Lords Sitting of 14 May 1953

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

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL
2.35 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 Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [White fish subsidy]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON) had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (2), the first being to omit "either." The noble Lord said: These two Amendments come together; they are really clarifying Amendments. Clause 5 (2) of the Bill enables a scheme of white fish subsidy to provide:
"either in respect of white fish landed in the United Kingdom from the vessel during a period prescribed by the scheme or in respect of voyages made…"
The intention is to enable subsidy to be assessed on the white fish landed, or on the voyage, or on a combination of the two. At present, inshore fishermen are paid entirely on the white fish landed a subsidy of tenpence a stone, while owners of near and middle water vessels receive payments in two parts—fourpence a stone for white fish landed and a further payment on a sliding scale based on the financial results of each voyage. There is some doubt whether Clause 5 (2) as it stands permits a combination of the two methods of assessment. I think it could be argued that it permits only either one or the other but not both together. The object of the two Amendments is to make clear that a combination of these two methods is in order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("either").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("Kingdom") insert ("or in respect of white fish so landed and of voyages so made".—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the care which he has taken over this particular clause.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of yesterday), the Amendments reported: Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed; and returned to the Commons.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

COASTAL FLOODING (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we had a very helpful debate in your Lordships' House about ten weeks ago on the East Coast Flood Disaster, and in replying to it I was able to announce the Government's intention to introduce a Bill giving river boards special emergency powers so that, when plans for restoring our East Coast sea defences were ready, there should be no delay in acting upon them. That is the Bill which is now before your Lordships.
I said at the time (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 1029):
"We think that this is an essential and urgent measure because it would obviously be disastrous if, when works had been

515
planned and were ready to go ahead, they were held up by procedural delays. We have to choose between drastic powers and the risk of entering next winter inadequately prepared to meet the normal winter tides and storms. I feel that there can be no doubt what our choice ought to be and must be."
What I said then serves very well, I think, as an introduction to this Bill. The need for the many things that were done during February and March was clear enough. The exertions we then made had their reward. The river boards, I think, ought to be congratulated on their prompt action and the good work they put in after the floods. The emergency repairs withstood the spring tides. Now we are in the summer, and unless something abnormal happens there should be no serious threat of further flooding for a time but we cannot in any way afford to relax our efforts. We must be ready for the storms next autumn and we must, by then, so far as possible, restore our sea defences at least to the standards that existed before the floods. River boards are at the moment pressing on energetically with this permanent work. Much is already in hand, and more will be started in the near future as plans are completed and contracts made. Work costing some £8 million to £10 million is now in progress or being planned. There will be a reasonable amount of consultation with persons and authorities affected, but no formalities must stand in the way of getting this work done. Provisions contained in the Bill are designed to ensure this.
The main purpose of the Bill is set out in Clause 1 (1) (a). It is the constructing, improving or repairing of embankments for the defence against sea water of the areas flooded or threatened with flooding as a result of last winter's storms in the Kent, Essex, East Suffolk and Norfolk, Great Ouse, Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire river board areas. It is in these areas that the principal damage was done, and most of the work of reconstruction falls to be done by these six river boards. Under this clause the Minister may authorise them, in accordance with proposals submitted, to do this work of bank construction. With limited exceptions, which I shall mention, no notice of the proposals is needed under Clause 3 of the Bill, because no one can deny the need for the bank, and engineering considerations will determine the line
516
on which it is to be built. Similarly, under Clause 4 (5), formal planning consent is not needed for this work. Under Clause 1 (3) (b), bank construction may be done on a building, or on the site or curtilage of a building, and may also be done without formal consent on Crown land and on land belonging to a Government Department. Clearly, this work of bank construction must be done quickly and cannot be subject to the ordinary processes of notification, receipt and consideration of objections, and possibly public inquiries, which, as your Lordships will agree, are proper in normal times. Similar provisions apply to earth-getting combined with bank construction and access road works so combined. These phrases are defined in Clause 18 (2) of the Bill.
The other works that may be authorised under Clause 1 (1) of the Bill contribute to the main purpose of bank construction. Under paragraph (b), authorisation may be given for earth-getting—that is to say, the winning of materials for bank construction. Under paragraph (c), authorisation may be given to construct or improve roads to give access to the bank from public highways; and under paragraph (d) temporary housing accommodation may be built for people engaged on the work. None of these three classes of work may be done on a building or on the site or curtilage of a building; nor may they be done on Crown land without consent. Under Clause 3 (1) of the Bill a fortnight's notice of any such work to the owner or occupier, and notice in the local Press, must be given; and the Minister will consider any representations made before authorisations are issued. Clause 2 deals with the special case where the construction of a bank involves interference with a highway.
This is an Emergency Provisions Bill and under Clause 1 (1) authorisations may be given during only the present year. Things authorised may be done in the period ending June 30, 1954. We hope that all the necessary authorisations will have been given by the end of this year and all the works done by the middle of next year. I assure your Lordships that we do not intend to continue special powers any longer than is necessary and can be justified. But we cannot tell at this stage what setbacks

517
may be met. Under Clause 1 (2), therefore, the period in which authorisations may be given, or the works period, may be extended for another twelve months by order, subject to Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
I think I need only refer briefly to the other main provisions in Part I of the Bill. Clause 4 enables authorisations to be given subject to conditions, and also confers various ancillary powers on river boards in connection with works authorisations, including powers of entry, which are subject to certain limitations where occupied premises are concerned. This clause empowers river boards to restore land on which work has been done and in appropriate cases the Minister may require such restoration. Clause 5 deals with the maintenance of works constructed under a works authorisation, and Clause 6 applies the ordinary land purchase provisions of the River Boards Act to land for which a works authorisation has been given. This clause also makes it clear that the river boards' powers include a power both to acquire an existing easement and to create a new easement in their favour.
Clause 7 enables river boards to use private ways to gain access to the site of authorised works, and Clause 8 confers on the river board the same power as the occupier himself has to exclude persons from land subject to a works authorisation. It is most important that the works done for the defence of the community against further flooding should not be hindered or damaged by crowds of sightseers. Clause 10 deals with compensation for various things to be done under the Bill, and your Lordships will notice that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) is drafted in very wide terms. The draft Order providing for compensation has to be presented to each House of Parliament, and no works authorisation can be given until it has been so presented. A draft Order is nearly ready, and I would prefer not to discuss the possible contents of it now.
Clause 11 deals with Government contributions towards work, and I should explain that this clause is necessary only because the existing power under the Land Drainage Act to pay grants is limited to things done under that Act, so we have to provide also for things done under this Bill. Clause 12 provides that
518
the powers of the Bill are additional to, and not in substitution for, those contained in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the River Boards Act, 1948. I would stress this point, because much of the work of restoration or improvement of sea defences will, in fact, be done by agreement or under the ordinary powers of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. We have already instructed river boards that they should, so far as possible, proceed under these powers, and should resort to the exceptional powers conferred by the Bill only when work cannot be done quickly under normal powers.
My Lords, it is essential that nothing should hold up this vital work. We now have only four and a half months before the autumn equinox in which to complete at least the restoration of our sea defences. In some areas, also, improvement works must be done before the autumn.
So much for Part I of the Bill. Part II deals with an entirely different aspect of the floods—namely, that of repairing the damage caused to farm land when the sea broke through at the end of January. All told, the flooded area was just short of 160,000 acres, to which must be added several thousand acres—we cannot yet say with any precision how much—impregnated with salt by the passage of the sea water up the ditches and land drains beyond the area actually inundated. To get all this land back into production again is a national responsibility. The operation will be long and expensive, and it is not a matter that falls within the scope of the Lord Mayor of London's Fund. Perhaps I may digress for a moment to congratulate the Lord Mayor on the resounding success of his appeal. To have reached a total of over £4 million—to which the Government are contributing pound for pound—is a truly remarkable achievement.
We feel sure that if the land is given proper treatment much of it will be fit for ordinary cultivation by 1955. The worst of it may take another two years. The Government propose to give generous financial help towards restoration. Part II of the Bill will enable the Government to make acreage payments to those occupiers of agricultural land that was damaged by salt water, provided that the occupier conforms to an approved programme of rehabilitation I can

519
assure your Lordships that these programmes will be kept very flexible. There will be nothing cut-and-dried about them. All we ask is that the farmers will cooperate with us in this task. Acreage payments will be payable for allotment gardens, but it would create a serious administrative burden if each allotment holder had to be paid directly by the county agricultural executive committee in the same way as farmers will be paid. For allotment gardens, therefore, payments will be made to local authorities, allotment societies and similar bodies who have an interest in not less than half an acre.
In addition to these acreage payments, owners and occupiers will be relieved of almost all the cost of getting the drains and ditches running freely again, repairing and renewing fences, hedges, farm roads and farm bridges, removing debris from the fields and grubbing up and replanting orchards.
Perhaps I may say a word about Clause 15, which applies the sanctions of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947 to the rehabilitation of land damaged by salt water. We are confident that the overwhelming majority of farmers who suffered so heavily from the floods will readily co-operate in the long and arduous process of getting their land back into productivity. But if this is to be treated as a national responsibility, your Lordships will agree, I feel sure, that powers must be taken to deal effectively with any wilful obstruction. I hope that your Lordships will accept the emergency powers contained in this Bill as right and necessary; and that we shall have the help of your Lordships in passing this measure through all its stages speedily so that it may receive the Royal Assent before the Whitsun Recess. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it had been arranged that my noble friend Lord Listowel would speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I regret to say that, for some reason unknown to us at present, he is unable to be here. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not mind
520
my trespassing on your time for a few moments. Some days ago we were approached by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House with a request to expedite the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, in order that it might become law at the earliest possible date. We were quite willing to agree to the suggestion made, because we realised the importance of speed, not merely in the interests of those who have been affected, but also in the interests of the nation itself, in view of the coming of next winter. Therefore, we shall not work very heavily in changing the character of this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. This will not be because we fail to see ways in which it could be improved, but because we feel that speed is even more important at this stage than changing some of the provisions of the Bill.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord who has just spoken that farmers who do not carry out their duty in the recovery of the fertility of their land will be thoroughly dealt with. I agree with the noble Lord that farmers, in the main, not only are industrious workmen in their own interests but think constantly of the needs of the nation. However, there are among them, as in every walk of life, men who will neglect their duty, and it is our business to ensure that they do not profit by it. This Bill is to operate only for a short period, and during that time certain actions will be taken without the usual arrangements for examination and determination of what should be done. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed that there shall be a periodic report on the progress made under this Bill, and whether such reports will be placed before Parliament. If Parliament is to pass this Bill through quickly, without too much investigation, then we should be kept aware of what is actually taking place. Because of the need for speed, planning consent will not be necessary for any action taken by the river boards in carrying out the work which they will be called upon to do. Nevertheless, I presume there will be consultation with the persons responsible for planning. It seems to me that, if that were done, there would be no great risk of these new works interfering with the future planning of the area which they cover.

521
My final word is this. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned the Act of 1930, covering drainage, and the Act of 1948, dealing with coast erosion.
LORD CARRINGTON: The river boards.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, the river boards. I take it that at some time we may be informed whether the Government contemplate any major legislation of a more permanent kind, in order to enable works protecting the coast to be carried out over a wider area than may be possible through the smaller authorities. It will be helpful if we can be told about that matter, because we shall then know exactly what we are doing. With those few words, I would say that noble Lords on this side of the House will support the Second Reacting of the Bill and will see that it is carried through quickly.
3.0 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very good explanation to your Lordships of this most important Bill. He was good enough to ask me whether I was going to speak on the Bill, and I told him I was not. But there are one or two questions I think my noble friend, Lord Listowel, was going to raise, and hope your Lordships will allow me in his absence to refer to them. First of all, the noble Lord spoke of his forecast of the Bill in your Lordships' House in reply to a Motion that I myself was allowed to raise. I do not know whether he knows it, but the fact that he made that forecast to your Lordships' House has been criticised in certain quarters. I cannot imagine why. I see no reason at all why a responsible Minister like the noble Lord should not make pronouncements to your Lordships' House on any subject which affects our discussions, and I am very glad personally, as I think most of your Lordships will be, that he took that opportunity.
May I ask these questions? The noble Lord gave us the figures of the immense area flooded in this terrible disaster last January. Has all the water now been cleared off the land? The last we heard was that there were still 12,000 acres inundated. Has the water all been drained away, and is the land now dry—I do not mean a few acres, but is there
522
any large area remaining under water? Secondly, the noble Lord spoke about the Lord Mayor's Fund. We all echo what he said about this remarkable achievement and the great debt we owe to the Lord Mayor for his energy in the matter and to the public, both here and abroad, who have subscribed over £4 million to this worthy Fund. Is it possible to say how much of that has been expended?
The other matter to which I should like to refer is this. This Bill is still only a temporary measure; it is still emergency legislation. It is very important and we certainly support it, but it really does not tackle the whole problem of the defence of the East Coast against further flooding. I presume that we are waiting for the Report of what I may call the Waverley Committee, which is a very powerful Committee set up to examine the whole question. I was wondering whether the noble Lord has any indication as to how long the deliberations of that Committee may take. The Committee cannot be hasty. It is an immense subject, and they must take expert advice in all sorts of directions, but I think it would be useful if we could have some indication. I was rather disturbed at the time when the announcement was made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, that Lord Waverley had accepted the chairmanship of the Committee that is to examine the future administration of work on atomic energy. I protested at the time, and said that I hoped that this delving into the future administration of atomic energy research would not detract from the noble Viscount's very important work as Chairman of this Committee. I did not receive any reply at the time, but I hope that this added burden on Lord Waverley's broad shoulders will not mean any delay in the work of the Flood Committee over which he is presiding, and whose findings will be of the greatest importance for all of us who live on the East Coast of England.
As I say, this is still only emergency or temporary legislation to take advantage of the summer months to make good the worst of the weaknesses in the defences, and to prevent, so far as we can, any trouble next winter. But the whole problem will still require tackling on a national basis, and I am sure the noble

