Lords Sitting of 26 June 1951

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

VISCOUNT ADDISON
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I have duly conveyed the message which your Lordships were kind enough to authorise me to convey to my noble friend the Leader of the House on the occasion of his eighty-second birthday, and he has asked me to say—and I use his own words:
"I am deeply moved by the support which was received from the leaders of all Parties and I hope it may be possible that my heartfelt thanks for this act of kindness may be placed on record."
All that it remains for me to add is that it seems that Lord Addison is making very good progress.

GUARDIANSHIP AND MAINTEN ANCE OF INFANTS BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend jurisdiction under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, 1886 to 1925, to certain county courts and courts of summary jurisdiction; to provide for increasing the sums that may be awarded by courts of summary jurisdiction under the said Acts or under section seven of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, towards the maintenance of children, for enabling payments of maintenance under the said section seven to be continued in respect of children over the age of sixteen engaged in a course of education or training, and for requiring certain payments of maintenance in, respect of children under the said Acts, or under the said section seven to be paid without deduction of income tax; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

THEFT OF NELSON RELIC
2.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement with regard to the theft of the Nelson relic from the National Maritime Museum; what steps have been taken to secure its return; and whether any reward of an adequate nature has been offered.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the diamond plume presented by the Sultan of Turkey to Admiral Lord Nelson, and known as the Chelengk, was stolen from the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich at about 2 a.m. on the morning of Monday, June 11. The Chelengk, which measures about 7 inches by 4 inches, consists of a central cluster, surmounted by thirteen spires and with a true lovers' knot below; the whole studded with diamonds. To the original seven spires, six had been added by the Sultan, so that the total number would amount to thirteen, one for each enemy ship captured, burnt or sunk by Lord Nelson at the Battle of the Nile. It was presented to the nation through the National Art Collections Fund by the widow of the Right Honourable Sir Colville Barclay, K.C.M.G., in memory of her husband, His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to Portugal in 1928 and 1929.
The theft was discovered immediately; Scotland Yard was informed, and the police arrived on the premises within four minutes. The burglary, however, had been a very carefully planned "smash and grab" raid a commando collapsible ladder having been brought to enable the thief to climb up to a window eleven feet above the ground, to get down to the Gallery by this ladder, and to leave by the same route. He was thus inside the steel grilles protecting the Nelson Galleries. The police are continuing to make every effort to recover the relic. A reward of £250 has now been offered for the return of the Chelengk, a sum considerably in excess of its break-up value. His Majesty's Government and all concerned greatly deplore this shocking theft
300
of the most treasured possession of one of our greatest national heroes—indeed, our greatest sailor—and the whole nation must hope that the reward offered and the measures now being taken may result in its return.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his answer, may I say that, although the intrinsic value of this relic is relatively small, its sentimental and historic values are enormous? Does the noble Lord think that such a sum as £250 is adequate as a reward and is likely to secure the return of such a treasured relic? The noble Lord said that it took four minutes for the thief to carry out his operations. Can the noble Lord tell us how many attendants are employed as night watchmen in the Gallery? The Gallery is extensive, and perhaps if more watchmen had been employed the apprehension of the thief would have been more likely. I should like to know whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the number of watchmen employed in the Gallery is adequate.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have not the details of the number of watchmen or security officers employed in the neighbourhood, but I will obtain the information and let the noble Earl know. I will gladly make further inquiries into the security arrangements, if the noble Earl and the House desire, but I certainly have no reason to suppose that these arrangements are not entirely adequate. I am afraid that I did not make myself plain on one point. It did not take four minutes for the thief to effect the burglary; it took four minutes for the police to arrive—which is a different statement altogether. As regards the reward, I should have thought that if £250 was not sufficient, a larger sum would not achieve a better result; but there, again, the matter is one of opinion. As the noble Earl says, the sentimental and historic importance of this relic is beyond price, but the stones themselves are rose diamonds, not of high quality, and according to modern judges they would not be well cut. But I entirely agree with the noble Earl on the sentimental and historic importance of the Chelengk, and I will look into all the points he has raised.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will see his way to add a

301
nought after the sum to be given as a reward.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said about the reward. It a reward is to be offered at all, it is possible that £250 might be adequate. I was not quite happy about what the noble Lord said about his having no reason to suppose that the security arrangements were not adequate. The relic has disappeared, and I should have thought that that was conclusive evidence that they are not watertight, at any rate. Therefore I would suggest that any inquiries being made should be made on the basis that the arrangements are inadequate, because they have been proved to be so. After all, this is not the only instance of the theft of national relics which has occurred within the last few months. Important relics of the Duke of Wellington disappeared from another public gallery. I suggest that it is really important that the security arrangements should be reviewed.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am quite ready to look into the security arrangements if the House wishes—indeed, it would be my duty to do so. But I am not going to do it on the assumption that they are inadequate merely because one theft has occurred. One cannot promise to start with the presumption that the police ought to be increased every time a theft occurs, otherwise the number of police, wardens and other security officials would be multiplied beyond all measure. However, I will gladly look into the matter.
VISCOUN MERSEY: My Lords, this is not the only instance of a theft of this nature. As the noble Marquess has said, there was the case of the Duke of Wellington's sword a short time ago. Thefts of this sort make one wonder whether the security arrangements are adequate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is possible to put grilles in front of the places where these relics are kept. There are other possibilities which would not involve an increase in the number of security officials.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as I have said, I will gladly look into the security arrangements, if the House wishes, and I will supply any further
302
information. However, I cannot see that the theft of the other relic has much connection with this particular case.
A NOBLE LORD: It was kept in a museum.
LORD PAKENHAM: Not one, I fancy, for which I am responsible, or which is the direct concern of Greenwich, so far as I know. As I say, the House is clearly concerned about the whole matter, and I will look into the security arrangements, but not on the assumption that, they are inadequate at the present time.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, may I make a personal suggestion? Without being in any way critical, I would ask whether it would be possible, in the case of some future depredation, to arrange that the reward should be offered a little more speedily? It might have made no difference in this case, but in another case it might. Would the noble Lord be good enough to examine that possibility?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly examine the possibility. At the moment, I am not sure on what date this particular reward was offered.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may it not be that these two thefts have been perpetrated by someone who is specialising in the stealing of relics? If a steadily increasing reward is offered, it may act as an inducement.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I feel that that is a most helpful point. This connoisseur might well be provoked into further depredations, as the noble, Viscount suggests.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, is not the real solution that there should be more night watchmen and wardens to look, after these treasures?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as I said earlier, if the public purse were unlimited we should all like to spend the nation's money on more wardens, police and security officers of every kind. But one has to strike a balance, as I found when I was responsible for airports. It is impossible to make any public instituttion absolutely safe. However, as I have said, I will gladly look into the whole matter.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, would the reward be subject to income-tax and surtax?

NEW STREETS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SIR WILLIAM TURNER'S HOSPITAL AT KIRKLEATHAM BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LYMINGTON) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) SCHEME, 1951
2.48 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I beg to move that the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant, be approved. Your Lordships will remember that the Act under which this scheme was made was discussed in your Lordships' House on May 8, when the whole of the provisions were fully dealt with and warmly welcomed in all parts of the House. The only serious criticism came from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who objected to the word "supplementation" Apart from that, I am sure your Lordships will approve the scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant, be approved.—(Lord Kershaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES (DENTAL GOODS) ORDER, 1951.
2.49 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERDmoved, That the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Dental Goods) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I ought to make a brief statement by way of explanation of this Order, but, as I understand that there is fairly general agreement as to its adoption, I will do little more than give that explanation. The terms of reference given to the Commission on appointment were to discover whether there were any restrictive practices involved in the industry, and whether those practices operated against the public interest. On the first of the two points they found that a group of companies controlled by the Amalgamated Dental Company, Limited, supplied, either by wholesale or retail, over 40 per cent. of the total United Kingdom supplies. They found also that 90 per cent. of the total United Kingdom supplies come from member firms of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders, who so conducted their affairs as to restrict competition.
On the second point there were four main conclusions. First: certain restrictive agreements of the Amalgamated Dental Company concerning the sale of burs might operate against the public interest. In case your Lordships do not understand the meaning of the term "burs," I had better explain that it means drills—the kind of drills that are used from time to time when one sits in the dentist's chair. Second: the prices of porcelain teeth (in the distribution of which the Amalgamated Dental group have a substantial monopoly) were too high and should be reduced. Third: the restrictive rules and regulations of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders were criticised and the extent to which many of them might be expected to operate against the public interest was indicated. Fourth: in particular, the Commission found that almost every practice which operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest rests for its enforcement upon "exclusive dealing" and "collective boycotting."

305
The Commission made three recommendations. Two of these recommendations were really recommendations to the trade while the third was a recommendation to the Minister, and therefore that is the only one which requires an Order. They recommended that the A.D. group, which is the main group, should itself reduce the prices of porcelain teeth and should reconsider its arrangements for the distribution of dental burs in the light of their Report. They recommended that the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Trades should itself review its rules, regulations and policy. As regards action with statutory force, they recommended that the practices of "exclusive dealing" and "collective boycott" should be prohibited in the dental trade. The only point of the three recommendations needing attention, therefore, is the last, and that is contained in the Order now before your Lordships' House.
Article 3 of the Order renders unlawful the making or carrying out of agreements providing for the withholding of dental goods or of orders for dental goods from persons; or for providing persons with supplies or giving orders only on terms and conditions less favourable than those in the case of other persons, where (a) the intended or likely effect is to limit the number of persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom as suppliers of dental goods, or (b) where the agreement provides for the maintenance of retail prices. Article 3 (6) makes it unlawful to procure the making or carrying out of an agreement so rendered unlawful. Article 4 makes it unlawful to procure the boycotting of suppliers of dental goods on the ground that they have sold goods by retail in the United Kingdom at less than the fixed prices.
The effect of Article 5 is to secure that resale price maintenance operated by an individual vendor shall not be unlawful. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that it is only when these things are done collusively by the trade in part or as a whole that they become unlawful. Certain practices, however, as I have just said, can be employed by individual traders, such as the maintenance of their own end prices. There is only one further point which I need mention, and that relates to the Law Courts in which cases may be tried. These cases will not be brought before the criminal courts; they will all be dealt with in the civil courts. That
306
direction is provided under Section 11 of the Act itself and, therefore, governs this Order. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Dental Goods) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said by the noble Lord who has introduced this Order, and I am glad that he has done so in more moderate terms than was thought fit in another place by one of His Majesty's Ministers. I need hardly point out to your Lordships that this Order is of considerable importance, not so much because it affects this particular industry but because it is the first Order of its kind based on the Report on the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission; and no doubt it will be the basis for other Orders to follow, covering other industries. For that reason, I think this Order should be looked at very carefully indeed.
I would remind your Lordships that there are two main things—although the noble Lord mentioned three—which the Monopolies Commission have recommended should be made unlawful: first, collective enforcement of prices and, secondly, exclusive dealings. I suggest that we must be very careful to see that this Order does no more than cover those two very special points. It was suggested in another place that, under this Order, it would not be lawful for a manufacturer to contract to sell the whole of his output to a single wholesaler. It may well be that paragraph (3) of Article 3 of the draft Order would enable a court to look at the whole of the surrounding circumstances to see whether the effect of the Order would be to prevent this type of transaction—which, as your Lordships know, is a very common form of business transaction—going through at all. I do not think this point was made at all clear in another place, and it has not been mentioned to-day by the noble Lord who introduced this Order. What would happen if the court gave a ruling, based on this Order, that this type of transaction was unlawful? Clearly, no assurance by a Minister can cover the matter, because it is the judge in court who

307
has to decide what is the position. Perhaps His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that they will introduce an Amendment to make quite sure that the transaction which involves a manufacturer selling the whole of his output to a wholesaler shall be lawful, because a court may have to deal with a test case and may rule otherwise.
In my view, the real trouble is that Article 3 of the Order, in using the word "suppliers," covers two kinds of people—first, the manufacturer who supplies the wholesaler and, secondly, the wholesaler himself who will supply in retail. Consequently, the common agreement by which a manufacturer may agree with a wholesaler to sell him the whole of his products is made illegal, for such an agreement does amount to an agreement on the part of the manufacturer to withhold supplies from others. I think that that is the main point. It should also be remembered that the Report of the Monopolies Commission was not unanimous, and contained, as your Lordships are aware, a Minority Report. What does this Minority Report say? It says:
"The practices of exclusive dealing and collective boycott are not peculiar to this industry, or exceptional in their character. It is common knowledge that similar practices are carried on in one form or another in other industries; and further, the Commission find that there has not been any very grave abuse. In these circumstances, although the Act makes provision for ad hoc legislation against a single industry, we are of the opinion that it would be wrong to enact ad hoc legislation against this industry, but we would not recommend its exemption from any general legislation."
I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House are all anxious to carry into effect the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, which was set up with the approval of all Parties. On the other hand, we do not see why this dental industry should be singled out for ad hoc treatment; it would have been far better to wait until further industries had been examined, when the necessary general legislation to deal with the matter could have been brought forward.
As many of your Lordships are aware, it has been said on many occasions that it is only in the sphere of private industry that the abuse of monopolies is to be found. I suggest that it is quite the contrary, and that the worst kind of monopoly is to be found in the nationalised industries. These industries can raise
308
their prices without any competition; and in a somewhat curious paragraph in the recent White Paper on resale price maintenance the Government give away the whole question of nationalisation and its restrictive price maintenance. In the last six lines of paragraph 13 the White Paper says:
"A trader who by improved methods achieves the kind of service which the public want at low cost should be imitated to the general benefit of his trade; but the incentive to imitate and then outstrip his improvements does not exist unless, by passing on the benefits of his enterprise in lower prices, he can attract customers away from the less enterprising."
Perhaps, at long last, His Majesty's Government have begun to realise that the monopolistic practices of the nationalised industries must also be looked into and examined on behalf of the long-suffering public. I can only hope that the effect of this Order will be that we shall learn some useful lessons as to how the whole problem of industrial monopoly, for both public and private spheres, can be effectively dealt with.
3.3 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am very uneasy about this matter and about the general policy of His Majesty's Government concerning it. Members of the Government have not been slow to recall facts of economic history which seem to bear against the Tory Party. Perhaps they will allow me to go back a little into economic history and remind them of one or two things which they seem to have forgotten. From the eighteenth century there has been concern in every section of society in Britain about the practice of large and successful businesses in great cities developing at the expense of the small shopkeeper, opening a shop of a similar kind, underselling, the small tradesman in that particular line and then offering him, the owner of a business, a poorly paid clerk's job in their employment—having extinguished every rival in that town and monopolised that trade.
The remedy for that state of affairs was the price-fixing arrangement, which prevented people deliberately going into a locality to undersell the private trader. I very much fear, and so do some others, that this new policy may be a prelude to underselling by business corporations in strict and close alliance with the Socialist

