Lords Sitting of 16 December 1954

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

  IMMIGRANTS FROM THE COLONIES
  3.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon they intend to appoint a Committee to inquire into the problem of British subjects from the Colonies who migrate to find work in this country.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are giving close and urgent attention to all the problems involved in this matter. A number of complicated issues is involved. The Government will announce to Parliament as soon as possible their decision on these matters; I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that I cannot anticipate that announcement.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount two supplementary questions? The first is: do the Government intend to appoint a Committee or an Inter-Departmental Committee to inquire into the position of these Colonial workers in this country. The second is: can the noble Viscount assure us that "as soon as possible" means fairly early in the New Year and with no longer delay than at any rate a few months, as this matter is one of great urgency and during any delay which may occur the problem is getting worse?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I answer the second question first? Certainly "as soon as possible" means as soon as possible, and I should hope that it would not be a matter of months before we could make a statement. As regards a Committee, I am not quite sure what the noble Earl had in mind. So far
  462
  as I have heard, there are two sorts of suggestions current. One is for a Committee about social conditions or something of that sort. That is one which I dare say would be quite useful, but it would, I gather, concern itself with people now in this country. On that matter I should certainly have an open mind. The other idea, as I understood it, was to set up a Committee to consider whether anything should be done, and what. Frankly, if you set up a Committee of that kind it would have to get its information from Government Departments who are, or can easily be, in possession of all the information. I would say, without giving an absolute commitment, that if the Government are in possession of all the information, I think it rather rests with the Government to say to Parliament and the country what they themselves think the action should be.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the inquiry is going to be confined just to one Colony, or is it going to be widened out to cover the whole problem of dealing with immigrants or visitors from each of the Colonies? I think this is a problem which should be dealt with on a very wide basis.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I could not possibly agree more with the noble Viscount. When he says "inquiry," I have said that I do not think an inquiry into what should be done is a good idea. An inquiry about particular social conditions, say in one or two places here in this country, may be quite another and subsidiary matter. But I could not agree more with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has said. One could not possibly deal with this matter piecemeal. The noble Viscount knows—he was either Colonial Secretary or Commonwealth Secretary at one time—that no other country in the Commonwealth has dealt with it on that basis. Nearly every country in the Commonwealth, including a great many of the Colonies, but not our own country, has legislation and powers in these matters. If you are to deal with it at all you cannot possibly deal with it as a matter affecting this or that Colony; you must deal with it as a comprehensive problem covering the whole of the Commonwealth and all its peoples.
  LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, without wishing the noble Viscount to commit himself on this point, may I ask whether he would consider the desirability of publishing a White Paper, particularly in regard to the question of reciprocity in practice as between the various parts of the Commonwealth, before, or at the same time as, the Government make their announcement?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think it would be wise to publish such a paper before the Government make their announcement. I would gladly consider the suggestion that when an announcement is made some such Paper should be produced. I may say that it would be a fairly complicated Paper. I am not sure that even the noble Lord, with his knowledge, would completely comprehend it. One of the most difficult matters I have found to carry in my mind in this connection is the infinite varieties of legislation which exist in a large number of Commonwealth countries and Colonial territories. Broadly, as I say, nearly all of them have legislation which gives them wide powers covering both immigration and deportation which, incidentally, is not covered at all in this country. Though they broadly follow the same sort of pattern in giving fairly wide powers, there are an infinite number of variations in the exact form; and whether to try to record all these variations would be helpful, I am not sure. I will certainly consider with my colleagues the general suggestion. Might I add this? Going back to 1918 or one of the very early Imperial Conferences, it has been agreed that it rests with every country in the Commonwealth to decide these matters for itself—indeed, to decide, I think it was phrased, speaking from memory, "the composition of its own population."