523
Lord is well aware of that. If the matter is left in his hands, I am sure we can have every confidence.
3.4 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I rise to give my full and enthusiastic support to this Bill—support which I am sure it is bound to have from all parts of your Lordships' House. I do so the more readily as I feel that the Bill goes far to implement the Government intention, as was originally promised in another place, to treat this calamity on the East Coast as a matter of national responsibility. It is not surprising that the Bill does not attempt to cover the whole scope of the calamity and the damage. But undoubtedly it goes straight to the very root of the flatter in providing for the repair and strengthening of the sea defences, and the rehabilitation of the farmlands. In both these matters time is the urgent consideration, and such a bold attempt to tackle these problems must of necessity make wide and sweeping provisions, the execution of which is almost bound to displease somebody and which I think, cannot avoid the label "drastic." However, quite rightly, the bigger issues are held to prevail; and the fact that the Bill contains measures which would probably normally be unacceptable to your Lordships, and also to honourable Members in another place, is, I think, amply justified by the circumstances, having regard to the entirely temporary nature of the measures and the safeguards provided.
In this connection, I feel that attention should be called to the very large amount of work which was carried out in Committee in another place. To my way of thinking, that work has vastly improved the Bill and, consequently, left a much lighter task before your Lordships. There are, nevertheless, aspects about which I am not yet entirely happy, and about which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may have something to say in due course. The first is the question of the integration of the whole of the work to be carried out by the various authorities responsible. The Bill gives special and extra powers to the six river boards concerned, and to them only. I hope to be reassured, first, that the Minister will see to it that their respective schemes of operations will fit neatly into one another, so that not only repair is
524
achieved but, preferably, improvement of the sea defences and certainly ensuring that there are no weak links left.
Then there is the question of action by the various local authorities controlling coastal areas within the areas of the river boards, and who have local responsibilities for action under the Coast Protection Act, 1949. No doubt the reason these local authorities do not figure in the Bill is that they already have sufficient powers to deal with the present situation which the river boards lack. But the point about which I am mainly concerned is that the efforts of all these authorities, and possibly in some cases even of private individuals, shall be so co-ordinated as to avoid any wasted work or duplication, or, again, weak points. I have no wish to complicate the issue, in view of the short time which is available in which to do so much, nor do I wish any cumbersome system of consultation to be set up which will handicap the Minister in his difficult task. But I sincerely hope that it will be possible to pay the close attention which is due to this rather important aspect. There is another point on which I should also welcome some reassurance. Ample provision is made for compensation where damage of some sort or other occurs after the Bill has received the Royal Assent, but I should like some further reassurance, in view of the measures which have already been started—and rightly so, in order to avoid delay—that there is ample provision for compensation for any such damage that may already have occurred.
If I may turn now for a moment to the rehabilitation of the agricultural land, here again I feel that the proposals in the Bill are good and that the system of acreage payment will prove satisfactory—although the present provisional forecast of the rates per acre may possibly require second thoughts, particularly in the case of the normal farm cereal crops. The main point, though, has already been mentioned, and that is that prompt and energetic action must be taken with regard to the land and that any scheme must carry with it the obligation for such action to be taken. Experience has shown, notably in the case of large areas of land after the war, that such action, allied to various modern methods now available for the purpose. restores the land with quite remarkable rapidity to

525
its full and proper use. It is a matter of very great regret that the Dutch also should have had to tackle this all over again, and it is most sincerely to be hoped that our efforts now will be as expeditious and effective as theirs were when they tackled it previously.
3.12 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing your wishes when I offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on his excellent and most thoughtful maiden speech and say that we all hope that we shall hear from him very frequently in the future. I should like in a few words to join those who have welcomed this Bill. I do not think that anyone who has seen even a small part of the devastation can fail to realise the magnitude of the problem or the necessity for speed, both in the restoration of our defences and the bringing back of the land to full production. Nor can we fail to appreciate the magnificent work which has already been and is now being done, or to be impressed with the immense power of the sea. The essence of the problem is speed, and I agree that on that ground alone the wide temporary powers given in Part I of this Bill are justified. It would be a tragedy if essential work were to be held up by procedural delays.
I feel that the Bill goes as far as is possible to combine the necessity for speed on the part of the river boards with the obvious rights of the individual to be warned of their intentions and to object where he thinks the proposals are unreasonable, and also to claim compensation. I understand from the noble Lard, Lord Carrington, that very shortly we shall be hearing what the terms are. I think, too, that the scheme of acreage payments and other compensation for agricultural land, ditches, orchards and so on, are generally acceptable and should encourage the speedy restoration of our farms. We shall have further opportunities of discussing the schemes in detail when they are laid before Parliament, and I am sure that any small anomalies will be ironed out then. We all hope that this Bill will help those who are doing work on the defences and the farmers and farm workers in the fields. The measure of its success will be the speed with which our defences are restored and the crops are growing again in our stricken fields.
3.16 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to add to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, welcoming the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I also hope, as I am sure all noble Lords do, that this is only the first of many opportunities we shall have of listening to him. This Bill is one demanding speed and expedition in its execution. It is one which I believe has the support of all Parties in the State. Certainly, this was evidenced very clearly in another place by the great co-operation between all sections of thought in the House, with the purpose of making the Bill as efficient as we all hope it will prove to be.
The difficulties are immense. They are largely local; and between the localities, very often, there are great differences in conditions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will give us the assurance which has been asked for, that there will be the closest consultation between those who are occupying the land and those who are responsible for making the plans for remedying the conditions that now obtain. I should like to know whether there is any more definite information with regard to the extent of the acreage which has been under water. I believe that in another place the Minister alluded to about 158,000 acres. I am not quite sure whether that figure is correct or not. It would be very helpful if we could know more about it.
I will not go into detail regarding the terms of the Bill. Those who have already spoken with intimate knowledge of the position, such as Lord Amherst, have dealt with the details. They have also been dealt with in a number of points to which allusion has been made previously in the discussion on this Bill. It is a matter of emergency, as the Bill indicates; but I should like to add my voice to that of another noble Lord who spoke, who hoped that the Bill might have one further result beyond merely coping with the disaster which has occurred in the areas affected by this flooding: the consideration of the problem as a whole, all over the country. I am under the impression that there are many places in which our defences against flooding by the sea are not adequate to withstand any great stress.

527
I hope that, as has been said, out of evil may come good and that out of the experience we have had in this particular disaster we may devise some more general and valuable schemes which may enable the various area authorities in the country to deal more adequately with this constant menace.
The general outlook on the matter is, I feel, very important. Every acre of this country is required for the increase of our food supplies. We know very well the conditions that obtain not merely in this country but all over the world, with its growing population, and we know that it is absolutely essential for the welfare and the continuity of the civilisation of the world that there shall be a great increase in the food production of the world. Under those conditions, anything in the nature of what at any rate I hope the Government proposals will be in this particular measure, designed for emergency though they may be, will surely have a continued good effect on the welfare of the country as a whole.
The whole country has been stirred by the effect of the disastrous occurrence of these floods. I, for my part, hope that it may lead to the devoting of still greater attention throughout the population to the essential and basic functions of agriculture, and so enable those of us who are engaged on a really great national policy to have the backing of still wider experience. That has been the case in other circumstances in other directions. I wish to conclude by thanking the Government for the measure which is in front of us. I am sure we shall pay the greatest attention to it in Committee. It was most remarkable, to observe the co-operation that existed in the other place, not on all but on most subjects, and the willingness to assist in making this a really effective measure for the benefit of those parts of the country which have been so grievously hit.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to say how sincerely we who sit on these Benches join with all your Lordships in giving our wholehearted support to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not have great trouble with it, even from the friendly questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the provisions of this Bill headed Compensation and Government contributions in Clause 10 appear to need a little consideration. My noble and learned friend Lord Maugham suggests to me than one must consider the case where the land, the value of which has been diminished, is in settlement; or, again, suppose the land belongs to an owner who has let the land to a tenant. It may be that the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill when it becomes an Act will diminish the value of the land to the tenant or diminish the value of the land to the owner, or affect the land that is in settlement. There seems to be nothing in Clause 10 which says what is to be done in that case. I can imagine a case where the right thing to do would be to pay compensation to the trustees of the settlement. On the other hand, I can imagine a case where the tenant may be the person who has really suffered by the exercise of the powers, and he ought to get the compensation; or, again, in another case it may be the landlord. It is not very easy to ascertain by examining the text of Clause 10.
It is quite true that subsection (2) of Clause 10 says that a draft of an Order for this purpose shall be laid before each House, and that that gives the House the opportunity of criticising it; but I would ask the noble Lord and those who advise him: is that a good way to proceed? Should not the clause contain some indication of the way in which this matter should be dealt with? Should we not in Clause 10 provide something to the effect that the Order shall direct who is to get the compensation or in what proportion it is to be got? I do not mention this with any desire to obstruct the proceedings. It is not my own inquiry, for I am not very familiar with these things. My noble and learned friend Lord Maugham is much more familiar with them and he asked me to mention this point. If I have stated it approximately rightly, possibly I may be treated as raising the point for him as well as for myself.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I just add that in ordinary cases between landlord and tenant, as I know from an all too long experience, it is necessary that each party should have a say: the landlord and the tenant must

529
appear before somebody—an arbitrator, it may be, to put their points. Of course that would not be done, and probably could not be done, unless there was something about it in the Bill. I would add only this: that the tenant for life, who in many cases has the larger claim, may die before the hearing comes on, and it will be difficult then for the remainder man to establish a right to the compensation, when it comes to be assessed, unless there is something in the Bill providing to that effect.
3.26 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do is to join in the congratulations of my noble friends Lord Amherst and Lord O'Hagan on the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. It was very pleasant indeed to hear him, and all your Lordships will have been impressed by his speech, not only for what he said but also because of his father, for whom all of the younger members of your Lordships' House had the greatest possible affection. When we left the Services at the end of the war and were overawed, timid, raw and even more nervous than we are now, the noble Lord's father led us by the hand and nursed us through those early days. We are abidingly grateful to him for that. I hope we shall hear the noble Lord on many more occasions.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the helpful attitude which he and the Opposition have adopted over this Bill and for allowing it to go through so quickly. There was a full discussion of the Bill in another place. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that Her Majesty's Government were most co-operative in their attitude there, and many Amendments were accepted to meet the Opposition's point of view. We are grateful to the noble Lord and his Party for allowing the Bill to go through so rapidly. He asked me several questions. He suggested that, since we were spending a great deal of money, there should be periodic reports. I will consider that suggestion, but I should have thought that, if necessary, Questions might have been put down by noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House to find out how the progress of these defences was going. I can assure him that we at the Ministry of Agriculture constantly have these things in mind and, indeed, are well
530
aware, week by week, of how things are progressing.
The noble Lord also referred to the question of planning consent. The position is that bank construction, earth-getting combined with hank construction, and the making of access roads, are not subject to planning consent, but all the other ancillary works, such as development for housing for the people concerned in the bank construction, will require planning consent. But even where planning consent is not necessary, the river boards have been instructed to notify the planning authorities and keep them well informed of what they are doing. Probably that will meet the noble Lord's point of view. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the question of a bigger, long-term Bill to deal with the whole question of sea defences. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, really answered the question himself. I think it would be premature to talk about any further legislation while the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, is sitting. I am afraid I cannot say when the Committee will report. They have a great deal of evidence to take and a large amount of work to do, but I know they will do it as quickly as possible. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, need fear that my noble friend Lord Waverley will find that he has too many commitments. He spoke of the noble Viscount's broad shoulders, and I am sure that those shoulders will be broad enough to deal with the two Committees mentioned.
As to emergency legislation, I would remind Lord Strabolgi that the River Boards Act is a comparatively new Act, and if these floods had taken place only three years ago, instead of having these half-dozen or so authorities in charge of the sea defences on the East Coast there would have been something like twenty-five to thirty. The last of these river boards was set up only last year. They have not had very long to get into their stride and I think all your Lordships would agree that for such a young body they have done extraordinarily well. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also asked me about whether there was any land still covered by water. All the surface water has gone. The land is dry, but of course it is still very impregnated with salt.

531
I was also asked by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan what was the total acreage. He said that my right honourable friend the Minister in another place said that it was 158,000. As usual, my right honourable friend is right—it is 158,000, so far as we can tell. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me about the Lord Mayor's Fund and how much had been spent. That is, of course, entirely a matter for the Lord Mayor, but we do know that about £1 million has been sent out already to local relief committees. Other than that I am afraid I have no information. My noble friend Lord Chesham asked me about the liaison between river boards with adjoining areas. I assure him that there is the greatest possible liaison, and that as all these schemes must be submitted to the Minister for approval, he will be able to provide that liaison himself and the engineers will be able to check whether or not the schemes are satisfactory.
As regards coast protection authorities, my noble friend will realise that they deal mostly with coast erosion; that is to say, they are concerned with cliffs and things of that kind, and broadly speaking, those authorities do not come very much into this Bill. The reason why we have not included them amongst those who are able to use these powers is that we think that they have sufficient powers already to deal with such matters as do come under their jurisdiction. I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 5 (4), (a) and (b), which makes it an obligation on the river boards to inform the coast protection authorities when certain things are done.
My Lords, on the question of compensation, there is no question of doubt about compensation for damage done after the passing of this Bill: but as I understand it, he is worried about what happens regarding compensation for damage done before the Bill becomes an Act. Again, I do not think there can be any doubt that a good deal of damage was done—and rightly so—in order that the sea defences should be repaired as quickly as possible after the floods. So far as the works were within the powers of the river boards, Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act provides for the payment of full compensation. So the river boards must settle claims for compensation under Section 34 of that Act, and of course they
532
must also meet any other valid claims. The expense which they incur in this way is, I think, undoubtedly a part of the general expense of restoring the sea defences, and as this will necessarily have been incurred before September 30 it will qualify for the 100 per cent. grant.
I feel very hesitant about answering the point put by my noble and learned friends, Lord Simon and Lord Maugham, two ex-Lord Chancellors. I am advised that Clause 10 is wide enough to enable compensation to be paid to any person whose interest suffers damage, and that the draft Compensation Order will provide for the interests which are to be compensated. That should suffice. But I will look into the point again and will let both noble and learned Viscounts know the result. I think I have answered all your Lordships' questions.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PHARMACY BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ACCOMMODATION AGENCIES BILL
3.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is a Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons by a private Member, my honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, who is one of the Members for Ilford. In the House of Commons it has been received with unanimous approval; I hope that it may receive similar approval in your Lordships' House. The Bill aims at dealing with a difficulty that has arisen because some people are tempted to exploit the anxiety of those who are trying to find a house or a flat. Housing accommodation is so difficult to find that people are prepared to go to any length, and to take any chance, if it is going to result in their getting the flat they want; so a number of ingenious people have hit upon this device. They form a company which is an accommodation agency, and they let it be known that they are in a position