309
Party. That does not seem to some of us to be fair. I do not think that in the past these price-fixing arrangements have materially raised the cost of living. The price of the dentist's bur does not matter much in dentist's work. It is a not very large price, and the tool is used on so many teeth that its cost is widely dispersed. But, of course, these prices have some bearing on the cost of living. If people employed in an industry refused to take any wages that also would have a bearing on the cost of living: it would enable it to be lowered. I very much regret this policy, which I think may have serious effects on social life, and especially on small shopkeepers in various localities.
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I wish to express my complete dissent from the statement just made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. On the contrary, I cordially welcome this Order. For a long time past many of us have been continually denouncing monopolies and restrictive practices; and whenever the question of the economic situation of the nation has been brought up, some of us have seized the opportunity to urge that the cost of living is kept artificially high by restrictive practices, both in manufacturing and in sale and distribution. After many debates, and by general consent on all sides of your Lordships' House, action was taken in 1948 when, with a view to remedying what is undoubtedly a great evil, The Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act was passed. That Act set up a Commission which was to inquire into particular trades, and to make specific recommendations where abuses were detected. The Commission was duly appointed, and reported by a large majority—I think by six to two—that this particular industry, the one which supplies dentists' materials, was organised in such a way that prices were unduly raised by monopoly practices. That report is now being acted upon, and very properly, by the Government. An Order has accordingly been laid before Parliament to remedy the abuses in these industries. That Order passed through the House of Commons with some criticism, but with general assent and without a Division. Now it has come here.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teynharm, say that he and his friends thought that this matter should
310
be left until a general policy for industry had been formulated. I entirely disagree. Now that Parliament has at last passed an Act and has, in the first instance, said there should be action with respect to particular trades, and that for the first time the report of the Commission gives the opportunity to the Houses of Parliament to take action, it seems to me lamentable that the noble Lord, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, should get up and say, in effect, "Not here, and not now." Rather should we rejoice that a beginning has been made. There is no reason at all why this matter should be delayed for a long period until a comprehensive policy, applicable to all trades, is brought into force.
That this particular industry, by its excessive prices, was drawing undue sums from the public, from the dentists' profession, and from the hospitals, is proved by the fact that as soon as the Commission was appointed and began to examine the practices in this particular industry, the company which exercises a practical monopoly voluntarily reduced its prices for porcelain teeth. It was said by the Minister of Health during a debate in the House of Commons that the reduction varied from 5 to 20 per cent. I do not suppose the company is now conducting its business without an adequate profit, and it follows that the profits were too high before by at least from 5 to 20 per cent. And the mere inquiry by a Commission has effected that reduction. How many other industries are similarly making excessive profits at the present time and thereby raising the cost of living? How is it possible to go to the working classes and to the trade unions and say: "You must exercise restraint. Your increases of wages are merely raising the costs of production and bringing the country into a vicious inflationary spiral," when all the world knows that profits, both wholesale and retail, in a great many industries are at the present moment most excessive? Therefore, I rejoice that the Government have taken such speedy and effective action.
As to the question of general policy with regard to monopolies and restrictive practices as a whole, I welcome also the recent pronouncement by the new President of the Board of Trade that he means to take up these questions with vigour and effect. Only recently, there

311
was a debate in your Lordships' House on the economic situation. I ventured to invite your Lordships' attention to various factors, but concentrated on the argument that our main economic troubles, both financial and, to some extent, taxation, and export trade, sprang from the rising cost of living, and that the nation ought to concentrate its mind upon efforts to reduce the cost of living. It is true that the direct effect on the general cost of living of the nation of lowering the prices of electrical drills and artificial teeth is rather small. But indirectly, when this question is seen as a whole—for this is only one example of a large policy—the effect is very large. Indeed, it is a dominating factor in the present economic situation. For these reasons, I rejoice not only that we have this first small instalment, but also that we have a promise from the Government that in many other directions they will pursue the same policy and carry it as far as it can practicably be taken.
3.13 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in a speech for which I thank him, indicated that one of the organisations in this industry, which is of some importance, has decided to decrease the price of porcelain teeth by from 5 to 20 per cent. It has done that voluntarily. I would add that the restrictive part of the agreements concerning burs has been voluntarily waived by the Amalgamated Dental Company. Further, other firms have indicated that in the matter of prices of plastic teeth and denture materials they will consider the Commission's criticisms and recommendations. Then the Association itself has proceeded to modify its rules. It is surely a little outrageous to suggest that, when the trade itself is doing those valuable things voluntarily at this stage, Parliament should leave free the question of exclusive dealing and collective boycott. Surely, when the trade is doing what it can to help itself we in Parliament should do what we can to help the trade against some of its worst features.
It must not be supposed that this Order is necessarily a condemnation of this particular trade. We agree that the practices which exist in the trade exist everywhere. Therefore, if we are to condemn, we
312
should condemn not in detail but in general. In this trade, as in all other trades, there are good and evil traders. The good traders, as always, will do their utmost to see that a proper job is done for the community. The evil trader will do the reverse. It is part of the work of this Order not merely to protect the public but to protect the good and decent traders from the evils which come to them from the bad trader. In these circumstances, we have found it necessary to introduce this measure in order to accomplish that. It is true that this is the first Order that has been presented to Parliament in this country, but it is surely not news that in 1950 the United States of America had to deal with their own particular dental industry in order to prevent that industry "fleecing" the American public.
We recognise that the persons who signed the Minority Report, which has been referred to to-day, are quite genuine in their feelings, and we have given due consideration to the proposals which they made. Nevertheless, it must be noted that, whilst they signed a Minority Report, they also signed the Majority Report: in other words, they believe that the trade has many unnecessary practices that can be done without, but they want to wait until we deal with other people. When noble Lords remember that the greater part of the product of this industry is being sold to the hospitals and, therefore, to the Government in respect of the medical services, surely it is not for Parliament to neglect the protection of both against the ravages made by the excessive prices charged. Moreover, unless we do something in this direction, we shall find ourselves entering on a prolonged task because, if we have to tackle the industries one by one, and if, further, we are to refrain from doing anything until we have completed the task, some noble Lords who are present to-day will no longer be with us when we have reached the end of the road. We want, if we can, to facilitate and speed up the work, and one way in which we can do that is to give encouragement of this kind to the trades that have yet to be tackled. If those trades can now see what is likely to happen to their own industry, they may think discretion the better part of valour, and may commence to put their own businesses in order, rather than wait for

313
the inquiry instituted by the Government. So, in doing this we are trying to short-circuit the process of delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, raised a legal point as to whether two men, the one a manufacturer and the other a dealer, could enter into an agreement by which the manufacturer could sell the whole of his product to the dealer. This question was raised in another place, and was replied to there by my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate. He made it crystal clear in his speech that there would be nothing to prevent the manufacturer selling the whole of his product to the dealer, provided that he did it within the terms of this particular Order. My right honourable friend, in quoting the qualifications in Article 3 showed that an arrangement, referred to by the noble Lord, would be quite outside the restrictions mentioned therein. The noble Lord asked for an undertaking but all I, not being a lawyer myself, can say is that when the present Lord Advocate gives a view upon this matter I am prepared to accept his version. Therefore, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no difficulty in carrying through arrangements such as he has in mind. I am glad that some interest has been shown in this measure, because I think it is realised in the country that Parliament is awake; is prepared to see justice done, and is anxious to help trade and industry to put themselves right. Parliament will then be doing infinite good to the country, and will be bringing nearer the day when its people may look forward to buying a thing knowing that they are giving a fair price and getting good value in return.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Prohibition on use of stream for disposal of polluting matter, refuse, etc.
(3) The said subsection shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge at water raised or drained from any underground part of a mine into a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from underground;
Provided that the Minister may by order (which shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made by him) direct that this subsection shall not apply to discharges into any specified stream or part of a stream.
(7) Where an offence punishable under this section has been committed by a body corporate, any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to a in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Subject to section five of this Act, the said subsection shall not by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge into a stream of any trade effluent or any effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority, if—

(a) it is not reasonably practicable to dispose of the effluent otherwise than by discharging it (directly or indirectly) into that or some other stream; and

(b) all reasonably practicable steps are taken to prevent the effluent being unnecessarily poisonous, noxious or polluting;

Provided that this subsection shall not have effect so long as the period referred to in subsection (2) of section eight of this Act (as varied by any Order in Council under subsection (3) of that section) has not expired or been terminated."
The noble Lord said: There was general agreement during the debate on Second Reading that this was a non-controversial Bill, and this Amendment carries out an undertaking, given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning. It deals with the period which may occur between the date on which the need for the river board to obtain the Minister's consent to proceedings expires and the date on which by-laws prescribing a standard with which

315
the effluent must comply become operative. This Amendment makes it impossible for a person discharging an effluent to be liable to proceedings if it is not reasonably practicable for him otherwise to dispose of the effluent and if he is taking all reasonably practicable steps to prevent it being unnecessarily polluting. I do not think I need say any more, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I rather hope the noble Lord will say something more. It is true that there was a good deal of discussion about this matter in another place and that it was to be reconsidered. Frankly, my attitude to this Amendment will be entirely dependent on what the noble Lord proposes to do about the Amendment to Clause 7 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd and myself. If I may put it concisely, what this Amendment does is to give a defence of "best practice" to anybody who puts anything into a river, subject to bylaws not having been made; that is to say, this will apply during the interim period, not exceeding seven years, during which bylaws are to be made. If the Bill is amended in the way I suggest, before the bylaws are made a survey will have been undertaken and anybody who considers a bylaw setting up a standard to be unnecessary will have had the opportunity of voicing his objection. Then the bylaws will be approved by the Minister or Ministers; they will come into operation, and will govern everybody. During the interim period, however, some companies will have been discharging effluent into a river. Some may not have been troubling very much what they were doing, and may not have been using the best practice. Nobody seeks to defend them. On the other hand, some companies will have been using the best available practice. I agree that that is a reasonable defence, and ultimately no doubt it will be covered by bylaws. It should apply to an old established company which has been discharging its effluent into an industrial stretch of river. But suppose there is an industrial company which sets up a factory beside an entirely clean and wholly unpolluted stretch of river. Then an entirely different situation arises. It seems
316
to me to be unreasonable that such a company should be entirely unrestricted and should be able to pollute that hitherto untouched stretch of river and have a complete defence if they are able to say, "We are using the best practice."
I was not a party to the discussions which took place behind the scenes, but I was told that my Amendment to Clause 7 would be accepted. If that is so, the position will be, that while a defence of "best practice" will be given to an existing company discharging out of an existing outlet, river boards will have the power to approve or disapprove all new outlets. That seems to me to make all the difference. By that Amendment the companies will be afforded their proper defence, and at the same time river boards will be given proper control over stretches of river which hitherto have been intact. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that he agrees to my Amendment to Clause 7. If he does, I will gladly accept this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: About a year ago I raised this question in your Lordships' House, and I thought I received a sympathetic reply from His Majesty's Government. On that occasion I pointed out that the pollution of rivers that has gone on over the past century and a half can be traced to the fact that there is a section in the Act of 1876 which is practically synonymous with paragraph (a) of this Amendment. That section has been a shield for the polluter throughout that time. What is needed is the repeal of that section, so that every polluter will be forced to engage in research on how he can refrain from continuing his pollution. I am bound to repeat what I said then: that every anti-pollution Bill that goes through Parliament and which, fails in its effect, gives new fortification to the polluter. Therefore I very much regret to see paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's Amendment. I have voiced my protest and I hope that His Majesty's Government will think again upon this question, because if they examine its history they will find that what I have said this afternoon is correct.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: I am pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has called attention to the relationship between this Amendment and his Amendment to Clause 7. These Amendments

