Lords Sitting of 9 May 1950

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

Prayers
The Marquess of Abercorn (D. Abercorn)—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Hardwicke—Took the Oath.

FACULTY OF HOMCEOPATHY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CARLISLE EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION (SUPERANNUATION) REGULATIONS, 1950
2.36 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying That the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, dated March 17, 1950, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the debate on the Committee stage on Clause 4 of the Coal Industry Bill, 1949. The regulations which are before us today are, of course, based upon the subsequent Act. I find them extremely complicated and most difficult to understand, but I think one would say that they seek to provide for superannuation and compensation benefits to people engaged, or who have been engaged, in the coal industry. We on this side of the House raised the question of future expectations and a specific question was put to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. I think the question was whether His Majesty's Government intended to consider as the basis for compensation the present emoluments and length of service of a man, or whether that basis was to be as follows: that here
170
is a man who is at present receiving certain emoluments after so many years' service, and it would have been expected of him, if his employment had not ceased, 'that he would eventually rise to a certain standard.
As I read it, the noble and learned Viscount gave a clear assurance that the basis of compensation should be on a man's expectation of increased emoluments had he remained in his old employment, and not merely on present emoluments and length of service. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote tie Lord Chancellor's statement. In Column 643, Volume 162 of Hansard, he is reported as having said:
"My understanding is the latter, because if it were the former, plainly I should not be paying the man fair and reasonable compensation for an expectation, and that is what I have to do."
The noble and learned Viscount presumably was referring to the specific question which I have just mentioned, which was put to His Majesty's Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. In fact, the noble and learned Viscount went on to say further that if he could devise more satisfactory words to make it plain that it was not intended to pay the man on the basis merely of what he has to-day, disregarding the future altogether, he would be only too pleased to do so. Again, there was a further assurance given. He said:
"that the compensation a man should receive should be no less than he would have received if he had been dismissed by his old employer without the Coal Board having come into it."
When we examine these regulations, under Regulation 3, paragraph 3 (b) we find something quite different. The provision for taking account of prospective increases of salary under a man's old employment is now limited to the period of service with the Coal Board, which I think is contrary to the assurance and meaning given by the noble and learned Viscount. The result of this limitation may mean a very different salary to, a basis for compensation, and certainly one very much lower. I may be able ID clear the matter a little by giving an example. Take, for instance, the case of a man aged thirty-seven on December 31, 1946, who has been employed by a colliery concern for twelve years, and his salary from the colliery company was £500 per annum with an expectation of progressive increments

171
of £100 per annum up to a maximum of £1,500. This man is then taken into employment by the National Coal Board and his services are dispensed with after a period of three years, at which time his salary is £650. Owing to the concluding words of Regulation 3, paragraph (3) (b), which lays down that there are to be taken into account only emoluments received during the time of his service with the Coal Board, this man would be unable to claim compensation on the basis of yearly increments of £100 up to the total of £1,500 which he would have received had he remained in his old employment: under these regulations he will be able to claim on increments of £100 for three years only. As his salary with the colliery company was £500 at December 31, 1946, he would be able to claim on only three increments of £100, making a total of £800 in all instead of £1.500. I think that is the real point.
There is, as I see it, yet another condition under these regulations which appears to be somewhat unfair. Under Regulation 3, paragraph (4), although in the case of persons over forty years of age certain years are to be added in respect of compensation, in the case of those under forty there seems to be no provision at all for taking account of the prospective increase of salary. For instance, a man who is not taken into the service of the National Coal Board can claim compensation on the basis of his salary with the colliery company, but if he has not attained the age of forty he will be unable to claim anything for his expectation of increase of salary. These regulations certainly appear to be contrary to points which were agreed during the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will consider their withdrawal so that they may be amended to meet assurances which we were given and understandings we arrived at during that Committee stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying That the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, dated March 17, 1950, be annulled.—(Lord Teynham.)
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I do not desire to make a speech on this
172
occasion, but I should like to put something to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor with a view to clarifying the matter before the House. I am not by any means expressing an opinion, for the point which my noble friend Lord Teynham has raised may be covered by the first part of paragraph (2) of Regulation 3. These regulations are very difficult even for a professional lawyer to understand. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to look at page 3 of the Regulations, and to let his eye travel down paragraph (2) of Regulation 3. He will there see the words:
"…where an expectation of accruer, whether as of right or under customary practice, of any particular benefits in favour of any such person … the Board shall provide in his favour … fair and reasonable compensation for the cesser of or prejudice to that expectation."
I am not quite sure what the effect of that may be. No one here would desire that sub-paragraph (b) on page 4 should give a man a double increase of pension, by reason of there being two paragraphs which might conceivably have been designed to give him that specific increase of emoluments. That is a point on which I am not at all sure. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor does not think that the first part of paragraph (2) of Regulation 3 applies, then there is very strong around—indeed, I think there is an unanswerable case—for holding that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham is a sound one. We are dealing with an increase in the emoluments to be given under this regulation to a person who has been in the service of, we will say, a colliery company, who afterwards goes into the service of the Board, and who, immediately before he left the service of the company, had a positive assurance that he was going to get an extra £100, £200 or £300 a year after that date. Surely that must be taken into account in reckoning what he is to receive under this regulation. If he has already received it under another paragraph, of course, he ought not to have it twice. I do not mind which way it is given to him. I do not know whether it would be better, but I am seeking to put to my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack that it may be feasible to make a slight alteration in the regulations to make it plain that a man is at least to get some emolument in respect of the

173
increase of pay he would have received before he left the service of the company. I hope I have made this clear. I must admit that I am not very clear about it myself.
2.47 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Teynham in his Prayer against these regulations, I am concerned only with the question of expectation. Knowing the intentions of His Majesty's Government on the matter, as expressed at the various stages of the Bill, I have assumed that somewhere in these regulations there is implemented the desire to compensate a man in some degree for loss of expectation. In Regulation 2 I seem to find such a provision. On the other hand, when we come to Regulation 3, it appears to me possible—I do not say that it is probable—that the whole thing may have been taken away again by the words:
"being a time during his service with the Board."
In other words it is stated that these expectations which he held for the future are not to enter into the calculation at all. Another fear that I have in my mind is whether Regulation 4 rules out any compensation for expectation for anyone under fort; I do not believe that it can be so, but there is a doubt in my mind because of the very difficult wording of the regulations. I should therefore like to ask the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to explain, quite simply, how the expectation is calculated in the following broad categories. First let us consider a man who definitely must have had an expectation. If he is taken over by the Board, how is his compensation calculated? Or, if he is not taken over by the Board, how is it then calculated? I should then like both these categories divided into over-forties and under-forties.
2.50 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's Prayer, I feel that some of us who are not legal experts are in some difficulty, and my first request is one which I think will strike a chord in the minds of noble Lords who are not so qualified. Could not these regulations be framed in language easier for the layman to understand? They contain long sentences which are not broken
174
up, varying between ten and twenty-two lines. If the reply of the noble and learned Viscount oil the Woolsack (to whom, with his experience, I suppose these regulations are simple) is that it is an essential part of the draftsman's skill and experience to express his case in this way, could there not be provided an explanatory note in simple language; just as we have explanatory White Papers on many of the complicated measures which come before your Lordships' House and another place? The adoption of either of these two courses would make our deliberations on such a matter as this somewhat easier.
I should like to raise one issue on these regulations—namely, the time of qualification for benefit under these regulations, which is placed at ten years. The regulations were issued originally on December 20, 1946, when they contained this provision of ten years' employment. Subsequently, His Majesty's Government introduced, and Parliament passed, measures for the nationalisation of electricity, the health services and transport undertakings, and in each of these cases the period of qualification was put at eight years. I cannot help thinking that those who have been employed in the coal industry and who are affected by these regulations are suffering because coal was the first of the nationalisation measures to be introduced. I should like to take your Lordships back to the debates in another place and give the gist of what the Minister of Fuel and Power and his Parliamentary Secretary said on this point of eight years as against ten. On March 9, 1949, in Column 1298 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, speaking on the electricity undertakings regulations, the Parliamentary Secretary used these words:
"We also repeated in these regulations what was done in the transport regulations to the effect that no person can receive compensation unless he was employed prior to vesting for a continuous period of not less than eight years after attaining the age of 18. The Government's first view on this matter was that ten years was the right period to fix. We ought to be sure that an individual who is to be compensated has his roots in the industry. As I say. the Government's view originally was that the number of years ought to he ten, but after consideration and discussion the period was brought down to eight years. Eight years is common to the transport regulations and to the National Health Service Regulations."
I would ask your Lordships to consider one further quotation from the right

175
honourable gentleman, the Minister of Fuel and Power, speaking on the same regulations. He said:
"What are the points of principle in the regulations? The qualifying period. Do honourable Members suggest that there should be no qualifying period for the payment of compensation? Certainly not…the Government started out with the idea that a qualifying period of ten years would be appropriate. In fact, the unions said that they thought that was an unnecessarily long period. I am being frank. Finally we compromised on eight years."
The Minister then said something which I heartily support, and which I would particularly draw to the attention of the noble and learned Viscount. He said:
"We must approach these problems from a common basis. There are certain provisions in the Transport and Electricity Regulations. Later on, we shall have to introduce similar regulations for the gas industry. I do not say that every single sentence of the regulations should be the same; there might be good reasons for differences in drafting, as there are; but on the essential points of principle it would be difficult for the Government to have different principles."
Those were the words used by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and we should like some light on what has made His Majesty's Government stick to ten years in coal and eight years in all other nationalised industries, when His Majesty's Ministers themselves say they wish to maintain uniformity.
I should like to make one more plea for reducing the qualifying period from ten to eight years. The ten years from 1935 to 1945 hit hardly on those who will be affected by the regulations. They were difficult years for the coal industry. There was a loss of export markets; there was Dunkirk; and there was a dropping away from the mines. All those factors made it difficult for a man to complete ten years' service. If the time of qualification were reduced to eight years, men who found difficulty in this period would come within the purview of the regulations. We are not pleading for highly-paid executives. The men who will be affected by the regulations are few in number and unorganised, and there is nobody to speak for them except members of your Lordships' House and of another place. The cost of making these regulations less harsh in respect of this period of qualification would not be great. While I know that we cannot amend the regulations, in the interests of fair play for these
176
men could the Government not consider revoking the regulations and reintroducing them with a provision for eight years instead of ten? In that way I feel that a greater measure of justice would be done to the few difficult cases for whom I have tried to speak this afternoon.
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, seems to imagine that for me with my experience the reading of these regulations was a perfectly simple matter. I will tell your Lordships quite seriously that it was not a simple matter. I do not know whether it is that I am getting old or that my capacity for understanding is less than it was, but having immersed myself in these regulations for the last three days, I decided that I had never found anything so difficult. I am not going to adopt the common tactic of blaming the draftsman. I would much rather suspect my own intelligence. I suppose that if I were to discuss with Mr. Einstein his theory of relativity and, having listened to him, found that I understood very little of what he said, it would be a poor "get-out" to say that he did not explain himself well. What would be the matter would be that I should not have the capacity of understanding. I rather feel that in reading these regulations that is my trouble.
Noble Lords have had a good deal to say about the assurances I have given. The only assurance I can give now, or at any future time, is that, in expounding all the numerous matters which come before me and which I am expected to expound, I shall do the best I can. I cannot possibly assure your Lordships that I shall not make mistakes. I am perfectly sure that not infrequently I shall make mistakes. Whether or not I have made mistakes in expounding these regulations I do not know. The position is this. We had a discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill—and I stress the words "on the Committee stage"—and I then said this:
"I do not want to hold out expectations. I want these men to be compensated fairly and reasonably for everything they have lost, including their expectations. But I suggest that we should do greater justice and give more satisfaction by basing it on something which is fixed and ascertainable, rather than on a mere speculation with which it is impossible to deal."

