Lords Sitting of 27 January 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Scarsdale—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Brentford—Took the Oath.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BROMLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DUDLEY EXTENSION BELL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

POST OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the Post Office, with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision as to the substances other than penicillin to which the Penicillin Act, 1947, may be applied by regulations and to provide for relaxing in certain cases the restrictions imposed by that Act; and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

STRENGTH OF POLICE FORCE
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 Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the strength of the Metropolitan and other police forces in the United Kingdom to-day, and how this compares with the establishment and the figures for 1938.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on December 31, 1952, the authorised male establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force was 19,647, and the actual strength was 15,957. The comparable figures for other police forces in Great Britain were 59,899 and 55,458. On September 29, 1938, the authorised male establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force was 19,455 and the strength 18,600. The authorised establishment of the other police forces in England and Wales was 42,269 and the strength 41,316. On December 31, 1938, the authorised male establishment of the Scottish forces was 7,018 and the strength 6,930. Since 1938 the male strength in England and Wales has increased by 4,091 and the male strength of the Scottish police by 478.

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
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 Her Majesty's Government how many crimes of violence are known to the police to have occurred during the period from October 22, 1952, to January 20, 1953, and whether the figures indicate an increase or a decrease over the equivalent period a year ago.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret that figures are not available for the period referred to by the noble Earl. On the assumption that he has in mind such offences as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding, rape and robbery, I can say that the number of such crimes known to the police in England and Wales during the
4
first nine months of 1952 was 5,782. The corresponding figures for 1950 and 1951 were 5,427 and 5.493 respectively.

CORONATION ARRANGEMENTS
2.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your permission I propose to make a short statement. I have received so many requests for information about the position of Peers at the Coronation that I have thought it desirable, with your Lordships' leave, to make this brief statement. I am particularly moved to do so because some letters that I have received, and others which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has received, suggest that every Peer has a legal or constitutional right to be present at the Abbey ceremony.
As your Lordships are probably aware, all arrangements for the Coronation are made by the Coronation Commission, which was, in accordance with precedent, set up by the Queen last April, and by the Coronation Committee, which was set up by Order in Council last June and is, in fact, a Committee of the Privy Council. It was the duty of the Coronation Commission to consider those aspects of the arrangements for the Coronation which were of common concern to the United Kingdom and other Member States of the Commonwealth, and for this reason there were upon it representatives of both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
Amongst the matters of common concern was pre-eminently the question of seats in the Abbey. The result of the consideration of this matter by the Commission was that a certain number of seats was allocated to the House of Lords which, if every Peer wished to attend with his Peeress, must have proved insufficient. If the view that every Peer has an absolute right to a seat is correct, it is clear that any allocation of seats which did not provide for them all would be vain. I am, however, satisfied that this is an incorrect view. I can assure your Lordships that I have made such researches as I could and have sought all the advice that was open to me, and in the result I am convinced that it lies entirely within the Royal Prerogative or otherwise within the personal power of the Sovereign to determine what Peers