DUNOON BURGH (PAVILION EXPENDITURE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 3) ORDER, 1954
3.14 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the two Orders concerning the lace industry which stand in my name on the Order Paper are much the same in substance as the two which your Lordships approved about this time last year. Perhaps I ought to explain why it is necessary to bring forward amending Orders again this year. The reason is that the levies are designed to bring in the same amounts each year. Under Section 9 of the main Act—that is, the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947–the rates of levy must be specified in the Orders. At the request of the industry, these rates are based on activity in the industry in given periods which are brought forward annually. Since activity varies from year to year, the rates must be varied to bring in the same amounts, and this requires annual amending Orders. The other changes brought about by the first Order were requested by the industry. The employers' associations and the trade unions have been consulted and have raised no objections. The proceeds of the levy amount to £10,000 a year and are used to finance the Lace Research Association. The Association, which obtains a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and also receives contributions directly from industry, has done much useful research for the lace industry and has an ambitious and well-balanced programme for the next few years. This Order is, I think, quite uncontroversial. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1954, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE FURNISHINGS INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 3) ORDER, 1954
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the employers' associations and the trade unions have been consulted also about the proposals in this second Order, and again they have raised no objections. The income from the levy has been used primarily to finance a publicity campaign in Canada for lace tablecloths and suchlike. A similar type of campaign was commenced last year in Australia. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1954, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED) AMENDMENT DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1954
3.17 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in moving these Regulations, I might perhaps remind your Lordships of the way in which they are put forward. The rates are put forward by the National Assistance Board; they are adopted by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and they become effective when they have been approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships may recall that this is the fourth occasion since the National Assistance Act was passed in 1948 that the House has been asked to approve increases in the standard rate of benefit and assistance. The original rate in July, 1948, was 24s. a week for a single person living alone; in June, 1950, it was increased to 26s.; in September, 1951, to 30s.; in June, 1952, to 35s.; and I am now asking your Lordships to approve the rate of 37s. 6d.
Your Lordships will observe that the scales laid down here are fairly simple. They provide the rate for a single householder, as I have stated, for a husband and wife 63s., and varying rates for people of other ages, besides a special rate for persons who are blind or who suffer from tuberculosis. The scales are, of course, exclusive of rent and rates, for which an addition is made. I might
466
give examples: a person living alone and paying a rent of 12s. a week would expect to have his income made up to 49s. 6d.—that is, 37s. 6d. plus 12s.; a married couple 75s.; that is, 63s. plus 12s. The rates provide a standard for the officers of the National Assistance Board in carrying out their duties, and their primary duty is to meet requirements. In order to do this, they necessarily have considerable discretionary powers to meet cases of sickness and other difficulties as may be necessary; and, in fact, about one-third of the cases in which assistance is provided contain some addition under these powers.
The National Assistance Board is a very large organisation, with duties which extend the length and breadth of this country. It is to me a striking testimony to the manner in which they carry out their very delicate and difficult duties that it is only comparatively seldom that we hear complaints in regard to the manner in which their work is done. In this respect I should like to quote what my right honourable friend the Minister said in another place on November 16. He said this of the National Assistance Board [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 533 (No. 181), col. 2371]:
"It has made a very great success of its job. It has done what is thought to be impossible in the Civil Service; the officials have been courteous, they have been kindly, they have been humane. I think everybody, without exception, approves of the work of the National Assistance Board."
I believe that those words were accepted without demur in every part of the other place, and I think they would be here also. We should express our gratitude to the officers who are carrying out their duties on behalf of the nation. I think your Lordships may rest assured that the real purchasing power shown in these scales is at a higher rate than it has ever been before. I beg to move.
Moved, That the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Draft Regulations, 1954, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has put these regulations before us. I join most cordially with him in paying a tribute to the humane way in which the National Assistance Board and those who administer and work the scheme

467
throughout the country do their work. What he said causes me vividly to remember how the late Mr. Ernest Bevin sought to bring this human idea prominently before all who worked in his Department during the period of the war. On a number of occasions I was with him in the local offices where matters of this kind were being administered, and his blunt but pregnant words to those in the Department were to the effect that they should remember that, but for the grace of God, they might be on the other side of the counter; that they were administering something on behalf of the nation to some less fortunate than themselves, and that they should see that the utmost humanity and consideration dictated their relationships with those who were the beneficiaries under these schemes. That applied more particularly to the Ministry of Labour, but it applied in the same way to the administration of this particular service.