533
to help people who come to them to find a flat. The hopeful citizen goes to this agency, gives his name and address and describes the sort of flat he wants; thereupon, these accommodation agencies will give him to understand that they have just the flat that he needs or, at any rate, that they hope to be able to provide him with a list, and they will register his name. There is one other thing that is added at this stage, that there is a fee for being registered. The result, such is their anxiety to find accommodation, is that a large number of people have been induced to pay the fee to the agency before the agency has done anything at all, and without any sort of guarantee that the agency will provide them with a flat.
Your Lordships will observe that this is quite different from what happens in the case of reputable estate agents. In the first place, the estate agent has a particular property put into his hands by the owner of the property to find a tenant or a purchaser. On the other hand, this is a scheme by which people who want to find property are going to approach the agency. There is, of course, the further and most important distinction, that a respectable agency dealing with the letting of houses or flats does not charge anything until the accommodation is found and the parties have been brought together. The commission then becomes payable, usually on an agreed scale. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that that is what it is designed to do.
Clause 1 (1) provides that
" any person who,
(a) demands or accepts payment of any sum of money in consideration of registering, or undertaking to register, the name or requirements of any person seeking the tenancy of a house…shall be guilty of an offence."
In the same way, any person shall be guilty of an offence who:
"demands or accepts payment of any sum of money in consideration of supplying, or undertaking to supply, to any person addresses or other particulars of houses to let…"
There is a third class which consists of any person who
"issues any advertisement, list or other document describing any house as being to let without the authority of the owner of the house or his agent."
534
That provision is inserted because some of these enterprising people are not at all above professing that they have accommodation to dispose of when they have no authority whatever from the owner of the flat to search for a tenant for it. I was told of the case of a young lady who was very anxious to find a flat. She went to one of these agencies; they put down her name and address. They said that they understood the sort of flat she wanted, and then the person conducting the agency said, "Now the fee is three guineas." But the young lady was sensible enough to reply, "Oh no, I do not pay anything until I get a flat,"—which, of course, was quite natural, but was not in accordance with the scheme of operations of the agency.
I have some information here which I am at liberty to give to the House, showing the extent to which this has gone on. I was sent this information and was told that it might be publicly used. In the year 1952–53, the number of agencies in the London area, accepting registration fees, as I have described, was forty. Of these, fifteen have gone out of business of their own accord. Sometimes, people who have paid their money go back, raise a fuss and threaten the people at the agency with exposure, and thereupon the latter give up the enterprise. Seven of these agencies have been prosecuted. Sixteen of them are still operating. It is difficult to estimate the sums of which the public have been defrauded, but earlier in the year, I am told from this Department, an estimate of £100,000 was made, which includes takings of agencies which were charging fees in respect of houses that did not, in fact, exist. The proposal of this Bill, therefore, is to make this a criminal offence.
I do not doubt that, if your Lordships agree, and this measure becomes law, there will not be many prosecutions. The result of the passing of the Bill will be that these people will simply go out of business. Possibly, they will try to devise agencies for something else. There used, I believe, to be matrimonial agencies, which undertook to provide amorous bachelors with a comrade in matrimony of suitable age, suitable appearance and, possibly, more important than either, with a suitable income. All these things are simply cases of exploiting the needs of

535
the public. I hope, therefore, that this Bill may be generally approved. I believe that the Government are going to bless it, and if it is passed it will have the result of knocking these enterprises on the head. The figures I have just given to the House included the information that seven of these agencies have been prosecuted. A prosecution in such a matter is necessarily a very elaborate affair. It is really a prosecution for obtaining money by fraud. What you would have to do would be to prove instances in which people had gone to such an agency, put down their money for registration and then nothing had happened. If you proved a sufficient number of cases, the inference might be drawn that this was obtaining money by fraud. It seems to me that we need a more direct provision than that, and this Bill will hit the nail on the head. I invite your Lordships to join me in that operation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Simon.)
3.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, this Bill received unanimous support in another place. Indeed, it was received with a certain amount of enthusiasm. It is perfectly true that every public need, especially amongst the poorer and more inexperienced section of the community, creates a set of vultures who batten upon the knowledge of it. Cases of the kind which the noble Viscount mentioned are very sad, because it is self-evident that in a great many instances even the relatively small sum of three guineas is beyond the means of the individuals concerned, and they pay it only in the hope and the confident belief that, as the result of their paying out such a sum, they will be provided very quickly with accommodation. Therefore, every Member of this House will desire that a measure of this kind should be passed as quickly as possible, with a view to preventing these frauds on the poorer section of the public.
But, it is necessary, of course, to scrutinise this Bill—that, after all, is what we are here for—and it struck me that perhaps this Bill went rather wider
536
than was necessary for the purpose for which it has been designed. The noble and learned Viscount referred to the case of a young lady who went to an agent and refused to pay the three guineas until she got a flat. She was, apparently, willing to pay three guineas if she got a flat. It is true that in the normal cases the procedure is that a person goes to an agent and states his or her requirements, and pays no fee, either at the time or at any later time, by way of remuneration to the agent. The fee is normally paid by the owner of the premises. That is the normal procedure. But it is by no means the invariable procedure.
There is no reason why I should not go to an agent and say, "These are my requirements: will you do your best to find me the accommodation I need, and I will pay you a fee for doing so." That is a procedure which, while by no means common, is sometimes carried out. Of course, in large transactions, as the noble and learned Viscount will know as well as I do, frequently both sides appoint their own agents. That is to say, both the buyer and the seller have agents, and each side pays his own agent. And, of course, if we were dealing with reputable agents, members of some body such as the Institution of Chartered Surveyors, this Bill would be wholly unnecessary. There would be no reason why it should not be left to every agent to make his own arrangements with his clients, in the knowledge that if an agent does charge a fee for giving information about possible premises to let, it will be a bona fide list, and that every address given will be one which it is possible for a prospective tenant or purchaser to acquire. The reason why these rather stringent and exceptional measures are proposed, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, is that there are a number of agents—not a great many—who have adopted the devices of which he has spoken to defraud the public. But it seemed to me that in attempting to deal with this we were going rather wider than is really necessary.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I quite follow what the noble Lord says, but the case which he wishes to leave alone is not covered by this Bill. If the noble Lord will look at the provision, he will see that it is a provision which punishes somebody for demanding or accepting payment of any sum of money in consideration of registering the name or

537
requirements of any person seeking the tenancy of a house. That is the thing to be stopped. It is quite all right if a person tells somebody who wants a flat that if he finds one, he expects the person looking for a flat: to pay a fee. But that is not the demanding of a sum of money in consideration of registration, which is the point about this Bill.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, paragraph (b) says:
"demands or accepts payment of any sum of money in consideration of supplying, or undertaking to supply, to any person addresses or other particulars of houses to let;"
Even if they are genuine addresses, and even if by the agent's supplying these addresses the applicant secures accommodation, that seems to me to go a little wide. While that is not a reason for rejecting the Bill, it is a reason, as I hope the House will agree, for looking at it, and perhaps we may have another word about it in Committee.
The next thing I should like the noble and learned Viscount to look at is subsection (3) of Clause 1, which reads:
"A person being a solicitor shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting payment of any remuneration in respect of business done by him as such."
I should have thought that was self-evident. If a solicitor demands or receives payment "in respect of business done by him" as a solicitor, of course he is not committing an offence. I should like to know why these words are included in the Bill. Why not put in a provision about barristers, or engineers, or members of any other profession, to say that so long as they are doing work as members of their professions they are not committing an offence? It may be that there is more in this than I can see at the moment. There ought to be a clear reason for putting in a provision of this kind, but I do not see it.
Lastly, I find that this Bill
"shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven."
Is it contemplated that by that time all these rogues will have gone out of business, that there will be none left and that this Bill will be no longer necessary, or is it contemplated that the housing shortage will be met? What is the reason for this? I hope the true reason is that by that time we should have had an
538
opportunity of looking at the profession of estate agent as a whole. What is fundamentally wrong about this profession is that anybody without the slightest qualifications or capital can set up business as an estate agent and lead the public to believe he has qualifications for carrying out that business. The real evil goes far wider than the picking up of odd guineas for registration. It is within my own experience that a number of these agents are entrusted with the sale of houses and effect sales, subject to contract, and receive a deposit of 10 per cent. Often the receipt of that deposit is a much more important thing, from their point of view, than effecting the sale. They hold this money as a stake, and if the contract is completed they have to account for it. I have known cases where estate agents have not accounted for it. For that and other reasons I had hoped that we should take steps to secure that people who become estate agents have some kind of professional qualification.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is a most reputable body and if one sees that a firm is a member of the Institution, one can rest assured that one is in pretty safe hands. I myself should never object to paying over a deposit to a firm which was a member of the Institution, but the public are not to be expected to know that. I had hoped that the reason why this measure is made a temporary one is that, in the years between now and the date when the measure expires, whichever Government is in a position to do it would undertake to deal with the whole question of estate agencies, giving the public the protection of providing that people in this profession are properly qualified. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not feel that these remarks are in any degree hostile: they are designed to help. I believe that there is a need for this Bill and we, for our part, will do everything we can, subject, as have said, to examination of the Bill, to assist in bringing it into law at the earliest possible moment.
3.58 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, there are few happier circumstances in human affairs than finding oneself in the position of repaying a debt without undergoing personal inconvenience to oneself. I am in that happy position to-day.

539
Several times I have attempted to persuade your Lordships to accept private legislation of my own invention. On these occasions I have been sensible enough to enlist the help of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I have not always been successful, except when I have taken the noble Viscount's advice. Now I am in the happy position of repaying him for the kindness and help which he so willingly gave me by telling him, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that I am able to accept his Bill mostly warmly; and I thank him very much for the trouble he has taken in bringing it forward. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have discussed the matter in some detail, and I think little need be said by me, particularly in view of the heavy Order Paper which lies ahead of us. I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mention the reputable estate agent, because I know that there has been a certain amount of disquiet among reputable estate agents that they maybe in some way embroiled in this Bill. As the noble Lord explained, that is not the case.
I understood that the Bill was to be a temporary one, until 1957, for the first two reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The noble and learned Viscount. Lord Simon, like myself and many others, does not like to put on the Statute Book in the form of permanent legislation an enactment which clearly is designed to meet only a temporary need. The other thought which may possibly be behind the Bill is that the noble Viscount, like myself, has the utmost confidence in the ability of the Minister of Housing to deal with the whole of our housing problems well before that date. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put forward a different idea, but I think it was a fly, and I do not know whether the fish is going to rise. I was surprised to hear him say that this Bill might be an opening card for an inquiry into the whole of the estate agency business. That is something the noble Lord must settle with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I would not dare intervene. I will content myself by repeating that the Government welcome the Bill in principle, thank the noble Viscount for bringing it forward and cordially recom-
540
mend your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL
4.0 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 Llewellin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Reflectors to be carried by vehicles at night]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) Where a vehicle's tail light is so constructed that, when not showing a light, it is an efficient red reflector complying with any regulations made for the purposes of this section under section nine of the principal Act which apply to the vehicle, it shall be treated for the purposes of this section as being such a reflector when it is, as well as when it is not, showing a light.
In this subsection, "tail light" means, in relation to any vehicle, any lamp carried attached to the vehicle for the purpose of showing a red light to the rear in accordance with the principal Act, as amended, or regulations there under."
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and, I suggest, sensible Amendment. The provision in the Bill is that road vehicles, at any rate of two-wheel width, shall have two rear lamps and two red reflectors. The red reflectors are largely to be there as a standby on occasions when the rear lights go out, or are left out. This Amendment provides that where a rear lamp is so constructed as to act as a reflector it is unnecesary to have a separate reflector as well. There are such lamps manufactured and in use overseas, and I am told that they are quite efficient. This has been suggested by the industry. As I say, I feel that it is a sensible Amendment, and I ask your Lordships to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 28, at end insert thesubsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Increase in number of rear red lights to be carried by vehicles at night
(4) On the coming into operation of subsection (1) of this section in relation to any particular class or description of vehicle, the following amendments of the principal Act shall have effect in relation to that class or description of vehicle—

(a) section five of the principal Act (which modifies the provision; of that Act in its application to bicycles, tricycles and invalid carriages) shall be amended by the addition at the end of paragraph (a) of the words "and in the case of a bicycle or tricycle not propelled by mechanical power, or of a bicycle propelled by mechanical power and not having a sidecar attached thereto, only a single lamp showing a red light to the rear instead of two such lamps need be carried";

LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (4), at the end of paragraph (b) to insert:
"and by the insertion in place of the repealed paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:—

"(b) in the case of a bicycle propelled by mechanical power and having a sidecar attached thereto, if a lamp carried attached to the sidecar and showing a white light to the front shows also to the rear a red light visible from a reasonable distance, only one other lamp showing a red light to the rear need be carried;"