5
shall be summoned to the Abbey and what services shall be rendered by them; and it would be clearly improper in this House to challenge or criticise the exercise by the Sovereign of such powers.
I do not think your Lordships would wish me to embark on a lengthy discussion as to the reason why I have come to this conclusion. But I will, with your permission, make a few observations. The letters that I have received lead me to think that some of your Lordships may have confused rights with duties. I do not doubt that it is still, in theory at least, the duty of a Peer to do homage to the Sovereign if he is required to do so, and that an appropriate time and place for it is at the Coronation ceremony: but it does not follow, and is in my opinion an untenable proposition, that a Peer has therefore the right to insist on doing homage on that occasion if he is not required to do so. On the contrary, the Sovereign may release him from this duty, as he may from any other duty or service which is owed him. And it is interesting to note in this very matter of homage that, whereas formerly the Sovereign required each individual Peer to give the kiss of homage and touch the Crown, from 1902 onwards the duty has been changed, and homage has been rendered only by the premier Noble of each rank on behalf of his peers. Other Peers have urged that, as a Peer has a constitutional right to be summoned to Parliament, so he has the right to be summoned to the Coronation. The answer, I think, is clear: that the former was established as a right many centuries ago; that ample authority for it can be found in our records, and that there is a well-recognised manner of asserting it; in the case of the latter, there is no such precedent nor any method of asserting it. And there is nothing strange in this, for the two so-called rights have so link in common that it would be foolish to argue from one to the other.
In other letters, I have found the suggestion that it is a right established by long usage for a Peer to attend the Coronation ceremony. This is an argument that cannot be accepted. In the first place, it once more confuses "right" with "duty": in the second place, it is based upon the assumption, which I believe not to be well founded, that the Sovereign has
6
always summoned all Peers to his Coronation; and in the third place, to found a claim of right upon usage is, as every lawyer knows, a very difficult thing to do, and in such a case as this, a thing impossible to do, since the usage is sufficiently explained by the right which lies in the Sovereign to require attendance.
One noble Lord has asked me certain questions upon which he hopes to be satisfied, and I conveniently take this opportunity of answering his questions. The first question that he asked is this: When the Peers meet in the Abbey, are they not sitting in Parliament? Parliament can, of course, meet in a church. The answer to that question is that at the Coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey, the Peers are not sitting in Parliament. The second question the noble Lord asked me is this: The new Sovereign clearly enters the Abbey not as a Sovereign but as a candidate for the Sovereignty, and in the "Recognition" receives a vote of confidence. Can this be given except by those who have a right to give it? My answer to that is that the premise of this question is so clearly wrong that no answer can he given to it, except to say that the new Sovereign, having been proclaimed King, is already Sovereign when he enters the Abbey, and that so far as his Title is concerned, no Coronation ceremony is necessary. The third question which the noble Lord asked is this: if the Sovereign excludes Lord X, can he not also exclude the Archbishop of Canterbury? My answer is that this is a question upon which I should not care to dogmatise. But I recall at least one instance where a Sovereign was not crowned by the Archbishop. She had in fact before the ceremony committed him to the Tower, and there he stayed.
My Lords, it was hoped that the quota of seats allocated to the House of Lords might be sufficient for all Peers who wished to attend with their Peeresses, for many Peers had already generously intimated that they would willingly make way for representatives of the Commonwealth. This proved not to be the case, as there were still more Peers who wanted seats than there were seats available. At this juncture, however, a change occurred which made it appear possible that there might yet be enough seats in the Abbey, for it became known I hat a covered stand was to be erected outside the Abbey in

7
which seats were to be available for Peers who did not get seats in the Abbey. A number of Peers spontaneously expressed a preference for these seats, and it was decided to offer alternative accommodation, to consist of two free seats and two seats to be paid for in the covered stand, to all the Peers who had expressed a wish to attend the ceremony. This was done, and a number of Peers did choose seats in the stand. But unfortunately not enough of them did so to enable all Peers who still wanted seats in the Abbey for themselves and their Peeresses to be thus accommodated. This position could be met only in one way—namely, by giving priority to certain Peers who were entitled to it by virtue of some special distinction, such as a Privy Counsellorship, and then by holding a ballot. This was accordingly done and Peers have been told of the result.
I can conveniently at this stage remind your Lordships of the position as to seats in the stands. A Peer who has not been given seats in the Abbey, either because he was unsuccessful in the ballot or because he did not apply for them—and will your Lordships mark those words, because there has been some confusion?—is entitled to a free seat for himself and a free seat for his Peeress in the covered stand, and he is also entitled to have two more seats in the same stand on payment of£6 for each seat. A Peer who has been given seats in the Abbey is not entitled to any seats in the covered stand, but is entitled to two seats in the uncovered stand upon payment of£4 for each seat. Applications for seats should be made to my Private Secretary, at the Lord Chancellor's Department, House of Lords. Cheques should accompany the application and should be made payable to Her Majesty's Paymaster General.
2.53 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I gather from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that he shares the feeling of regret that it should have been necessary to have a ballot at all—a regret which I have heard expressed by everyone to whom I have spoken on this subject, whether members of your Lordships' House or not. It is most regrettable that there has had to be a ballot. It is a precedent that has
8
caused a good deal of uneasiness. Anticipating this event, I gave notice on December 16 last of a Question not for Oral Answer, which has not yet been answered. As the Lord Chancellor's statement has not covered all the points that I raised in that Question I will, with your Lordships' permission, repeat the Question from the Order Paper. It begins as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of a ballot being necessary for places for Peers at Her Majesty's Coronation, the ballot will be for each order of the Peerage or whether it will he a general ballot."
I think that is a legitimate question to ask in relation to this unprecedented event. It is something which may recur in the future, and I think that more information is required. That is one part of the Question I put on the Order Paper which has not yet been answered. I then asked, as the second part of my Question
"who will conduct this ballot."
I should like an answer to that as well. I also asked, as the third part of the Question,
"when Peers may expect to be informed of the result."
That was on December 16. Of course the third part of the Question has already been answered, through the post: Peers have now been informed whether or not they have been successful.
There are other questions to which I think we are entitled to have answers, and which may be answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, by the Leader of the House, or by the person responsible. I should like to ask, how many seats were allocated to Peers. After all, I think we should know that. I have a great admiration for those Peers who stood aside for members of the Dominions, or for other reasons. But it is our Coronation, and this is the first time that this has happened. I think we ought to know how many seats in the Abbey were allocated for Peers and Peeresses. Secondly, I would ask, how many Peers applied? If that question is answered, we shall know the kind of percentage of unsuccessful applicants. That is a very simple question and I think we are entitled to know the answer. If it is not convenient for the Lord Chancellor to give a reply to day, perhaps it could be circulated in the usual way in