177
Obviously, if we are going to indulge in political controversy it is manifestly unfair to stop half-way through the sentence.
In another place (I am not suggesting for a moment that anybody here would be guilty of such conduct) on the strength of the first half of the sentence, without the second, I was accused of having given what is called an assurance. The whole point of the controversy, if anybody troubles to read it, was to this effect. I said: "Although we want to compensate everybody for his expectation, expectation is an extraordinarily difficult thing to assess." I gave all sorts of illustrations, showing that two men might go before the Board and, though their outward circumstances were the same, might get wholly different compensation, which would give rise to great heartburning. Therefore, I said: "When we assess this expectation, let us do so on some definite and definable principle." The two principles upon which we have sought to base it are, first, length of service, and secondly, the quantum of emoluments. It is those two factors playing upon each other that we have taken to enable us to assess w hat a man's expectation is. All other factors we leave out. Anybody who reads this debate will see that that is so. To use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, we want a yardstick to assess these expectations and, in the nature of things, that yardstick can be only something which is definite and ascertainable. That is the point It is by reference to those two yardsticks that we assess the expectation.
To go back to the old controversy, if we did not do that, consider what sort of things we should have to do. One young man would say: "I had a very considerable expectation. I was walking out with the manager's ugly daughter, and I hoped that all sorts of things would happen to me." Somebody else would say: "I ant a very bright and intelligent young man—rather a late developer," or something of the sort. And then somebody else who had been there for some time would appear as rather a dumb sort of person. We should have to assess the expectation of all those people. It was because we all agreed that that was impracticable that we said we would take an arbitrary line and base this expectation on ascertainable factors; and the two
178
factors are length of service and emoluments.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to ask a question. Do those phrases which the noble and learned Viscount has used exclude an expectation of accruer under customary practice? I agree that that may sometimes lead to a little difficulty, but it is in the rules.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am coming to the rules presently. All I am saying for the moment is that we base the expectation—which I agree is the accruer the noble and learned Viscount contemplates—on those two factors, and eliminate all others.
I would invite your Lordships' attention while I consider and explain these regulations, as I understand them. First of all, I start with Regulation 3 (1). If your Lordships have that before you, you will see that it deals with contractual rights. It provides that where the matter concerned is that of rights, the Board shall give to the man either the same benefits, or not less advantageous benefits, than those he had by virtue of those rights. With regard to that, so far as I apprehend, there is no controversy. I now come to paragraph (2), to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has already referred, which deals with the expectation of accruer. Regulation 3 (2) provides for the case where such expectation either ceases or is prejudiced through a man losing his job owing to the passing of the Coal Act, 1946, Such a man is entitled—and is intended to be entitled—to receive fair and reasonable compensation for that loss. But, as I have said, that compensation should be based upon the consideration of the two factors—namely, the period of employment to which that expectation was ascribable, and the emoluments enjoyed during that period. Moreover, in the cases specified in the regulation account has to be taken of benefits which might have been expected to accrue by virtue of subsequent employment. So that this notional employment, and the notional effects which might have been expected during its continuance, are to be determined in accordance with Regulation 3, paragraphs (3) and (4).
That brings me to paragraph (3) of Regulation 3. This applies only to persons taken into the service of the Board,

179
and provides that the period of employment shall be extended to cover the actual period of employment with the Board; that is to say, if the man served thirty years with the old employer and three years with the Board, and was thereafter declared redundant, according to this paragraph his period of employment shall be calculated as being thirty-three and not thirty years. But not only do we consider the period of employment, but we consider also the emoluments. These emoluments should be taken as either the amount of his emoluments in any year during his period of service with the Board, or, if less, the amount calculated in accordance with the Schedule, or the emoluments enjoyed by him in his pre-Act employment, together with any increase of which he had an assurance at the time during his service with the Board, whichever of these two is the greater.
I will consider next paragraph (4) of Regulation 3, and I will then try to sum up the effect of them all. This deals alike with those persons who were not taken into the service of the Board and those who, though taken into the service of the Board, have ceased to be employed by the Board. It provides that, so long as the man has reached the age of forty, and so long as he has been employed for ten years, one year is to be added for each completed year after the age of forty, subject to a maximum of ten years, not exceeding, however, the period between his loss of employment and his normal retiring age. I come now to the conclusion of that, as I follow it.
Let us take this simple case. A man enters the service of a colliery company at the age of twenty, and he serves for thirty years. Let us assume that he serves under a pensions scheme which provides for a pension at the age of sixty, and let us assume that the pension is based on the salary he was earning during the last year, on the principle of one-eightieth for each year's service. He is then fifty, having entered the service at twenty. I have taken the simple case where he is not taken on by the Board at all. If you adopted the ordinary one-eightieth principle, when his time for retirement arrived—that is to say, when he reached the age of sixty—you would give him thirty-eightieths of his last year's salary.
180
In order to try to take account of the possibility of expectations and so on, what we propose to do under this regulation is to give him not thirty-eightieths but forty-eightieths. In other words, we add an arbitrary ten years to take account of expectations. Take the case of a man earning £2,400 (which is an easy sum to divide), who has worked for thirty years and who, on reaching the age of sixty—which, on my hypothesis, would be in ten years' time—would, but for this regulation, have thirty-eightieths of his salary, which would be a pension of £900 a year. Instead of that, we are going to give him forty-eightieths, which gives him a pension of £1,200 a year. It is that factor which we bring in which is intended to account for the expectation. I hope I have made that plain to your Lordships. I am not giving any assurances; I am merely stating what I understand the effect of these regulations to be, and I believe that in that respect I am right. That is the combined effect of paragraphs (2) and (4) of this regulation.
Now let us take the next case, which is a little more difficult. It is the case of a man who never entered the service of the Board at all. So far as I know, I have not heard in this House, either to-day or upon any other occasion, any criticism of what we are doing to that man. Now it sometimes happens that a man enters the services of the Board for a short time and is then declared redundant. Let me take the case of a man who entered the service of a colliery company at twenty, serves for thirty years and, when he is fifty, the colliery is taken over under the Act and he enters the service of the Board for three years. What do we do for him? The result is just the same, but the formula is different. He has served thirty-three years and, therefore, by virtue of his service we give him thirty-three eightieths; but we add, in accordance with this formula, seven years—that being the number of years between fifty-three and sixty—so that in his case also forty-eightieths are given to take care of his expectations.
Now if we have gone together so far, there is one further step. What about the man who had expectations of accruer of salary and whose expectations materialised during his service with the Board? If they did not materialise—if they are mere speculations—we claim to have

181
taken account of them in our formula of giving him the extra ten years. But supposing they did materialise. Let us assume the case of a man who, in his old colliery company, had a reasonable expectation of an increment of £100 a year. He is taken into the service of the Board and the Board give him that increment, carrying on, as it were, the old formula. Assuming he is earning £1,200 a year, the first year he receives £1,300, the next year £1,400, the next year £1,500, and then he is declared redundant. Under these regulations, what do we give him? Once more, we give him forty-eightieths, not of the £1,200 which he had when he entered the service of the Board, but of the £1,500 which he had when he was in the last year of his employment. That is always assuming—and to make this simple I am assuming—that the particular pension scheme which the Board took over is the scheme which bases the pension on the last year and not, as your Lordship; know is not uncommon, on the average of the last three years of service. There is no pension for anybody who has served less than ten years. It was thought, looking at the coal industry incidence, that that was the right figure to apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was good enough to write to me and inform me of the points he was going to raise. I am not making any complaint, but he did not warn me that he would refer to the difference between eight and ten years. if I had known that that was going to be raised, I would have taken further instructions. I know that the actual incidence of the coal trade was most carefully considered, and ten years was considered to be the right period. After all, this is the position we should.all desire to adopt. Whilst on the one hand we do not desire to treat these men in a niggardly or unfair manner, on the other hand we are dealing with the taxpayer's money and we do not want to be lavish. It seemed to us that we ought not to regard these people as a kind of remittance men. If they have had an acquaintance with the industry of less than ten years, we thought they should be out of the scheme altogether, and the scheme provides that people who have served for less than ten years do not come in.
People under forty years of age come into the scheme, but as I understand it
182
they do not get the benefit of the concession of the added ten years. For instance, supposing a man entered the service of a colliery company at the age of nineteen and served for twenty years, but is under forty. Now when his time for pension came he would get twenty-eightieths of the salary he was last enjoying, and we should not add ten years so as to give him thirty-eightieths. That is the scheme, and I hope I have been able to make plain to your Lordships what it is, as I understand it. We claim that we have taker account of expectations and taken care of them by an ascertainable yardstick. We have taken care of them by the formula by which we add years so as to increase the size of the fraction which we are going to make operate upon the quantum o the emoluments. Your Lordships have a perfect right, if you are so minded, to divide against these regulations and annul them. It is perfectly proper that you should have this right, because when we were discussing the Bill upon which this matter arose, long before the final stage of that Bill—and all my incriminating statements, be it observed, were made on the Committee stage, so far as I know—the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, after that Committee stage, suggested, and I accepted the idea, that our experts should get together to consult and see what emerged. Thereafter, on the Report stage certain further Amendments did emerge. That is the position.
These regulations have been drafted with great care. They have been considered by eminent accountants and actuaries and by all sorts of people who understand a great deal about mathematics—about which subject, I am afraid it has become only too obvious, I understand very little indeed—and they have come to the conclusion that these regulations are right. With regard to the forty-year-old people, I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that, although that is possibly an interesting point for discussion, so far as I can ascertain it has no practical substance at all. Of the nine people in that category whose life history has been put before me, none would come in at all; and, in fact, the controversy about the nine under-forties is a controversy which has no reality. Equally, I do not know of any case in real life where there is a controversy about the