The noble Lord said: I feel that there should be no secret about this Amendment, which carries out the effect of the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Waleran. But whereas I do not think my noble friend had the advantage of the services of the Parliamentary draftsman, I had that advantage.
The simple proposition put forward, and assured by this Amendment, is that as a sidecar will now require, on the sidecar itself, not only, as before, a front white light, but also a rear red light, the two lights may be provided by the same lamp, and I suppose by the same electric bulb. In other words, under this Amendment there need not be two lamps, one shining out white to the front and another shining out red to the back; one bulb can have a white glass in front shining out white in that way, and a red glass at the back shining out red. This has the further advantage that it not only saves cost but also enables the man driving the motor-cycle and sidecar to know that his rear light is out, because he will then not see the white light shining
542
past him, and he will be aware that not only is that out but the red rear part of it also is out. With that short explanation, I trust that your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD WALERAN: I should like to thank the Government for re-drafting the Amendment I had down on the Marshalled List. This Amendment gives the motoring organisaions all that they wish. I do not think there is anything I can add to the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, and I should like to support him in this Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: I gather from this Amendment that there will be two lights on the motor-cycle and the sidecar, one in front showing red and white, and the rear showing red only. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether they will be carried on opposite sides of the motor-cycle and combination, which I think would be desirable.
LORD LLEWELLIN: There will be four lights showing. There will now be on the motor-cycle a white light, showing to the front; and there will be the rear red light, which also, presumably, will illuminate the number plate. Under the law, as at present, there has to be on the sidecar a white light shining out forwards. This Bill provides that the machine shall have also a red light on the outside of the sidecar, furthest away from the motor-cycle, shining to the rear. This Amendment ensures that both lights on the sidecar can be illuminated by the same lamp and the same bulb.
LORD WINSTER: I am only anxious that both sides of the motor-cycle and sidecar should be illuminated.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is the case. Two will be on the motor-cycle, as at present, and the other light on the mudguard of the sidecar.
LORD WINSTER: Both the nearside and the offside will be covered?
LORD LLEWELLIN: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Rear lights on vehicles with projecting or overhanging loads
3.—(1) Where a vehicle on a road during the hours of darkness carries a load projecting to the rear more than three and a half feet behind its tail light, it shall carry a rear lamp in such a position that no part of the load projects to the rear more than three and a half feet behind that rear lamp.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the Minister may by regulations direct that in relation to vehicles of any prescribed class or description this subsection shall have effect with the substitution for references to three and a half feet of references to such longer distance as may be prescribed in relation to vehicles of that class or description."
The noble Lord said: Clause 3 of the Bill provides that where a vehicle has an overhanging load the lamp on the back of it has to be within 3 feet 6 inches of the furthest back part of the load. The distance has hitherto been 6 feet. Since the Bill had its Second Reading in your Lordships' House representations have been made that in one or two cases of vehicles already constructed the distance of 3 feet 6 inches is insufficient. This Amendment—which I desire to move in a slightly altered form, which I will read to your Lordships in a moment—is intended to give the Minister of Transport power, in exceptional cases, to lengthen the 3 feet 6 inches. I propose after the word "distance" in the Amendment to insert the words "not being more than six feet." I feel that we must give this latitude to some existing vehicles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, at end insert—
("Provided that the Minister may by regulations direct that in relation to vehicles of any prescribed class or description this subsection shall have effect with the substitution for references to three and a half feet of references to such longer distance not being more than six feet as may be prescribed in relation to vehicles of that class or description.")—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) Nothing in paragraph (iii) of section six of the principal Act (which exempts horse drawn agricultural vehicles from carrying rear lamps) shall exempt any implement or vehicle to which that paragraph applies from complying with this section or any regulations made
544
under it, but in relation to any such implement or vehicle a reference to the red reflectors required by section one of this Act shall be substituted for the reference in subsection (1) of this section to the tail light.
(6) In paragraph (i) of the said section six (which allows a horse drawn vehicle to combine its front and tail lights if neither it nor its load extends more than six feet behind the combined light) for the words "six feet" there shall be substituted the words "three and a half feet".
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I think this is a perfectly inoffensive affair, but perhaps I may say a few words in an attempt to explain it. The effect of subsection (5) would be to extend to agricultural horse-drawn vehicles (notwithstanding their exemption under Section 6 (iii) of the principal Act from the need to carry normal rear lamps) the obligation under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause3 to carry rear lamps on loads projecting to the rear or side of such vehicles. The effect of subsection (6) would be to render Section 6 (i) of the principal Act ineffective, since no horse-drawn vehicle is likely to extend less than 3 feet 6 inches behind its combined side (front) and rear lamps, and would bring the law into line with what is proposed for other classes of vehicles. The provisions, which I think are quite logical and are consistent with the rest of Clause 3 of the Bill, were omitted from it in another place only to give time for consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the National Farmers' Union. No serious objection is expected by these bodies to the two provisions which are now proposed accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am quite prepared to accept the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions about regulations]:
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD moved to insert at the beginning of subsection (2):
"Without prejudice to section thirty-seven of the Interpretation Act, 1889,".
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I will attempt to explain this Amendment, which is equally innocuous, although couched in somewhat difficult language. The Amendment is intended to make it clear that nothing in Clause 5 (2) is to be taken as derogating from the provisions of Section 37 of the Interpretation Act, 1889. This section provides shortly that where an Act confers power to make any instrument or to do any other thing for the purposes of the Act, that power, unless the contrary intention appears, may be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act but before it comes into operation so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing it into operation at the date of its commencement.
So far as this Bill is concerned, Clause 5 (2) is needed to enable regulations to be made under Clause 2 (2) and Clause 3 (2) before these clauses come into operation, in order that their requirements may be made known in advance. Such regulations would, of course, only come into operation contemporaneously with these clauses. In the absence of Clause 5 (2) it would be necessary first to bring Clauses 2 and 3 into operation and obviously only then could the regulations be made. The existence of Clause 5 (2) however, without such words as are now proposed to be added, might cast doubt upon what has been done under other Acts, as it might be argued that it was necessary not only for the reason referred to above but also for the reason that, since Section 37 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, refers to an "Act" as opposed to "an enactment," it applies only where all the provisions of an Act are to come into operation contemporaneously, and not where, as in the case of this Bill, separate provisions come into operation on different dates. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to section thirty-seven of the Interpretation Act, 1889,").—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.16 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, rises, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two about business. We have had to consider some rearrangement of our business this afternoon. As your Lordships know, we had intended to complete to-day the discussion on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, but, as a result of other business before the House, we have had to postpone starting until rather a late hour. A considerable number of noble Lords wish to take part in the debate, and some of them have important engagements which it is impossible for them to break. Therefore, after discussion with noble Lords opposite, we have arranged that the debate shall be adjourned at seven o'clock to-night and that it shall be resumed after Whitsun on June 9. I think that will probably be the most satisfactory arrangement. The subject is an important one of considerable public interest, and it would be a thousand pities if discussion had to be curtailed. So far as I can see, this is the only way of getting over the difficulty. I hope it will be agreeable to the House.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, may I say, in the absence of my noble and learned Leader, Lord Jowitt, that I understand that, as the noble Marquess has said, there have been discussions upon this matter, and the arrangement suggested by him is agreeable to us.

HISTORIC HOUSES
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lord before the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, rises, and with the indulgence of the House, may I say this about the matter which is to be immediately discussed? It is right that the House should know that in another place a short time ago the following Question and Answer were given:
"MR. COLEGATE: To ask the Minister of Works whether the Government has decided on the method to be adopted for the preservation of historic buildings.

547
MR. ECCLES: Yes, sir. The Government are preparing a Bill which will authorise the Minister of Works to pay grants for the repair and maintenance of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural merit. The grants could be either on an annual basis or for an agreed period of years. Historic Buildings Councils will he set up for England, for Wales and for Scotland to advise the Minister in the exercise of these powers.
I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to make £500,000 available from the National Land Fund over a period of five years, for the purchase of outstanding buildings which would otherwise be lost. This is additional to the £250,000 a year which will be available for repair and maintenance grants. It is hoped that the National Trusts will be willing to participate in the administration of this work."
I thought it was only courteous to the House that they should know that this Question had been put and this Answer given, before the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, moves his Motion. I can only regret that I was not able to tell him at an earlier date.
LORD METHUEN: Can the noble and learned Lord say when that measure is likely to be introduced?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only say, "at the earliest possible moment which Parliamentary time allows"; but if I get any previous information I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD SILKIN: Can the noble and learned Lord say when that Question and Answer were given?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: About half an hour ago.
4.21 p.m.
LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN rose to call attention to the demolition of Historic Houses; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we have all been very glad to hear the announcement made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I, for my own part, feel very satisfied that one of the questions, at least, which is embodied in my Motion has been answered. If I put it again it will be by accident, because in the confusion of the moment I have had to revise what I was about to say. That cannot be helped. The great thing is that we have made progress. Nevertheless, I am afraid your Lordships will have to have my speech. And I make
548
no excuse for giving it, because, excellent as the announcement has been in some ways, I consider that the sum of money to be made available is wholly inadequate. Therefore, I feel I have an excuse for going ahead.
Those who heard the debate on February 6 in another place on the preservation of our architectural heritage must have been impressed by the unanimity of opinion on both sides of the House. In fact, in political terms one would say that the Conservatives had the Socialist wind in their sails—which is all right for people like myself, who need not be interested in politics (I am speaking as a Liberal) and who see it purely from the point of view of interest in archæology and architecture. The existing laws in this matter date back to the time when the owners of historic buildings were able to maintain them: that is, prior to 1914. There was no necessity then for the State to interfere except in the case of ancient ruins, such as the old abbeys or prehistoric earthworks, et cetera, which would hardly be habitable. For many centuries the Ministry, or the Office of Works as it was then, had in addition to maintain the Royal Palaces—
LORD WOOLTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord would mind coming a little nearer a microphone. We are missing some of these joyous things.
LORD METHUEN: It is their proud boast that at one time Sir Christopher Wren was Controller of the Works, Sir John Vanbrugh was Surveyor of the Works, Grinling Gibbons was the King's Carver, and Sir Godfrey Kneller was the King's Limner. Two major wars and consequent taxation and the present military build-up has changed all that, but our laws with regard to maintenance are virtually unaltered and are completely inapplicable to present circumstances. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is not concerned with maintenance but with lists, and does not affect the argument; and in any case the listing is not keeping pace with the demolitions. Hence the spate of demolitions; and unknown and unpredictable deterioration must be going on in the case of existing historic buildings, the vast majority of which cannot be receiving the care and maintenance they urgently require, particularly after six war years, when virtually no

549
attention could be given to them, and the subsequent years when it was difficult to get a licence, or to foot the bill if you could.
In the debate on February 6 it was impressive to observe the way in which speakers on both sides supported the implementation of the Gowers Report. The Minister's reply appeared profoundly disappointing. A. sum of £250,000, he said, was to be set aside for the purpose of maintenance. This sum seems trivial and short-sighted, especially when it is considered what the National Exchequer draws annually by way of estate or death duties, an average sum for the last three years of about £184,000,000. Should not some of this money be ploughed back in order to preserve at least the most important parts of our national heritage of fine buildings, just as the French do? And they, after all, have their historic churches and cathedrals to maintain as well. The Government cannot plead that great expense.
This £250,000 mentioned by the Minister of Works will have, in all probability, to be spent in giving first aid to historic houses that have been abandoned, or to some of the redundant churches, few of which will stand up for long unaided. It is understood that none of the £4 million fund which is now being launched for the maintenance of the churches will be available for redundant ones, of which there, are two or three hundred which are worth preserving. At this stage I should like to ask a question: Have the Government any intention of spending any of the money I have mentioned on historic country houses which are inhabited and which are in urgent need of repair, in cases where the owner is unable to do so? At present, as the law stands, they cannot touch inhabited houses.
Your Lordships will, I hope, forgive me if I recall that, as long ago as 1945, when I returned to this country after a spell of twelve months as Monuments Officer in France and Belgium, I said that our laws relating to historic buildings were complicated and out of date, in so far as they made no provision for their maintenance or repair. Previously the late Lord Lothian, in 1934, had warned the country, while addressing the National Trust at its Annual Meeting, that our historic country houses would gradually
550
disappear under the then existing conditions. The formation of the Historic Country House Committee of the National Trust came into being as a result of this warning and was the first step towards a policy of conservation.
The next step was the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944—which, however, made no provision at all for maintenance, but concerned itself only with listing buildings of importance and merit, including churches, bridges, et cetera. This work was confirmed by the 1947 Act. Questions have often been asked, in both Houses, as to when these lists will be completed and published. As late as January 16 last the noble Marquess the Leader of the House informed me in a written reply that 984 out of 1,480 local authority areas had been listed, but that it was not proposed to publish the lists. This is much to be regretted, as they would be of great value from an educational point of view and to the tourist trade. The completed lists may be available for inspection at the local authorities' offices, as the noble Marquess pointed out, but most people will want a pocket edition that they can buy and take on their journey. I hope that this matter will be taken a little more seriously and the lists published—as I previously suggested to Mr. Dalton when he was Minister—as soon as possible.
It was not until the Report on Historic Country Houses, by the able Committee presided over by Sir Ernest Gowers, was published in 1950, that definite recommendations were made for the maintenance of these houses, whether they were occupied or not, the negative nature of our legislation being pointed to with considerable emphasis. In addition, the disadvantages of having two Ministries dealing with virtually the same thing but with differing regulations, was criticised. Since then questions have been asked in both Houses as to if and when the recommendations of this Committee were going to be implemented. In fact, about two years ago in this House I myself initiated a debate which led to an interesting discussion in which the noble Marquess, the present Leader of the House, made an important and very helpful contribution. But it was clear at the time that the Government had not then given the matter full consideration. Later,