9
due course. The last part of the Lord Chancellor's statement said that those who were successful in the ballot should send to him for seats in the uncovered stand. I think I am right in saying that I received a notice to the effect that we had to apply to the Lord Chamberlain.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is entirely a matter of convenience. I have arranged with the Earl Marshal's Office that, in order to save him some of the burden, applications by Peers for seats in the stand should be sent to my office. It is simply a matter of machinery between us.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am obliged. I do not want it to appear that I am making factious complaints or criticisms. Obviously, this has been a most difficult task, and I feel that great sympathy should be extended not only to all the members of the Commission but particularly to the Earl Marshal himself. I do not see the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, present, but he must have had a tremendous, responsible and delicate burden thrown upon his shoulders. I dissociate myself from any sort of suggestion of criticism of the work that he does in the honorary fulfilment of his great office. I want to make that perfectly clear. Nevertheless, I think further information is required. I repeat, in my opinion it is most regrettable, from many points of view which I will not specify, that a ballot was needed, and I trust that your Lordships will support me in asking for this explanation.
2.59 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I said a word at this point. The Lord Chancellor has made so full and clear a statement to your Lordships that I had not expected that it would be necessary for me to intervene at all. But there have been one or two questions asked (I do not complain of that at all) and it is perhaps desirable, therefore, that I should say a word.
My Lords, as to the doubts which have been expressed by noble Lords and others about the absolute right of Peers to attend the Coronation, that subject has not been raised following the Lord Chancellor's authoritative statement, and I do not
10
think it is necessary for me to say any more on that point. There are, however, one or two questions that have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to which perhaps I should give an answer. If I understood him aright, his first question was this: if a ballot was in fact necessary, were noble Lords balloted for in their ranks, or all together? The answer is, that they were balloted for all together: everybody had an equal chance. The second question asked by the noble Lord was: how many seats were allocated to the House of Lords, and how many Peers applied? I cannot give that information. I say frankly that it is a matter for the Coronation Committee; it is not a matter on which I am entitled to give any information. I would say to the noble Lord that no information as to the number of seats allotted has ever been given in the past. This has always been regarded as a matter for the Committee or the Commission dealing with the Coronation. I think those are the main questions which I have been asked.
The noble Lord said that he thought it very regrettable that there should have had to be a ballot. I entirely agree with every word he said about that. I do not suppose there is anyone, whether it be the Coronation Commission, or the Coronation Committee, or the Earl Marshal, or the Lord Chancellor, or people like myself who have been called into consultation, who has liked the ballot in this connection. We have all thought it a most unfortunate necessity. We have done our utmost to avoid it, but we have been up against two hard facts, facts which all your Lordships would be up against. First of all, the Abbey is exactly the same size as it has always been, and, secondly, the number of those who not only wish to attend but ought to attend—especially from the Commonwealth and Empire—has greatly increased since the last Coronation. That is inevitable. There is, therefore, much less room for those categories of people who previously attended the ceremony.
No device, however ingenious, that was explored has succeeded in overcoming this fundamental difficulty. It was therefore apparent that some method of selection had to be found, and it was equally apparent to those who had to consider this matter that a ballot was the