183
eight and the ten years. I have not heard of one, at any rate—but I would have made further inquiries about this matter had I know the question was going to be raised. In all these circumstances, I do not dispute that your Lordships have the right—and I hope you will use it—to consider the matter most carefully. I believe that the circumstances are such that you should do so. Yet, on the whole, having regard to all the work that has been done, I very much hope that you will not throw the matter back into the melting pot again. At the same time, if you are minded so to do, that is a matter for your Lordships' decision. I repeat, however, that great care has been taken in drafting the regulations and, on the whole, by adopting this added-years formula, I think we have taken care of expectation. Your Lordships accepted the principle that we must take care of that matter by certain ascertainable yardsticks rather than by leaving the matter completely at large and so making it impossible for an arbitrator to decide fairly between one person and another. I have done my best to explain this matter, and I assure your Lordships that it has caused me a great deal of study.
3.23 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it calls for no mean courage on my part to intervene in this debate. The Lord Chancellor has already told your Lordships that with all his great legal experience—and, perhaps I may add, his clarity of mind—it has taken him two days to try to understand these regulations; and even then, he says, he is not quite certain that he has succeeded. I have not had that amount of time, and I have not had the same legal training. I will, however, do my best to put in as simple form as I can what I feel is the main point which was causing us anxiety.
The Lord Chancellor will appreciate that we have not raised this point with any desire to embarrass the Government. It is purely and simply because it appeared to us that there was a discrepancy between what was said in the House during the Committee stage of the Bill and the actual form of the regulations as they have been ultimately produced. The noble and learned Viscount said this afternoon that he did not give any assurance. I appreciate what he says, but he did use these words:
184
"I think we could easily agree, if it would be any satisfaction to your Lordships, that the compensation a man should receive should be no less than he would have received if he had been dismissed by his old employer without the Coal Board having come into it."
That may be said not to be an assurance, in the strictest sense, but it was on the basis of that statement that your Lordships decided on the action they would take with regard to the word which was being discussed. Therefore it is obviously a matter which the House must scrutinise with the greatest possible care.
It seems to us that in one particular respect the Government have not quite carried out the intention that was expressed by the noble and learned Viscount when he spoke. I refer in particular to the wording of Regulation 3 (3) (b), which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned in his speech, As I understand the position, in assessing compensation in this particular case the Government or the Coal Board agree to take into account the emoluments enjoyed by the man during the employment to which his expectation was ascribable, together with any regular periodical increases or any specific increase in emoluments in respect of which he had assurances if that employment had been continued. The difficulty we see is that the man might have had a definite assurance from his old employer. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, gave a case of this kind, assuming an instance of a man with a salary of £500 a year and an expectation of £100 a year increase until a ceiling of £1,500 is reached. Suppose he had a similar assurance from the Coal Board, he would then, under this paragraph, be in the same position and would have no complaint. But suppose. having had an assurance from the old employer, he did not receive any assurance from the Coal Board, then they would be under no obligation to give him the compensation to which he would have been entitled had he remained with the original employer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There would be an expectation in such a case. "Expectation" is the word to use—not "entitled."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That seems to be a matter in which the statement of the noble and learned Viscount on the Committee stage has not been implemented.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We claim that we have taken account of that in giving him the bigger fraction. I quite agree that we do not give him the emoluments, hut we have given this better fraction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is such a very complex and difficult matter that I do not think it would be right for me to ask noble Lords on this side to divide. It is a question that must be carefully examined. It may be that when the Government look at this matter fully they will find that there is, in fact, a gap here; I do not say they will, but they may. If they do, I hope they will consider an amendment of the regulations to meet that point. I do not want an assurance to-day, but I should welcome a promise that the responsible Minister will look at the matter again, with a view to carrying out the Government's intention. If that promise could he given, I am sure it would satisfy my noble friend Lord Teynham.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can certainly give that assurance. The whole matter will he reported to the Minister —I will myself bring it to his attention. It may be that this matter will be coming back to this House again. If it does come hack to this House again, I sincerely hope that somebody other than myself will have to deal with it.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause l [Amendments of 7 & 8 Geo. 6 c. 44]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is purely formal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page I, line 10, leave out ("references to") and insert ("words").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment again is formal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("respectively references to") and insert ("the words").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"() In the proviso to subsection (2) of section one of the said Act of 1944 as amended as aforesaid (which proviso provides that an Order in Council relating to an organisation to which the said section one applies stall not confer any immunity or privilege upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or as a member of the staff of such a representative), after the words "shall not confer" there shall be inserted the words "on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent that those which, at the time of The making of the Order ore required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf and shall not confer."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment about which I told your Lordships on Second Reading. It has the effect of preventing any Order in Council from conferring upon anybody any privilege greater than that required by the international instrument or contract in question. May I let your Lordships into a secret and say that when drafting this Amendment I showed it to noble Lords on the other side in order that I might be satisfied that the drafting was right? We all thought it was. But they, or some of them, with an untiring industry which is greatly to be commended, have looked at the Schedule which is coming presently. What I am going to suggest to them is this. We cannot very well make an Amendment in the Schedule, because the Schedule merely automatically records what we have done in the body of the Bill. I mention this point so that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in particular, may consider whether he would like to say something about the f arm of this Amendment here in order that we may get it right in the Schedule. It would he put right in the Schedule automatically if we put it right here.
Because I have been spending such time and brain-power as I had on the last matter, I have not had much time to consider this point. I am completely at one with the noble and learned Viscount in what, if I understand him aright, he has in mind. I myself feel that we have gone perhaps a little too far in this idea of extending the whole doctrine of diplomatic privilege to include all sorts of people who take part in international discussions. We started it in 1944, so that the noble and learned Viscount is deeply implicated. I am equally implicated in what was done in 1946 and now, going a little further, in 1949. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that we should cut down the principle or, at any rate, not extend it unnecessarily. The particular matter which I think the noble and learned Viscount has in mind is the extension of this privilege to such people as the staff, the wives, the maidservants, the oxen, the cattle and all the rest of it. If it is necessary to extend privileges to individual men, do not let us, as it were, carry all these other people automatically with them. With that, I personally have sympathy.
On the other hand, I have not had much time to consider the appropriate form of Amendment and I should be glad not to be pressed to make it to-day. If I may indicate the sort of thing I have in mind, or rather the sort of thing which the noble and learned Viscount has in mind, I should like the Amendment to read something like this. After the introductory part about subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1944, it should read as follows. For the words
"shall not confer any immunity or privilege"
there shall be substituted the words
"shall be so framed as to secure that there are not conferred on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent than those which, at the time of the making of the Order, are required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf."
The effect of that is that we shall not be conferring privileges on any individual automatically by reason of the fact that he stands in some relation to a special individual, unless the treaty includes precise requirements that that shall be done. In due course, if the noble and learned Viscount agrees with
188
what I am saying, I shall submit to him an amended draft on the lines I have indicated. In the meantime, perhaps we may consider the Amendment as printed, because I have not had time to consider the other words, and until some earlier hours of to-day I thought that this Amendment would be satisfactory. I should like to move this Amendment on the understanding that I will get in touch with your Lordships between now and the next stage of the Bill when I anticipate I shall be able to put down an Amendment on those lines, to make it carry out more precisely what we require. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: We are all very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he has spoken. When I first saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I certainly formed the view that it completely met one of the two main criticisms which on Second Reading it seemed right to make. I suppose this matter is not as complicated as are the Coal Regulations, but it is getting pretty near to that. There were really two criticisms on Second Reading which I thought it was reasonable to make. Neither of them has anything to do with the question as to whether the Council of Europe or the Consultative Assembly are most desirable bodies: they are very important international organs.
The two criticisms were these. The first was that the Bill is not limited to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, as was evidently the impression of the representative of the Foreign Office when the Bill was presented in another place—indeed, he said so. It is not so limited. It is a Bill which, according to its terms, will apply to the grant of privileges or immunities to the representatives in other organisations, some of which perhaps as yet have not even been thought of, set up hereafter with foreign Powers, such as Soviet Russia. That was one criticism and, if I may, I will deal with that in the Amendment standing in my name a little later on. The other criticism was one which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has faced and, I certainly thought, had dealt with completely in the Amendment now before

189
us. I made the point on Second Reading that in this Bill as it stands there is no provision which limits the scope of the Order in Council to such privileges as the International Agreement seeks to confer; therefore, although the International Agreement stipulated only for privileges A, B and C, it was possible to make an Order in Council which would cover all the letters in the alphabet. That is the point which the Lord Chancellor is now meeting. In substance, I think he is perfectly right, and I hope we shall accept, that the Order in Council, which is an executive act, should be no greater in extent by way of giving these privileges than the International Agreement requires, because every time a man is given a privilege of this sort other people are deprived of rights against him which they would otherwise have. I think that is agreed on all hands.
Accepting that, as I did in spirit, it occurred to me that there was a possible difficulty. I will not develop it now because the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to consider it, and has told us the sort of words which it occurs to him might be put into this clause, I suppose on Report.
There is one other matter which is relevant to this Amendment on which I wish to address a question to my noble and learned friend. It is a good thing to provide that the Order in Council shall go as far as, and no further than, the provisions in the International Agreement, provided that the language of the International Agreement is language which can be clearly understood. Unfortunately, in the present case it happens that the relevant articles of this Agreement of September 2, 1949, are extremely difficult to construe with any certainty. Those articles are Articles 14 and 15. Article 14 provides that:
"Representatives to the Consultative Assembly and their substitutes shall be immune from all official interrogation and from arrest and all legal proceedings in respect of words spoken or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions."
I think it will be agreed that it is not at all easy to be sure whether this phrase "in the exercise of their functions" governs everything in front of it, or whether there is a wider privilege from arrest which is not limited to arrest when a person is doing something "in the exercise of" his functions. That is the fault
190
of nobody in this House. But if the Order in Council is going to correspond with the International Agreement I am sure that we all desire that it shall be quite clear in its language. I should like to have the assurance, if I may ask for it. that when this Order in Council is drafted it will put this privilege in terms which really correspond with what we mean—namely, I suppose, that in all these cases the privilege is limited to the exercise of the representatives' functions.
A still odder confusion arises under Article 15, because that provides as follows:
"During the Sessions of the Consultative Assembly, the representatives of the Assembly and their substitutes, whether they be Members of Parliament or not, shall enjoy … exemption from arrest and prosecution."
If those words are read strictly they would apparently confer this exemption from arrest and prosecution whatever tae representative was doing. All that would be necessary for him to be completely at large and to do what he liked to avoid the danger of arrest would be that the Session of the Consultative Assembly should be going on A member might be appointed to attend the Consultative Assembly and while the Consultative Assembly was going on, he might go to another country and perpetrate same grave irregularity. And Article 15 would assure him that whatever happened he could not be arrested, unless of course he was actually caught in the act. It cannot be that this was what was intended, and therefore I ask again that the Lord Chancellor should be good enough to assure us (I think he will) that when the Order in Council is drafted, it will be drafted in terms which mean what we mean, and will not repeat the vague and possibly elusive language which I am afraid is written down in Article 15.
I am not for a moment reproaching anybody. Anybody who has had experience of trying to draw up these documents in an international atmosphere where a number of people contribute their own formulae, knows that the way in which such words are interpreted tends to be very different on the Continent from what it is here. I fully understand that we may have to accept these very vague and rather difficult phrases for the sake of international agreement and understanding. On the Continent, when it comes to a question of construing and applying such