551
however, a Bill was in course of preparation by the late Government, and it is surprising that no announcement has been made which follows on that Bill. Instead what has happened? The maintenance of historic buildings remains as it was, non-existent, except for those cared for by the Ministry of Works—namely, the Royal Palaces, the ruins of some of our ancient abbeys and castles, some early bridges and barns, and a mass of prehistoric remains of archæological importance, plus a few houses taken over by local authorities, such as Charlton House in Kent, or a recent addition, Rufford Abbey in the Dukeries, of which more anon.
A tremendous fuss is made when a bronze age burial ground is bull-dozed in my county of Wiltshire, but precious little notice is taken when one of the most interesting of our historic country houses is gutted by fire, as in the recent case of Coleshill. What is disturbing, but not wholly unexpected, and what came to light in the debate on February 6, was the demolition of historic country houses that had taken place since the war and appears to be continuing with unabated fury. I have here a list of some 60 houses of great historic interest which have been pulled down and another 100 which are being threatened. These were the known casualties up to about seven or eight months ago. We have had recently a list of demolished and threatened houses in East Anglia, published by the noble Lord, Lord Euston; and probably there are many others which have not come to the notice of institutions interested in compiling lists of historic houses: for your Lordships will realise that it is at present perfectly legal to demolish historic houses, however exciting they are historically, archæologically, or scenically, if they are not scheduled by the Ministry of Works or listed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I do not think that is generally realised. And a preservation order may come too late, when deterioration over a long period has been such that the expense of reconstruction has become prohibitive and a demolition order hard to refuse, especially when the estimate for reconstruction is, in the opinion of many people, rather higher than it need be.
552
There is another side to the picture which is also a bit grim. Local authorities and Ministries have been given such wide powers that, unless called upon to do so, they are not bound to submit plans to the proper Planning Ministry, as they certainly should, in cases where houses of an architectural or historical character are threatened. The case of Fitzharris Manor Estate at Abingdon, which dated from the thirteenth century, is an example. This site was an oasis in Abingdon: and your Lordships may remember that the Ministry of Supply bought it for housing the staff of the Harwell Atomic Energy Research Establishment. They gave an undertaking, as I understand, to preserve the house, which was partly Elizabethan and partly Georgian, as well as the trees. After taking possession, the trees were cut down and the space thus cleared built over. The house, which was built by Thomas Teesdale who founded Pembroke College, Oxford, was left unprotected and open to hooligans. And, in course of time, it naturally fell into decay. A successful application was subsequently made for its demolition, a huge sum being named as necessary to reinstate it.
Cases of local authorities demolishing or allowing buildings of interest to be neglected are not difficult to find. At Bristol, for instance, Mr. John Betjeman, Mr. Maxwell, the then Director of the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery and myself, made a report for the Georgian Group on the so-called Roman Bath at Arno's Castle, which you pass on the main road in Brislington just before you enter Bristol from the East. It belonged, as it does still, to the Bristol Tramways, who use Arno Castle, a black and white stone building, as a rest centre for their employees. But the Roman Bath has long been abandoned. The object of our report was to try to persuade the local authority to get the building maintained by the owners. During the war, the Roman Bath suffered a little from blast and some of the fine plaster work by Stocking—an eminent Bristol craftsman who did much fine work during the latter half of the 18th century in the West Country—suffered.
Since the war, efforts have been made from time to time by the Bristol Preservation Trust, the Ministry of Works, and others to get the buildings cared for; but

553
without success. In 1949, it was described by an eminent authority as a
"gem of its kind and distinctly a building which should be preserved for its own sake, not one which should be put to another use in order to save it."
A suggestion has been made that it should be converted into a public convenience, but that suggestion did not come to much; it is now derelict, with bushes sprouting out of it, and I presume that in due course an application will be made for its demolition.
I will quote one more instance to illustrate my point about local authorities, that of a building occupying a site in St. Mary's Street and Square in Gloucester. From what I know of Gloucester, it cannot have a large number of interesting old buildings left, apart of course from the Georgian ones, and others in the precincts of the Cathedral; and that is all the more reason for preserving what remains. In the autumn of 1950 I happened to be lecturing at Cheltenham, and I spent the night at Gloucester. Next morning my attention was drawn to some demolitions that were going on at the back of the Deanery: and here I saw, to my sorrow, what remained, as a corner site, of some exciting late fifteenth century buildings, in half-timber, with high gables and overhanging stories, carved corbels and figures, characteristics typical of the choicer buildings of that date. On making inquiries, I was told that the Corporation had acquired the site, which was pretty extensive and covered by this interesting building which they were demolishing, in order to erect flats under their town planning scheme. Shocked at such vandalism, as it seemed, I got on to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning at once, only to be informed that they, too, were upset but that it was too late to do anything
It appears that this building, which, by the way, had been listed, was probably at one time of some importance, and may have been connected with the monastic establishment at Gloucester, possibly as an extra-mural guest house. What I saw was in a remarkably good state of preservation. Notwithstanding this, it was being demolished. I am not ashamed to give my personal reaction. I do not think any public authority or any private individual has any moral right to demolish a building of outstanding character without reference to the proper
554
authority in the first place. It should be done in the early stages, instead of when it is too late. These buildings represent part of our national patrimony. If we persist in taking this course we shall get the reputation of being a lot of vandals and iconoclasts; and, what is worse, overseas visitors will fight shy of visiting this country. We have recently heard a good deal about Wrencote, an early eighteenth century town house of great distinction in High Street, Croydon. It is understood that this house is shortly to be demolished to make way for a block of offices and shops.
I do not want to bore your Lordships, but we have recently had discussions on what we should preserve. May I say that however interesting these discussions may be, they are beside the point and academic. There are those who chide us for looking back into the past as if our present were a matter of spontaneous combustion and owed no debt to the past. It must, however, be obvious that we can get nowhere if we do not study and learn from the past, which is the foundation on which the future is built. What we are asking now is that the value of the past in our architectural heritage be recognised and admitted; that steps be taken for its preservation and maintenance as a whole; and that a start be made now, without delaying and quibbling as to where and how the start is made. The councils which we understand are to be set up by the Ministry of Works can decide with the Minister of Works what is to be preserved and what is not. Obviously, a modest beginning will have to be made, and the scope increased gradually as the money becomes available. That is precisely what the French did over a hundred years ago. The four cases I have instanced just now may not be of great importance in themselves, but an important principle is involved. What we are now witnessing in the way of demolitions is, I fear, but a foretaste of what is to come, possibly on a much bigger scale, though I hope that the half a million pounds may cover the situation.
Let us now turn to the main theme of the Gowers Report, the historic country houses, the maintenance of which admittedly presents difficulties. Last year, as a delegate of the National

555
Trust, I attended an international conference on historic castles, which was held in Dinant, in Belgium. There were delegates from all parts of Europe, including Yugoslavia; from Israel, a charming and enlightened professor from Jerusalem, who might have stepped straight out of the Old Testament; and a very keen delegate from Tunisia. Amongst the other delegates was a French Beaux-Arts architect, who owned a château in the Dordogne, which I subsequently visited. During the many conversations we had he said, rather unexpectedly coming from a Frenchman, "Of course, no other Frenchman would admit it, and you English are unaware of it, but you have finer châteaux in your country than we have in France." I thanked him, naturally, for the compliment, but he assured me that he meant it. Whether his statement is true or not, it makes one wonder whether we do value our historic country houses, and our manor houses and so forth, sufficiently to allow us to make a real effort and some sacrifices to maintain and retain them.
We should realise that there is an important section of the community, those members of the learned societies, and of the various local preservation trusts, who are frankly alarmed at the present scale of demolition and at the delay by Parliament in coming to a decision about the Gowers Committees recommendations. I do not regard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said as a final answer to that problem. We should also consider the countless tourists who during the summer throng the grounds of those country houses that are open to the public—and there are many, for to-day this is the Englishman's popular sport, a development since the war. I believe that probably a great many more people visit historic country houses than visit our public museums, and you cannot blame them: one is uninhabited and the other, quite obviously, is not.
Further, to judge by the number of requests for advertising matter from periodicals in respect of these houses that are open to the public, I should imagine that they must be known to be a great draw and to be looked upon with a certain amount of affection by a very large number of people of all callings,
556
as well as by an important contingent of overseas visitors who help to fill our tourist coffers. Was it not the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who said in the debate on the tourist industry last October (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 178, col. 817):
"this question of historic houses is one of great importance, particularly to this industry."?
In that debate the tourist industry was described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as the biggest dollar-earning industry of all. I am told that it earns, roughly, £100 million a year. I feel sure that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who is President of the British Travel and Holidays Association, shares these sentiments.
Your Lordships may have seen in the Library an exhibition of photographs, arranged by the National Buildings Record of England and Scotland, of a few of the houses that have been pulled down since the war, as well as some others which, to the best of our information, are in danger, chiefly through neglect, many of them having been abandoned. I have no intention of wearying your Lordships with a list of demolitions and of those hundred or more that we believe to be in danger. Some of your Lordships may have read in the Daily Telegraph this morning some account of these, particularly in East Anglia. There is not a house shown in those photographs in the Library that has not some merit; and one picture is worth a hundred words. Take, for instance, Layer Marney, one of the great English country houses, included in the first 300 or so, for many years uninhabited, of great period interest (it is Tudor) and, I believe, in tolerably good condition. It is just the sort of house, one would have thought, that the Ministry of Works would wish to take over. Or take another house, Mapledurham, in Oxfordshire, with its interesting literary associations, including those with Pope, but now empty and deteriorating, and, I am told, being allowed to go down under its own inertia—although, from the Answer he gave to Question, I gather that the Minister does not agree with this, for he gave a reassuring account of its state of preservation.
Perhaps the most pathetic is the case of Tyneham, in Dorset, a manor house erected by the Bond family, of Creek

557
Grange, who built Bond Street. The site formed part of a tank training area and had to be abandoned to the military authorities and evacuated by the owner who, about nine months ago, died of a broken heart. Behind this Elizabethan house, built in about 1590, lies the fourteenth-century hall. One could mention Ashdown in Berkshire, a swagger house built by Webb for the then Lord Craven, who wished to get away, in 1666, from the effects of the Great Plague; or Fawley Court, near Henley-on-Thames, a Wren building. Both these, I believe, are threatened—or were until recently. Rufford Abbey, in the Dukeries, epitomises, perhaps, the sort of confusion we have got into by neglecting these houses too long. This house is mainly a Georgian reconstruction of a Jacobean dwelling, and contains a most interesting twelfth-century crypt, which the Ministry of Works are prepared to schedule. The house changed hands in 1938. After the war, the new owner wished to demolish it, but the Nottingham County Council stopped him by making a preservation order, only to find that by so doing they had to buy the house. Now, I am told, they can find no use for it, in spite of the big interests of the Coal Board in that vicinity, and of the Forestry Commission that have a centre nearby. It would be a pity to let this house deteriorate and qualify in due course for demolition. The Ministry of Works wish to schedule and preserve the crypt, and the present house would seem to provide as good a weather-resisting covering as any other structure; and in time, if a little patience is exercised, a new user will in all probability be found. It is well to note, in this case, that if the house itself becomes occupied the crypt cannot be scheduled; but if it is inhabited by a caretaker or demolished, the crypt can be scheduled if anything is left of it. What a state of affairs for a Welfare State!
Before putting down this Motion, I asked the Government some specific questions relating to country houses of historic interest that appeared to be in some danger, chiefly through neglect. One of the questions related to Beaupre Hall, in Norfolk, which I suggested should be scheduled and maintained. The Answer, given by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, stated that this structure was included in the List of Ancient Monu-
558
ments—what I call scheduled—but that the Government had no money for its maintenance and therefore could not accept guardianship. The cost for initial repairs was estimated at £25,000. This is, I believe, the only good Tudor house left in Marshland. It is uninhabited and it is naturally deteriorating, and it looks as if we shall have to write it off unless some kind benefactor rescues it, before the customary demolition party comes on the scene.
This is the grim side of the picture. And it is invigorating and hopeful to turn to the help which the Government and that most valuable of all institutions, the Pilgrim Trust, are giving towards some of the houses that are in real need of help. One of the latest is, of course, Staunton Harold and its church, one of the few structures built during the Commonwealth and saved from the threat of open-cast coal-mining some three years ago. Let us hope that, with the promise of funds for its restoration, Staunton Harold will find a suitable new user, and so be preserved for many years to come.
We have heard a good deal about preservation orders which, by the way, are comparatively "rare birds" and are used with reluctance, for, as we have seen, they may prove costly. This preservation order is not what the term would suggest. It is really an anti-demolition order, and nothing more. Neither the Minister nor the local authority can insist that a building on which a preservation order has been issued shall be kept in repair. The modern technique seems to be, if you want to dispose of a redundant historic building, to demolish it before it is listed; or, if it has been listed, to let it rot until the application of a demolition order is a more or less foregone conclusion. In this way we have been, and still are, losing many fine buildings. A preservation order is, I believe, usually issued to prevent demolition. It can also be issued if a building has been neglected. But what value this can have it is hard to see, if the owner himself cannot be made to maintain it. Acquisition or guardianship by the Minister or local authority is, therefore, the only real safeguard. It is precisely this fundamental weakness in our law, which has not been put right by the few chosen words which the Lord Chancellor has just spoken, that should be amended, so that the State and the owner share in the maintenance of

559
structures which are considered of national importance.
May I turn now to another matter. From the General Development Order made by the Minister in 1950, in order to simplify the operation of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, some unfortunate results have ensued. This Order permitted buildings, including listed buildings, to be altered in any way, subject to the height remaining the same as before and to the increase in cubic space not being more than 10 per cent., and subject, further, to the two months' notice under Section 30. As a result, there have been instances of squares, terraces, and so on being damaged by the removal of certain architectural ornaments, such as cornices and ironwork. Particularly in regard to Georgian buildings, there is no control over paint, with most astounding results, as we all know. In one case, a single house, one of many in a block of stucco buildings, has been painted bright red. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would ask the Minister to look into this—and particularly into the question of Georgian buildings.
No doubt many people have their own personal ideas as to how best to preserve buildings of historic interest. We have had a glimpse of what the Minister of Works has thought suitable. Mr. Osbert Lancaster has made several suggestions, amongst them that a historic country house in its landscape setting should be left at least as a picturesque ruin—afacade. This is rather harping back to the eighteenth century notion, when ruins were so much in favour that in France, you may remember, there was the well-known case of the Désert de Retz at Chambourcy, which was built as the truncated end of a Doric column of enormous proportions, the interior being arranged as a normal dwelling with skylights and windows placed in the flutings. I should not care to have that as a studio. Mr. Lancaster, quite rightly, has warned us against misplaced enthusiasm for the archaic as such, apart from its merits. I have not asked him why he thought that.
There is the Continental method of preservation, as for instance in France where for over one hundred years, as I
560
have said, the Beaux-Arts, under the Minister of Education, have taken under their wing all the artistic activities of the country—the museums, the historic monuments, the scheduled sites, archives, et cetera, and have subsidised the owners of scheduled buildings with a 50 per cent. grant towards their upkeep. It would be interesting to know what France has spent on that work at the present moment. Apart altogether from the practical results achieved—and these have been immense—this action has given to a scheduled building a certain cachet which adds to the structure an importance it might not always have, particularly in the sight of amateurs and sightseers.
I have often noticed in France that local inhabitants tend to take a kindly interest in their monuments, which from a historical and educational point of view alone is surely all to the good. On arriving at a town for the first time, I have never found the slightest difficulty in finding someone who is prepared to show me the local scheduled structures, almost as a matter of courtesy due to a stranger. I think we are about the only European nation which makes no provision for the maintenance of our inhabited historic houses. As I have said, in France the Beaux-Arts come under the Minister of Education, I think, as a precaution that historic buildings and sights are not sacrificed to the passing and often pressing needs and interests of other Ministries, such as the Ponts et Chaussés, which I believe corresponds to our Ministry of Works.
These varied views and methods of conservation have, of course, a direct bearing on what we are discussing. I feel very strongly that the recommendations of the Gowers Report have not been faced up to, and that the country is getting restive and feels that this long delay since the publication of this Report in 1950 is leading—as we have already been told by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—to untold damage, both visible and invisible: visible, to judge by demolitions which apparently are continuing without restraint; invisible, in that many historic buildings, both inhabited and abandoned ones, are being neglected. The Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works knows better than anyone how, after a time, a building decays and must be