317
are closely related, and I agree that to accept my Amendment without accepting his later Amendment would not meet what we both have in mind. Therefore, I hope to shorten our discussions by indicating that I intend to accept his Amendment in order to fulfil what I want to do by this Amendment. We consider that both Amendments are complementary, and therefore I shall accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is, after all, "the bit of sugar for the bird." That is the price of acceptance, and not appeasement. So far as I am concerned, we can shorten the proceedings to that extent. I think that if my noble friend Lord Saltoun will look at the two Amendments together, he will not feel that 1876 is necessarily the governing factor in this matter. So far as I am concerned, if my Amendment is accepted, I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
"(3) The Minister may by order (which shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made by him) direct that the said subsection shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge of water raised or drained from a mine into any specified stream or part of a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from the mine."
The noble Viscount said: I hope the Government will agree to this very simple Amendment, which deals with mine water. Here it is true that the Act of 1876 is relevant because hitherto that Act has governed this matter, and I would agree with my noble friend that it is not wise to leave that entirely alone. The Act of 1876 gave a special charter of pollution to all mines, and allowed mines to put anything, however filthy, into any river, however clean. I must admit, against myself, that the Hobday Report, which is the bible on this matter, did suggest that that provision might be retained, pending technical investigation. But we want to do a little better, if we can, than was done in 1876, and the Scottish Bill does it, I think, very simply. There is no doubt about the offensiveness of some of this mine water—I understand that a particularly objectionable variety is something known as "ochre water" which is full of every kind of poison and is deleterious
318
to all life. The Scottish Bill, which will come to us presently, provides that mines, like everyone else, shall be subject to the general provisions of the Bill, and that the Minister may have power to exempt mines if he is satisfied that it is impracticable for them to carry out the provisions against pollution. We want the mines to do everything they can; and they will be encouraged to do that if they are subject to the ordinary law, with the escape clause enabling them to secure exemption, with the approval of the Minister. It would be unreasonable to have one law for mines in Scotland and another for mines in England. I suggest that my Amendment would bring this Bill entirely into line with the Scottish Bill which is now before another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (3), and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD 0F GWAENYSGOR: I can well understand the noble Viscount desiring to deal with mines in England on the same basis that mines in Scotland are dealt with in the Scottish Bill, but I think that I shall be able to show that there is a fairly good reason why we are unable to do it in this Bill. In the first place, the number of mines affected in Scotland, I am advised, is six. The number of mines that would be affected in England and Wales is over 100. The noble Viscount perhaps knows as well as anyone in your Lordships' House that an enormous amount of work by experts and by technical administrative staff will be called for if they have to make investigations immediately. For that reason we feel it would be unwise to accept the Amendment. As regards new discharges, I think they are very well cared for. As the noble Viscount knows, the National Coal Board must give notice to the Minister before new shafts are sunk, and there are arrangements with the board for ensuring that water bearing strata are properly sealed off.
With regard to existing discharges, a matter about which I think the noble Viscount is especially worried, I may say that the Bill permits the National Coal Board to complete their survey, and also enables the river boards to decide, in consultation with the National Coal Board, what treatment is possible and

319
justified. Failing agreement, if the river boards think orders should be made bringing the discharges within the scope of this Bill, it is provided that the Minister shall intervene. Simply because it is in the Scottish Bill, there is no ground for saying that this provision should be in this Bill. As I have said, approximately 100 pits in England and Wales would be affected, so that the position is very different from that in Scotland. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
LORD LLOYD: I am rather sorry that the noble Lord has not felt able to accept our Amendment, and for this reason. After all, the situation as it is at the moment is that, as my noble friend has said, the mines have a charter to pollute anything they like at all times—and so far as I know, they do a good deal of polluting—but the Minister can, in individual cases, remove from any particular mine their exemption. All we are suggesting is that the position should be reversed; in other words—if we may take a leaf out of the next Amendment which we are moving—the mines are not to be held innocent pending the proving of their guilt, but the other way round. I cannot help feeling that if this Amendment were accepted, it would inspire in the minds of those responsible for the mines a general sort of alertness to this problem, and certain pollution from mines which is now taking place, and which is unnecessary, might be avoided. The case for the Amendment, I think, is a good one, and I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot see fit to accept it.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to associate myself with what has been said on this side of the Committee, and to add one point. When noble Lords who are concerned go into this question of pollution of rivers, I implore them to remember that one discharge of poisonous effluent can work untold havoc in a river, destroying nearly all the fish life in it. And yet, when you come to investigate conditions in that river and analyse the water later, you may well find that it comes up to your standard of purity. I submit that the Government are making a mistake, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has suggested, in making a general exemption subject to exceptions. As I have said, I feel sure we should be in a much stronger
320
position if we made the rule general, subject to exemption. At any rate, I hope that when the Bill comes to be put into practice, that point will not be forgotten.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): Before we discuss the next Amendment, perhaps it would be convenient if I moved that the House do now resume, so that I may make a statement on Persia. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE SITUATION IN PERSIA
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I desire to take this opportunity of making a Statement with regard to the Persian situation. This Statement is also being made in another place by the Foreign Secretary. It is as follows;
"I have to inform the House that the latest developments in the Persian oil situation are very serious. The temporary board of directors of the so-called National Iranian Oil Company have insisted that the masters of all tankers calling at Abadan to load and take away oil should sign receipts designed to acknowledge that the oil is the property of the National Iranian Oil Company. Masters refusing to sign such receipts, or insisting on adding an endorsement designed to protect the legal rights of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, have been informed by the board that customs clearance will be refused for their vessels. No tanker master has yet agreed to sign an unqualified receipt in the form prescribed, and several tankers, some loaded and some waiting to load, are consequently held up in the Port of Abadan. I should like to add that, so far as the tankers under the control of the Company or its associates are concerned, there can be no question of masters signing unqualified receipts. All attempts on the part of the Company's representatives to secure a modification of this procedure have proved fruitless, and the Company, with the

321
full concurrence of His Majesty's Government, is therefore instructing all tankers at Abadan to leave forthwith, if necessary after unloading the oil they have taken on board.
"Another disquieting development is the introduction on June 21 into the Persian Lower House of a Bill which provides for trial by military courts, and penalties up to and including death, for anyone (I quote the words):
'engaging treacherously or with ill-intent in activities in connection with the operation of the Persian national oil industry resulting in cutting oil pipe lines, rendering unserviceable refineries or facilities for transport of oil, causing fire in oil wells or storage tanks, et cetera, or aiding or abetting such acts.'
This so-called Sabotage Bill has not yet been voted upon by the Majlis. If it were to become law in its present form, the Persian authorities might seek to lay the blame for any accident in the oilfields, resulting from interference or incompetence, on a member of the Company's staff and render him liable to prosecution before a military court. The staff of the Company in the oilfields would clearly be placed in an intolerable position. Indeed, Mr. Drake, the Company's general manager in the oilfields area, has already received a letter from the Board, stating that in refusing to authorise the masters of tankers to sign receipts in the form prescribed by the Board he is stopping the export of oil, which in the Board's view amounts to sabotage. In view of this unfounded charge of sabotage, and the ultimatum given to him that he should transfer his services to the National Oil Company by June 28, the Company, with the full agreement of His Majesty's Government, has instructed him to proceed to Basra, where he will continue to hold his appointment as general manager of the Company's operations in Persia and Iraq. Mr. Mason has been appointed the Company's representative in Persia for all matters requiring contact with the Temporary Board of Management of the National Iranian Oil Company.
"In connection with the accusation of sabotage which the Persians have seen fit to make against Mr. Drake, the Persian Government have been repeatedly warned of the danger of the risk of accidents involving danger to life and limb which may result from
322
interference in the working of the complex machine of the industry. If such accidents occur, it is certain that they will in no way be due to the actions of the Company's personnel, who have proved themselves thoroughly competent and have in fact been instructed to refrain from any action liable to prejudice the working of the operations. I must therefore categorically reject in advance any suggestion that such accidents which may occur could be caused by acts of sabotage on the part of the British staff.
"If the Persian Government persist in these measures, they would leave the Company with no alternative but to bring operations at Abadan to a stop within a matter of days. Storage capacity is strictly limited and the refinery cannot operate unless tankers are available to take oil. Clearly a most serious and difficult situation may develop in Southern Persia, for which the Persian Government would be entirely responsible. The Persian Prime Minister and Government must understand that they are responsible under International Law for ensuring the protection of any British subjects in Persia. Should they prove incapable of discharging that task, His Majesty's Government would be compelled to assume it themselves, using such means as are necessary for that purpose. The House may rest assured that we have made preparations to this end and can take action at very short notice. The House will not expect me at this juncture to give details of what these preparations are, but I can inform your Lordships that the cruiser H.M.S. "Mauritius" has been ordered to proceed forthwith to the vicinity of Abadan.
"We are still, as always, ready to discuss a settlement of the question of the future operations of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with the Persian Government. Such a settlement remains, in our opinion, the only means of ensuring the continued flow of Persian oil to its natural markets, and it is a matter of deep regret that the Persian Government should appear to be taking steps which cannot but involve disastrous consequences for the future prosperity of their country."
3.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, arising from the serious Statement which has been made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Government, may I, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, welcome the categorical statement by His Majesty's Government that they are taking all necessary steps to protect the lives and security of British nationals in the Abadan area, and that they have given the necessary orders for tankers to leave the port. There is one question which I would put to His Majesty's Government. Will they make it clear to the Persian Government that they will not accept the assumption that in this dispute there is any difference between His Majesty's Government and the Company, and that they will do whatever is necessary to ensure that British interests receive proper support? The situation clearly cannot be allowed to drift any further.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in the present grave situation in Persia, it is clear that the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government is the only one possible, and I am sure that such measures as are necessary for the fulfilment of that policy will have the support of all sections of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the noble Marquess, I may say quite categorically that there is not the slightest difference of view or difference of opinion between the Company and His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government are standing behind the Company, and the Company at every stage are taking the opinion and acting on the advice of His Majesty's Government. We shall do everything we can to support and strengthen and maintain the Company in the course upon which we have decided.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
3.48 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (7), to omit all words after "section" and to insert:
"which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The noble Viscount said: I am sure this is an Amendment which the Government will be delighted to accept. It is our old friend, the question of whether a director should be presumed to be guilty unless he proves himself innocent. In the Sea Fish Industry Act, which we discussed recently, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor accepted an Amendment providing that the onus of proof should rest upon the prosecution, and that Amendment was accepted in another place. I should have thought that the case for having the onus of proof on the prosecution was much stronger in this Bill than with the Sea Fish Industry Act, apart from the general principle that to have it otherwise is obviously wrong and contrary to all our practice.
Whether an offence has been committed must always be a disputable matter, except in the most obvious of cases. The Government themselves proposed, and we have just accepted, an Amendment making the "best practice" a defence where it is admitted that pollution has taken place. "Best practice" must be a highly technical question, and what is the best practice, and whether the best practice is being applied, must be the responsibility of those officers of the company who are engaged in the technical processes of the firm. In the case, say, of the Calico Printers or Bradford Dyers, with twenty or thirty factories all bordering on streams and all discharging into these streams, it is fantastic to suggest that the financial director or the sales director of the company should be presumed to be responsible for this extremely complex and technical question of whether the best practice is being used in the treatment of that effluent which is discharged. I do not think I need say

325
more. If ever there was a case where the onus of proof ought to be on the prosecution and not upon the individual accused, this is one. I would add that this is not a situation where one should pursue an individual. It is not like an ordinary criminal offence, where some individual has been guilty of a breach of the law. This is essentially a case where the company as an entity has done something. It is absurd to say that the Lord Chancellor, if, unhappily, he should retire and become a director of one of the great companies, is committing a personal offence because the company of which he is a director discharges the effluent into the river. The remedy is to stop the company doing it, probably by an injunction, or perhaps by a fine. I believe that I have said enough to show that, if ever there was a case where the ordinary course of law should be pursued, this is one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("section") to end of line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I remember Lord Salisbury saying the other day that in this House we do not like to settle things by Divisions. I often think how true was Sydney Smith's statement, that minorities are almost always in the right perhaps because in this House I am always in the minority when we do have a Division. Therefore, I do not want to settle this by a Division. I make this proposition to your Lordships. I want you to listen to what I am going to say, and if, having done so, you remain of the opinion that we ought to put this the other way round (I suggest that we might leave it to the Report Stage) I shall be content to accept the sense of the House, and will not put it to a Division, which, after all, proves nothing. There is no Party question involved in this matter. I want your Lordships, however, to consider what I am about to say, because in my belief, having considered the matter, we ought to leave the clause as it now stands. The problem before us is this. Where you get a company which has been found guilty of an offence—that is the prerequisite of the whole thing—ought we or ought we not to say that a director can be found guilty only if you can bring home the complicity of that director in
326
the particular offence, bearing in mind, as all of us who have knowledge of these matters know, that it is almost impossible to be aware of what goes on in the internal working of the company. The prosecution have not got access to the books, records, or anything of that sort. Ought we to say that when the company has been guilty of an offence the onus shall be on the director to show that he has not been guilty of any complicity in it.
First of all, let me look at this problem from the view of the ordinary man in ordinary life. It is a problem that greatly affects me personally. As your Lordships know, I have—and I think it is right that I should have—complete control of all the magistrates. If a magistrate is guilty of an offence which plainly involves some dishonest charge, then I remove him from the bench—and all your Lordships will agree that I must keep up the standard of the bench. If, on the other hand, it is a technical offence about which he knows nothing, obviously I do not remove him. My difficulty arises when I have a company, particularly a private company, convicted of an offence. I sometimes have a private company convicted of an offence which involves dishonesty, and one or two directors of the company are members of the bench. What line ought I to take? What line would any of your Lordships take in those circumstances? I venture to think that you would look at the facts of the case, and consider the nature of the company. If I may take an extreme case, it would be manifestly ridiculous to suggest that any director of a company like I.C.I., with its vast undertakings and ramifications, was guilty of an offence if the company were found guilty, even if it did involve dishonesty, of selling under weight, or what you will.
On the other hand, where you have a private company, which, to use the ordinary phrase, is a one-man company, what would you do? I should say that if I have plainly a one-man company, and that company is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, and the director is on the bench, then, unless he can give me some explanation proving that he is in no way to blame, I should remove him from the bench. I believe that all your Lordships would take the same line. That is