191
phrases, they have a jurisprudence which seeks to limit them to the sort of case which was meant. We do not do that in this country. We say "look at the words and see what the words cover." I am sure that here they cover a great deal more than anybody meant. Therefore, subject to asking the Lord Chancellor whether we may have the assurance that great care will be taken in drafting the Order in Council to state what these privileges are, within the limitations which really must have been intended, I am very glad indeed to accept the suggestion made by the Lord Chancellor.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only to say that I too thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his proposed new Amendment, which I gather he may put down on the Report stage. So far as I am concerned, it seems to carry out his wishes very clearly. The point is of some importance. When this matter was before us last I was interested in the word "staff," which was going to add to the number of people who were to have immunity. I was not quite sure what it meant. Having referred to the great Murray's Dictionary I gather that "staff," certainly without a context, would include caretakers. I doubt very much whether it is necessary that caretakers should have immunity with regard to the language which they think fit to use. If some of the envoys and other people who represent a foreign State over here need a staff consisting of, among others, caretakers, they may just as well employ a good, wholesome English lady who can carry out the duties incident on a person who cleans the floor and wields a mop and so forth; and there ought not to be any special rights in respect of those persons. I thank the Lord Chancellor for what he has done, and I think with that in mind we can accept this Bill as carrying out the objects of the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may just answer briefly the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I can give him an assurance on both points. I can give it him with greater confidence in regard to Article 14 than I can with regard to Article 15, because I know quite plainly what was meant in Article 14. I am perfectly certain that what everybody meant was that the immunity
192
therein provided was to be "in the exercise of their functions" in all cases, and we can make it quite plain in our Order in Council that that is so.
When I come to Article 15 it is rather difficult to know exactly what is meant and what are the exact limits. Therefore, I must enter a little caveat about the assurance that I can give on Article 15, particularly having regard to the lesson I have just had about assurances; but I am sure that we can use a phraseology which will prevent the entirely ridiculous results which the noble and learned Viscount had in mind. It does not really apply to our system of law at all. I suppose that there are some foreign countries in which Members of Parliament who are making themselves troublesome are arrested and kept locked up for the time being—possibly until the session of Parliament is over. I have often thought that, perhaps, there is something to be said for that system, though I do not suppose we should be likely to use it here as there might, I imagine, be differences of view as to who should be locked up. On Article 14, I am certain that I can do what is desired. With regard to Article 15, I am sure that the Order in Council, when it comes to be drafted, will be drafted in such a way as to prevent any ridiculous results. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"() In accordance with the provisions of this Act, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section one of, and the Schedule to, the said Act of 1944 (as amended by the said Act of 1946 and this Act) shall have effect as set out in the Second Schedule to this Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to put into the Bill what has sometimes been called, I think, a Keeling Schedule, so that your Lordships in passing the Bill may see what you are doing and consider whether it is desirable that this should be part of the draft of the Act. I do not very much mind, but I am sure it is convenient that it should be printed in this way so that your Lordships may know about it. I think we had better keep it in at this stage of the Bill so that we can have it before us when we come to the Report stage, and can then consider whether or not to omit it. Your Lordships know that we intend to consolidate the three Acts—the 1944 Act, the 1946

193
Act and the 1949 Act—at the earliest possible moment. A draft Consolidation Bill is already in existence. I move this Amendment at this stage without prejudice to what we may do hereafter, so that we may all see what is being done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
3.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON had given Notice that he would move, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to Orders in Council
".—(1) A draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, after the passing of this Act shall be laid before Parliament and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the Order be made.
(2) Any power conferred by the said Act of 1944 to make an Order in Council shall be construed an including a power to revoke or vary the Order in Council by a subsequent Order in Council.
(3) Neither subsections (1) and (2) of section two of the said Act of 1944 nor subsection (2) of section five of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946 (which relate to the annulment of Orders in Council) shall apply to an Order in Council made under the said Act of 1944 after the passing of this Act, and subsection (4) of the said section two (which relates to the variation and revocation of Orders in Council) shall cease to have effect."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The Amendment which my noble friend Lord Llewellin and I have put down is designed to meet the other main point of criticism which arose on the Second Reading. It was certainly a mistake to say, as was said in another place, that this Bill, as it stands, does nothing but provide for the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. It deals with organisations much more generally than that. A possible way of correcting that mistake would be to make this Bill apply only to the Council of Europe and the Consultative Assembly. But I am satisfied, opt looking at it, that that would not be the right way. It is necessary that this Bill should be of a more general kind. The really important point is: should Parliament, by this Bill, part once and for all with its control over future extensions of privilege and the like to
194
representatives and others on these international bodies? That is the real question. What is the path which Parliament ought to take?
If we kept the Bill as it is, an international agreement would of course be made by the Executive. It is the duly of the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary, to take responsibility for such things. Parliament has nothing directly to do with that at all. But before stipulations in the international agreement can be effective here some provision is needed which will make the granting of these privileges effective in English law. The way it is to be done is by Order in Council. An Order in Council is again purely an Executive act. The House of Lords and the House of Commons have no right whatever to seek to prevent the Government getting an Order in Council. It is true that in many cases, certainly in this case, what is called a negative Resolution might be put down at a subsequent date thought, in practice a negative Resolution is really no good in the actual result. I think I, am right in saying that in the last five years there has only been one case in which such a Resolution has produced any change, and that was because it was accepted by the Minister concerned. In this case, a negative Resolution is really no good in the ordinary way. If an Order in Council has been made, even though it is liable to be challenged by a negative Resolution subsequently, it does operate in the interval. Therefore, the privileges which are set out in the Order in Council will have been given, and. for good or for ill, they will have been enjoyed until the moment when the negative: Resolution is carried—if it ever is.
I have therefore came to the conclusion—and I submit this for the Lord Chancellor's consideration—that the right thing to do, in respect not of the past but of the future, is to say that these Orders in Council should be authorised by affirmative Resolution, that they should, in the first place, be prepared in draft, and that the Minister responsible should present them in draft to Parliament. If there is a good case for them and a treaty has been made, it is impossible to suppose that in the ordinary way there would be a serious challenge. But Parliament should have the opportunity of knowing what is being done. Statutory Instruments are multiplying at such a rate that I am sure

195
there is not one of us can keep them all in his head. I see that the Statutory Instruments of which we are informed by Papers circulated by the Printed Paper Office have already reached in this calendar year a total of 700. That means that there has been pretty quick going. I undertake that there is not any member of Parliament who has any sort of grasp of what most of them contain. There is also this consideration of which I hope Lord Henderson and everyone else here will approve. It is a serious thing to take away the rights of perfectly innocent British subjects as against those to whom you are going to give these privileges. I do not say that it is wrong, but you ought to know what you are doing.
Let us see the kind of thing that might happen. It may be that some representative, from Ireland let us say, is going to the Council of Europe, and in the course of his journey he drives in a motor car across England. He chooses, let us suppose, to drive himself, and he drives negligently, with the result that he hurts someone. He cannot be made to pay. While that may be quite proper as a way of recognising the importance of this representative of another country, it must seem rather hard to the innocent person who is injured. Therefore, I think that Parliament ought to authorise what is being done by affirmative Resolution. If we have an affirmative Resolution, as this Amendment proposes, the Minister will have to explain the Resolution to the House of Commons, and, incidentally, all departments of government will know, more or less, what is going on. Otherwise, I think it becomes very much a departmental matter. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
I have had the great advantage of the help of the skilled draftsman whom the Lord Chancellor most kindly allowed me to consult as to its form, and, as you would expect, it is very carefully drawn. It applies only to future cases—not to past ones. The only point on which I feel a little doubt—and I will gladly take the Lord Chancellor's advice about it—arises in connection with subsection (2) of the Amendment as drafted. It is not perhaps clear that the subsequent Order in Council there referred to, which varies the previous one, would be one which would be made under the new procedure. I should prefer to move my Amendment in
196
the form on the printed paper with the addition of the words at the end of subsection (2):
"made in accordance with subsection (1) hereof."
On that matter I am willing to submit myself to the views of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. If he thinks that wrong, I would be much impressed by it; but it seems to me that if we do not do that, some doubt may arise as to whether in dealing with a subsequent Order in Council we are dealing with it under the old or under the new procedure. I should have thought there was not much harm in making plain what is intended—namely, that it is under the new procedure. I beg to move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to Orders in Council
".—(1)A draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, after the passing of this Act shall be laid before Parliament and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the Order be made.
(2) Any power conferred by the said Act of 1944 to make an Order in Council shall be construed as including a power to revoke or vary the Order in Council by a subsequent Order in Council made in accordance with subsection (1) hereof.
(3) Neither subsections (1) and (2) of section two of the said Act of 1944 nor subsection (2) of section five of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946 (which relate to the annulment of Orders in Council) shall apply to an Order in Council made under the said Act of 1944 after the passing of this Act, and subsection (4) of the said section two (which relates to the variation and revocation of Orders in Council) shall cease to have effect."—(Viscount Simon).
4.2 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In supporting my noble friend's Amendment I should like to make two general observations. Whenever a new international body is set up people are inclined to think that unless it obtains full diplomatic status it is not so important a body as others that do possess this status. I do not think it matters at all to people attending international conferences whether they have this status or not, because they are always treated in the countries to which they go with the greatest respect, whether they represent their Governments or their countries. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and my