561
given assistance if it is to survive. Therefore I am convinced that we must get back to this Report, in spite of all that has been said about the difficulty in financing its recommendations.
I hope the Government will abandon the idea of retaining what is left of the investigators under the Minister of Local Government and Planning and transfer them to the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works, where they rightly belong. That is another recommendation of the Gowers Report. The listing ought to be an extension of the Ancient Monuments Act. May I ask at this juncture, how many investigators are left of the original twenty-five? Are there any historic structures, like the fine bridges at, for instance, Maidenhead, Henley or Huntington and elsewhere, which have by now been listed, and which will be subsequently scheduled by the Ministry of Works?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can answer the first question—eleven. I have that information in my head.
LORD METHUEN: That is a very poor number. I hope that it will rapidly rise to thirty at least. I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I would suggest that the appropriate Minister should create a bureau—it reed not have a large staff—to deal specifically with redundant historic country houses, with the object of finding buyers or users, even new uses, for such houses; to explore, for instance, the possibility of accommodating religious institutions from the Continent who may be wishing to find asylum in this country, and of converting some of these historic houses for the use of the aged and infirm, for which there is still a crying need, on the lines of what has been achieved by the various housing societies. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who was here a moment ago, and who is President of the National Federation of Housing Societies, could tell us something of the possibilities of converting these houses to such excellent use. I feel that it should be incumbent upon local authorities and Government Departments to confer with the appropriate Ministry before any alterations or demolitions of any historic structures are contemplated, and not at the last moment when it is too late, or even not at all.
562
As regards the vexed question of how the recommendations of the Gowers Report can be financed, there is, obviously, little that we in this House can do. But I should like to remind the Government that the Gowers Committee, after taking a great deal of evidence, made their recommendations after careful and mature thought. Both the last and the present Governments have stated that to accept the suggestions made by the Committee to help owners in the maintenance of their historic houses would be tantamount to creating a privileged class. What were the recommendations? That owner-occupiers of designated houses should be allowed an increased maintenance claim on the ascertained cost of the upkeep of the house. May I just quote a small pant of paragraph 130 which I think puts the matter very well? It appears on page 32 of the Report and is as follows:
"The straightforward remedy, therefore, is to exempt from income tax and surtax so much of his income as is reasonably necessary to maintain the house."
Later, in paragraph 131, we find this:
"The law ought to recognise expressly the special position of houses of outstanding historic or architectural interest as a national asset, just as it has recognised in certain respects that of ancient monuments and works of art. The preservation of these houses is a matter of public concern. Those who undertake it are doing what is not the less a public service because it may happen to coincide with their private interests. We think that relief should he direct and express. We recommend that all owner-occupiers of designated houses should be allowed an enlarged maintenance claim of the sort we are about to describe, provided that they show their houses to the public in accordance with arrangements approved by the Historic Buildings Council."
The point, I think, that has been missed by both the last and the present Governments is that in cases where property and money has been assigned to trustees for the express purpose of maintaining a designated house out of income, relief from death duties should be given on the house and endowment, together with its amenity land and historic contents, so long as they remain unsold. Your Lordships will find that detailed in paragraph 141 of the Report. I have never heard this matter raised. I wonder whether it has been considered. If the house and the grounds are subsequently sold, duty that would have to be remitted would be payable by the trustees. This has, of course, applied to historic chattels since

563
1910, thanks to the Liberal Government of the day, and it would be a small extension to apply this principle to a designated house which itself is a work of art.
I see nothing here that smacks of class privilege, as the property would be taken out of the hands of the owner-occupier, and placed in those of trustees, very much as obtains with the National Trust, when they become the new owners, the former owner usually continuing as occupier or tenant. The chief difference would be that, in the case of trustee-owned property, the trustees would be free to sell, and would then pay the death duties due, as is now the case with historic chattels: in the case of the National Trust they become absolute owners. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the Government will give the matter their reconsideration, especially as there is already so much general agreement. May I add that I am sure there is general satisfaction at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision to accept historic chattels belonging to an historic house in part payment of death duties. Under existing conditions this is the only way they can be saved for the nation.
There is one more point on this important subject, and it concerns the provisions of the 1949 Housing Act and subsequent Orders. In this Act, which many of us thought would greatly stimulate the retention and conversion of Georgian town houses in particular, the private owner seeking a grant is limited to £800 per house for conversion only: expenditure on maintenance is not taken into account for a grant. Thus, in the case of a house, or rather a unit, which may cost £400 for putting the roof in order and £400 for conversion, the grant is only £200, though the structure has to be in perfectly good order; whereas if the two expenditures were taken together—that is to say, if a total of £800 was spent and a grant of 50 per cent., or £400, were allowed—it might be worth a man's while to go ahead. Now it is not. He may get a loan from the local authority for 90 per cent. of its value; but it is uneconomic for him to buy and convert with such a small grant, and the restricted rent in the Act is not an encouragement. Grants, in my
564
opinion, should be equalised, and I suggest that an Amendment should be made to Section 16 of the Housing Act, 1949, so as to provide for increased grants to private individuals, and the payment of Exchequer contributions in respect of the provision of dwellings by local authorities and housing associations by means of the conversion of other buildings, similar to those paid in respect of newly-constructed houses.
Is it not better to provide ways and means of assisting local authorities to acquire and convert large town houses, such as in the Circus, Bath, rather than allow them to lie fallow and deteriorate, at a time when there is such an acute shortage of houses? Bath, for instance, has over 3,000 buildings listed under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. They are suitable for conversion for all members of the community. Temporary bungalows have been given a life of ten years. Under the section of the 1949 Act quoted, converted buildings would have to have a life of another thirty years, though the standard of fitness prescribed has to be equivalent to a new house. The period of grant is, however, for only twenty years, while that for new dwellings is for sixty years. The whole framework of this Act seems illogical, and I suggest that if a converted building has to be structurally as sound as a new building—which to-day, by the way, is not asking for the impossible—then why not put the grant for the new building and the converted one on a parity? This, I am aware, was considered by the Minister last year: I would ask the Government again most earnestly to reconsider it in relation to the preservation of our architectural heritage as a whole, though I am fully aware that this was not the main purpose of the Act but was only incidental.
If I have wearied your Lordships over much, my apology is that these structures can never be replaced. Taken as a whole, they are an irreplaceable assemblage of the creations of architects and craftsmen over the greatest period of our history. To fritter away these things would be to damn our generation in the eyes of all those who see in these structures a living expression of our history and something of immense educational value, not to be lost without a fight. I trust that this debate will do something towards

565
strengthening the recent Motion of the honourable Member for Burton, Mr. Colegate, in the House of Commons, which was agreed to without a Division. I hope that we can hold on to the great artistic achievements of the past and, at the same time, put all our zest into the efforts of the present, remembering that it is the individual character of the English scene, whether mansion, manor house, village or townscape, that gives to this country of ours its most prized and, at the same time, its most threatened quality. However great the difficulties, do not let us sacrifice principle for political expediency. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I desire to offer wholehearted support in general to the pleas that have been put forward by the noble Lord who has just sat down in a speech that has disclosed a much more detailed knowledge of the subject than I can claim to possess. I think that at the outset I should declare an interest, though perhaps not in the strictly technical sense. My wife was a member of the Gowers Committee, the Committee appointed by the late Sir Stafford Cripps to go into the whole question of the possibility of finding ways of preserving these historic houses, an important national asset. Also, I became concerned with a cognate subject when I was appointed Chairman of a Committee entrusted with the consideration of problems arising from the export in increasing quantities of important works of art. The recommendations of that Committee were accepted by the Government almost immediately and I believe the system of control which we recommended is now in full operation.
In these circumstances it is naturally a matter of some concern to me that the recommendations made in the much more important Report, of which my wife was a signatory, should have been before the Government for three years without apparently any practical steps having been even considered, far less decided upon. I have been delighted to learn from the statement just made by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, that the Government have been giving consideration to the recommendations of the Gowers Report and have decided on certain action. I have not
566
had an opportunity, naturally, any more than other noble Lords, of appreciating the full implications of the statement made by the noble aid learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but without appearing to be grudging in any way—and I warmly welcome the statement that has been made—I confess that I shall be surprised to find, on closer examination, that the action decided upon by Her Majesty's Government goes all the way that those who support the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, would wish.
I hope that most of your Lordships have read the Report of the Gowers Committee. Those who have done so must have been impressed by the remarkable lucidity of that Report and its quite outstanding literary quality. It seems to me that the Report might be an object lesson, indeed a challenge, to any of us who might have occasion in the future to contribute to the formulation of recommendations on important matters of Government policy. The Report deserves to be read as a whole. There is just one passage from it which I should like to quote, as it seems to me to form the logical and sound basis of all the recommendations in the Report. That passage will be found in the second paragraph, and runs:
"It is not too much to say that these houses represent an association of beauty, of art and of nature—the achievement often of centuries of effort—which is irreplaceable, and has seldom, if ever, been equalled in the history of civilisation. Certainly nowhere else are such richness and variety to be found within so narrow a compass. In the words of another witness, 'the English country house is the greatest contribution made by England to the visual arts'."
That is a very striking statement, but I believe it is amply justified, and I believe that those who read the Report as a whole will concur in that view.
The very serious progressive loss of this precious national asset—the historic houses and works of art, many of which have found for a long period a place in these historic houses—is due almost, if not entirely, to the burden of taxation, as the Report points out. In this country we have long had the most scientific and the best managed system of direct taxation to be found anywhere in the world. That is a matter in which we may justly take pride, though it must be a pride not unmixed with pain. But the system developed—and this is what we

567
must always keep in mind when we are considering problems connected with direct taxation—when conditions in this country were very different from what they are to-day. It developed at a time when the problem was only to devise the best method of collecting a modest amount of revenue. The economic consequences of taxation under those conditions could, for the most part, be ignored. Now, when the level of taxation is much higher, and when taxation is avowedly an instrument of economic policy, the position has radically changed. Measures have had to be taken in a number of directions to mitigate the economic consequences of taxation, and what I might fairly describe as the beautiful simplicity and symmetry of the system has inevitably been lost in some measure. I think that has to be kept clearly in mind in considering the main recommendations of the Gowers Report.
Since the situation with which we are confronted is a direct result of an excessive tax burden, it was natural that the Gowers Committee should first seek a remedy in measures of tax relief. It appears from the Report that the Board of Inland Revenue did not think it right to offer evidence before the Committee. That I can quite understand. Therefore, the recommendations of the Committee in regard to relief from taxation were necessarily tentative. But the Chairman of the Committee was a former Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and therefore I suggest that the recommendations of the Committee to which he set his hand are not lightly to be set aside on the ground that, as I have seen suggested, the recommendations on this matter of relief from taxation are inconsistent with sound tax principles. I do not want to go too much into detail, but I could cite many examples where special provisions have had to be incorporated in successive Finance Acts in recognition of the economic pressure and the consequences of economic pressure in various spheres of our national life.
I could refer to the special treatment given to forestry and to the special treatment given to agriculture, where losses are allowed to be set against, for example, other income. I could refer to capital expenditure on research, which is allowed to be treated as if it were revenue expen-
568
diture, because of the national importance of developing research to the fullest possible extent. Even the initial allowances, introduced, I think, in the Budget of 1945, doubled by Sir Stafford Cripps when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, abolished by Mr. Gaitskell, and now restored on their original level by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, might fairly be regarded as cutting into the fundamental principles of income tax as formerly established. Similarly, in the sphere of death duties you find special treatment of agricultural estates, and special treatment of what, for convenience, I might call heirlooms. I say, without hesitation, having myself, as it happens, once been Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and having been for a short time Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there is nothing in this part of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee which could properly be rejected on purely technical grounds. I do not hesitate to make that statement, for what it may be worth, on the basis of such experience as I have had in that particular sphere.
The further question must inevitably arise of whether the nation can afford the cost of whatever relief, from taxation or by direct grant, may be thought to be necessary in this matter. That is a problem which must be squarely faced. I recognise that it would ill become a former Chancellor of the Exchequer light-heartedly to advocate the acceptance of fresh burdens; but we must keep a sense of proportion in this matter. I have recently returned from an inspection of plants that have been established in the north of England in connection with the development or the exploitation of nuclear energy plants costing astronomical sums, which it has been thought fit to establish, not only to improve our national security—a matter of first priority—but to keep us, as a nation, in the van of progress in the matter of industrial development. I venture to submit, with all humility, that if we can afford expenditure on such a scale in such a direction as I have just mentioned, we should surely make the effort to spare the relatively modest sums that would be required to give effect to the main objects and purposes of the Gowers Committee Report.
May I, in conclusion—because I must conclude now—say this? As I admitted

