into force statutory orders and other proceedings requiring official and Parliamentary confirmation and relating to the rationalisation of the districts of county boroughs. My noble friend will tell me that that battle has been fought in another place, but let me once more beg him to impress upon the Minister of Health the importance of this particular point of view of practical administration, unaffected by any shadow or shade of political influence.
  May I make one last point? It is a small matter but one of great importance to us, and it is one which has been overlooked in the drafting of this rather obscure legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows that it is now within the power of a borough to promote a Bill to receive county borough status only if it has a certain minimum population—the figure, I am glad to say, has been reduced from 100,000 to 75,000. Now this is the small point I wish to make. Suppose that there are two, three or more boroughs—and we know of cases—each of them having less than 75,000 population but, taken together, having a great deal more. In the happy circumstances of their agreeing that they want to get together to become a single county borough, surely it is not intended to prevent their doing so. I commend those points to the attention of my noble friend.
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, may I intervene on a subject upon which I have addressed your Lordships before, and say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, have said about this Bill? It is true that in the 1947 Report the Commission, as they admitted, exceeded their powers under the Act. But having chosen that course, the Commission did recognise that they had done so. If their recommendations did not commend themselves, the Com-
  1000
  mission realised that it would be their duty to carry out their task on the basis of their present instructions. The fact that at one point the Commission had gone beyond the powers with which they were endowed, and that it so happened that those recommendations were not acceptable to the Minister of Health, seems to me to provide little excuse for decapitating the Commission. That is all the more so because, as the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, has shown in making these recommendations the Commission were (to use a colloquialism) quite obviously led "up the garden path" by the Minister of Health. Having made these recommendations, the Commission were then promptly pushed down a well.
  As one who, for purely geographical reasons, found himself in profound disagreement with many of the recommendations of the 1947 Report, I would add my tribute to what has already been said about the Commission. I think everybody will feel that the Commission has been very badly and shabbily treated. If the Commission made a mistake—and it is not suggested that that is the reason why the Act is being repealed—surely some explanation should be given. That given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, certainly does not indicate why condign punishment should be meted out to the Commission, who have done their best. When the Commission were formed, great legal reforms could have been introduced but we are now thrown back to a procedure which is Byzantine, expensive and peculiar, and which makes the position of local authorities quite impossible. The sympathy of noble Lords on these Benches—and I know I am speaking here for the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who has had to leave the Chamber—goes out to the Commission. We have great sympathy for them in the way they have been treated, and we regret very much that His Majesty's Government should have seen fit so to act.
  5.12 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot complain about the tone of the remarks made by the noble Lords in all quarters of the House, even if they seemed critical in their nature. They are criticisms that make it rather difficult for a Minister in this House to answer, because he is in the position of having

  1001
  to defend someone else who is not here and who therefore cannot defend himself. I think I had better reply first to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, because they are fresher in our memory. The Commission are not being punished because they went too far or had made proposals which were not acceptable. The Government are rot trying to mete out punishment; my right honourable friend the Minister would be the last person to suggest that it was punishment which he was administering. The real fact is, of course, that arising out of the discussions on the Report of 1947 the country, speaking from the local government point of view, has been "caught by the ears." Great debates are taking place; there is very little or no agreement; and it is possible that if this Commission had continued in office they could have done no really great work until the passions had died down.
  The Minister and the Government took the view that the best solution would be for the Government themselves to accept the responsibility, which meant that they would make a new start and, therefore, gain a better position for the reception of new proposals in due course. The Government are not going to delay this matter. The inquiry is already taking place. All noble Lords will agree, I am sure, that this Government will not be able to produce a good scheme unless there are wide consultations in which local authorities or representatives thereof can express their views. By some means or other, we must get to the bottom of the difficulties that exist at the moment.
  I do not wish to say much about the most critical part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, which had reference to the Minister himself. It is, I think, quite clear that he did not respond in writing to the letters that had been sent; but it would he wrong if for that reason we were to impute motives to the Minister, or to suggest that he is lukewarm about the interests of local government. Indeed, I should think there is no other Minister of the Crown to-day who has a greater interest in local government than the present Minister of Health. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised the question of the county review which has been taking place; he thought it a pity that
  1002
  this Bill should bring that review to an end. I hope the noble Lord will accept from me that the only reason that that is so is that if the Government are to tackle this question as a whole they will have a much better opportunity of doing so if, running beside it, there is not another review taking place. I hope that the work generally will be expedited.
  I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I will undertake to bring to the Minister's notice the points mentioned by him. He will, of course, realise that there are difficulties even concerning such a matter as that which he raised: the case of three adjacent boroughs which have not a population of sufficient size to enable them individually to apply for county status and who might wish to amalgamate in order to claim that status. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that even in cases of that description, inquiries must take place about the attitude of the county council concerned and also about the views of the local authorities bordering on the area of those boroughs. I suggest that although the Minister may not be able immediately to give concrete replies to the questions raised, their importance will not be lost upon him. The noble Lord can assure the Association of Municipal Corporations that the Minister will at all times take the long view and, I hope, the right view of the future development of local government.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TELEGRAPH BILL
  5.19 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  5.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I beg leave to move the Third Reading of this Bill in order to make the following statement. I have it in command from His Majesty

  1003
  to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, is pleased to give His consent, so far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may proceed therein as they shall think fit.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Bill read 3ª with the Amendments.
  Clause 16:
  Agreements with Nature Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves.
  16.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land as to which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest that it should be managed as a nature reserve, for securing that it shall be so managed.
  (5) The following provisions shall have effect in the application of this section to Scotland—