197
noble and learned friend Lord Simon have both admitted that they were concerned in this, and so was I. I believe that the first of these Acts was started as a result of the first U.N.R.R.A. Conference, at which I had the honour to lead the British delegation. I am delighted to think that my opposite number in the American delegation, the present Secretary of State, is a man whom we all welcome to our shores once again to-day. At that Conference I did not take much part in the discussions dealing with such questions as diplomatic privileges. I had two very experienced members who dealt with these trimmings, and I thought that my function was to look after the scope and finances of U.N.R.R.A. Probably the whole of this procedure started from the agreements we made at that Conference.
I recall that during the war Sir John Dill and I were in the United States, he on a Staff mission and I as Minister Resident in Washington for Supply; and neither of us had diplomatic privileges. In spite of that, we knew some of the "top secrets" which were hidden even from the security police in the countries affected. For instance, we were the two British members of the first Atomic Policy Committee which, of all "top secrets" back in 1943, was the topmost secret. We could get on with our work properly without diplomatic privileges; and so can the delegates attending international conferences. Noble Lords on all sides must have attended conferences run by such bodies as the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. None of us has sought diplomatic privileges. One of the reasons why I am sure the Government will accept this Amendment is that I hope that in future we shall not too willingly extend these privileges which, in my heart of hearts, I believe are unnecessary even for the delegates themselves—and certainly for some of the staffs at present coveted by the extensive privileges given to the permanent diplomats of the countries concerned. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, even if it is only to strengthen the hands of present and future Governments in saying to foreign Powers and bodies who want these privileges: "You know that it is quite unnecessary, and as we shall have to get the approval of Parliament for it I hope you will not press for this."
LORD HAWKE: I should like to support this Amendment because many of us feel that the extension of the privileges conferred by the State is an important question in these modern times. There is a tendency in all countries of the world to try to extend to a wider circle special privileges—of taxation, of immunity, of permits and of customs. We feel that they have already gone as far as they should without the most careful scrutiny. The fact that some possible action will now be required by the Government in cases of any future extension will certainly strengthen our hands, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment. I think it is right that before Parliament grants these privileges it should look with careful and watchful eyes to see what ought to be done. With regard to the form of the Amendment, the noble Viscount has moved his Amendment with the addition of some words to his subsection (2), and asks for my advice. I am sure he would like to have it, because we have been working together on the Bill, but I hesitate to offer it as I have not had time to consider his proposal. I suggest that the noble and learned Viscount adopts one of these alternatives. If he wishes to move his Amendment with the addition of the proposed words, I will accept it, provided that he will allow me to come back on Report stage, and, if necessary, ask him to strike out the additional words. Alternatively, he can move his Amendment in the printed form and on Report stage we will consider whether or not to put in the proposed words. I would prefer the second alternative, because I have not had proper time to consider the matter and see what the implications are. My impression, and it is only an impression, is that the words are unnecessary because tae words of subsection (1) of his Amendment are: "A draft of any Order in Council," and there we have as wide a phrase as we can have. I should have thought, therefore, that we did not need any qualifying words in subsection (2). But I may be wrong. I will gladly accept whichever course the noble and learned Viscount prefers to adopt.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I appreciate that we are doing something only provisionally and I do not feel in the least wedded to my suggestion. It might be convenient to

199
insert the additional words now. In the ordinary way the right to make an Order in Council usually covers the right to cancel or amend it. If it was a previous Order in Council it would, therefore, be rather natural to suppose that it was done in the old and not in the new way. But I quite see the point that the Lord Chancellor makes, which, if I may say so, I feel could be strengthened, because subsection (1) does not speak merely of a draft Order in Council, but of a draft Order in Council "made after the passing of this Act." I should like to have the additional words in to be sure that they are considered, but I shall be the first to agree to having them taken out again if, when the Lord Chancellor has looked into the matter, he feels that on the whole the Amendment is better without them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title, citation and repeal]:
LORD HENDERSON: This is a consequential Amendment on the first Amendments moved by my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"() The provisions of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1946, specified in the first column of the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the second column of that Schedule."—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
AFTER THE SCHEDULE
Insert the following new Schedule—

SECOND SCHEDULE
SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION ONE OF, AND THE SCHEDULE TO, THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) ACT, 1944, AS AMENDED
A.—SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION ONE, AS AMENDED
(1) This section shall apply to any organisation declared by Order in Council to be an organisation of which the United Kingdom or His Majesty's Government therein and one or more foreign sovereign Powers or the government or governments thereof are members.
(2) His Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) provide that any organisation to which this section applies (hereinafter referred to as "the organisation") shall, to such extent as may be specified in the Order, have the immunities and privileges set out in Part I of the Schedule to this Act, and shall also have the legal capacities of a body corporate;

(b) confer upon such number of officers of the organisation as may be specified in the Order, being the holders of such high offices in the organisation as may be specified in the Order, and upon such persons employed on missions on behalf of the organisation as may be so specified, and upon any persons who are representatives (whether of governments or not) on any organ of the organisation or are members of any committee of the organisation or of an organ thereof, to such extent as may be so specified, the immunities and privileges set out in Part II of the Schedule to this Act;

(c) confer upon such other classes of officers and servants of the organisation as may be specified in the Order, to such extent as may be so specified, the immunities and privileges set out in Part III of the Schedule to this Act;

and Part IV of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of extending to the staffs of such representatives and members as aforesaid and to the families of officers of the organisation any immunities and privileges conferred on the representatives, members or officers under paragraph (b) of this subsection, except in so far as the operation of the said Part IV is excluded by the Order conferring the immunities and privileges:
Provided that the Order in Council shall not confer on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent than those which, at the time of the making of the Order, are required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf and shall not confer any immunity or privilege upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or as a member of the staff of such a representative.
B.—THE SCHEDULE, AS AMENDED

PART I
Immunities and privileges of the organisation

1. Immunity from suit and legal process.

2. The like inviolability of official archives and premises occupied as offices as is accorded in respect of the official archives and premises of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.

3. The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power.

4. Exemption from taxes on the importation of goods directly imported by the organisation for its official use in the United Kingdom or for exportation, or on the importation of any publications of the organization directly imported by it, such exemption to be subject to compliance with such conditions as the

201
Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe for the protection of the Revenue.

5. Exemption from prohibitions and restrictions on importation or exportation in the case of goods directly imported or exported by the organisation for its official use and in the case of any publications of the organisation directly imported or exported by it.

6. The right to avail itself, for telegraphic communications sent by it and containing only matter intended for publication by the press or for broadcasting (including communications addressed to or despatched from places outside the United Kingdom), of any reduced rates applicable for the corresponding service in the case of press telegrams.

PART II
Immunities and privileges of representatives, members of committees, high officers and persons on missions

1. The like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.

2. The like inviolability of residence as is accorded to such an envoy.

3. The like exemption or relief from taxes as is accorded to such an envoy.

PART III
Immunities and privileges of other officers and servants

1. Immunity from suit and legal process in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of official duties.

2. Exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received as an officer or servant of the organisation.

PART IV
Immunities and privileges of official staffs and of high officers' families

1. Where any person is entitled to any such immunities and privileges as are mentioned in Part II of this Schedule as a representative on any organ of the organisation or a member of any committee of the organisation or of an organ thereof, his official staff accompanying him as such a representative or member shall also be entitled to those immunities and privileges to the same extent as the retinue of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty is entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to the envoy.

2. Where any person is entitled to any such immunities and privileges as are mentioned in Part II of this Schedule as an officer of the organisation, that person's wife or husband and children under the age of twenty-one shall also be entitled to those immunities and privileges to the same extent as the wife or husband and children of art envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty are entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to the envoy.").—(Lord Henderson.)

VISCOUNT SIMON: I think this new Schedule is right, and that we had better add it to the Bill as it stands, as the
202
noble Lord suggests. However, it needs to be carefully looked into. It does provide the illustration which caused me to doubt whether the Lord Chancellor's Amendment at page 1, line 26, was quite right as it stood. It is an odd situation. If your Lordships look at page 3 of the Marshalled List you will see a provision which in part is the existing law, though it is not all the existing law, because the part printed in black type represents a change. The provision says that
"Part IV of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of extending to the staffs of such representatives"—
that is the point in which my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham was interested—
"and members as aforesaid and to the families of officers of the organisation, any immunities and privileges conferred on the representatives, members or officers,"
and so on and so forth. If you have an international agreement which is limited to conferring privileges on the representative, it seems rather a nice question as to whether by a side-wind by these words you also confer those privileges on his wife, his children and the whole family party who may be travelling over Europe with him, and whether all of them In ay drive as negligently as they please without being responsible to anybody. It may be that that is corrected by the proviso which follows, which says that the Order in Council is not to go beyond what the international agreement says. It is a puzzle worth looking at for a few minutes, although we need not look at it to-day. I am content to accept it now as it stands, on the understanding that we shall have an opportunity of looking at the words again.
I rather hope that the Lord Chancellor will think it right to include this Schedule in the new Bill—though naturally he has reserved that question. It involves some repetition, the use of a little paper and print. But, after all, the most important thing is to make the law as intelligible as you can, and I defy anybody, unless he has some special equipment and a great deal of time, to find out what this is all about, combining it with the Act of 1944, for which I was responsible, and the Act of 1946, for which my noble and learned friend was responsible. Therefore, I should have thought it was an advantage to retain it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will certainly look at it. In any event this Schedule has served a useful purpose, because it has called attention to this point. The reason why I mentioned the point on the earlier Amendment at page 1, line 26, was that if we wanted to put it right that was the time to do it, and not in the Schedule, because the Schedule produces in convenient form what the law will be if the earlier parts are carried into force. Certainly at this stage I do not mind having it in, without prejudice to what we might do in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After the Schedule, insert the following new Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE
PROVISIONS OF THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) ACT, 1946, REPEALED

Provision

Extent of Repeal

Section one

In subsection (1), the words from 'and accordingly' to the end of the subsection.

Section two

Paragraph (a).

The Second Schedule

The whole Schedule.")