I take it that these regulations will be accepted wholeheartedly. In another place I have seen many of these statutory instruments brought forward and heard dissatisfaction expressed over the amounts that were added to the benefits. My attitude has been never to refuse the benefits on that account, or to vote against them; it has been to say, "Well, this is not quite up to what we expected; it is not quite up to the needs of the situation. But let us accept it and to-morrow start a campaign to bring about the necessary increase." I cite this fact in connection with these regulations and the amounts that are to be paid. Taking the new National Insurance scales that we know are to be brought into operation—the Bill will be before us next week—we find that the amounts are to be 40s. for a man and 25s. for his wife; subject to the National Insurance conditions that means 65s.
The present rate of National Assistance for a man and his wife, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is 54s., and that is being brought up to 63s. by these regulations. That means an advance of 9s. on the basic rate, and, in my judgment, the amount that that increase represents is not in keeping with the increased costs that now fall upon a family. That increase has taken place since these regulations were previously amended, and when we compare the amount allowed
468
under these regulations—which provide the total income of those who are the beneficiaries—with the amount of increased benefit on ordinary pensions, I think it will be seen that quite a large number of those who will get the increase that is to be provided next week will not benefit a great deal.
The benefit cannot come into operation next week, and I think there is full justification for the plea that some considerable time should elapse before it becomes payable, because to carry through the raising of scales in this way with the millions of people who are affected is an enormous task. I think that there has been some loose talk about the way in which these benefits might have been much more rapidly put into operation. As I say, the civil servants concerned have a big task before them in bringing these new benefits to the point of payment out to the recipients. In my view there is not such a great margin of benefit under these regulations to those with whom they are dealing as to cause us to think that these people have been put in any favourable position; and I suggest that it will be necessary to look again at these scales in the near future.
I have made reference to the increased cost of living. In that regard I would point out that while it may be clear that the cost of living index shows that this increase in benefits is a reasonable one to make, it has to be kept in mind that the recipients of the benefits are not spending their income on all the various things that make up the cost of living index: they are down on the bedrock of absolute necessities. For example, tea might not be looked upon as an absolute necessity, but it is the great standby of many who have a low income. The cost of tea alone causes me to hold the opinion that in respect of the essentials the increase that is being paid to make up what is looked upon as a reasonable income for old people to live upon is not by any means over generous.
I want to take the opportunity of referring to two classes of people. If I were to try to relate them to these regulations, the only way in which I could properly bring what I want to say into line would be to refer to them as classes of people who do not want to be provided for in these regulations. I speak first of teacher superannuitants. I cite the case of the old village dominie—the

469
old schoolmaster in a country school who had all his life only a poor salary and who, when he came to superannuation, had only a poor superannuation allowance to fall back upon. The principal request that is made by these people is that, however it is arranged, the Government should make the payment to them at least monthly and not quarterly, as it is at the present time. I raised this question in another place on a number of occasions, and I always received what I consider to be an unreasonable answer to my plea. It seems all wrong that these people should have to wait a period of three months; by the time they reach the end of that period their miserably small allowance has gone.
Although these people do not want to seek National Assistance I would counsel them to do so and to feel no loss of pride or lack of dignity in making their plea for that which is their undoubted right. They are a very deserving class of people, a rapidly diminishing class, because of their age. Yet there is still this pride that prevents them from applying for assistance. I ask them to put aside that pride so that they may get the consideration to which their need entitles them. I ask the noble Lord who is in charge of this Order to urge upon the Departments responsible that the benefits to these teacher superannuitants should be paid at least as often as monthly and not kept for three months. I would ask the noble Lord to add his own weight to that plea.
Whilst I do not feel myself bound to make a declaration of personal interest, I am technically in another class to which I will refer—railway superannuitants. Many men and women who have been contributors to railway superannuation funds in the past now find, thanks not to Government action but to Government inaction on reducing the cost of living, that their superannuation allowances are not adequate to meet their proper needs. They do not wish to be dealt with by National Assistance boards, but they make the claim that, having served loyally and well, and having paid into superannuation funds for the benefits which to-day are inadequate to meet their proper needs, they should receive a special consideration. Such assistance is not intended to come from national funds direct from the Treasury and should be part of railway finance.