327
the common-sense point of view. It would apply to all your Lordships if you were considering whether you should vote for a man to be elected to your club, and the same problem arose. He might be the owner of a private company which has been found guilty of some discreditable or dishonourable conduct. You would probably say that you did not think he was a desirable person to be a member of the club. That I call the common-sense point of view, to which I believe all your Lordships would subscribe, and there is nothing subtle or legal about it.
What does the law say about this. The law has long drawn a distinction between important and unimportant matters. Where you are dealing with regulations which may involve danger to life and limb, the law for a long time past has said that, where the company is guilty, then the director also shall be guilty, unless he proves that he had nothing to do with it. An illustration of this is the Mines Acts, with all sorts of regulations on matters which may affect the lives of miners—there may be an explosion, or that sort of thing. There are also the Factories Acts dealing with such offences as not having machines properly fenced, whereby a man may lose his arm or leg. For a long time the law has been that if the company is guilty of such an offence, you can, if you are so minded—and, of course, you apply the rule with common sense—charge the director, and he has to show that he has not been guilty of any complicity.
The question is: What shall we do here? As I say, I am going to take your Lordships' decision, and I will not put it to a Division. I ask your Lordships to say that the state of our rivers in this country is an absolute disgrace. It is not that I am a fisherman, or look at it from that point of view. Frankly, I look at fish rather as one looks at the canary that is taken down in the submarine or the mine: the canary finds the foul air first, and falls off its perch; and then you know there is danger. To my mind, the fact that the fish are poisoned is an indication that there may be danger to humans, too. This is not a Party Bill, and all Parties are determined, if I may use the familiar expression, to put "teeth" into this Bill. For years past we have talked about cleaning up our rivers,
328
but although we have high sounding phrases in Acts of Parliament, we all know that virtually nothing has been done about it. That is the fact. Now we want to do something about it. We want to make this a really effective Act. Nearly all the Amendments I have looked through in the Marshalled List are intended to strengthen and not to weaken the Bill. It is obvious that all your Lordships feel that there is a need to take steps to try to strengthen what we are doing about the rivers.
With regard to two of the methods we should adopt, let us look at the nature of the problem. As I see it, the pollution of rivers may be caused in one of two broad ways. First of all, there may be a defective system; secondly, there may be an act of carelessness: a workman opens the wrong valve or turns the wrong stopcock—I do not understand the technicalities. In that case, it is obvious that a director could deal with that very simply. He would say: "This man made a mistake. I am very sorry, but I knew nothing whatever about it. He is a good competent workman and I am in no way concerned." In practice, of course, no director in these circumstances would be charged. But where the system is wrong, why should you not hold the director to blame? If you want to get the system right, believe me, that is about the best thing you can do. Your Lordships are just as anxious as we are to make this thing real. I would ask your Lordships to reflect (and I hope that my words may be read), and if on the Report stage, notwithstanding what I have said, I am told that the sense of the House is in favour of the reversal which this Amendment asks, then I will consent. But it will not be my fault if this Bill is not as effective as it would otherwise have been.
Together with Lord Saltoun, I am a little apprehensive about the Amendment we have accepted allowing the defence of "best practice." I remember cases in the Chancery Division. I have often heard people say that things are impossible, but when the judge has said that these impossible things have to be done, they have been done. I have thought to myself that necessity is the mother of invention. But still we have the Bill in this form. We have accepted that, and that is the protection. If, notwithstanding that, the company is

329
guilty of an offence, and if that offence is brought home to the company and the company is convicted, then I ask your Lordships to consider whether the right course would not be that the director of that company (who is not a mere guinea-pig but a person who should be taking an active part in the concerns of the company) should be guilty of an offence unless he shows that it was in no way his fault. If your Lordships follow what I am saying. I would ask you to put this Act in the category of the Mines or Factories or Dangerous Drugs Acts, in which we recognise that a failure to comply with the conditions of the Act may have serious consequences, and to decide that a man who has taken upon himself a responsibility, and is accepting the remuneration which quite properly falls to a director, ought to realise that pollution of rivers is a serious matter which he himself ought to look into. If you do that, I believe you would do a good deal to strengthen the observance of the rules.
I ask your Lordships, if I may—and I think your Lordships will probably agree, in view of the undertaking that I have given—not to press this matter to-day, on the understanding that if I gather from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, or from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition that the sense of the House is against me and in favour of this Amendment, I shall not contest the matter further and will accept it. But if my advice is of any use to your Lordships—I do not say that it is, although it may be in a matter where there is no question of Party politics—I believe, having considered this matter carefully, that we should be doing a better job of work if we put this Act into the category of the Mines Act and other similar Acts. I say that because I believe it to be a matter of fundamental importance that we should clean up our rivers; and I believe that our best chance of so doing is to bring home to everybody concerned that if his company is guilty of an offence, then he will be presumed to be guilty of the offence unless he shows that he knew nothing about it and that it was not his fault.
I have tried to put fairly the question which your Lordships have to decide. When your Lordships have looked into it and have turned it over in your minds, if you remain of the opinion that this Amendment should be
330
carried, then on the Report stage I will agree to it. I felt it my duty to tell your Lordships, quite frankly—and there is no Party question here at all—that, so far as I am concerned, I think you will be making a mistake if you treat this Bill as you would treat comparatively trivial and unimportant matters and make it compulsory for the prosecution to prove the complicity of a director, because, in practice, that is pretty well an impossible thing to do. You have to prosecute the company. That you can do: you can prove that its effluent has gone into the river. But to prove that any particular director was responsible, and knew anything about it, is almost impossible, unless you have access to the books and records of the company which, in the nature of things, you cannot have. Therefore, in practice, it means that the director is not responsible at all. I have said what I have to say. If your Lordships will do me the courtesy—as I am sure you will—of considering and weighing my words, and if, nevertheless, you tell me that you want this alteration made, then, on the Report stage, without troubling your Lordships to go to a Division, I will accept it.
4.7 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I say one word on this aspect of the Bill, not actually in answer but perhaps to add to the deliberation which the noble and learned Viscount has instituted? He has, if I may say so, and as we have all come to expect, put the position with great fairness. I do not doubt that my noble friend Lord Swinton will desire to consider it between now and the next stage. I recognise that there are certain cases in which it is long established that the onus of proof shifts in matters of particular kinds. At the same time, I confess that I have never liked those cases. I have a recollection of having said to your Lordships at a rather heated moment of discussion—on the Transport Bill, I think—in considering the onus of proof, that the onus of proof was a normal part of our law, and that it was a part of the law because it was right, and not right because it was part of the law. I think that that distinction holds good.
The noble and learned Viscount said that we ought to do this in order to make the Bill more effective. We all desire to

331
make the Bill more effective, but we can make it more effective from what I may call the mechanical or administrative side at the cost of too high a price to be paid by the individual. It is asking a good deal to expect of a man who is a director of a company concerned that he should, in all cases, be required to prove his innocence of an offence under the Act. It might be an unlikely contingency, but it is not impossible and it would be permissible, under the Act, for steps to be taken to prosecute a man resident in London who was a director of, and attended board meetings of, a company whose actual work on the ground was carried out, say, in Cumberland. He might be a perfectly efficient director for the work that he had to do, but prosecution can be launched against him and it is then upon him—he having been a person charged with an offence—to free himself from the accusation which has been levelled against him. I must say that that seems to me a matter of very dubious justice. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, says it is impossible to prove affirmatively against a director, but I should have thought that in a case in which a director really was responsible it would not normally be an insuperable difficulty. I can also see difficulties arising in which a director, although he may be quite innocent, is called upon to prove that he had nothing to do with the commission of the particular offence.
It seems to me a much more complex case than the relatively simple one that the Lord Chancellor put to us at the beginning of his remarks, when he expounded the difficulty in dealing with the case of a company, one member of which was a magistrate who, if he were convicted of an offence might be—and, indeed, in normal circumstances would have to be—removed from the panel of magistrates. He also cited the case of a one-man company. I should have thought that in the case of a one-man company there would not be any difficulty in proving affirmatively against the one man concerned in that company, that if the company had committed an offence the inference was that he had some degree of direct responsibility for it. I think this is a matter which requires very careful consideration before the Report stage.
4.12 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: I think the best thing that has happened to me in Parliament for a long time is to have heard the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, describe the present situation regarding pollution as "critical". I hope I am not overstating him—the situation is indeed critical. When I was going into this matter in earlier years I became deeply conscious of the difficulty of proving pollution, because of the very large number of small firms whose discharge could not be properly checked. I formed the opinion that small firms discharging very small quantities of cyanides into domestic sewage did infinite harm to rivers. It is one of the most difficult problems of cleaning up any city, this problem of preventing the discharge of small quantities of industrial effluent down ordinary drains or into rivers which contain ordinary sewage. I consider it is a very important branch of this question.
If this House decides to accept the Bill as put before us by His Majesty's Government, it is important that the drastic nature of the clause should receive the utmost publicity. It is not by punishing this or that little man that we shall get the matter put right. It should be put to these small companies that they have a definite duty to prevent the contamination of our rivers and water-courses, and it is only by their realising that that this Bill can succeed. It is not, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the Bill which I myself would have wished. I have already made suggestions for cleaning up rivers. But whatever method we adopt we must make it clear that the matter is, as I said at the beginning, a critical one. Even with our best efforts, perhaps for twenty years, we may leave the rivers only 10 per cent. less polluted than they are at present.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I gladly accept the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that we should think about this matter and come to a common accord upon Report. As we are a small House and this is a matter in which I know many noble Lords are interested. I think it is well that we should have had rather a full discussion now, so that noble Lords who are not here to-day can read it and can consider the position and represent

333
their views, either to the Lord Chancellor or to me, in the interval. Incidentally, I have an association with a river board and must therefore declare my interest. I am a President somewhere in the north. I am also a fisherman.
The one-man case has been mentioned. That is a simple case, because, obviously, the one man is the man who is responsible. The noble and learned Viscount took the case of the I.C.I. It would, of course, be absurd to say that the sales director of the I.C.I. is responsible for something going into the Tees. It may be said that prosecutions will be made sensibly. Well, I hope they will. Clause 8 of the Bill says that:
"… proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1)… shall not be instituted except by the Attorney-General or a river board."
Subsection (2) of Clause 8 refers to certain cases where the consent of the Minister will be required. I gather that the position is that, once a survey is made and bylaws have been introduced, the bylaws will take account of past practice; but that then it rests with the river board itself to prosecute on its own responsibility for a breach of its bylaws. I still think that what is really wanted here is not so much a financial penalty or the committing of persons to prison—I cannot conceive, in any case, that magistrates are likely to send a London director to prison for something that has happened in some remote locality—as the stopping of the company from doing these things at all. Of course, once a company has transgressed it would be a very serious situation if it continued to do so.
I have just said that it would be unreasonable to prosecute a director except in the case of a one-man company, or, of course, unless the director is the man who happens to be on the spot, in which case I agree that he should be prosecuted because you could then prove that he was responsible. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor to consider this point: that in the case of a first offence the onus of proof should be left where it is. But, in any event, if I were a director of a company and an officer of the company had been convicted of some offence, I should expect that the matter would be brought up at the next board meeting; and I should expect the board to see that the necessary steps would be taken to ensure that such a situation did not arise again. I would suggest equally for con-
334
sideration that for a first offence we might leave the onus of proof where it ordinarily rests, upon the prosecution, but that if a company has been convicted of an offence under the Act and is prosecuted again, on the second or subsequent occasions the directors and officers of the company should be held guilty unless they proved themselves innocent. That is my constructive contribution to the Lord Chancellor for consideration in the meantime. I hope all those who are interested in this matter will read the record of what has taken place to-day, and then I am sure we shall come to a wise conclusion the next time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will most gladly consider that suggestion, because we all want the same thing. My experience of Factories Act administration and, to a lesser extent, of the mines—although I know less about the mines—is this. I believe that the provision in those cases, which is the same provision that we have in this Bill, is valuable—not that there have been many prosecutions, but I believe the fact that there is the possibility of a prosecution is the very thing which keeps an individual on his toes and alert. If we want to get this Bill efficiently administered, it is worth including that provision. The suggestion put by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is a new one. I had not thought of it. It may be that something can be done on those lines, or it may be that I shall be told that it is a dangerous precedent and never, even in the case of the mines, would I be able to have my old clause again. But I will certainly look into it and consider, from the point of view of the public interest, as I know your Lordships will consider, what is the right course to take in this matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
4.23 p.m.
Clause 5:
Bylaws
5.—(1) A river board may by bylaws make such provision as respects any stream in their area as appears to them expedient—
(b) for prohibiting or regulating the washing or cleaning in the stream of animals or