—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS BILL [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, in spite of the fact that the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading contains thirty-seven clauses and seven Schedules, and is highly technical and complex in its details, it seeks to serve a simple purpose. It sets out to lay down a uniform code of procedure to regulate the breaking up of streets by those authorities who have the statutory responsibility for so doing. It seeks to regulate the relationships between the authorities responsible for the maintenance of our highways and those responsible for supplying the community with such essential services as gas, elec
204
tricity, water, telephones, telegraphs and drainage, when the supply of such services involves the breaking up of streets and the roads of the country. It further attempts to define the respective responsibilities on the one hand of the highway and street authorities, sewer authorities, bridge authorities and transport authorities—such as railways and canals—and, upon the other, of the undertakers with regard to the laying of apparatus in streets where their respective interests clash. It seeks also to reconcile the differences between undertakers who lay different apparatus in the same streets. Those are the simple purposes of the Bill.
The first effort to bring some order into this admittedly complex problem was made about 150 years ago with the birth of Private Acts to regulate statutory undertakers laying their pipes underground. General legislation had its birth in the Gas Works Clauses Act and the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847, and they form the basis of subsequent legislation. But great progress has been made since those days. It might be as well to remind your Lordships that from that date till now the population of the country has more than doubled, with consequent demands for public health and public utility services. Meanwhile, the technique of road engineering has progressed, the legislative octopus grew and grew, until the legislation which this Bill seeks to compress into one enactment regulating the simple process of the breaking up of streets, is to-day covered by about twenty-five General Acts and approximately 5,000 Local and Private Acts. If those were not enough, there is a multitude of agreements between undertakers and authorities. As I have said, all this mass of legislation has its basis in the Acts of 1847. Although in 1945 there was a Water Act, and in 1948 a Gas Act, this legislation left unaltered all the existing legislation as regards the breaking up of streets. That is why we have thought fit to produce this Bill.
Such was the position in the whole country in 1939 that His Majesty's Government set up a Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider the whole problem of breaking up of streets. The Committee reported about June, 1939, but within a few months of that date other and more serious problems

205
confronted the country, and it is not until to-day that we have been able to act on the Committee's recommendations. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of paying a tribute and acknowledging our gratitude to Lord Carnock who presided over that Committee, and to the members of the Committee for the great amount of work which they did and the helpfulness of their Report upon which this Bill is based. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that any piece of legislation of this nature, affecting so many interests with statutory obligations to fulfil, must entail long and laborious negotiation, as indeed it has. There have been eighteen months of long and laborious negotiation with all interested parties. If agreement is to be reached on such a measure as this, I freely admit that compromise must come in and play a large part. It has. This Bill is an agreed Bill. The major principles have been agreed by all the authorities concerned, and that is the reason why it is so technical in its detail and so difficult in many other ways. This shows that compromise has been reached.
The parties affected by the Bill fall into two categories. First, there are the authorities who are responsible for the upkeep of roads and streets, ranging from the Minister of Transport at one level, who is responsible for the maintenance of our trunk roads, to the street managers who are responsible for the upkeep of unadopted roads and private roads. The "authorities" also include transport authorities, who are responsible for running railways and canals, and bridge authorities, who are responsible for the maintenance of bridges. The other category comprises the statutory undertakers. They are those with statutory rights to break up streets for the purpose of laying their apparatus, which can carry gas, water, electricity, telephones, telegraphs and sewers. They can be local authorities or Government Departments, as well as privately-owned public utility undertakings. These are the rival interests which are affected by this Bill, and the whole purpose of the Bill is to impose a code of behaviour so that their operation may be regulated properly and to the public interest. The Government Departments, whether they are on one side as authorities, or whether they are on the other side as statutory undertakers,
206
or whether they are on both sides, are equally affected by the Bill.
I do not intend to weary your Lordships by going through the mass of technical detail, but I think I can discharge my duty to your Lordships by picking out just one or two of the main provisions which depart from existing legislation Plans have to be settled; plans and sections have to be agreed between the authorities and the undertakers. All that is common practice. We come to the first really new provision. At tie present time, the highway authority has no statutory right, in a case where, an undertaker after laying the sewer, gas main or electricity cable does not make the road up as it should be made up, to say: "I will do that work. I am the only one who really understands how to make up this road and I will charge you for so doing." In Clause 7, and in the Third Schedule, we give the highway authority—the authority responsible for the maintenance of the highway—the right to say: "After you have laid your apparatus, we will fill in the hole, and we will do the road works." We hope that in that way we shall ensure that roads are made up more quickly, because at the present time there is often interminable argument between authorities on one side and undertakers on the other, and while this squabble goes on the roads and those who use them suffer.
I have said that statutory undertakers have the right to break up streets to lay their apparatus, and we do not intend in this Bill to alter that right, except in one small particular. That particular is that in the Bill we give the authorities the right to require, in certain approved cases, that the apparatus shall not be laid in the street but in controlled land—that is, in land abutting a street, land that has been designated for the purpose of road widening. We hope that this will ensure that streets are broken up for the laying of apparatus only in cases where that apparatus cannot reasonably be laid anywhere else. In the First Schedule there is provision for compensation to be paid to the owners or occupiers of the controlled land for any loss of use Or convenience when the apparatus is laid there.
There is one other point to which I think it proper to call the attention of your Lordships. Although statutory

207
undertakers have the statutory right to lay their apparatus in streets, there are some cases where they have to obtain the overriding consent of the authorities responsible for the highway. We call those "paramount consents," and it is something entirely different from the obligation upon the undertaker, when he wants to lay his apparatus, to settle his plans and sections with the authority before attempting to carry out the work. The refusal of a paramount consent can be appealed against if it is unreasonably withheld. The parties can go to arbitration, or in certain cases appeal can be made to the Minister who is responsible for the Act or the Statute which created that paramount consent. Unless these paramount consents are limited, it can put the undertaker into the very awkward position of having to go to arbitration at one time about the refusal of the paramount consent, and to arbitration a second time on the same job on the way he should put his apparatus under the street. What we have done in Clause 17, therefore, is this. We have removed paramount consents wherever the street works code in this Bill gives adequate protection to the highway authority. Paramount consents will not remain for the laying of underground apparatus in publicly maintainable highways in the area where the undertaker concerned has statutory powers. There is one exception to that: under Sections 4 and 6 of the Special Roads Act of 1949, undertakers must get consent before they can lay apparatus in special roads. We do not intend to interfere with that provision at all.
All other paramount consents will remain, and it is right they should. I will give an example of what I mean. Take a very big authority, say Birmingham. The water authority, we will suppose, want to lay a trunk water main from the Pennines to Birmingham. This may entail, if it goes into or under a road, breaking up a considerable stretch of road. As that statutory authority has no statutory obligation to supply anybody with water outside their statutory area, that trunk main has not to be tapped for the purpose of supply until it gets, in this case, to Birmingham. Therefore, it is in order and more convenient for that trunk main to be laid under open land. Thus streets will not be unnecessarily broken
208
up. That is why we retain that paramount consent in the Bill.
That, briefly, is the content of Part I of the Bill. Part II deals with what happens to apparatus after it has been laid in the streets, when it has to be moved or altered because of alteration or structural major works being done to the highway concerned. This has caused a great deal of argument and disagreement in the past between the highway authorities on the one side and undertakers on the other. The Carnock Committee went very carefully into this matter and recommended that, with certain exceptions, the cost of alterations to roads or bridges or works of that kind should be borne by those responsible for the works which made the alterations necessary. Alterations may be necessary because, for instance, the highway authority want to raise or lower the level of the road. The highway authorities should also pay the cost of undertakers' altering their apparatus to suit the convenience of the highway authority. That is really all that is contained, with a good deal of elaboration, in Part II of the Bill.
In my opening remarks I told your Lordships that the breaking up of streets was controlled before this Bill by about twenty-five General Acts and approximately 5,000 Special and Local Acts. The latter figure is something of a guess, but we think it is fairly near the mark. We know the General Acts; we can easily find and study them and amend or repeal sections which come into conflict with this code. But when we come to the 5,000 Special Acts, unless we search the Statutes for the last 150 years we shall not find them. So, in Clauses 15 and 24 of the present Bill, we seek to repeal or amend all the relevant sections of both the General Acts and the Special Acts where they are incompatible with the provisions of this Bill. That is comparatively easy to do when we are dealing with General Acts;,and in the Fifth Schedule your Lordships will see all the twenty-five General Acts set out, together with the sections which it is intended shall be repealed where they offend against this code. We give notice in the Bill that the Bill will come into operation within six months of its passing. That is necessary to enable all the various authorities to make their administrative arrangements accordingly.

209
But when we come to the Special Acts we are in somewhat of a difficulty. What we are doing is, by means of a cesser clause, to render inoperative or modify all the provisions in any Special or Private Act in so far as they are incompatible with the clauses in this Bill. We say that it will come into operation at such time or times as the Minister determines, but not less than twelve months after the passing of this Bill. That is done to give all who are interested in one of these Private Acts time to see how their Act conflicts with this. They can then, if they desire, go to the Minister and ask him for an order (which this Bill authorises the Minister to make) altering their Act so that it is workable without the offending clauses. It may well be that when we repeal or modify a clause in a Private Act by this general cesser it may make that Act unworkable in some other direction which we do not intend. In such an event the party interested can apply to the Minister for an order and the Minister can make an order, making the Act work where it would not otherwise work in consequence of the cesser of these clauses.
I hope I have made that clear, because that is the only way in which we think we can get this Bill to work without a long, laborious and almost impossible process of digging into the past, getting all these Acts out and examining them all to see where they come into conflict with the provisions of this Bill. This applies also to the multitude of agreements between authorities. No agreement will be enforceable where it is contrary to the principles of this Bill. There is Parliamentary procedure provided where the Minister makes an order and objections from interested parties are properly lodged and not withdrawn. If your Lordships would care to look at the Sixth Schedule, paragraph 9, you will find the provision set out. As regards Part III, Clauses 26 and 28 outline the general question. There is only one important provision there, and that is to settle the respective responsibilities between an undertaker vis-à-vis his fellows when they are laying apparatus in the same street.
I wish I could come to your Lordships and say that the passing of this Bill will finally take away the menace of the street breaker we know so well. First, the gas man comes along and does his breaking
210
up; then comes the water man and does his bit; then the electricity man comes along and does his. But I am afraid that I cannot hold out any great hope that we have managed to expel this menace from the roads and streets of this country. In Clause 28 we have made a general provision that a street must not be broken up for the laying of apparatus for twelve months after it has been substantially repaired. But then, because there are so many undertakers who are under a statutory obligation to give a service to the public on demand, we have had to make so many exceptions regarding the safety of the public, the safety of lives and the safety of property that I am afraid some noble Lords will think that they could drive the proverbial coach and horses through the clause. I would ask your Lordships to make a special study of Clause 28. The exceptions appear in subsection (2). I am not going to weary your Lordships by reading them, but I hope that, when you have been able make this study, you will, if you can, suggest to us any way in which we can improve this clause. I will undertake to look at such suggestions very closely. I really do believe there is a public demand that our streets and roads in the future shall not be broken up unnecessarily, for the public are under the firm opinion that they are broken up too often to-day.
Part IV of the Bill (Clauses 29 to 37) deals with routine and procedural matters including the application of the Bill to Scotland (Clause 36) and to London (Clause 34 and the Seventh Schedule). I have only one other matter which I think would interest your Lordships. That is that there will be cases under this street works code where there will be differences of opinion, on the one hand, between the authorities and the undertakers, and on the other hand, perhaps between authority and authority or undertaker and undertaker, as to how this apparatus shall be laid, where A shall be laid and the cost of laying it when one or other of the authorities or undertakers has to pay the other for so doing. So in Clause 30 we have provided for arbitration. Noble Lords will see that, whenever there is conflict between parties, provision is made for them to agree upon an independent arbitrator and, when they cannot agree, one or the other can apply to the President of the Institution of Civil