470
Though I may be accused of special pleading, these people were, to my own knowledge, loyal and faithful servants of the railways in days gone by. They worked for small salaries, so that to-day the superannuation allowance appropriate to their salary scale is small indeed. They are deserving of every consideration. I do not suggest that these particular pleas that I have made are strictly within the confines of these regulations. On behalf of people outside the regulations I urge Her Majesty's Government, who have powers in these matters, to endeavour to some extent to meet this situation.
3.34 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise first to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has said in his most eloquent plea, and secondly to say a word about the noble Earl's comment on his quotation from the speech made by the Minister in another place. The noble Earl said that the whole of this House would agree with the Minister's words. In so far as that quotation conveyed his appreciation of what the civil servants of the National Assistance Board have done, I entirely agree. I worked in closest association with them when I was Minister of National Insurance; but hearing that quotation, and not seeing it, suggested to me that this tribute was paid only to the civil servants of the National Assistance Board, at the cost of giving a very nasty back-hand slap to civil servants as a whole. The quotation was to the effect that servants of the National Assistance Board had done that which might seem to be impossible in the Civil Service—they had shown courtesy. In my experience of civil servants, they always show courtesy, and it is quite wrong to single out servants of the National Assistance Board from other civil servants. To that extent, if I am right in my hearing, I should like to express my complete dissent from that implication about civil servants who are not members of the National Assistance Board.
3.36 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replies I am encouraged by what my noble friend in front of me has said to deal with one particular point. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, was talking about schoolmasters and others who did not seek National

471
Assistance. In my experience many people do not attempt to claim National Assistance because they do not like the idea of assistance. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that at some future date consideration might be given to the renaming of the National Assistance Board with some other name more likely to find acceptance among those who would then be prepared to accept what is their right, these additional payments from the State. I suggest that the Board should be renamed the National Welfare Committee.
At the moment the word "Assistance" appears, also the word "Board." Those words call to mind the old board of guardians and, before that time, the board school, and other places of that kind. I believe that if the National Assistance Board could be renamed somewhat more in keeping with these times people would be more likely to go to it to receive what they require and what is their due. I am encouraged to make this suggestion through having certain connections with the British Legion. I was at a district committee meeting a fortnight ago and this same question arose in connection with supplementary pensions and similar matters. It was suggested that, although people had to fill in a form to make application, there was no compulsion; that one could not compel people to fill in forms and apply. It was also said that many old people and others needing benefits of the kind to which they are entitled do not apply because they do not like the idea of what we used to know as Public Assistance.
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, but there is an old saying about roses. I suggest we shall not get very much further on this question, whatever we may call this Board. I remember the public assistance committee of the local authority with which I was connected. I do not think it will make very much difference what name we give this body. I think that what will make a difference is the manner in which the work is done. Therefore I am glad that your Lordships agree with me when I say that I think they have done a magnificent job. I feel that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was a little
472
hard on me—he seemed to be straining my meaning, I thought. I certainly did not put upon the words in question the rather obscure interpretation which he apparently has done.
EARL JOWITT: Perhaps I did not hear correctly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree that the noble and learned Earl could strain it so as to give it that meaning. I give it to him that what I said and what I quoted could have the interpretation which he has put upon it, but I did not myself think it meant that at all.
EARL JOWITT: Would the noble Earl read it again.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The matter is really too small. I give it to the noble and learned Earl that what I said and what I read could have that meaning if he strains at it. But I am certain that neither my right honourable friend nor myself ever for a moment intended such a connotation.