335
of other things or the putting into the stream of litter or other objectionable matter, whether poisonous, noxious or polluting or not;
The Earl of Onslow moved, in subsection (1) (b) to omit "or of other" and to insert "articles or." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment originating, I believe, from another place. The original clause as it stood was agreed by the Minister as not being wide enough to cover all the articles intended. I have been asked by the association interested in this matter to put forward this Amendment, which seeks to make the clause wide enough to cover articles, such as motor cars and milk churns and things of that sort that should not be washed in the rivers. At the moment, the word "things" applies only to things pertaining to animals, whereas we all wish that no noxious thing should be washed in the rivers to add to pollution. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out from ("animals") to ("things") and insert ("articles or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I have some sympathy with this Amendment but I am advised that there is some doubt as to whether the Amendment achieves what the noble Earl would like to achieve. If he will agree to withdraw his present wording, we will consult with him between now and Report stage and I think we can devise a suitable Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am much obliged. I am sure we are both on the same ground. It is merely a matter of words.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) to insert as a new paragraph:
"(d) for regulating the siting and construction of storm overflows of drains or sewers carrying both sewage effluent and surface water, and the mode of discharge of sewage therefrom."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment, which I gather is desired by local authorities, as well as by the regulating boards, is to enable the local authorities definitely to know where they
336
stand and to make it plain that the river board by its by-laws shall be able to regulate the siting and construction of storm overflows of drains or sewers. There is such a provision in the Scottish measure, and I am advised that it would be simpler, both for the river boards and for the local authorities concerned, if the Scottish provision were also in the English Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: As the noble Viscount will agree at once, the works to which he referred are an integral part of the sewerage systems and are the responsibility of the local authority. This does not mean that storm water overflows will be outside by-law control. That is not so. The river board will be entitled, if they wish, to make by-laws prescribing the standards with which effluents from the overflows must comply. There is no reason to fear that the proper design of any new overflows that may be necessary will be lost sight of when new schemes are being prepared. Local authorities' proposals are usually subject to the Minister's sanction, and it is his invariable practice not only to ensure that these points are watched by his own technical officers but also to take into account the views of the river board before approving work of this kind.
If the noble Viscount will look at his own Amendment to Clause 7, to which I will come in a moment, he will find that that Amendment, if accepted, as it will be, will ensure that the river board can exercise any reasonable control in the few cases where the Minister's consent may not be necessary. The noble Viscount made reference to the various associations. I am advised that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association are opposed to this Amendment. In view of the impending acceptance of the noble Viscount's later Amendment, and of the general position that the storm water overflows will be subject to by-law control, the Minister feels that it would be unwise for him to become responsible in any way for what the sewerage authority may do in what is, after all, an engineering job.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is not an Amendment for which I want to die in

337
the last ditch, or overflow or sewer, but when this matter was discussed in another place the Minister said he would find out what the local authorities wanted. The noble Lord says he understands something, but I should like to know whether the Minister has consulted the local authorities. Is the noble Lord able to tell me that the Minister has consulted the local authorities and that the local authorities do not want it? I do not ask for an answer now, across the Floor of the House but I should like to be sure, before we part from this clause, that this is not just a Departmental opinion of what they think they would like in the Bill. If the noble Lord will give us that information next time, I will withdraw the Amendment now and put it down on Report, so that we may have an assurance. The other thing I should like to know is, why is my Amendment in the Scottish Bill and not in the English Bill? I should have thought that what a Scottish local authority wanted, an English local authority probably wanted too. If the noble Lord will undertake to give that information on Report stage, I will gladly withdraw this Amendment to-day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1) after the end of paragraph (c) to insert:
"Before making bye-laws under this subsection, other than bye-laws revoking or amending bye-laws previously made thereunder, a river board shall make such survey as may be necessary of the area in which the stream or the part thereof to which it is intended that the proposed bye-law shall apply is situate."
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I think the Minister might like to accept, because the Hobday Report recommended that no bylaw should be confirmed until the Minister was satisfied that the proper survey had been completed. That also is in the Scottish Bi11. Obviously, if there is a duty to make a survey and a duty to make a bylaw, presumably the survey has to come before the bylaw, and the bylaw will not be made until the survey has been completed. I think the Scots have been both practical and logical in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: At the moment the Minister does not consider that this Amendment is necessary, but he is quite willing, between now and Report, to allow the noble Viscount to try to convince him that it is necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the noble Lord mean by that that the Bill as now drafted compels the river board to make a survey before it makes a bylaw? Is that what is meant?
LORD MACDONALD 0F GWAENYSGOR: No. The position would be this. The Minister himself, having the responsibility of confirmation, is not likely to confirm a bylaw which will not give satisfaction to all concerned. To give satisfaction to all concerned, a survey would be necessary, if not essential. It is on those grounds that he considers the Amendment unnecessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With the greatest respect, I do not think that is a very satisfactory answer. I am not going to divide on the Amendment now, but I should have thought that if this was the right practice—and the noble Lord says that the Minister would never dream of confirming a bylaw until there had been a survey—why not say that there has to be a survey? The Scottish Bill provides that there must be a survey first. If you have different wording in the Scottish and English Bills, it indicates that there is intended to be a difference of practice in the two countries. It means that in Scotland there must be a survey, whereas in England that is not necessary, and it is merely left to the Minister to say, "I do not like your bylaw, and until you have had a survey I will not approve it." I should have thought that, as nearly as possible, we want the practice in England and in Scotland to be the same. We want to have bylaws which will be carried out with good will. Unless there is good will, however many prosecutions there may be, this scheme will not work. There are no prejudices about this matter, and I hope the noble Lord will consider it again. In my view, the Scottish Bill is better for the inclusion of those words. I will withdraw my Amendment now, but I shall certainly put it down again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is consequential on the first Amendment I moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, at end insert:
"and where any such effluent as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section two of this Act is poisonous, noxious or polluting in any respect in which it ought to comply with a standard so prescribed, that subsection shall not apply to the effluent."—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"( ) Section fifteen of the Electricity Act, 1919 (which enables an order to be made authorising the abstraction of water from any river, stream. &c.) (as amended by the Electricity Act. 1947) shall be read and have effect as if the following paragraph were added at the end of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section—
'(e) No order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from a stream (as defined in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1950) unless it also provides for the return of the water in a condition and at a temperature which conform to the relevant standards prescribed by any bylaws made under section four of the said Act and for the time being in force in relation to the stream or part of the stream into which water is to he returned'."
The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment arising out of paragraph 201 of the Hobday Report, which recommends an amendment of the Electricity Act 1919, to ensure that orders laid down by the Minister of Fuel and Power shall not conflict with existing by-laws relating to temperatures fixed by the local river boards. It seems to me a reasonable Amendment and will assist in making this Bill stronger. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My right honourable friend is unable to accept this Amendment, although he appreciates what is behind it. He understands that the river boards, and it may be other associations, are rather concerned; that they would like some statement to be made here that would clear up the position as to what can be done. My right honourable friend has authorised me to make this statement. The Minister is advised that even
340
if the maximum temperature prescribed in bylaws differed from the maximum temperature fixed in an order made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, the effluent from the power station would have to comply with both by being within both the maxima mentioned—that is, it would have to be within the lower of the two maximum temperatures. For this reason, the Amendment is unnecessary. In practice, the fixing of conflicting maximum temperatures is most unlikely because consultation between the two Departments would invariably precede the making of an order or the confirmation of bylaws. The Minister has been in touch with the Minister of Fuel and Power on the subject and is willing to give the assurance that this consultation will continue in the future, and that any remote possible causes of differences between the bylaws and an order made by the Minister of Fuel and Power will be prevented by administrative action. In view of that statement, perhaps the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps we can discuss it between now and Report stage, in order to make certain that the two interests are agreed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges
7.—(1) Subject to this section, no person shall bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream, or begin to make any new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream, unless—

(a) he has given the river board notice of his intention to do so not less than two months beforehand (or such less period as the board may agree to); and

(b) he has either given the board with that notice, or made available for their inspection at all reasonable times at a place specified in the notice, plans and specifications of the new or altered outlet or particulars of the new discharge, as the case may be; and

(c) in the case of a new or altered outlet, the outlet is so constructed as to comply with any requirements reasonably imposed by the board to enable them to exercise their right to take samples of the effluent.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the bringing into use of any new or altered outlet which forms part of the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority if its construction or alteration, as the case may be, or the raising of a loan to defray the cost thereof, has been approved or authorised by the Minister.
(4) Any question as to the reasonableness of any requirements imposed by a river board for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the said subsection (1) shall be determined by the Minister.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We really discussed this matter when dealing with the first Government Amendment on the Marshalled List. I gather that the Government will accept this Amendment, and therefore I beg formally to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 22 and insert ("without the consent of the river board (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream or begin to make any new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream.
(2) On an application for consent under the foregoing subsection the river board may grant their consent subject to such conditions as they may reasonably impose, and in particular such conditions may be imposed with respect to the point of discharge into any stream of any new or altered outlet.
(3) A river board shall not grant their consent to the bringing into use of a new altered outlet unless the outlet is so constructed as to comply with any requirements reasonably imposed by the authority to enable them to exercise their right to take samples of the effluent.").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am advised that it may be necessary to make some slight verbal alterations, but otherwise I will accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps we can insert the Amendment now and make any further alterations on Report stage.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved to add to subsection (3) "after consultation with the river board." The noble Earl said: This, again, is a small Amendment. Its object is to help the river boards to exercise a similar measure of control over sewage disposal and sewage works as would be required in relation to new out-
342
lets. The river boards consider that they should be consulted by the Minister before consent is given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 45, at end insert ("after consultation with the river board").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary. River boards are not only prevention of pollution authorities, they are also land drainage authorities. Under Section 15 of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority must give to a land drainage authority notice of proposals which may interfere with any water course under the control of that land drainage authority. It is the Minister's invariable practice to consider the views of the land drainage authority before he approves works affecting streams: he has similarly consulted the ad hoc boards that were previously responsible for prevention of pollution, that is to say, the Thames Conservancy, the West Riding of Yorkshire river boards and others. It is difficult to understand why this practice should be interfered with when it has worked well for so long, and I hope that since it has been effective in the past and will continue in the future, the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
The EARL OF ONSLOW: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I really set out to discover the facts, and I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This and the next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, after ("question") insert ("whether the consent of a river board has or has not been unreasonably withheld or").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, after the second ("any") insert ("conditions or").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("board") to ("shall") in line 3, and insert ("under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section ").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Combination of sewage disposal or sewerage systems]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I want to say one word on this clause. There is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, but I wish to give the Government notice that a matter may be raised on the Report stage with regard to this clause. There has been some discussion on what is to happen where there are sewage schemes which involve both local authorities and corporations of satellite towns. I think there is a provision that where there is a dispute, the Minister has to arbitrate. Broadly speaking, I think an appeal to the Minister is satisfactory, because he is in an independent position. But I think the Minister might be in an embarrassing position if the dispute was one between what I may call the satellite towns—the corporations—and a local authority, because then he has direct responsibility for, and indeed is the promoter and almost the owner of, the satellite towns. In that case the Minister would have the embarrassment of being a judge in his own case, which he probably would not wish to be. There is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and I did not want the Government to be taken by surprise on the next occasion should an Amendment be put down. I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will look at the matter.
Clause 9 agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTONmoved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Reports of River Boards, etc.
".—(1) Section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948, shall have effect as if there were added at the end of subsection (2) thereof the words 'and shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information with respect to the activities of river boards under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.'
(2) The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament copies of the reports of river boards sent to him in each year under section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948, and shall at the same time lay before each House of Parliament, a report with respect to the exercise by him of his functions under this Act during that year."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to give effect to an undertaking which was given in another place
344
that the reports of the river boards should be laid before Parliament. When this proposal was made in another place the Minister in charge said that he did not quite like the words of the particular Amendment moved. He said (speaking of the honourable Member who moved it):
"I will not take the exact words which he has put down, but I will undertake to put down an Amendment requiring the laying before each House of Parliament of each of the river boards reports, and that would be in addition to the passage which I will include in my own report."
Some slip-up occurred in the Report stage in another place, and it seems that the Minister did not have time to put down that Amendment. Therefore I have moved this Amendment, which I think gives effect to his undertaking. One point which perhaps I ought to emphasise is that the Amendment also provides that, at the same time as he lays the reports, the Minister shall also lay before each House of Parliament a report with respect to the exercise by him of his functions under the Act during that year. I am not sure whether that point was discussed in another place. It seems to me to be a reasonable provision, when we have the river boards' reports before each House of Parliament, to have also a report from the Minister as to his actions under the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I take it for granted that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that all information available is included in the annual reports of the river boards. If that is the case I am not sure that the Amendment is necessary,
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There are two parts to the Amendment. The first sets out that
"Section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948, shall have effect as if there were added at the end of subsection (2) thereof the words 'and shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information with respect to the activities of river boards…
That may or may not be necessary: I am not sure. The second provision begins by stating that—
"The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament copies of the reports of river boards…

345
That provsion, I think, is clearly necessary, and the Minister said in another place that he himself would propose an Amendment which would have that effect.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: As I see the position, it is clear that under subsection (2) of the Amendment the Minister may lay papers before Parliament without being specially requested to do so. In this instance, he has given an undertaking that he will lay the reports of the river boards. There has been quite a little correspondence going on since this matter was discussed in another place, and I think that it may be possible for us to accommodate each other with regard to this Amendment. I suggest that perhaps the best course, if the noble Viscount will agree, would be that, between now and the Report stage, he should see the correspondence, which is fairly voluminous.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Correspondence with whom?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The correspondence between the Minister and the honourable Member who moved the Amendment in another place, Mr. Colegate.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It seems to me that this goes a little beyond that. I will, of course, gladly look at any correspondence; but I think that this is a matter which rather goes beyond correspondence with one particular Member by the Minister. I believe there was a general feeling in another place, and I think there would be here, that the reports of these river boards should be laid before Parliament. We get a great many Papers which we do not want, but both Houses are clearly showing very great interest in this Bill, and I think members of both Houses would want to have these reports. And the Minister, of course, did give a definite undertaking. I do not assert that the first subsection of my Amendment is necessary. The laying of reports of the river boards was a matter on which the Minister did give an undertaking, and on that, I think, Parliament would like to insist.
LORD LLOYD: Before the noble Lord replies I should like to support what the noble Viscount has said. I should have thought, if I may say so, that it was important that both these subsections should
346
be in the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, and I think absolutely rightly, that our rivers are in a dreadful state, and that it is important that public opinion should be focused on this matter. People should concentrate on trying to do something about it. He wanted, he said, to put "teeth" into this Bill and I believe that in that we all agree with him. I believe that if "teeth" are going to be put into the Bill, people must be kept up to date with what is being done. Public opinion must be interested in these matters. If the whole question of pollution is to be buried in the middle of the River Boards Act, without a separate section, I think it will be much more difficult for the public to follow it. On these grounds, I think it would be a good thing to have pollution dealt with as a separate subject in any report. For the same reason, I submit, it is important that these river board reports should be laid before Parliament. I hope that, in view of these considerations, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, may feel himself able to look at this matter again between now and the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Before we leave this matter, let us be clear as to the full significance of the Amendment. Let us look at the first subsection of the proposed new clause. Your Lordships are well aware that the Ministers of Local Government and Planning and of Agriculture and Fisheries are empowered by subsection (2) of Section 12 of the River Boards Act of 1948 to direct what particulars shall be included in the annual reports of river boards. The directions have already been drafted, and are being discussed with representatives of the river boards. The directions require the boards to devote a separate and comprehensive section of their reports to all their activities in connection with the prevention of pollution, whether they are undertaken under the powers of the new legislation or by any other means—such as by persuasion or by consultation with the interests concerned or by researeh. Now take the first part of subsection (2) of the Amendment. I have already said that I am wondering whether it is necessary. The Minister has given a definite undertaking that he will lay the reports of the river boards.