11
fairest method. Supposing the Earl Marshal or the Coronation Committee or the Coronation Commission had selected the Peers they thought ought to go; or supposing—much worse—that the ballot had been faked, how much more ground for complaint would there then have been!I have heard suggestions in various quarters that this ballot has been faked, that it has not been a genuine ballot. As to that suggestion I can only tell your Lordships these facts. The names were drawn by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice himself, in the presence of the Earl Marshal. I think the House will therefore see that there was nothing "hole and corner" or underhand about the procedure.
In any case—and this is the last thing I want to say—I would suggest, with all deference to your Lordships, whatever you may feel about this, that what has happened is in full harmony with the most fundamental principles which underlie our Constitution. It is a voluntary change in the ancient fabric of the Constitution to meet changing needs. What is it that we are proudest of in our history? It is not that we preserved the feudal system longer than anyone else, but that we were the first people to discard it in favour of parliamentary government. It is not that we were the last people to uphold the Divine Right of Kings, but that we were the first people to transform it into a Constitutional Monarchy. The sort of change which we are discussing to-day is a very small matter compared with those great changes, but I submit that it is in the same spirit and that that is its main justification.
This House enjoys at the present time (and I think we may say this without undue smugness) the respect of a great many people far outside the Parties of the Right, and it does so because we are regarded—and this, I hope, applies to all of us, in all Parties—as being actuated by a broad spirit of moderation, combined with wisdom, statesmanship and common sense. If on this particular occasion we had done what I think some people—but not very many—would have liked, and had shown ourselves rigid or unyielding, unwilling to yield one jot or tittle of what we regarded as our ancient privileges, I believe that we should have forfeited a large measure of the respect
12
which we to-day enjoy. The dignity and understanding which I know your Lordships have shown in the face of a decision which, inevitably, has caused doubts and disappointment will, I feel certain, still further enhance our reputation. For that, I must, if I may do so as Leader of the House, tender my grateful thanks to noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber.
3.6 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I would only say, having considered this matter, that, while sharing the regret which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has felt about the necessity for the ballot, I came to the conclusion that the course which the noble Marquess has indicated was right and, indeed, inevitable.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to add that I never for a moment suggested that there was any sort of unfairness connected with the ballot. I hope that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House does not attribute that view to me. In my remarks there was no hint of that at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, that is perfectly correct—no one in this Chamber has even suggested it. But I have heard suggestions that it might be the case, and I was anxious to take this opportunity of making clear that it was not so.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like further to say, if I may be allowed to do so, that I am certain that we may have great confidence that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House did his best to uphold our position in this very important matter. I am certain of that from what I know of the noble Marquess's career and standing. May I also say that I do not see any reason why we should not have the information which I asked for about numbers? The noble Marquess has not got it, but it can be obtained, I presume. I do not see any reason for secrecy. I think we ought to know how many seats were allocated and how many noble Lords applied, and I hope that the House will support me in asking for this information.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Marquess the Leader of the House agree with me that it is an occasion for great rejoicing, and not for regret, that we have this great increase

13
in the numbers of leaders from independent countries within the Commonwealth who have a right to attend the Coronation?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would entirely agree with the noble Viscount. I only wish that Westminster Abbey had grown at the same pace.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANE OUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p m.
Read 3a(according to Order); Amendments (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (PERSONAL IN JURIES) (A.MENDMENT) (SCOT LAND) BILL
3.9 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Removal of surface soil without planning permission to be an offence against this Act.
1.—(1) if—

(a) a person removes surface soil from agricultural land with a view to the sale of that soil, and

(b) the removal of that soil constitutes development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and is carried out without the grant of permission required in that behalf under Part III of that Act,

he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b) to add:
"and
(c) the quantity of soil so removed in any one quarter amounts to more than five cubic yards,"
The noble and learned Earl said: I have gone through this Bill again, and although I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill at all it seems to me that we should do something to improve it in certain respects. The great case that called attention to this problem arose not far from London, where land was being devastated by someone taking off the top soil from a large acreage and disposing of it at considerable profit. It was felt right that there should he some machinery by which such practices could be stopped. On the other hand, I think everybody agrees that it is desirable not to cast our net so wide that we bring within it all sorts of small and trivial matters which ought not to be the subject of criminal proceedings.
To my mind, the weak feature of the Bill, as it is now drafted, is that the test of whether or not a criminal offence has been committed, depends on whether there has been technically a development under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. The object of fixing what was development, within the meaning of that Act, was to attract development charge, and I think it undesirable to use the somewhat vague terminology of that Act to create a criminal offence. The development is defined under the Act as:
"Carrying out building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land."
The whole question is: What are "other operations?" I suppose these words must be read having regard to what has gone before—engineering and mining and the like—but it is by no means easy to assert with authority what are "other operations." There is an exception in the Town and Country Planning Act which makes it plain what is not covered—namely
"the carrying out by a local authority or statutory undertakers of any works for the inspection or renewing of pipes."
From that I infer that, had there not been that express provision, the work of inspecting pipes on land would have been "other operations" within the meaning of the main part of the Act. That is the definition of what is development,