In regard to Lord Mathers' remarks, he was good enough to say that he was not speaking strictly within the confines of these regulations. Perhaps he will permit me to refrain from answering fully, but I note the two points in regard to superannuation which he mentioned. I think he is aware that the Assistance Board can to a certain extent disregard superannuation in assessing requirements. In that respect they can, in some measure, meet the point which the noble Lord has in mind. I will try to get my right honourable friend the Minister of Education at least to give the noble Lord a reasonable answer on this subject. I felt that the noble Lord, when he was talking about the unfavourable position, was not giving adequate weight to the fact that the present position is better than it has been before. I will quote figures to him in support of that statement. I am aware that they are not entirely representative: The official rate cannot be taken as entirely representative of the needs of people under National Assistance or what they may require. None the less, they represent something. The interim index of retail prices has risen 33 per cent. since 1948, but the new rates of assistance represent an increase of 56 per cent. Even allowing for the special circumstances, these figures show that there

473
is a material advance. There is only one other point that I would make. The noble Lord said he would like the rates to come into operation a little sooner. I would remind him that this is December 16, and the rates come into operation on February 7 next. Nearly two million people are concerned, so I think that on the whole the National Assistance Board are not doing too badly. In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords for the general welcome which they have given these regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) REGULATIONS, 1954
3.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, during their consideration by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, these regulations have been found to Contain some complexity, and, therefore, if I trespass on your Lordships' time for a little longer than I should otherwise have done, I hope your Lordships will appreciate the reason. I do not think anyone can fail to understand why the regulations have a certain complexity, because they apply an Act which your Lordships have found to be complex in itself to an industry which has its own complications and special practices—the mineral industry in this country. I will try to put them before your Lordships as quickly as I can, but yet adequately. I should like to make this point. In accordance with what I believe to be the appropriate modern legislative practice, these regulations, before they have been made, have been shown to those most likely to be interested in them. They have been shown to local authorities, to the Federation of British Industries, to the Country Landowners' Association and to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I think your Lordships will agree that that is in accordance with modern legislative practice, and is very helpful in bringing regulations in as good a form as one can get before your Lordships' House.
There are three preliminary points which I should like your Lordships to have in mind. The first is that, with regard to mineral regulations, mining operations, unlike most other forms of
474
development, add nothing to the value of the land. The value of permission to work minerals lies solely in the right to take them away. This removal frequently destroys what value there is in the land. Secondly, the process of extraction and treatment of minerals usually requires the provision of expensive fixed plant and buildings near the area of working. The third point I would ask your Lordships to have in mind is that the 1947 Act treated the winning and working of minerals as a continuous operation, and not as a use of land. Therefore, permission is required so long as working continues.
With those points in mind, I now ask your Lordships to consider what these regulations are. Not all of them stem, as your Lordships will appreciate, from the recent Act. For the convenience, I think, of everyone concerned, we are trying to consolidate the three sets of regulations which have been in force for a varying number of years. These are the Minerals Regulations of 1948, 1949 and 1953. I hope that the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition will agree that that is the proper course to take when one is making fresh regulations. Your Lordships will appreciate that Part II of the present regulations—that is regulations 3 to 10–deal with this point, and they reenact those of the existing regulations which are still required. Therefore, they are mainly consolidatory in character. There are, however, one or two new provisions in Part II, to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and I will then do the same with regard to Part III.
First, with regard to Part II, Your Lordships will have seen that regulation 2 in Part I sweeps away existing regulations, and Part II reinstates such regulations as we still require, amended where necessary to take into account the effect of the Act of 1954. I think there are only a few points to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. First, the House may wonder why certain regulations—notably regulation 8 and regulation 9–still make reference to the calculation of claims on the £300 million fund and the determination of the development charge. The answer is that some of the claims made by mineral undertakers have not yet been determined, because the negotiations on some claims are difficult and complicated and have, therefore,

475
been protracted. Similarly, there are a number of development charges which are still not determined. The House may remember (because we discussed this during the progress of the Bill) that under Section 54 of the Act of 1954 many mineral undertakings—namely, those where development began before November 18, 1952–remain liable for a development charge up to January 1, 1955, and the final determination and payment of some charges may not be made until after these regulations come into force. Therefore it is necessary to preserve powers found in regulation 9. I mention that point because I feel that, unless that background is known, and the reason for delays is known, it may strike noble Lords as curious that that aspect of planning is still dealt with in the regulations.