211
Engineers (and in Scotland to the sheriff) for the appointment of an arbitrator. In cases where differences arise over matters that are for the courts, provision is made for jurisdiction by the courts, and maximum penalties are set down.
I feel sure that your Lordships will all agree that the Bill is necessary if it brings some order into what is admittedly both a chaotic and an expensive position, because a good deal of expense and Parliamentary time are involved in the promotion of these private Bills; a good deal of expense and time is also involved for local authorities, and I hope that this Bill may do something to reduce it. I am fortunate in that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is leading the Opposition on this Bill, because at one time in his distinguished career he occupied the same position that I occupy to-day—that of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Therefore his knowledge of this subject from his experience in that Ministry must be profound; and while it is profound I hope it is sympathetic. Also, the noble Lord, in his capacity as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, an office which he holds with rare distinction, will appreciate that this Bill does something which is perhaps not an inconsiderable trifle towards securing the safety of life and limb on the roads. I am also mindful of the fact that, when I had the duty of piloting through your Lordships' House another very intricate and highly technical Bill, I had the sympathetic help of your Lordships. In the belief that I shall receive the same help this time, I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.45 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has done so, if I may say so, extremely clearly and has made it seem to any of your Lordships who have not read it a very simple Bill. But if any noble Lord other than the noble Lord opposite and myself has read this Bill from cover to cover, as was my week-end task, he certainly has my sympathy—and, I may add, my respect. Quite frankly, I admit that if it had been a
212
finer week-end I do not think I should have persevered with my task. As the noble Lord has said, this Bill forms a compromise drafting between, on one side, the Ministry of Transport, on another side, street undertakers—that is, the County Councils Association, the municipal associations and the different local authority associations—and, on a third side, the statutory undertakers.
I understand that a lot of the—I was going to say verbosity, because that is what some of it in this Bill is, is no doubt the result of compromises between those who are accustomed to construing Private Acts of Parliament. I presume that they understand what many of these clauses mean, but they are rather difficult for the ordinary person to understand. I am not making great point of that, because this is a measure which, except in one or two cases, does not directly concern the private citizen. It is really a code between those responsible for the maintenance and building of our highways and those who are the statutory undertakers responsible for the gas, electricity, water, sewers, railways and whatnot. Of course, this legislation ought to be welcomed. It was a hundred years ago or so that Parliament first made an effort to try to stop matters being dealt with haphazardly, with individual Private Bills. Parliament brought in the Gasworks Clauses Act and the Waterworks Clauses Act, followed later by similar Acts dealing with electricity when that came to be considered. There are variations between these Acts and there were even variations in the numberless Private Acts to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has referred, some of them, of course, compromises agreed between the parties appearing before the Private Bills Committees, either of this place or of another place.
There were certainly some unresolved matters left. One matter that was never properly solved was what right the authorities responsible for bridges had to be informed of steps which might affect them. That is a matter which this Bill, I am glad to say, clears up. Secondly, where the street authority altered the course of a road, it was not at all clear who had to pay for the consequent alterations of the gas or electricity mains. Perhaps the sewers did not matter because very likely they

213
were done by the same authority. But at any rate the outside authorities, gas or electricity, might have had to move their mains and it was not clear who ought to pay. In 1925, an attempt was made to clear matters up (I do not think the noble Lord mentioned this) when an informal Committee met under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Maybury, and thereafter a joint negotiating Committee came into being. When by 1938 that Committee had not completely settled things, there was set up the Carnock Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to which the noble Lord has already referred.
My Lords, I gather that the basic assumption now underlying this Bill is that the undertaker does not lay his mains or cables in the street just as the mere licensee of the highway authority. That matter has now been disposed of by this Bill. The second principle which I hope this Bill will settle is the vexed question as to who shall pay if installations have to be moved. It comes down quite properly on the line that he who causes the move has to pay for it. If the street authority cause the move, as I suppose will happen in most cases, then they will have to pay for the cost. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, himself mentioned, the Bill will give street authorities wider powers to make undertakers lay their pipes or their cables in land other than the street itself, which I think is a great advantage. Your Lordships will remember that we had some discussion on that when we were discussing the Special Roads Bill.
Fourthly, the Bill gives a greater right to bridge authorities to know what is going on, and to have some say as to what happens when statutory undertakers carry out their works over, under, or near the foundations of their bridge. Fifthly, as again the noble Lord told us, the Bill enables road authorities in any case where they wish, where a road has been interfered with, to repair the surface themselves. After all, they are much greater experts in repairing road surfaces than are the gas or electricity undertakers, and it is right that they should have this power. All too often I, and no doubt other noble Lords also, have driven down roads which have been taken up by some statutory undertaker; they have attempted to repair it, and for ages after-
214
wards there has been a rough surface, the road has probably sunk two or three inches, and it is a place in which people are more liable to have accidents. This is not caused by any neglect or wantonness, but because they do not understand as well as the highway authority how properly to lay a surface in conformity with the existing surface. So, my Lords, on all those main principles I think there will be no question whatever that we in your Lordships' House are all agreed, and therefore we welcome this Bill.
If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two more, I should like to touch lightly on one or two matters of more detail. I am not going into them in any great detail, but it is often better in a Bill of this sort to know before we come to Committee stage some of the points that we may try to deal with together. It struck me that in one respect the definition of "street" in Clause 1 (3) seemed rather too wide. It deals with whether
"any length of land laid out as a way"—
and I omit a few words—
"is a thoroughfare or not."
That definition would include the drive up to a man's house, and I do not suppose any of us would feel that it need be quite so wide as that. I pass lightly over these points because I shall probably draw them to the attention of your Lordships at a later stage.
May I then turn to Clause 2 (5), which states:
"In this Act the expression 'street managers' (used in relation to a street that is not a maintainable highway) means—
(a) if there is an authority, body or person liable to the public to maintain or repair that street, that authority, body or person."—
I have no criticism of that—
"or
(b) if there is not, any authority, body or person having the management or control of the street."
One might then expect to find in the margin one of those little gremlin chaps with his nose over the wall, so popular in the Army in the days of the war, saying: "Wot, no more?" As your Lordships will see, paragraph (b) ends nowhere, and obviously we shall have to do something about that on the Committee stage of the Bill.
To go on to Clause 3, let me say that I regard the way in which the arbitrator is appointed as right, and if the

215
undertakers and authorities cannot agree on an arbitrator, that the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers should appoint him. I am, however, a little doubtful whether the arbitrator may direct the alteration of the works to conform to a plan and section settled by him, and whether the undertaker will be under an obligation to comply with any such direction. I should have thought that what we wanted was that unless the undertakers complied with such a direction they should not be allowed to carry out the proposed work. As your Lordships will see, there is a difficulty here, because, of course, if the matter is left as wide as this the arbitrator may make an order which would render the work so costly as to make it not worth the undertaker's while to lay the mains at all.
To go back now to Clause 3 (3) (b), I am a little doubtful why we need a plan after emergency works have been carried out. I agree with the overall plan, but after works have been carried out (in most cases emergency works), I see little reason for subsection (3) (b).
While we are on this clause, may I say a word about the penalty clause? I think the first time any penalty is mentioned is in Clause 3 (5), where your Lordships will see that the undertakers, if they fail to do certain things, are liable to a fine not exceeding £50. I am a little doubtful about some of these penalty clauses—there are several of them, What would a fine of £50 mean to such a body as British Railways, who are losing some millions a year; and what would it mean to the recently nationalised gas and electricity industries? Both the last-named industries, I suppose, would just put up their prices in order to meet the fines. I would much prefer to see some extra power given to the nationalised undertakings to get rid of some of the people who make these mistakes. I think that would be better than imposing a fine which would, obviously, fall either on the taxpayer or on the consumer. I am afraid that one of the difficulties that we are falling into with regard to the nationalised industries is that there is a tendency for so much security of tenure to be created that a certain number of "duds" will be kept on in those organisations, whereas previously such people might have found their proper level. I
216
should like next to draw the attention of the noble Lord to Clause 29 (3), which states:
"The provisions of this Act creating a liability to a fine for breach of any obligation shall not apply to any obligation in so far as it falls to be performed by any authority, body or person on behalf of the Crown."
I should like to ask whether that subsection excludes all nationalised undertakings. Is that the effect of the inclusion of those words?
Now, if I may go back, I should like to make a few remarks upon Clause 15. As I understand Clause 15 (2)—though I must say that the drafting of paragraphs (a) and (b) is not very clear—I gather that paragraph (a) refers to general legislation, and paragraph (b) to what we call Private Bills—though it takes a good many words to say so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dealt in passing with those particular provisions, but I am a little doubtful whether we ought to put off for at least twelve months the application of the terms of this measure, when it becomes an Act, where it conflicts, or may conflict, with any previous Private Bill. I do not know what is going to happen in the meantime. Everyone will know that at any rate after a year these provisions will apply, so those who will benefit—I do not mean those who will personally benefit but those whose general position is benefited—by the new procedure, will be inclined to hang back until the new procedure has been applied to these special cases by order of the Minister. I am doubtful whether there should be provision for this period of at least twelve months in Clause 15. I do not think it would be good to have this delay, during which some people will be waiting until the Minister makes the necessary alteration to the Private Bill. That is all I will say at this stage. We can discuss the matter, but I think there is something to be said for the point of view which I am putting.
I want now to come to Clause 28 to which the noble Lord also referred. If ever there was a compromise clause, this is one. You can see it on the face of it. Indeed, it is only necessary to read the first few lines, especially that part which states:
"… or the width of such a carriageway available for vehicular traffic has been reduced to less than two-thirds of the width thereof."