347
I should have thought that that was going a long way. The second part of subsection (2), it seems to me, would cause a great deal of unnecessary duplication of work. I agree that we are getting a great many Papers—perhaps too many. But the Minister makes an annual report which is presented by the King's command to Parliament. That report deals with all the Minister's functions, and a Minister's report must in future deal with the exercise of his functions under the new Act, otherwise it will be incomplete. It may be recognised that this is unnecessary, and I would point out that if the Amendment is withdrawn now, it will be so that consideration may be given to the matter between now and the Report stage. It is felt by the Minister and his advisers that this Amendment is unnecessary, and that what is aimed at can be achieved without an Amendment of this kind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will gladly withdraw the Amendment now. As at present advised, I think the noble Lord has gone a good way towards convincing me that my first subsection is unnecessary. The last part of my second subsection about a special report of the Minister, too, it seems, is not necessary. I should like to consider what should be put down for the Report stage. As I am at present advised, it seems that all that it is required is a simple clause saying that reports of the river board should be laid, and that is what the Minister has given an undertaking to do.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to put forward this consideration. Is it not the case that the Minister's undertaking expires when the Minister ceases to hold office, or at any rate when the Government of which he is a member comes to an end? I should like to see the laying of reports made a statutory obligation. Moreover, I think the reports of the river boards should be separately printed; once they are set up in print it is a simple matter to make a separate report on that subject. This is a matter of such cardinal importance that I think these reports should be made as accessible as possible to Members of both Houses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given notice of an Amendment, after subsection (1) to insert;
"( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in this Bill 'tidal waters' includes waters in any dock vested in a harbour board, within the meaning of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888."
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of definition. I have a fairly long statement from the Dock and Harbour Boards Association, of which I am a member, but I will not inflict it upon your Lordships. I will say simply that the legal experts of the Association are sharply divided on the question of whether or not a dock is a tidal water. If this Bill goes through without that matter being defined, the Association will be under the necessity of drafting a reference to counsel and perhaps obtaining counsel's opinion on the matter. Even then, the point will not be decided; it will still be only an opinion. I do not think it is a good principle to make a law which leaves an ambiguity about its meaning. Therefore, I hope that His Majesty's Government will either accept this Amendment—which, by the way, should include the word "Act", instead of "Bill," in the second line—or some other similar Amendment. Under Clause 6 the Government have power at any time to make the Bill applicable to tidal waters, even if docks are considered to be tidal waters. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in this Act 'tidal waters' includes waters in any dock vested in a harbour board, within the meaning of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.")—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I waited for the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, to put forward his argument in support of this Amendment because I was in some difficulty in knowing exactly what he wanted from us. Now that he has made a statement, I think there is something in what he is asking. If he will withdraw his Amendment, we can discuss it between now and Report stage and I think we can find a suitable form of words to provide for what he wants.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Short title, repeal, extent and commencement]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, at beginning insert ("Except as otherwise provided in this Act").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.53 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, it will be remembered that the Coal Industry Act of 1946 laid down, among many other things, that the borrowing powers granted to the National Coal Board should terminate in five years' time. The five years end next month; hence the Bill which is before the House to-day. To those conversant with the 1946 Act, it will be clear that this Bill proposes a number of changes. The first and major change is the raising of the limit of borrowing from £150,000,000 to £300,000,000. It removes the limit of five years, relates the new limit of £300,000,000 to the amount of advances outstanding at any one time, and raises the limit for short-term borrowing from £10,000,000 to £20,000,000, while at a late stage in another place an annual limitation of £40,000,000 was also fixed.
It might be better if I dealt with the small proposals and left the major change to my last remarks. The fixing of the time limit of five years in the 1946 Act was both wise and prudent. At that time, to make a reliable forecast of the financial position of the industry as a whole throughout Great Britain would have been very difficult—I would say, almost impossible. At that time no
350
general programme for the development of the whole industry existed, or could have existed. In such circumstances, the fixing of a time limit was a sound proposal. But in to-day's conditions, with a long-term national plan drawn up, the removal of the time limit of five years I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships. While it is true that the provision of £150,000,000 has been adequate for the five years now ending, to limit the making of plans in this manner is hardly likely to make for the best planning, especially when dealing with a major industry like the coal industry.
As to relating the £300,000,000 to the amount of advances outstanding at any one time, I may say that this change will bring the practice with regard to coal in line with what Parliament decided should be done in the legislation dealing with electricity and gas, and will facilitate banking arrangements between the National Coal Board and the Ministry of Fuel and Power. With reference to short-term borrowing your Lordships will remember that the 1946 Act fixed the limit at £10,000,000. This Bill proposes to raise it to £20,000,000. This temporary short-term policy is to meet a revenue deficit, or, in language which I think is more understandable, to meet possible losses. I thought that might be better understood! I know that we all hope there will be no losses, but before this debate ends I may be told that there have been losses in the nationalised coal industry since 1946, that they are heavy losses, and that in one year they were more than double the £10,000,000 provided. Nevertheless, there was no request for the £10,000,000 to be increased during the period since 1946. The reason is that, owing to special circumstances such as the temporary use of large sums which had been reserved for other purposes, the Board were able to make arrangements and not to exceed the £10,000,000 limit. But I want to make it plain that had it not been for these arrangements, special legislation would have been necessary. It is to avoid any such possibility in the future that the change is now being made. Let me make it plain also that no one anticipates any further losses in the, coal industry, especially of the dimensions we have experienced in the pass. It would be a sore disappointment to all of us if there

351
were such losses. No doubt it will give some satisfaction to your Lordships to know that this power would be used only by the consent of the Minister and with Parliamentary approval.
Before dealing with the major change I have indicated, I think I ought to make a brief reference to Clause 2. This clause is designed to rectify an error in compensation awarded to two valuation districts—namely, Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire. This error was due to a mistake by the Ministry of Fuel and Power in submitting certain figures to the Central Valuation Board. Long after the certificate of the Central Valuation Board had been issued, a check of the figures showed that the Ministry had placed the expenditure of five Cannock Chase colliery concerns against the South Staffordshire district. The Central Valuation Board represented to the Minister that as a result of the earlier information given them by the Ministry a sum of £110,000 had been awarded to the Cannock Chase district instead of to the South Staffordshire district. Having been advised that as a Board they had no power to amend the certificate, the Central Valuation Board asked the Minister to take whatever steps were necessary to rectify the position. Following consultations and agreement with the representatives of the two districts concerned, the Minister decided to ask Parliament to make the necessary rectification through Clause 2 of the Bill. I should not like to leave Clause 2 of the Bill without paying, if I may say so, a well-deserved tribute to the Central Valuation Board, and, in particular, to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, the Chairman of the Committee, for their great help in dealing with this difficulty.
I ought to make a brief reference here to the £40,000,000 annual limitation. That was put in at a late stage in the Bill in another place, as a result of representations made by the Opposition, and I feel sure will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
As to the major change, the borrowing powers have been doubled from £150,000,000 to £300,000,000. That is a very substantial increase, and I can well understand your Lordships asking such questions as: Why is such an increase necessary? For what purpose? Why is the new figure £300,000,000, and not
352
something more, or less? What has been the basis of the calculation? Your Lordships are aware that in October last the National Coal Board published proposals for a national plan for reconstruction and investment. Although that plan is still being considered by the Government, it has been the basis of calculation for assessing the future capital requirements of the Board. We might be tempted—particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself—to discuss the proposals contained in this Bill for quite a time; but I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that this is not the time for such a discussion, although it may take place upon a more appropriate occasion. However, I feel it necessary to make a brief reference to the finance involved.
The estimated expenditure up to 1965 is £635,000,000, but as this figure is based on 1949 prices it is possible that the actual sum may be substantially higher. A very big slice of this expenditure—something like three-quarters of the money required—will be provided by setting aside out of revenue substantial sums for depreciation. It is estimated that £475,000,000 will be provided in this way. However, £75,000,000 of this amount will be needed to repay sums which have been used for investment, but which must later be replaced to meet the liabilities which in due course will be incurred. For instance, £15,000,000 for the compensation fund is one such liability. Therefore, £235,000,000 has to be found by the advances—all advances from the vesting date in 1947, as well as future requirements. The net sum outstanding at present is £33,000,000. This makes a total of £268,000,000. The remaining £32,000,000 will need to cover any further working capital which may be required, and also any increase in the expenditure on the plan due to increases in cost of materials and labour since 1949. The next question which I feel your Lordships will ask is this: "£635,000,000 is a large sum of money; what do we get in return?" The National Coal Board hope—and I emphasise the word "hope"—that when proposals in the plan are put into operation, and when the plan is carried out, output will be increased to at least 240,000,000 tons annually, and that, other things being equal, the cost of coal will be reduced by 7s. per ton.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say more about the Bill. I have tried to

353
show the changes made and give reasons for those changes. I am not going to spend any time in stressing what this country owes to coal. It has already played a vital part in the life of this country, and I am one of those who believe that it will play a vital part in the future. I know your Lordships sufficiently well to realise that any proposal which is likely to make the coal industry a greater asset to the country will receive your support. I am satisfied that the proposals contained in this Bill will help to make the industry a greater asset to the country, and therefore it is with some confidence that I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
5.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I shall be brief and general in my observations, and certainly I shall not dilate on the details of the plan, estimated to cost £635,000,000 at 1949 prices, and probably considerably more at present prices. However, I would ask how soon that expenditure is likely to take place. Owing to the rearmament programme, all priorities have been somewhat readjusted, and although the noble Lord spoke hopefully about the possibility of increasing output to 240,000,000 tons, what I should like to know (I may not live as long as the happy, distant day when the noble Lord expects that to happen), so far as the more immediate future is concerned, is what chance there is of our getting the necessary equipment to maintain the present output? The Coal Board are now to be allowed to borrow another £150,000,000, and the cost will increase.
I do not desire to be in any way contentious; I wish the Coal Board well, and I know that they will do their job well. But I am sure they will do it much better if they have not to do a great many other things which have no relation to coal. I must on this occasion make a plea that the Board should get rid of some of their extraneous assets. This is not a question merely of nationalisation or de-nationalisation. Anybody in any business would agree—and I am sure the noble Lord will agree about this—that it would be much better to have a homogeneous business. It is always a nuisance to have odds and ends tacked on to your main business—and, incidentally, it distracts attention from your main business; you generally
354
do them very badly and, therefore, expensively. I must say that I think it would be a good thing if the Coal Board got rid of all their farms, about which they really know nothing. I do not say that they would save £l50,000,000, but they would save some millions of pounds by doing so. And not only would they do that, but they would save twice over, by saving the interest on that money and on the staff which has to be maintained.
The main question which I should like to ask the noble Lord who introduced the Bill to-day is: Who is to control this money which we are to vote in this Bill? Normally there is Parliamentary control on a detailed project before money is sanctioned or voted. Parliament knows the plan for which it is voting; the Estimates are laid, and Parliament knows who will have the spending of the money. On April 30 in another place, the Minister, in defending the Bill, said:
"Parliament will of course retain control over the advances which are made. The Minister of Fuel and Power and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must both give their consent, and at any moment the House can call them to account."
That is a very important statement, and I want to be assured that that is right, because hitherto, when we have sought to discuss things like the Reid Report and so on, and how development is to take place, we have been told that that is a matter of day-to-day management, the business of the Coal Board and not of the Minister. I therefore ask categorically: Who is to be responsible for the spending of this £150,000,000, which is a revolving credit, and which will go towards paying for these development plans running in all into £625,000,000?
According to the Minister of Fuel, he is to be responsible, and he, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be called to account in Parliament. That is a most interesting and novel statement, because it means, if it means anything, that in the execution of this plan the Minister and not the Coal Board will be responsible. The Coal Board will no doubt execute, but the responsibility will be the responsibility of the Minister and, therefore, in either House we shall be entitled to ask and the Minister will be bound to answer, about the details and the progress of the plan. I want to be assured that that is so. If what the Minister said does not mean that, then I have