15
although, of course, there is a provision under Section 17 of the Act, if I remember aright, which enables anyone to go to the planning authority and expound what he is going to do, and they can assert whether that will or will not constitute development.
I must here declare an interest. For many years past I have been very interested in gardening. I believe that people make a great mistake in paying too much money in buying plants. I think it would be much better to spend more money in getting the soil in which they are going to put the plants into the right sort of condition, by the drainage of beds, the taking away of the clay subsoil, if there is a clay subsoil, and providing a proper drainage system. If you do that, you will find that you will have to get some other soil to top up. You will find it necessary, as I found it necessary, to get a lorry load of top soil in order that you may create a bed. In my area, where I am living now, near Bury St. Edmunds, the soil is extraordinarily good for growing asparagus. A noble Lord who lives at The ford grows what he claims to be, and what I believe is, the best asparagus grown in this country. It is not unknown for residents of my neighbourhood to get a lorry load of soil from The ford to make an asparagus bed. I hope that is not a reprehensible thing to do. After all, I take it that the public interest is that all soil should be put to the best advantage, and it may be that soil in an asparagus bed in Bury St. Edmunds is performing just as useful a work as soil on the open land at The ford. I understand that the promoters of this Bill do not want to deal with that sort of case, but with the kind of serious waste found in the other case. I am surprised that the horticultural societies have not taken more interest in this matter. We find that horticultural merchants provide special compost mixtures of top soil and silver sand or river sand, which give suitable soils for growing whatever it may be. They must buy top soil in considerable quantities in order to be able to deal with all their customers, though the composts are sold to customers in comparatively small bags
My object in this Amendment is to try to take these comparatively small operations out of the ambit of the Bill. In this Amendment I put the arbitrary
16
figure of five cubic yards in any one quarter as something we should not trouble about. I understand that my Amendment would be more acceptable and more legal if, instead of "one quarter," I substituted the words "period of three months" so as to make the Amendment read:
"and
(c) the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards."
With your Lordships' permission, I will move the Amendment in that form. That is my sole object. I do not want to interfere in any way with the purpose of the Bill. I want to prevent small transactions such as this from coming within the purview of an Act of Parliament, becoming a criminal offence and rendering a person so offending liable to a fine not exceeding£100, which is a serious matter. Of course, there is the view that, under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, one can go and fill up what is no doubt rather a formidable form explaining what is proposed to be done and asking whether it is or is not a development. I suggest that this Amendment carries out the object of this legislation much better and more faithfully if we exempt from its purview these small and trivial matters. I have suggested as a test five cubic yards in any period of three months, which I hope and believe will be acceptable to the authorities and will improve the Bill by confining it to the sort of case that really ought to need it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("Act") insert:
"and
(c) the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards."—(Earl Jowitt.)
LORDAMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for moving this Amendment. As he so rightly says, the object of the Bill is to prevent the devastation of large areas of land by the removal of top soil: it is not intended to prevent the noble Earl from buying a small load of soil to improve his garden. The definite figure of five cubic yards makes it clear to people whether or not they are likely to be committing an offence. Therefore, I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment in the terms in which the noble and learned Earl moved it.
3.20 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: As your Lordships know, I took an interest in this Bill and, indeed, introduced it in this House on the first occasion. As the noble and learned Earl has said, no doubt a local planning authority would have given permission to take away a lorry load of soil, and application could have been made to them under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act for such permission. But that is not the kind of act with which this measure is intended to deal. It is intended to deal with, and to give a quicker remedy against, the man who is devastating a large area of ground by taking off all the top soil and thereafter making it almost impossible to grow anything upon the land. I feel that the noble and learned Earl's Amendment makes it plain that the Bill is not meant to deal with a minor operation of that kind.
However, when I come to look at the terms of this Amendment, I rather wonder about two things. First, the noble and learned Earl defines what may be taken in cubic yards—I believe that one cubic yard is about one ton of soil. It is not too easy to determine what is a cubic yard, and I wonder whether we should define by weight the amount of soil that may be removed. Throughout the country, as noble Lords will realise, we have weighbridges; and since the weight of the lorry unladen would be well known, it would be only a question, if the soil were thought to exceed the permitted amount, of weighing the lorry that was taking it away. I am not saying that mine is the better method, but I wonder whether it would not be more convenient than that of the noble and learned Earl. It may be that it will be easier to measure five cubic yards, but I think we should consider whether we are doing it in the right way by adopting the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl.
I should also like to raise this point with the noble and learned Earl. When I read the proposed paragraph (c), in conjunction with paragraph (a) of subsection (1), which says:
"If
(a) a person removes surface soil from agricultural land with a view to the sale of that soil…"
18
and the quantity of soil so removed in any period of three months amounts to more than five cubic yards, I gather that the five cubic yards would have to be taken away and sold by the same person. But I am wondering whether it would have to be taken from the same piece of agricultural land. That is merely a point that occurs to me. It may well be that those two points can be looked into—perhaps we might have some advice from the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Local Government and Planning—between now and the Report stage. In that event, I suggest that this measure should not be put down for another week or ten days, to give time to look into those points, because we want to get the drafting in the most convenient form.
EARL JOWITT: I hope that the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture will speak to us on this matter. I shall be perfectly prepared to put myself in the hands of the Ministry if they are going to look into the matter, and to accept their decision. When you buy soil for this purpose, you always buy it by the cubic yard. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will find that the cubic yard is perfectly well understood as the kind of measure people have in mind. If I am wrong about that, I shall be told. I should not mind changing to weight, if that were more convenient, but I imagine that the cubic yard is the better of the two. As to the form of the thing, I should be grateful if some expert could look into it, and should naturally be prepared to accept, on the next stage of the Bill, whatever modification might be thought desirable of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should like to say a few words on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. We have looked into this matter, in conjunction with the promoters of the Bill, and, subject to the slight changes which the noble and learned Earl has made, we are perfectly satisfied with this Amendment as it has now been moved. With regard to the two points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Llewellin, I agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that the measurement of a cubic yard, rather than a ton, is probably more convenient, as all manure and soil is bought in that way, and it is a measure that is well understood when discussing that sort of commodity. I will ask the promoters to look