569
at the outset, I have not been in a position to appreciate the full implications of the very welcome statement which was made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. We shall return to this subject later, as has been announced, when we shall all be in a much better position to judge how far the Government have gone. I earnestly trust that, if it should appear—as I think quite possible—that, in the view of many of your Lordships, the action decided upon by the Government does not go as far as the circumstances warrant, Her Majesty's Government will feel able to build upon the beginnings that have just been announced and give the people of this country some real assurance that this most precious asset, the national heritage with which the Report of the Gowers Committee was concerned, will be preserved to us.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:
Iron and Steel.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

HISTORIC HOUSES
5.42 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, for having initiated this Motion. I say this in all sincerity. Lord Methuen has been a great and a persistent fighter for the cause of historic houses—and I hope houses of architectural interest, though they were less prominent in what he said. I do not know whether the information which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave us at the outset has any connection at all with this
570
Motion; but it is a happy coincidence that the Government announcement was made a few minutes before the commencement of the noble Lord's speech. Perhaps at the end of the debate the Government may be induced to do even better.
Nobody in this House, I am sure, will dispute the great need there is for doing something about the preservation of beautiful and historic buildings. I need not take up any of your Lordships' time in arguing that case. I think the case has been conceded by the Government and by all complexions and shades of opinion in this country. I think the noble Viscount who spoke last was in error in saying that no Government had given any consideration to this matter since the Gowers Report: it is a fact that, prior to the end of the last Parliament, the Labour Government had prepared legislation which was intended to cover the same subject. Whether it would have been more generous or less generous than the present Government I do not know; but at least there is an interest on both sides of this House and in both Parties in this subject, and I am happy to be able to say that we can discuss this question on a wholly non-Party basis.
That, of course, is not to say that there are not very grave difficulties in this matter. I thought that both Lord Methuen and Lord Waverley tended, perhaps, rather to minimise some of the difficulties that exist in dealing with this problem; and, as young enthusiasts in this subject, I can quite understand it. But we must be realistic and we all want to be as reasonably practical as possible; and I should like to put before your Lordships, if I may, some of my own personal difficulties. The first is one of definition. Lord Methuen, throughout his speech, referred to historic houses. On just one or two occasions he did refer to beautiful houses or houses of architectural interest; but I thought that all the emphasis was on the historic houses—and, indeed, in his Motion he calls attention to the "demolition of historic houses"; he does not refer to the others. Now this is not a technical point: it is a point of substance; for when we are considering what we ought to preserve, are we considering the houses that are dealt with by the Gower; Report, or with a special class of house?
If we are dealing with historic houses, it is difficult, even then, to say what is an

571
historic house. It may be difficult to say what is a house of architectural interest, but I notice that in the Report there is a reference to the house in which Byron spent his honeymoon as an "historic house". I should not myself have thought that that fact alone was sufficient to justify the description of the house as an historic house, any more than one would describe a house in which Queen Elizabeth the First once slept as being an historic house on that account alone. So we have got to have a perfectly clear conception as to the type of house about which we are talking.
I thought Lord Methuen was speaking almost entirely of country houses; but some of the most lovely houses which must be preserved are in the cities and the towns. I am thinking of parts of London first of all—for instance, Bloomsbury, Blackheath, Highgate and Dulwich, where we have an immense wealth of beautiful old houses which are in danger of demolition. I am thinking also of places such as Cheltenham, Bath and Brighton, and other Georgian towns, and of such cities as Edinburgh. These houses also come into the category of "houses of architectural interest" and in my view are equally deserving of consideration and preservation. I want to come back to this question of the preservation of houses in the towns, because that is rather a special problem, but it is one that has to be faced.
Then, again, what is the point of preservation? Let us be quite clear in our minds why we want to preserve these houses. In the debate in another place and in the debate we had here some two years ago, practically every speaker felt that the main point of preservation was to enable people to see these beautiful and historic houses in the atmosphere in which people were living in them; that people do not want to seeempty houses or shells, or even museum pieces; they want to see houses lived in. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether, in the case of these, possibly, 2,000 houses that are regarded as worthy of preservation, it is at all likely in the future that any but a very small number will ever be lived in. The noble Viscount has referred to economic difficulties, and so on, which we are going through, and he knows, as we all do, that the level of taxation to-day and in the foreseeable future is such that it is quite impossible
572
for people to live in the type of houses we are considering to-day. Some people are fortunate enough in having capital which they are willing and able to spend, but even that is a diminishing quantity.
But an even greater consideration is the social revolution that is taking place in our method of living. I have a friend who lives in one of these historic houses and who occasionally comes to visit me in the country. I have a house with four bedrooms and three reception rooms. He is willing to change houses with me, but I am not prepared to make the change. The fact is, we are all tending to a much more simple life, not only because we cannot afford the other type of life but because it is physically impossible. It is impossible to get servants. Many of these houses are in remote areas, and many have mile or mile-and-a-half drives, and servants are naturally very unwilling to walk along long drives. The position—and I think we have to face it before long, possibly in the next generation—is that the economic and social changes that have taken place will make it virtually impossible for people to live in these houses in these circumstances. There may be exceptions here and there, but, by and large, we have to find some other uses for these houses. We are not going to be able to preserve them merely for the purpose of showing to the world exhibits of people living in them. The Gowers Committee gave a good deal of consideration to alternative uses. They realised these difficulties, as most of us must do, and they came to the conclusion that there were a very limited number of uses for these houses. They are set out in the Report, and noble Lords have no doubt studied them. There are a limited number of purposes for which they can be used, and a limited number of cases in which they can be used for those particular purposes.
Again it sounds very good to say: "Here is an old house, a beautiful house; let us use it as an old people's home;" but it is not suitable as an old people's home. It will require an immense amount of reconstruction to make it suitable. You have to provide heating, you have to divide up the rooms—the rooms are very large, quite unsuitable for the purpose—and by the time you have made all the necessary alterations the house has entirely lost its

573
character. One may question whether in these circumstances it is really worth preserving. So we have to face up to the question: what are we to do with these houses if we preserve them? Of the 2,000I would suggest that 200—my guess is as good as anybody's—might be used for alternative purposes. But as to the other 1,800 I cannot imagine what can be done with them except to exhibit them as beautiful specimens of architecture. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, jokingly talked about ruins. It is an awful thing to say about these houses, but if they cannot be used arid it is going, to be extremely costly to maintain them, there is beauty in ruins. Noble Lords know the classic example of Tintern Abbey, one of the most lovely pieces of ruin that can be imagined. I am not suggesting that these houses should be allowed to go to ruin, but I am pointing these things out as some of the difficulties which we have face and which, in my judgment, Sir Ernest Gowers, for whom I have the highest admiration, and his Committee have not faced up to completely.
Let us consider one other difficulty. The noble Viscount suggested that there is nothing extraordinary in making grants or allowances by way of relief from taxation to certain classes of persons for certain specific purposes which are in the public interest. He instanced the case of farmers, and so on. Can he really put this in the same category as the subsidising of food production? It is going to be extremely difficult to tell the public, who are very heavily taxed, that some of their taxation is going to the relief of people who are, generally, very much better off than themselves, to enable them to live in these large mansions. I know some noble Lords may think that that is a distorted way of putting it, but that is how it will be seen by a great many people. After all, whether it is relief of taxation or whether it is given by way of direct subsidy really makes no difference; it is public money just the same. If you spend £1 million in relief of certain classes of persons by way of taxation, or if you collect tax and then give it to them, it is exactly the same from the public point of view and it is going to be very difficult to get over to the general public that it is a good thing in the public interest to take this selected
574
and favoured class of persons and give them relief from taxation, regardless of whether they need it, regardless of whether they have large capital sums available, regardless even of whether they want it or not. That is the difficulty which we have to face.
It occurs to me that the noble Lord, Lord Methuen made a proposal which perhaps might meet the psychological difficulties: the proposal that persons should make a definite settlement of money on trustees for the express purpose of maintaining their houses, and that if such a settlement is made it should be free of taxation. That is worthy of consideration. It would not have quite the same psychological objection as the large-scale relief from taxation of a certain class of persons.
Those are some of the difficulties, bur there is one other difficulty, and that is: to what class of house are we to give the relief? As I have said, there are 2,000 of them; and if the Gowers Report was implemented in accordance with their recommendations, it would cost, we are told on the authority of the Minister of Works, £10 million a year. That figure does not surprise me. As a matter of interest—I do not think I have quoted a speech of my own, either here or anywhere else—I was looking at the Report of the debate in this House about two years ago and this figure coincides very nearly with the estimate that I then made. I did not consider death duty; the Minister of Works did. But if you take death duty into account, it would cost £10 million a year to implement this Report.
The Minister of Works went further and said that in his personal opinion—and he was basing his opinion on what it would cost to preserve those houses and buildings for which he was responsible as Minister—that figure was an under-statement. His own view was that it would cost substantially more. I would ask: Is any noble Lard here, including the two great enthusiasts, Lord Methuen and the noble Viscount, prepared to recommend to this House, or to the present Government, or would they have recommended to their predecessors, that we should spend £10 million a year on this objective? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, would like to answer that point now. I should be interested to hear what he had to say.
LORD METHUEN: I hesitate to be drawn at this moment.
LORD SILKIN: I am not surprised. It is a fact that the work would cost that sum, and naturally the noble Lord hestitates to say that he would approve that expenditure, as I think most of us would hesitate.
LORD METHUEN: I have been asked a question. May I point out that what I did say was that I think we ought to start in a very small way and increase our commitments as money becomes available. That, I know, is not answering the noble Lord's question, but I never suggested anything of the sort.
LORD SILKIN: No. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel that I am trying to draw him into a controversy. I am merely putting a dilemma, and it is a dilemma which even the noble Lord, with all his enthusiasm, has to face: that to implement this Report, which both noble Lords were advocating, would cost that figure. I was asking whether they were really serious about it. If the noble Lord is now saying that we should start in a small way, and that he hopes gradually to build up to more, that is the thin end of the wedge; there may be something to be said for that, as a matter of tactics.
LORD METHUEN: I hope that it will eventually come up to the noble Lord's £10 million.
LORD SILKIN: But, in the meantime, more of these houses must be demolished. That will not preserve these houses that are threatened. The £500,000 which we have been offered to-day is very small fry compared with the £10 million a year which the Minister of Works himself considers inadequate for the purpose of preserving these houses. If we are going to rely merely on this £500,000, spread over five years, it will not preserve a great many of the houses that are threatened. Would it, indeed, preserve any of those that are threatened? I do not know. The noble Lord gave us examples of houses which have been demolished or houses that are threatened. If only a small amount of money is available, why not make some selection and try to preserve those houses which are of the greatest merit? I do not know whether or not the houses to which the
576
noble Lord referred would come into that category. The fact is that it is extremely doubtful whether the money which is now being offered would have any really effective purpose.
Now, I want to come on to another point which I indicated earlier—that is, the question of the town houses. I feel that we ought to try to preserve what we can of the great heritage which we all of us appreciate; but included in that heritage are the lovely Georgian terraces and squares in various parts of the country. They, equally, are threatened by the same social and economic causes that are threatening the large country houses, perhaps not quite so radically or so rapidly, but they are equally being threatened. People are not able or willing to live in the lovely Georgian houses that one sees in different parts of the country—though many of them have already been demolished, while others are threatened.
But what are we going to do about the groups of Georgian houses that we see in many parts of the country? They are a real problem. We can convert individual houses into flats. Any noble Lord who knows Dublin, and who has seen what has happened in the conversion of individual houses into flats there, will be terrified at the thought. Some of the loveliest of the Dublin Georgian houses that have been treated in that way have to-day become slums. There is only one way of dealing with these houses such as we have in Bath—that is, by taking a whole group and doing conversion horizontally, taking two or three houses and making really good flats out of them. I wonder whether noble Lords have studied the economics of it. It just does not pay. When I was Minister, I had conversations with the Bath Council. They would dearly have loved to do it, but I am not surprised that they were hesitant to face up to the burden that it would have imposed upon them. Moreover, of course, it would involve compulsory acquisition, and I gather that the present Government are not favourably disposed towards compulsory acquisition. Nevertheless, it would be a deplorable thing if we lost some of these lovely houses in towns such as Edinburgh, Cheltenham, Bath and Bristol. Something must be done, and it looks as if it can only be done out of public money.