The second special reference I should like to make to Part II is to regulation 10. Your Lordships will understand that in the years immediately before the 1947 Act came into force, planning control of the winning and working of minerals was much less stringent. Therefore, at the appointed date (July 1, 1948) some transitional arrangements had to be made to enable operators who were already at work to extract minerals without specific permission until the application for specific permission could be determined. That was done by the General Development Order of 1948. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will appreciate, that Order authorised those who were still on the job to go on with it.
That presented us with a problem, because, as I have indicated, generally speaking, any compensation for refusal of permission to work minerals can be founded on the loss of development value in minerals, and under the Act of 1954 compensation will be based on the claim on the £300 million fund, and, in future, on the unexpended balance. In the ordinary way, a refusal cannot damage the value of buildings, plant and machinery, because they should not have been erected until permission was forthcoming; but in cases of working still going on in 1948, something had to be devised to meet the situation where buildings and plant existed and could be damaged by refusal to allow the continuation of working, which was not then covered by the General Development Order. Regulation 10 (1), which appeared
476
in the 1948 and 1953 regulations, was a means of providing compensation for such damage, and the main change we have made is that by regulation 10 (2), which is new, the applicant is enabled to obtain compensation for loss through disturbance of these undertakings as though permission for which he was asking had been revoked or modified. I think your Lordships will see the common sense of that. There being a General Development Order and the person in question working under that Order, we considered that this was the best approximation and that, in these circumstances, the effect of a refusal of permission was very much the same as the effect of a revocation of permission, and the compensation ought to be on the same basis.
The third reference I want to make to Part II is to the addition that has been made to regulation 7. Your Lordships may have in mind that regulation 5 of the 1948 regulations provided for the calculation of compensation where buildings, plant and machinery were compulsorily acquired. In this circumstance regard was to be had to the existence of any specific planning permission to work minerals. Nothing was said about the effect of permission under the General Development Order, and the purpose of paragraph 2 of regulation 7 is to enable the value of a General Development Order permission to be taken into account. I think these are the important points in Part II.
If I may treat Part III in the same way, I hope that I can cover the important points. The most significant financial arrangements which are special to mineral workings, and which are incorporated in leases of minerals, are, first, the custom of reserving an amount of rent under the lease which is payable by the lessee, whether he works any minerals or not. The corollary to that is that the mineral lessee normally has the right to work without any further payment an appropriate tonnage of minerals at a subsequent time. I am anxious not to trouble your Lordships with details, but your Lordships will see the two factors which have to be taken into account with regard to mineral leases. The first is what is known in the industry as accumulated short workings—that is, where the amount of minerals that has been got does not come up to the amount that is covered by the rent under the lease. The

477
second factor arises when the next break in the lease comes by which the lease can be terminated. It is obvious that these two factors vary at different times of the lease. A lessee might come up to a period where the break is only a week or two off and past that week or two there is a further period of five years. On the other side, it may be that the amount of accumulated short working is entirely different at the time when the payment becomes due from the amount at the appointed day.
That is the problem with which we have had to deal. Stated in a word or two it is this. If, when payment falls to be made under the Act, the lessee has accumulated more short workings than he had at the appointed day, while the number of years until the next break in the lease has increased, then the share of development value held by each of the parties is quite different from what it was at the appointed day. This fluctuation or movement in value is often considerable and has to be taken into account. That is the problem that we are trying to deal with in Part III of these regulations. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is a problem dealing with the past when we were still in the field of claim-holdings. In the future all claim-holdings relating to minerals in a given piece of land are amalgamated into the unexpended balance, of which we have heard so much. Your Lordships will see particularly that regulations 16, 17, 18, 21 and 24 (2) deal with this problem.