  (a) a limited owner of land shall have power to enter into agreements under this section relating to the land;

  (b) the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, shall have effect as if among the powers conferred on trustees by section four thereof (which relates to the general powers of trustees) there were included a power to enter into agreements under this section relating to the trust estate or any part thereof;

  (c) subsection (2) of section three of the Forestry Act, 1947, shall apply to an agreement under this section to which an owner or limited owner of land or a trustee acting under the last foregoing paragraph is a party as it applies to a forestry dedication agreement, with the substitution for the reference to the Forestry Commissioners of a reference to the Nature Conservancy;

  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsecsection (1), to leave out "any owner, lessee or" and to insert "every owner, lessee and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will remember, in regard to a case where the Nature Conservancy entered into an agreement with the tenant for the purpose of establishing a nature reserve on the land, there was some apprehension as to the landlord's position at the end of the tenancy. I was able to assure your Lordships that it was the intention of the Nature Conservancy to bring in the landlord in connection with these agreements, but, even so, there was some feeling that it would
  1004
  be better to have the need for the landlord's consent actually written into the Bill. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that we have secured this and this Amendment has been tabled to that end. It ensures that the agreement of every owner, lessee and occupier of the land must be secured before the nature reserve: is established by the Conservancy. I understand that this will satisfy noble Lords. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 5, leave out ("any owner, lessee or") and insert ("every owner, lessee and").(Lord Chorley.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. This completely meets the point I raised.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not propose to move the next two Amendments on the Marshalled List, or those to Clauses 20 and 26. They are technical Amendments but it has been found that there is a technical error in the way. Your Lordships will appreciate that the draftsman has been working under great pressure, owing to the fact that these stages have been gone through rapidly. I understand that it will be possible to make the necessary Amendments in another place. Therefore, I am not proposing to move them here.
  Clause 92 [Wardens]:
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "() A local planning authority may where it considers it necessary apply to the chief constable of its area to appoint one or more of its wardens to be special constables and the chief constable may if he thinks fit so appoint such a person."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point upon which we have had full discussion. I formally beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 78, line 15, at end insert the said subsection,—(Earl De La Warr.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl has considerably modified his original Amendment, but I am sorry that I still cannot accept it. As there is not now a great deal between us, and in the light of the assurances which I am about to give him, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment. In the first place, it is perfectly open to anybody to

  1005
  go to a chief constable and ask to have himself enrolled as a special constable; there is no need to have anything about that in the Bill. Of course, the chief constable himself cannot enrol a man; that has to be done by the magistrates. Therefore, on that score there is a technical objection to the noble Earl's Amendment. As I explained at Report stage, there are a number of objections to laying down in the Bill that these wardens should be enrolled as special constables, although it would be quite possible and within the discretion of the chief constable and the magistrates locally to have them so enrolled. There are the problems of pensions and special training, and also the fact, which I do not think I mentioned earlier, that if wardens were made special constables their primary duty would be to the police force, and it might well be that the chief constable would call them away to some other work at a time when their wardenship, so to speak, ought to be occupying their attention.
  We feel that it would not be right to lay down in the Bill, in effect, that in a particular part of the country some special arrangement ought to be made under which these wardens were enrolled as special constables. It would, in fact, be interfering with the discretion of the chief constable. As I said on Report, if hooliganism does develop in a serious way in one of these areas, the chances are that it will be much better dealt with by the regular police force. At any rate, it is certainly for the local chief police officer to settle that matter and to use his discretion as to the way in which he should deal with it. He could use his regular forces or, if he felt that the situation called for it, he could make arrangements for special constables to be enrolled—either wardens themselves or other people who would be suitable.
  What I am able to assure the noble Earl upon is this: in any circular which he issues to the local planning authorities my right honourable friend will bring this matter to their attention, and will advise them that, if they are under any apprehension as to difficulties of this kind arising in their particular districts, they should approach the chief constable and consult with him as to the best way in which the matter should be dealt with. It will then be open to the chief constable, at his dis-
  1006
  cretion, to take what steps he thinks the situation calls for, and that will enable him, if he thinks it is a proper case, to have wardens or some other people enrolled as special constables. I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with these assurances, and will be able to see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord cannot go further, but may I take it that the Minister is prepared to circulate authorities? The noble Lord said that this point will be stressed in any circular that may be sent round. I think we might have it a little more definite, that he certainly will.
  LORD CHORLEY: That is quite definite.
  EARL DE LA WARR: We shall see the words in Hansard tomorrow. I think they are satisfactory. In that case, I withdraw my Amendment.
  Clause 94 [Supplementary provisions as to orders under s. 93]:
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a technical drafting Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that this clause was amended on Report stage by a Manuscript Amendment. It has been found that this rather extended verbiage is necessary in order effectively to cover the situation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 80, line 28, leave out ("Class I road") and insert ("road classified under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919 in Class I").—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this is quite understandable. On Report stage two words of drafting were quickly put in across the floor of the House. I have no doubt that the parliamentary draftsmen have looked at it and found that we have not acted in accord with their usual technique. Therefore, of course, it is better to put the matter right in the way that this Amendment does.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  5.30 p.m.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  6.0 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Profits Tax,

  Overseas Resources Development,

  House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats),

  Civil Aviation,

  Representation of the People,

  New Forest,

  Docking and Nicking of Horses,

  Expiring Laws Continuance (No. 2),

  Iron and Steel,

  Nurses,

  1008

  Coast Protection,

  Agricultural Holdings (Scotland),

  Marriage,

  Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation,

  London County Council (General Powers).

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ELECTION COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.