577
I have criticised, as I feel justified in doing, the particular proposal of the Gowers Report that this benefit should be given to individuals by way of relief of taxation. I would, however, say in all sincerity that, rather than allow the most precious of our houses to be demolished, I would face up in inconsistencies, and even criticisms. I think that the danger is very great. I do not think we can afford to wait while we argue out the best way of giving this assistance. What we have to do is to take first aid measures, and perhaps argue out later on the most satisfactory way of giving the help. It has occurred to me, since the Lord Chancellor's statement, that this £500,000 is coming out of the Land Fund and that here we have a fund of £50 million which, I presume, is earning interest at the rate of £2 million a year. Why cannot that interest be allocated to this purpose? It was designed for the purpose. The Fund was created for the purpose. I understand that the money is there. Why cannot it be used? What is the point of piling up the interest and using a fraction of it—£100,000 a year for five years? What is happening to the rest of the money? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor can give me the answer—at any rate, he has ample time in which to find out what the answer is. I suppose there must be an answer. But there is the money. It is doing nothing, and it was designed for this particular purpose. I should have thought that the least Her Majesty's Government could do would be to provide the interest on that money for the purpose of preserving old buildings.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that we have got to find some machinery for administering this, and particularly for selecting the type of house to be preserved. I have indicated that I do not think we can afford to preserve all the houses that are in the list. We have got to make some selection, and we have got to solve this problem of the use that will be made of those that we do preserve. But, nevertheless, there has got to be some selection made, and some administration; and I believe that something on the lines of the Council recommended in the Gowers Report, possibly as an advisory committee, with or without executive functions—I do not mind—is essential—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me, but I did say that it is part of the Government's proposal that Historic Buildings Councils shall be set up, in an advisory capacity.
LORD SILKIN: Then I need say no more on that point.
I would conclude by saying that there is no difference of opinion on this matter in any part of the House; we all wish to see these beautiful and historic buildings preserved. We may disagree as to the emphasis to be laid on different types of buildings. I think that not sufficient emphasis is laid on urban buildings, and that possibly rather too much emphasis is laid on what are rather optimistically described as "historic buildings." Of the country residences, I would prefer to preserve the more beautiful ones. But I think we can probably agree in the long run in the selection; and anyway, if it is proposed to leave it to the Council I should be quite prepared to do that. I believe that, whatever we do, the amount of money that has been suggested is quite inadequate. On the other hand, I do not believe that we can wholly carry out the terms of the Gowers Report. I am very glad that we have had an opportunity of ventilating this question before the legislation is introduced, and I hope that, even at this late hour, this debate may exercise some influence on Her Majesty's Government, and induce them to do rather more than allocate the pitiful sum—pitiful on their own admission—which they are proposing to allocate to these buildings.
6.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS AND MARCH: My Lords, the large number of distinguished speakers from both sides of the House who are taking part in this debate only reflects the deep concern that is felt by all sorts of people in the country at the rapidly increasing ruination of so many buildings of interest, beauty and charm. Indeed, people have been becoming most impatient for the Government to do something about it. I think, however, that everybody should be grateful for the provision in this year's Finance Bill, whereby the contents of houses may, in suitable cases, be accepted in lieu of money for death duties. This will do much to prevent the break-up of

579
some of the great collections of pictures, furniture, and other treasures which many of our houses contain, and the dispersal of which would be a national disaster. We should also be thankful for what has just been said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but I think it requires some time to digest before comment can be either well-informed or final. The statement does, however, go some way at least towards solving our problems.
I myself am closely connected with the work of the National Trust for Scotland and, much less closely, with the National Trust in England and Wales. The two Trusts have gladly given their advice to the Government from their fund of useful experience, and the debate in another place on February 6 has indicated that there is a great degree of unanimity between the Parties, which I hope will be an encouragement to the Government in their plans for helping us. But in order to preserve this unity, the Trusts are not at the moment pressing for the tax concessions to owners which were recommended in the Gowers Report, for we fear that such a proposal would immediately throw the whole matter into the realms of political controversy, which would indeed be a political disaster at a stage when unity is even more important than time.
The National Trust for Scotland is deeply concerned, not only with the large country mansions but also with smaller buildings, many of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, are to be found in our cities and towns. I might mention that it has lately undertaken the preservation of the oldest house in Aberdeen, which is called Provost Ross's house. Provost Ross was not the builder of this house, but he lived in it in about the reign of Queen Anne, and died in 1714. The other day, however, we had the inspector of taxes ringing up to find out whether Provost Ross was still occupying the house since the Trust took over. I am afraid that this shows that our Government officials are in some ways not quite abreast of the times.
I hope that it does not mean that, if and when Government assistance towards the preservation of houses is available, they will be too much wedded to the good old methods, whereby, if you spend only
580
£992 out of a £1,000 grant, you have to hand back the remaining £8 on March 31. The recent statement indicates the contrary, but I should like to emphasise the vital need for security. The only good and sure way yet devised in regard to preservation is the way worked out by the two National Trusts, whereby the maintenance fund, wherever it comes from, is somehow permanently secured. Only by this method can the owners themselves fairly be asked to hand over the ownership and provide all that they can of the necessary money themselves, and the public and outside charitable bodies fairly be asked to contribute their money and their efforts. This method only can give confidence to all concerned, and in the long run it will make the taxpayers' money go very much further. Some of your Lordships may have read an article in a newspaper this morning to which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, has already referred. In its reference to the National Trust this article is highly misleading, if not offensive. The Trust's way is no easy way out for the hard-pressed owner. He undoubtedly has to put his heart, as well as his money, into the business—and right well have many owners done this.
May I make one final point, which is purely a Scottish one—that is, to ask the Government to consider most seriously the question of owners' rights. With us, only half the rates are payable by the occupier of a building the other half are payable by the owner. Although so often we have to be fitted into an English mould in legislation, in this one matter where we have been crying out for the English system, Government after Government, including the present one, have declined to do anything about it. Under the present system, an owner, to avoid paying rates, has to take the roof off, or at least perform some act of ruination, to let in some weather, in order to make the house uninhabitable and, therefore, officially unlettable. Nor has the local authority any discretion whatever to exempt from owners' rates, which are thus a positive contribution to the spreading ruin we see around us. Perhaps this point can be answered at the end of this debate, when it has been resumed. I would beg the Government to help us if they possibly can by doing one of three things. I suggest that they get to the bottom of the whole problem and get all the rates

581
put on the occupier; or they could leave half the rates payable by the owner but only to be collected if the house is in fact occupied. Or, again, they could give local authorities discretion to exempt owners from rates in cases where they think fit, and so give owners and other interested parties time—and time is vital—to search for some purpose for which the building can eventually be used.
6.23 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, this debate calls to our minds the old maxim, "It's never too late to mend," and it shows how tragically untrue that can be. It is already too late to save many of these buildings that have been mentioned to-day. There is, therefore, the greatest possible urgency to find a solution. Many suggestions have been made, all of which I think indicate that the solution depends on money. Without money, shortcomings in the Acts or in those who try to administer them preclude success. With money, all those difficulties might be and could be overcome. Pondering on this, I realised how like buildings are to human beings. In youth, they stand on their own feet, their foundations. They have a capacity to earn, to do useful work. In old age, they need loving care and support. I thought then: why should not young buildings contribute in some way to the upkeep of the old, as we humans do in youth? In our case we do it by way of contributory schemes, insurances and so on.
Following this line of thought, I have a proposal for Her Majesty's Government's urgent and, I hope, favourable consideration. The value of work authorised in new buildings—excluding maintenance and repairs—in Great Britain last year was £924 million. The value of new building work this year looks as if it will be something in the neighbourhood of £1,000 million, and that in spite of the most rigid control of licensing. Of course, expenditure will leap up when the situation eases. Any amount of money is frozen intentionally by the Government's limitation of capital investment arrangements. Suppose, however, that £1,000 million a year is going to be spent on new building for the next few years. I put forward the simple suggestion that each new building should contribute £1 in every £1,000 spent in its erection to a fund for the preservation of buildings of
582
architectural or historic interest. On the basis of £1,000 million we should acquire £1 million a year, even now when times are so extraordinarily bad. In normal times, I do not see why that figure should not rise to £5 million, £6 million or £7 million a year—it might even reach the £10 million that Lord Silkin mentioned—without causing any hardship to anyone.
A man who wishes to build a small house costing £1,500 surely would not grudge the thirty shillings he would be contributing to this great preservation project. On the other hand, a great commercial undertaking would not feel embarrassed at putting down £2,000 out of the £2 million it would be spending on the building of new premises. And even the man who was going to build only a £250 garage surely would be pleased and proud to think that his five shilling contribution might go, for instance, to help in a tiny way towards the preservation of such a house as Ightham Moat in Kent, the fate of which is now hanging in the balance as it is not settled whether it should be abolished or not.
May I make it clear that this proposal is for one single contribution from each new building at the start of the building operation. And it would be easy to collect—or comparatively easy. A man about to build has to be in close touch with the local planning authority. We all, in such circumstances, have to make application. Therefore, the time when we are granted permission would be an easy moment at which to make the collection of this suggested subscription, shall we call it, to the fund. The fund could be administered by the Historic Buildings Councils—and in this connection I know that everyone must have been delighted to hear what the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack had to say on the subject of the proposed setting up of these bodies; it was indeed excellent news. Under my proposal these councils would themselves start off with three times the promised Treasury contribution, plus the newly proposed £500,000 grant, so that we should be on the way towards attaining the object which we all have in mind.
In the future, as building work increased, the fund would increase with it, and possibly we might be able to embrace all categories of historic buildings—those of the different sorts that

583
have been mentioned to-day. I should like to think that perhaps one day out of the fund would come benefit to the cathedrals, the abbeys and even to the ancient parish churches up and down the land which are now appealing so earnestly—and, I am afraid, in many cases, so forlornly—for our help. My Lords, many aspects have already been mentioned, and many more will be mentioned, but I think there is no doubt that finance is the key, and what is required is a large, steady income. Therefore, I earnestly and urgently offer this suggestion as one worthy perhaps of inclusion in the new Bill which is now being drawn up.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Airlie, who has had to leave to attend another engagement, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

MULTIPLE CURRENCY PRACTICES
6.32 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the action of the United States of America in meeting the growing malpractice of variable exchange rates to assist the exporting country to defeat import tariffs of other countries, as evidenced by the imposition of countervailing duties equal to the net amount of any bounty or grant paid upon their exportation from Uruguay, they now intend to afford industrial wage rates in this country similar relief against countries invoking comparable practices. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I would say that dangerous practices of a character aimed at giving a particular advantage to exporters are well known to the Government. They have been the subject of much conference between the Federation of British Industries and the Board of Trade, and, I understand, are still the subject of continuous attention. But the practice to which I draw particular attention is of a different kind. Here a
584
country is employing different exchange rates to furnish its exporters with the opportunity of intentionally defeating the tariffs existing in other countries. The difficulty about this is that there is no foretelling what arbitrary action of a novel character may be taken by countries that resort to this type of malpractice.
I have raised this matter because my connections with the United States have caused me to be particularly familiar with the effects of this action in that country, and the United States have now decided to take retaliatory action of a clear and vehement kind. It seems likely that the effect of that will be that the deflection of exports so penalised will spill over into other directions and may well cause serious harm to British exports. The action of the United States recognises that organised labour is entitled to protection against this kind of, I repeat, malpractice. For that reason it seems urgent that the matter should be raised. I am well aware that other types of export subsidies and assistances, greatly varied in kind, have been the subject of much international representation, but it is because the action the United States are taking is a precedent which recognises the actual danger in the United States—and from that I deduce its latent danger to industry in this country—that I think it would be opportune for a statement to be made. I hope my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be able to give me a reply of a reassuring character, and one which will help to relieve the extreme concern which is felt amongst traders in this country. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
6.34 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are grateful to my noble friend Lord Barnby for raising this important matter. They have considerable sympathy for the natural anxiety which underlies the remarks he has just addressed to your Lordships' House. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly made clear their opposition to the use of multiple exchange rates. They regard their use as undesirable, both in principle and, more particularly, when they are used as a form of subsidy for exports.
Multiple exchange rates constitute, in effect, a partial devaluation of the currency concerned, as the noble Lord has

585
just said. In consequence, they give a special advantage to the exports to which they apply. United Kingdom exporters, I know, have expressed their strong objection to the stimulation of exports by these devices. They have said that they regard them as a form of unfair competition, and it is clear that there is considerable justification for that view, and that the noble Lord's apprehensions are justified. For their part, Her Majesty's Government are working as hard as they can for the eradication of multiple exchange rates and similar practices. Action is proceeding in the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Her Majesty's Government will use any other suitable opportunity which may present itself for pursuing the matter, and the assistance and suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will be warmly welcomed.
Recently, the International Monetary Fund reached the decision that countries should remove currency retention schemes and similar practices as soon as feasible. This decision was announced by the Fund as recently as May 12. The question is still under discussion in the O.E.E.C. The noble Lord is no doubt aware that economic talks with German Ministers have just been concluded in London. The communiqué issued at the conclusion of the talks records that it was agreed that the stimulation of exports by artificial incentive schemes distorted the pattern of trade and impaired free competition. Accordingly, the two Governments agreed to consult further together and to cooperate with other Governments, with a view to securing the progressive elimination of such schemes on an international basis.
As I have already explained, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is directed towards removing at the root the use of multiple exchange rates as a form of subsidy for exports. Any success which Her Majesty's Government may have will thus alleviate the matter, both as regards the competition experienced by United Kingdom exporters in overseas markets and as regards competition in the United Kingdom itself. However, it is at present in overseas markets, rather than in this country, that the United Kingdom is being affected by the practices to which the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has drawn attention. So far as imports into this country are concerned, my information is
586
that the question raised by the noble Lord seems at the moment not much more than hypothetical. Competition from Uruguayan wool tops in the United Kingdom, to which the noble Lord drew particular attention, is really insignificant. If, however, the question raised by the noble Lord were to become more significant, then, of course, Her Majesty's Government would have to consider what action they should take, consistent with their international commercial obligations and policy.
I should draw the noble Lord's attention, however, to this fact: legislation would be needed in order to impose antidumping or countervailing duties against goods from particular sources. What is more, their imposition would raise administrative problems. For example, in some cases it would be difficult to determine the appropriate level at which to impose the duty. In some cases, it would not be easy to gauge the precise effect of the multiple currency practices on the prices of goods offered by foreign exporters. I mention these facts not to raise obstructions but to draw the noble Lord's attention to some of the difficulties which might face us.
I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the House, that Her Majesty's Government are taking all the action open to them to secure the abolition of these undesirable multiple currency practices. They fully realise the importance of persuading other Governments not to stimulate exports by artificial methods. On the evidence before them, Her Majesty's Government doubt whether the use of these methods is having serious effect sat present by unduly stimulating competition with the domestic market. If the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, or any other noble Lord, has further information on this aspect off the problem, I shall be grateful if he will let the Government have it. I think I have said enough to make the noble Lord realise that the Government treat this matter seriously and wish to do everything they can to prevent the difficulties to which the noble Lord has properly drawn attention.
6.40 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may ask for some additional information upon an important matter. First, has he any in-

587
formation as to the extent of these artificial methods of stimulating exports, and which countries are employing them? Secondly, can he give us any idea of what the Government propose to do about an aspect of this problem upon which he did not touch—namely, the effect, not only upon the domestic market but upon British exports? It is the overspill of these subsidised exports into markets where British exports are thus unfairly forced to compete which constitutes the serious aspect of the problem.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I fully appreciate both of those points, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising them. I am afraid that I have only the information with regard to the Uruguayan wool tops, to which Lord Barnby specifically addressed himself. The figures are long and complicated, and if the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, will put down on the Order Paper a Question Not for Oral Answer I will give him all the informa-
588
tion he wants. On the other questions wider than the Uruguayan points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I am afraid that I must ask for notice.

SAINT OSWALD ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Personal Bills Committee on the Petition for the Bill, made and to be printed; Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee), presented and read 1a.

REGISTRATION SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.