217
It looks as though, first of all, someone said: "You will have to make it 'when the whole road is taken up and closed completely to traffic '." Then someone else came along and said: "It will be all right if we make it half the width of the carriageway'," and then finally someone else said: "Perhaps we can all agree if we say two-thirds '." Anyway, "two-thirds" has somehow got into the Bill. I do not see why 'we want it there at all. I think the highway authority ought to be able to say, if they are doing substantial repairs to a road which mean resurfacing, that they can give statutory undertakers the opportunity, then and there, of doing work which they want to do, whether the road has been closed completely or not, or whether they have taken up only two-thirds of it or not. The point is that they should be able to give the statutory undertakers the opportunity to do their work at the same time. I would cut out the first part of teat subsection, and I hope that we shall be able to do so. The sensible thing which everyone wants to secure is that if the road authority is doing work which means completely remaking the road they shall have power to say to statutory undertakers who want to do work at the same time: "Yes, you can do it now, before we re-lay the surface. We do not want you to come along and pull the road up just when we have got the surface relaid." To lay these heavy roads nowadays costs a great deal of money, and it is really silly that people should be able to come alone on a number of occasions, as they sometimes do, and pull them up within a comparatively short time of their completion. There is no political controversy about this: it is merely a little ordinary common sense.
Further, with regard to Clause 28, I feel a certain reluctance about the exceptions which are specified in subsection (2). The first of these exceptions is "emergency works." Of course, there must be provision for these to be done. A gas main or a sewer or a water pipe may have burst, and the responsible authority must he allowed to send its workmen to carry out repairs. But the exceptions specified in subsection (2) (b) occasion me some doubt. I am extremely doubtful whether within twelve months people ought to be allowed to lay a new service pipe or service line for a group of houses.
218
What is all this planning for? Surely, when the road is being relaid someone ought to know that a group of houses is going to be put up in the vicinity—doubtless it would already have been planned by the planning authority. The necessary steps should be taken then to arrange for water mains or electric mains. I do not say that the pipes should necessarily run all the way to the site of the houses, bat it should be possible to run something to an agreed point. I believe that if this paragraph were omitted, people would be much more inclined to do that while the street itself was being repaired.
I think that paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is far too wide. In regard to paragraphs (b) and (c), I would say that the statutory undertakers should not be allowed to come in and pull up road surfaces except for emergency works, unless they can satisfy the Minister that it is essential that they should do so. I would make excisions here, and I would have it provided that the undertakers must prove their case. They will have had three months' notice that they ought to do it when the road is being repaired, which is ample time. If they do not do it then, certainly they ought not to come along under the many pretexts allowed under subsection (2) and do it, even within twelve months. I should like to make the period longer than twelve months. Why should we not look a little further ahead? I think that is a clause of first-class importance. I looked through the Bill to see whether street authorities are given power, when one undertaking is repairing their cable, or pipes, to compel another undertaking to do their works at the same time. I have not found such a clause in the Bill, and I should like to add a clause providing that when one undertaking has given notice that they are going to pit]] up the street, the street authority may give notice to another undertaking whose cables follow the same line to do their repairs at the same time or not come in for a period of twelve months.
There are one or two points in the definition clause to which I shall have to draw attention. I do not like the phrase "damage includes obstruction" because in ordinary English language it does not. We might as well put in

219
"obstruction" when we mean to include obstruction as well as damage. Before I saw this beautiful definition I thought I knew what "a Public General Act" was. The definition says:
"'Public general enactment' means an enactment in an Act treated as a public general Act under the system of division of Acts adopted in the regnal year 3,8 George 3, other than an Act for confirming a provisional order";
In regard to paragraph 4 of the First Schedule something may have to be done so that notice is given to those who have tenancies from year to year. Although they have security of tenure under the Agricultural Acts, a large number of farmers exist in law as yearly tenants. If we are going to lay drains or cables just outside the road, on land which is still in private occupation although designated for the road, we must give a farmer sufficient notice to enable him to object if he wishes to do so. I do not see how paragraph 7 of the First Schedule got in at all. Sub-paragraph (1) reads:
"(1) Undertakers to whom an authorisation is given under this Schedule shall pay to the street authority an amount equal to any amount by which the cost reasonably incurred by the undertakers of executing any works which are executed in controlled land pursuant to the authorisation is less by reason of their being executed therein than it would have been if they bad been executed in the street."
Frankly, I do not understand that. I should have thought we wanted to encourage people to go on controlled land. Costs include the cost these people would have had of digging up the surface of the streets and laying it down, and by going on controlled land under the Bill they are liable to pay compensation to the street authority although they have never tampered with the surface of the street at all. When we come to discuss this Schedule I hope we shall be able to leave that sub-paragraph out altogether.
I have mentioned a few points, to which I do not ask the noble Lord to reply to-day, in order to raise them as a preliminary to discussions on subsequent stages of the Bill. We welcome the Bill, although we should like to see the provisions of Clause 28 going further than they do. We will help the Government if they want to break through that compromise and wish to have some excuse for doing so. Otherwise, we certainly support the Bill and will do our best to
220
co-operate with the Government in getting it through all its stages.
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I wish to add only one or two words at this stage. I feel that it is a commentary on the times that an entirely uncontroversial Bill, whose purpose can be summed up in two sentences, requires language of such a complicated character. This Bill compares most unfortunately with Bills drafted seventy years ago, for they made relatively easy reading. So far as Scotland is concerned the Bill is welcome. There have been extensive discussions and to a great extent there has been agreement on all the main provisions. Indeed, the Bill proposes no great change from the system which at present exists. The major point of the Bill is clarification. The Bill has been described to me as a handy compendium of the powers of public authorities with regard to street-works, and in this sense it is warmly welcomed and, I think, will be extremely valuable to local authorities.
I should like to confirm one point. There are several penal clauses and I should like to be certain that no powers other than that pertaining to the Lord Advocate are given under the Bill. I do not think so, but I wish to put that point for confirmation. I cordially agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said about the penalties imposed. There is no point in imposing fines on statutory undertakings like the British Electricity Authority and the Gas Board, because they will be paid by the consumer, though I am all in favour of finding ways and means of giving these big corporations a jolt. We have recently discussed penology in the House, and although I do not know whether what we were discussing is particularly suitable to be applied here, I think that penologists might discuss how best a local authority could give a jolt to the British Electricity Authority.
LORD CALVERLEY: Send them to gaol.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord says: "Send them to gaol." I suppose he means send the chairman or the Board to gaol.
LORD CALVERLEY: Certainly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was not taking such an extreme view as that, but I think that the imposition of a fine of £10 a day is quite useless. I suggest that we might well consider whether some other means could be found. In some cases these big organisations may be slow to react to the requirements of the local authority. The type of offence I have in mind is where they put up obstructions at night time in public streets and do not light them. In my view, there ought to be some way in which it can be brought home to those responsible, acid this is a measure in which that could be properly considered.
I should like to mention one or two other points which, although rather of a Committee nature, are of some importance. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said that the principle of the Bill is that the cost will be borne by those responsible for alterations. By and large, I would agree with him, but I find in Clause 7 (6) that the liability for any disturbance is limited, to any subsidence which takes place within six months. It is obvious that if extensive repair is undertaken to a road then the deterioration in quality of the roadway will not appear until after six months. I suggest that the party making the disturbance should be fully responsible, perhaps not for eternity but certainly for a longer period than six months for seeing that they put right what they have disturbed. That seems to me, if I may put it this way, to be in line with the whole purposes of the Bill. There is no particular point in limiting it to such a short period. I would add only that I feel this Bill is useful, but I am sorry that it is not in simpler form.
5.24 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it only remains for me to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for their welcome of this Bill. I am going to take Lord Llewellin's suggestion at face value acid not attempt to reply to a number of Committee points which I know will arouse keen discussion on the Committee stage. However, there are one or two points to which I will reply. Both noble Lords have mentioned the length and wordiness of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, thought—and I agree—that the definition
222
of a street was very wide. But the definition of a street appears in thousands of Acts, and they vary greatly in themselves. It is our desire to claw into this Bill all the streets that can and have been designated as streets in all the Acts of Parliament to which this Bill is likely to refer. Therefore, we had to have one clause as wide as the whole of the clauses that define "streets" in all the Acts. That is one reason why this Bill is a mass of words.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether the nationalised industries are immune from the penalty clauses. The answer is that they are not, but that Government Departments are. The Bill controls Government Departments in exactly the same way as any other undertaker and/or authority, except in the imposition of fines. I can only think that that was done because Government Departments, like Caesar's wife, set such a good example to the rest of the community by their law-abiding natures that to put a tine upon them would be rather foolish.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It was because they would have to pay them out of the taxes. That applies equally to the nationalised industries.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But the nationalised industries have to pay the fines. The noble Lord also doubted the wisdom of giving six months' grace in respect of the operation of repeals to general legislation and twelve months to special legislation. I gather the noble Lord thinks that even six months, where it affects general legislation, is too short a period.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Too long.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Too long a period—and twelve months, in any case, is too long. I can assure the noble Lord that we will look into the point, and I will take the opportunity of discussing not only this but other points with him.
I am in sympathy with the noble Lord in what he says in regard to Clause 28 as to the cost of this work. I have it worked out that to re-metal a road cost; anything from 20s.to 30s. per square yard, and that to re-surface a road costs

223
about 5s. a square yard; and it may cost anything up to £160,000 to construct a mile of road, when the land has to be acquired and the road has to be made from its foundations. That is, the noble Lord said, a colossal expense, and the cost is mounting as the years go by. I will certainly look carefully into the noble Lord's suggestions, and perhaps in this respect he will give me the benefit of his advice when we come to consider any Amendment he may think fit to put down. My provisional answer to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about any extension of the powers of the legal profession in Scotland is "No." However, I will have that matter looked into and give him a definite reply on a later stage of the Bill. I do not think I need deal with any of the other matters, which are really Committee points. I conclude as I began by thanking both noble Lords for their help and their welcome of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.29 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LEYTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]

    SAINT JOHN'S CHAPEL BEVERLEY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
    House adjourned at half past five o'clock.