355
not the least idea what it does mean. As I understand it, we are entering upon a new phase in which the Minister will no longer say that the development of the coal mines is a matter of management and responsibility of the Board. He says, "Parliament is voting this money and the responsibility is mine and I am going to be answerable." I can foresee that we shall have some interesting debates. If Parliament is to have that effective control continuously applied, then indeed there is a good case for granting this money because, in the Minister's words, we can call him to account at any time. Otherwise, I should have said that it was a serious thing to come to Parliament with a vague proposal and to say that the Board should have £150,000,000 more with no limit of time.
I have only one other question to ask, upon which I feel sure the Minister will be pleased to enlighten us. I have discovered, on the most reliable information from Lord Rennell, that the whole Coal Board are due to retire at the end of next month. They do not go out progressively but all together. Unlike the Government, they have collective responsibility and collective retirement, and not merely individual resignations from time to time. They are going out at the end of July. Can the noble Lord tell us who will be the new members of the Board, because if we do not know how the money is to be spent, we ought at least to know, before we part with this £150,000,000, who is going to have the spending of it.
5.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for his personal reference to such part as I have been able to play in securing the insertion into this Bill of Clause 2, to which I shall confine my remarks. Certainly as Chairman of the Central Valuation Board I could not have been content to leave the matter as it stood, after the discovery of the mistake had been made. May I just say one word of explanation on the position, in amplification of what the Minister said? The Central Valuation Board have two functions. One is subsidiary—namely, to advise the Minister, at his request, on the making of rules of procedure for application to the district valuation boards. For that purpose the Board still meets intermittently.
356
Its primary function, however, was to distribute the aggregate sum of £165,000,000 amongst the various districts. The certificate in respect of that award was made on February 1, 1949, in the form of a statutory instrument, and, with the making of that statutory instrument, the Board, in that aspect of its work, was functus officio and could perform no further tasks. As the noble Lord has said, it was only after that that this error came to light and we could no longer remedy it. It could be rectified only by legislation. I desire to say only this in defence of myself and my colleagues: that I think we were fully entitled to accept as authentic the official figures presented to us, although they subsequently proved to be wrong. I think it is right to express our thanks at this stage to the Minister for having taken the necessary action when the matter was brought to his attention.
I would add only two small points: first, that it should be clear to all noble Lords that the transaction contained in and to be carried out by this clause is merely an internal adjustment between one district and another, and in no sense seeks to add to the global figure of compensation. The second point I should like to make is that when the error was brought to the notice of the colliery concerns in the valuation district which had profited by the mistake, they promptly and readily acknowledged that the position could not be allowed to stand, and therefore the clause has the cordial assent of all parties involved.
5.18 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill has certainly used very persuasive arguments in favour of it, but there are one or two aspects of it to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. What does the Bill really do? Of course it makes several changes in the provisions of the original Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. It abolishes, among other things, the time limit for loans; it abolishes the previous stipulation that advances which were repaid must nevertheless be counted towards the total outstanding, and it seeks to increase the total loans from £150,000,000 to £300,000,000. In fact, it is giving almost a blank cheque to the coal industry. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill has

357
said that it is to enable the Coal Board to make plans for a capital development over a period of fifteen years ahead, and to be sure from the start that they will have the capital they need when required. I suggest, however, that at the present time it is quite unnecessary for the Board to seek this vast sum of money—£300,000,000—for a fifteen-year plan. Conditions in the industry may change, and new ideas may be brought forward. It is within the bounds of possibility that even atomic energy might be available for industrial purposes before the advent of fifteen years. I should have thought that it would be far better to divide this vast sum into thirds, so that one-third could be agreed to by Parliament, say every five years, if it were found to be necessary.
I understand it to be a fact that the advancement and completion of this new coal plan depend largely on the supply of steel available, and I should like to ask His Majesty's Government what priority the Coal Board have in obtaining steel over other Departments of the State and industry generally. It is true that the Coal Board propose to raise a considerable sum through the amount set aside for depreciation, but I cannot help feeling, like the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that this sum might well be increased by the disposal of many other assets which have very little to do with coal. I wonder whether it is fully realised that the National Coal Board are the largest land owners in the country. It is, of course, true that a good deal of this agricultural land is held to avoid the payment of compensation for subsidence. But on the other hand there is a great deal of agricultural land which might well be disposed of and which is not really required for that purpose. I believe the number of farms owned by the Board amounts to something like 18,000, the management of which must in many ways detract from the business of the Coal Board—which is, after all, to get coal. And what of the other ancilliary businesses, such as brickworks? Many brickworks are very much mixed up with the Coal Board—so much mixed up that it would be difficult to disentangle them. But in many other cases they could well be disposed of without interfering with the efficiency of the mines, thereby making available to the Coal Board a considerable capital sum. I suggest to His Majesty's
358
Government that the Coal Board are trying to do far too much, and that they should get rid of a number of their ancillary businesses. Then, perhaps, they could give their full and undivided attention to their all-important work of getting coal.
I have little doubt that the coal plan which the Coal Board have placed before the country is a good one, but I think it raises the question whether it is better for the nation to use capital and labour to expand coal production or to apply some of those resources to ensuring that each ton of coal is converted into a greater amount of useful heat and energy. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking in this direction. I also hope that before long we shall see a less centralised coal industry. This is, of course, the problem of bigness, and it is sometimes forgotten that size is by no means synonymous with efficiency—in fact, the two things often conflict with each other. I believe it is on record that the Coal Board employ three times as many people as the largest industrial enterprise, even in America.
I do not wish in any way to make a political point out of the coal industry; in fact, this industry has been far too long in the arena of Party politics. I think it is now generally realised that some form of public ownership of the industry will have to be maintained. The one thing that matters, of course, is that we should be able to produce enough coal, of the proper quality and at a reasonable price, to satisfy home demands and to keep our footing in the export market—and, last but not least, to ensure that the miner has security and good wages. I am afraid that I am not fully convinced that the introduction of this Bill—which, of course, is really a Money Bill—is necessarily a very good thing for the industry. I feel that there should be more Parliamentary control of finance, and that the Board should go to Parliament at least every five years for any further loans that may be required.
5.24 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation of the way in which this Bill has been received. No one expects a Coal Bill to be received with open arms, and there are no doubt many aspects which noble Lords will wish

359
to criticise; but as I say, I am grateful for the reception given to the Bill. I notice that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has now left the Chamber, but I should like to assure him that I will pass on his kind reference to the Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me one or two difficult questions—as he usually does. Perhaps the most difficult was that concerning the personnel of the Coal Board. I am just as anxious as the noble Viscount is to know about these things and I am very sorry I cannot answer his questions to-day, but I will certainly give him an answer—though he may get to know before me.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not been approached.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Neither have I.
As regards the question of who is held responsible for the spending of the money, I am afraid I am not able to add very much to what the Minister said in another place. I noticed that, in the quotation which the noble Viscount made from the Minister's speech, the words
"Parliament will always maintain control over the advances"
occurred. Day-to-day expenditure must be in the hands of the National Coal Board; and I wondered whether the noble Viscount had overlooked the annual limitation of £40,000,000. The same point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who wanted the expenditure broken up into so many blocks. I am not sure we have not done that: £40,000,000 annually into £635,000.000 works out at about fifteen years, which means that there is Parliamentary control over the annual expenditure of £40,000,000. Therefore Parliament is surely keeping a firm grip on expenditure. At the same time, I cannot, of course, add to what was said in another place by the Minister. I am as anxious as the noble Viscount to know precisely what is intended, and it may be that during the Committee stage I shall be able to give him more information.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I appreciate fact that there is to be an annual advance of £40,000,000. It may be voted in an Appropriation Bill—but of course Parliament may refuse to vote anything at all. But what one means in common parlance, or in Parliamentary language, by "Parlia-
360
mentary control over expenditure" is that you will know what money is going to be spent and that its expenditure can be discussed. That is really what is at stake here—not whether the Coal Board should or should not have £40,000,000. Someone may move to reduce the vote by £20,000,000 and give them only £20,000,000. That is not what we mean by Parliamentary control. What we mean is whether we can know what that £40,000,000 is to be spent on and discuss whether we think it a good way of spending the money.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The trouble often is that the money has been spent before we are asked to control it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is a very improper statement for an old House of Commons man! But, assuming that we are engaged in these improprieties, can we then discuss how the money has been spent, or are we to be told that that is the responsibility of the Coal Board?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: A certain number of millions of pounds are spent in a certain year. On what? On sinking shafts? Or in what other directions? I can see that all these questions would be raised in debate. The question of the number of shafts envisaged during the fifteen years was mentioned. But—speaking again as an old House of Commons man—I cannot give an undertaking that any suggestion made by the National Coal Board for spending money on this, that or the other object must wait for Parliamentary approval. I think it is better for me to get to know from the Minister what he meant. It may be I shall be able to get some information for the noble Viscount. As to the question of the availability of steel or other necessities, the Minister dealt with that matter in great detail. He was very confident that there would be no lowering of production but that the National Coal Board would get an adequate supply of steel and all other requirements. I cannot vouch for that. All I can say is that I am very pleased with your Lordships' reception of the Bill, and at a later stage I shall try to be as accommodating as possible on its various aspects.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PURCHASE TAX ON SPORTS EQUIPMENT
5.31 p.m.
LORD BARNBYhad given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the currently highly increased prices for sports equipment by reason of purchase tax, they will consider some method of relief for supplies to appropriately qualified youth movement organisations, as is understood to be the case of supplies to N.A.A.F.I. for the Forces; thus permitting more of the present young generation to be participants in, instead of spectators of, sports. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of this Question is one which I feel will strike a chord of sympathy in the hearts of your Lordships on both sides of the House. At least there can be no disagreement as to the desirability, from a national point of view, of encouraging recreation. But we realise the administrative difficulties. This is a matter which could more properly be raised by other members of your Lordships' House. Indeed, I wish it were possible to give more publicity to the self-sacrificing public-spiritedness of so many members of this House who associate themselves with the activities of the various youth movements. They give a great deal of time to that work. There are many noble Lords in this House who recognise how many angle there are to this subject, and I think it can be accepted that there is a wide knowledge about it. For myself, I have heard the desirability of relief so strongly urged from so many quarters that I felt impelled to raise the matter, though in the course of my inquiries—and they have been considerable—I have found some misgivings as to whether raising it might not do more harm than good.
It will be admitted that when purchase tax, which is the basis of this Question, was first introduced, it was for a fiscal purpose; something quite different from what it has now become, as has so frequently been said in your Lordships' House. Although the tax was originally intended, to deter the purchase of certain merchandise, nobody, I am sure, would argue that it is desirable now to discourage the purchase of equipment for recreation in all forms. The actual facts, when one comes to examine them, are striking. I take two simple forms of recreation—cricket and football. It is interesting to find that the purchase tax on a cricket
362
ball is 5s., against the pre-war average price for a cricket ball of 13s. 6d. Prewar advocates of recreation find that a pretty high toll to pay. In the case of pads, which before rise war averaged about a guinea a pair, the purchase tax to-day is about 11s. Passing, in Kipling's words, from the
"flannels at the wicket to the muddied oafs at the goal,"
I turn to football. We all enjoy kicking a football. The pre-war price of an Association football was 17s. 6d. The purchase tax to-day on the same article is 17s. 6d., which again seems a pretty heavy toll. On the general question, there can be no argument that we want to encourage participation in athletics, rather than the so-called "spectator sport" of looking at them.
The fact that so many now attend what one might call professionally promoted games, instead of participating in games in a humble way, must be against the national interest. So it is felt in many quarters that something could be done. It is obvious that, however strong may be the desire on the part of those in the Government able to deal with this question to give relief administratively, it is easy to conjure up many difficulties. I will not venture to impinge on your Lordships' time in trying to describe in more vivid terms the advantages that might come from getting more of the youth of the country into participating in games. The noble Lord who is to speak for the Government may be contemplating saying that if any concessions were given it would create a precedent which would open the gate for demands on a wide field. To that, I would say simply that such a reply would be applicable to most items where relief is sought. Therefore, it is with confidence that I feel that the genial personality of the noble Lord who is to reply will not disguise the fact that he personally at least is sympathetic. I hope that his reply will give some encouragement in this matter.
5.35 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, for my sins I happen to be a member of a committee of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, to which, as your Lordships are probably aware, practically every governing body of sports and games in this country is affiliated. Right from

363
the beginning of the war, when we tried as well as we could to carry on, the question of the cost of sports equipment—and, of course, throughout the war years there was the great difficulty of getting it—was most detrimental to the work we were trying to do. I am also Chairman of the National Training Centre which we have set up at Petersham Abbey. During my visits there, which are fairly frequent, I have talked to many of the young people, aged seventeen plus, who go down for what we call "training week-ends" or "training weeks" throughout the summer months. They all complain of the rising cost, not only of sports clothing which, of course, is considerable, but also of all forms of sports equipment. As my noble friend said, even the humble cricket ball and the humble football in everyday use on our greens, in our villages and around our towns, are now costing almost double what they did.
We all agree that the encouragement of the playing of games in this country, which has been the cradle of most of the great games of the world, is something we all desire, but, believe me, the discouragement of purchase tax, on top of the rising costs of all these articles, is having an opposite effect. In the early days when purchase tax first came into being, I understood, perhaps wrongly, that it was really introduced to quell expenditure on luxuries, things it was very pleasant to have but which were not essential to the national well-being during the war. That tax seems to have grown into a mammoth; everything which is not utterly essential to breathing, eating or working is considered a luxury and therefore liable to luxury tax. I know we want money. I know the Government need to scratch around to get money from every possible corner. But by putting tax on articles such as sports goods, which are a necessity to the health and wellbeing of our young people—or, for that matter, of our older people—we take the risk of all the training we can give them to play the game, instead of merely looking on, being lost. I hope the Government will take this matter into consideration. I do not see why it should be so difficult to set a hard and fast line. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, suggested that a difficulty might be that once the
364
net was opened all sorts of fish might swim out. I do not see why that should be so. Consultation with the governing bodies responsible for sports and games would soon reveal what was, and what was not, necessary to the playing of any particular game. Surely a schedule of some sort could be drawn up under which purchase tax could be either reduced or waived altogether on such articles as are really necessary for the playing of games. I heartily support my noble friend's plea, and I hope that the Government will give it most earnest consideration.
5.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think it may be taken for granted that the appeals that have just been made by noble Lords opposite find an echo amongst noble Lords who sit on this side of the House. We all agree that the sooner the embargoes upon sport and other important matters can be done away with, the better. But the Government are faced with the difficulty of finding unmentionable sums of money in view of the new circumstances which oppress the country, and I am afraid many deserving causes will have to continue to bear part of the burden for some time to come. It may be difficult for some noble Lords to understand that other causes are more deserving of attention than sport. I do not place sport at the bottom or at the top of the list, but when times are easier there will be a great many claims for the Government to consider before they can reach a conclusion on sport, deserving as it is. The Government have the question of purchase tax repeatedly under consideration with the object of finding out in what way we can relieve this or that person.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, probably realises the intricate nature of the changes that would be required and the safeguards that would have to be taken if we began to vary the arrangements which are now in force. We have a tax of 33⅓ per cent. which, by the way, now falls upon sportswear. The next tax is that of 66⅔ per cent., and then we have a tax of 100 per cent. Those are the three bases of purchase tax. But if we increase the number of those variations, we shall increase enormously the difficulties of the Government and the Treasury. May I venture to correct the statement in the noble Lord's Question? There