19
into the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin.
Owing to previous legislation, this matter comes under town and country planning and the use of land, but it is really an agricultural matter, and it was this particularly grave case, which has been mentioned and which occurred in the southern counties, that led to the introduction of the original Bill. It is purely an agricultural matter. It concerns cases where people buy a fair-sized block of land—land which should be used for cultivating and producing a large amount of foodstuffs but which is used merely to sell off the top soil, the rest beings old for building plots, and one thing and another, leaving the land, from an agricultural point of view, derelict for all time. After all, we are trustees of the land of this island, and we should all try to guard it to see that it is kept and used for the best purpose. That is really the point of the Bill. As regards the soil merchants mentioned by the noble and learned Earl Lord Jowitt, I think they are well safeguarded, because under the Act you have to get planning permission to develop building sites, playing grounds, chalk pits, sand pits, and so on, and then, when planning permission has been given, the top soil is taken off in large quantities, and is the soil on which the reputable soil merchants rely for their produce. Quite frankly, I do not think we can grumble at this, and I can say, on behalf of the Government, that we support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
3.29 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given notice of an Amendment, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Consent of Attorney-General before prosecution
".No prosecution under this Act shall be brought save with the consent of the Attorney-General."
The noble and learned Earl said: There are many illustrations of this Amendment in our Statute Book. The object, I suppose, is to see that trivial and annoying
20
prosecutions are not brought; that there is some good reason for prosecuting. I am ashamed to say that my draft has one very bad mistake—and I apologise to the Scotsmen. My Amendment should read:
"No prosecution under this Act shall be brought in England and Wales save with the consent of the Attorney-General."
LORD LLEWELLIN: "England or Wales."
EARL JOWITT: Yes, I think that is right.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Earl said "and."
EARL JOWITT: I am not seeking by a side wind to extend the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General to the Scots, and I will, if I may, move the Amendment in this form:
"No prosecution under this Act shall be brought in England or Wales save with the consent of the Attorney-General."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(".No prosecution under this Act shall be brought in England or Wales save with the consent of the Attorney-General.")—(Earl Jowitt.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I have no objection to the Amendment which the noble and learned Earl has moved, and I am grateful to him for moving it. There is no question that there should be any trivial prosecutions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.