365
is no relief from purchase tax for sports equipment acquired by the Armed Forces through N.A.A.F.I. It is true that N.A.A.F.I. can buy such equipment tax free, but they are accountable for tax on all supplies to units in this country. For tax purposes N.A.A.F.I. are treated in the same way as wholesale traders.
LORD BARNBY: I appreciate the correction, but it only emphasises more strongly the fact that a matter which I did not bring up deserves attention.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, but the noble Lord will know that the Government are not able to by-pass the Forces at home. The Forces at home have to pay the tax, just as other citizens do. Only the Forces abroad escape the tax, just as, under the regulations which obtain, Americans, Germans, and South Africans can "buy British" and escape purchase tax. But the Government of the day, as well as Governments of the past, have not failed to appreciate the responsibility that falls upon them to help youth organisations, and it may interest noble Lords to know that in the year 1950–51—the financial year that has just closed—more than £100,000 was contributed by the Chancellor out of the Exchequer to organisations responsible for youthful activities. That is a fairly considerable sum. As I have said, it may be difficult to make a change in regard to purchase tax, but there is nothing to prevent noble Lords and their friends when the next Budget comes along from asking that there shall be more handsome payments to these voluntary organisations for this purpose. I am not saying that they will get what they ask for. All I am saying is that that would be something which, if granted, would give a great deal less trouble to the administration than by following the lines of the noble Lord's Question.
Let me give an indication of the organisations which are at present blessed with grants from the Minister of Education or from the local education authorities. I think the list will indicate to noble Lords the extent to which the grants are spread at the moment. It includes the Boy Scouts; the Girl Guides; the National Associations of Boys', Girls' and Mixed Clubs; the Boys' Brigade; the Church Lads' Brigade; the Association
366
of Jewish Youth; the National Association of Training Corps for Girls; the Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. I think a more fruitful source for obtaining help for the sport-loving boys and girls of our nation would be through those channels rather than by asking for a variation in a tax which all object to, which we all detest, but which at the moment unfortunately we have to pay because of the enormous commitments resting on the shoulders of our people.
5.49 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not propose to intervene in this Debate—indeed, unfortunately, owing to another engagement I was unable to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby—but there was one remark which I think occurred in two parts of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about which I should like a little elucidation. As I understand it, he said that it was impossible to reduce the purchase tax upon this sports equipment owing to the unmentionable amount of money which had to be raised by the Government. Is that intended to be, as it appears to be in fact, a direct statement by the Government that nowadays purchase tax is no longer to be regarded as it originally was, as a deterrent to spending on luxuries, but is a definite part of the ordinary, normal taxation of the country? That is a point that has been very frequently made and, so far as I know, no direct answer has yet been given. I should be very glad of one this afternoon.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that if the noble Marquess were to do the Chancellor of the Exchequer the honour of reading some of the speeches which he has made in financial debates in another place, he would learn that, when pressed for reductions, the Chancellor has replied, in effect: "Well, if we do reduce this tax to meet the purpose you have in view, where are we going to find the necessary taxation to make up for the sacrifices the Government are called upon to bear?" Obviously, these taxes, when they were first imposed, were for the purpose of restricting purchases. We now realise that they have fallen in with the general financial arrangements of the country, and they must remain until we can find some other way of meeting costs or find that it is

367
no longer necessary to levy them. In what I have just said, as the noble Marquess may know, I am speaking without my brief. I am, however, I hope, speaking within my recollection. Therefore, I hope that at some future stage I shall not be called to account for these words, and thus let the Chancellor of the Exchequer down.
5.51 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, naturally my noble friend Lord Barnby will be very disappointed with the Government reply. The noble Lord who replied seemed to take the line that the Government so often take with regard to matters of this sort. They say, in effect: "We cannot give you any help directly. But join an association, and then we will give a grant to the association; we will pop into one pocket, what we are taking out of the other." That, to my mind, is a thoroughly bad principle. This business of joining an association is absolutely anathema to me. The backbone of this sport throughout the country is the private club and the village club. They do not get grants from people in a normal way of business. Their subscriptions were always nominal: players paid half-a-crown or five shillings a year at the most, and the hat went round to the vice-presidents, and so on. But the vice-presidents and other supporters no longer have any money to pay out, so that to provide equipment which the clubs need requires a large proportionate increase in subscriptions, compared with what was charged before the war.
When His Majesty's Government next look at this matter, I suggest a way for them to think. First of all, in the matter of all these games, equipment can be divided into two parts. There is what one might call capital equipment and current expendable equipment. You can have a cricket team which needs twenty-two bats, eleven pairs of pads and eleven pairs of gloves. You can also have a team that can perform, perhaps as effectively, with three bats, three sets of pads and two pairs of gloves. But there is one thing common to both teams. They have to play with a cricket ball. When it comes to golf, you may find one player who needs fourteen clubs and a large amount of very expensive equipment, and another who plays probably rather better with
368
seven clubs. But both must have a ball to play with. Therefore, I suggest that His Majesty's Government should do their utmost to exempt what I call the more expendable items of equipment from the tax, so that it will be easier for clubs with very small financial resources at all events to put a team into the field. It might not be a team equipped with the normal quantities of equipment, but they could play the game so long as they had a ball to play with. It is the appalling tax on the ball which troubles private and village clubs to-day. A cricket ball now costs 30s., and in my own village that is the equivalent of the subscriptions of approximately one-quarter of our members. That is what a ball for use in a few matches alone costs.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may, I should like to say that we will give consideration to the points made by the noble Lord. But when he speaks of the price of a cricket ball being 30s., I hope that he does not want the House to believe that the whole of that sum goes in purchase tax.
LORD HAWKE: Of course not.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will understand that when purchase tax is taken off, the amount of money still needed to purchase a cricket ball is infinitely greater than it used to be. So all the responsibility for the increased price cannot be put on Government actions.

RAILWAYS TO STRATEGIC PORTS
5.56 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the strategic importance of the port of Whitstable in South-East Kent has been fully considered, in view of the report that the branch railway line, linking this port with the main line, is to be closed; and, while appreciating the interests of economy, whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to close other branch lines leading to similar ports. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have set down this Question so that it should be debated, because I felt that without some explanation the purport of the Question might not perhaps be clear, or even that it might be misunderstood. During a recent debate in your Lordships' House on defence,

369
I ventured to point out to His Majesty's Government that in the event of heavy mining taking place at the entrances to our larger ports it might well be necessary to discharge goods from our larger vessels into our smaller coasting ones, for redischarge at our smaller ports. I suggest that it is essential that railway branch lines leading to our small ports round the coast should be kept in a state of efficiency for emergency purposes.
In my Question, I have specifically mentioned the port of Whitstable, which was used during the last war for many purposes, including the refitting of a number of small naval craft and also, of course, for the unloading of goods and stores. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to maintain this port in operation. I suggest that it is not a practicable possibility to handle port goods at the main-line station. I understand that it is proposed to extend the sidings at the main-line station, at a cost of some £6,000. But I venture to point out that this will not provide facilities for traders and warehousemen, who will have to continue using the buildings at the harbour. There is little doubt that the closure of the branch line will mean the eventual decay of the port; and this, of course, would be a serious matter. I suggest that a little more money spent on improving the East Quay would be far more beneficial than spending it on unnecessary sidings, and would keep the port in operation and in a state of efficiency. In fact, I believe that the expenditure of some £12,000 to £15,000 would enable two vessels to be berthed at the East Quay. This expenditure would have the twofold effect of increasing railway receipts and also harbour dues.
I would add that it the past the port of Whitstable has handled a considerable quantity of goods in peace time, and I understand that up till recently a considerable trade was passing through the port. I hope that the Minister of Transport will issue a direction to the Transport Commission to reconsider their decision. I also hope that we may hear to-day from His Majesty's Government that the importance of these small ports will be borne in mind, and that every step will be taken to see that they are kept in a state of efficiency, since they, and the branch lines connecting them with the main railway system, may well be our lifelines in the
370
event of war. I appreciate fully that in the interests of economy it is necessary to close as many branch lines as possible which are not paying their way, in order to improve the financial basis of the nationalised railways. But it is vitally necessary that we should not lose sight of the strategic aspect of these matters, when we are thinking of closing down these branch lines.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has narrowed his Question to the strategic importance of a certain port and a certain length of railway line. As an old naval man, he will not expect me to assess the strategic importance of the port of Whitstable. The facts are these. The passenger service on the five miles of line from Whitstable to the harbour has been discontinued, the reason being that there was not enough traffic to make it economic to carry it on. The very efficient service given by the East Kent Road Car Company has taken the traffic away from it. The goods this line carries at present are sufficient for only one train each way per day. That certainly does not justify the British Transport Commission keeping this line open, at the cost of thousands of pounds a year. The goods traffic carried on the one goods train a day can he better carried, and carried more economically in the long run, by the Road Haulage Executive.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, is not the real point the fact that at the moment steamers cannot berth at the East Quay owing to the condition of the quay? If steamers could berth, then railway receipts, would go up.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's Question did not deal with berthing facilities, but with a length of railway line.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, he said something about the five miles from Whitstable to the harbour. I cannot see five miles on the map. Is he sure of that?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am talking about the length of line from Canterbury to Whitstable. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It is proposed to increase the sidings at Whitstable

371
and Tankerton station to deal with the traffic. The noble Lord is concerned with the losses of the British Transport Commission and the necessity for economy. I know that he will not mind my saying that it always happens, whenever the British Transport Commission close down a line on the ground of economy, that it instantly becomes, in the eyes of a number of people, the most important line in the country. I hope that the British Transport Commission will go on closing down these uneconomic lines.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has missed my point. I was talking not only about Whitstable, but about the other small ports in the country. Before closing branch lines to these small ports, we must be careful to make sure that these ports are not of strategic importance. I do not want to deal entirely with the Port of Whitstable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will not expect me to discuss the strategic importance of any port in this country: it would be improper. But I assure the noble Lord that all the facts have been taken into consideration. When a change of some strategic importance is proposed, my right honourable friend the Minister is informed, and if he thinks it necessary the Service Departments are consulted. The noble Lord will appreciate that in an island such as this, every means of transport has some strategic importance, and it is difficult to say whether one section of line going to a port or another in the middle of the country is of more strategic importance. As this line is an uneconomic proposition, it is proposed to close it down, and the British Transport Commission intend to adhere to their decision. I only hope that they will take similar action with many other lines, because the sooner we realise that many of these lines are costing far more money than they take, the better. The passage of time and circumstances have passed them by. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I have said. If he is not, and if there is local feeling on this matter, I would suggest that the local people do what is envisaged in the Transport Act, and put the case before the area consultative committee. So far as my right honourable friend the
372
Minister is concerned, he has had no complaints at all from any local interests. I give the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, the assurance that the strategic factor in this matter has been very carefully considered and that, leaving aside the strategic question, on economic grounds there is no case for keeping this branch line open.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has really answered the point which my noble friend made. As I see it, the question is not so much the closing of the line, as the closing of the port. My noble friend's case is that these small ports would become vital in the event of war, and that they must be kept open. I develop that by saying that if we close the railway lines that lead to them, however uneconomic they may be, there is a danger that the port will go completely out of use, so that we shall not have the use of it if war comes. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible line. I have always been an advocate of the closing down of uneconomic branch lines, but I have always qualified this by saying that if any defence Department objects to it they should be prepared to pay the care-and-maintenance charge, as used to be done by the Government of India, who maintained what were called strategic lines. Provided that we are willing to ignore the upkeep of stations, keep only the track in order, and prevent undergrowth from encroaching, the cost will be small—at the most, a ganger's pay for a year for every mile or two. If His Majesty's Government can assure my noble friend that some steps will be taken to see that the port is kept open, so that in the event of war it can be used and the branch line can either be revived from a care-and-maintenance to a service basis or connected with the main line which is within one mile of it, possibly his point would be met.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that that is the purport of Lord Teynham's Question. The Question specifically mentions the the effect upon this port of the closing down of the branch line, and asks whether it is the intention to close down other branch lines. I told the House that, after

373
considering all the factors, the closing down of this branch line will not affect the strategic importance of this port. I have given the House that assurance, which is based on the opinion of the competent authorities whom I have consulted. The other matter which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has memioned, that of keeping the line on a care-and-maintenance basis, is something which I do not think your Lordships will expect me to enter into this afternoon.

UTTOXETER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.