I will say a word on regulation 21, as I think that would help your Lordships most, because it deals with compulsory purchase in the future of land subject to a mineral lease. Regulation 21 provides for the division between the lessor and the lessee under a mining lease of the unexpended balance of an established development value. The division is made on a principle already familiar to your Lordships from our discussions on Part III of the 1954 Act. In calculating the proportion three factors have to be taken into account: accumulated short workings, which I have mentioned; the value of the lessor's right to receive a minimum rent up to the next operation of a break in the lease; and thirdly, the value of any profit royalty owned by the lessee—that is, if the lessee has held his
478
lease under a royalty reserve which is less than the full market value.
The only other point in Part III to which I need to draw your Lordships' attention centres round the provision made for damage to the value of buildings, plant and machinery resulting from a compulsory acquisition of other land held by the same operator. This provision will be found in regulation 23 (b). I hesitate to go into that fascinating topic at any length, but, as your Lordships will see, that is the point, and we have tried to deal with it in the regulations. I could go through the regulations seriatim, but that would be a poor return for the courtesy and patience which your Lordships have shown to what has already been a long explanation. I would say only this. I feel it is important that when the Special Orders Committee draw attention to a matter as being deserving of special consideration, the Minister in charge ought to put it before the House. With that apology I beg to move.
Moved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, nobody could possibly complain of the manner in which the noble and learned Viscount has introduced this Motion. I can assure him that he has given as full an explanation as this House could possibly stand, and if he had gone any further I think he might have fared worse. I feel that the explanation is adequate at the moment. I have vivid recollections of studying from time to time, when I was Minister, various problems relating to minerals, and I remember that after great effort, if I thought at a particular moment that I got a glimpse of what was involved, I could not swear that a few minutes later I would retain such impression as I had. I had the same feeling when the noble and learned Viscount was explaining these regulations: I think I understood them while he was speaking, but I should not like to swear that I would understand what he had said soon afterwards. However, it seemed all right to me, and I am comforted by the fact that these regulations have been shown in draft to the various bodies to which he referred.

479
I was going to ask the Lord Chancellor about that matter. I do not know whether he was being cautious when he said that they had been shown to these bodies, because he did not say what was the effect of showing them. We should like to know that. I should feel some additional assurance if I knew that these reputable bodies, which are, on the whole, more competent to understand these regulations than most of us in this Chamber, had actually approved them. If that were so, I would say that it would be difficult for any one of us to quarrel with them. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us whether they did approve generally, and whether any amendments were made to these regulations as the result of representations made by one or more of these bodies.
In view of the representations of the Special Orders Committee, I believe it might have been helpful if we had had a little more time to study these regulations. I do not want to emphasise—the noble and learned Viscount has done so quite adequately—their difficulty and complexity. Since this is regulation by reference in the most complicated way, I consider that the time that has been given to this House to deal with the matter is inadequate to enable us properly to discharge our duties. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House will see that these regulations were made on December 8, and they were not presented to the House until later. I understand that they were printed on the 15th, which was yesterday, and I presume that we are being told today that these regulations are of such a character that they require special consideration. The noble Marquess must have heard the Lord Chancellor explaining them, and I am sure he will agree that they do require special consideration.
It is said that,
"In the opinion of the Committee the regulations cannot be passed by the House without special attention."
The House has not had much opportunity to give the special attention to these regulations that it ought to give, its attention having only now been directed to the point. Some of us who would be prepared to devote a certain amount of time in trying to understand the regulations and in satisfying ourselves that they
480
are right have had no opportunity of doing so since this morning; indeed, unless we had paid particular attention to this Report, which would presumably have come to us this morning, we should not have realised that this was a matter which required special consideration. I feel that if this House is to discharge its functions adequately we should be given a little more time, to make a pretence, at any rate, of understanding what we are doing, than has been the case with these regulations. I am prepared to "call it a day" on these regulations, but I hope that the noble Marquess will realise that I have raised a point on this matter and that we ought to try to give ourselves sufficient time to appreciate what we are doing.
The only comment I want to make on the substance of the regulations, which have been adequately described by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, is on No. 21. This is complicated and needs time for consideration. Can the noble and learned Viscount make a statement as to whether the treatment that is being afforded to owners of mineral workings is more favourable, less favourable or just as favourable as that which is being given to other owners whose land is being compulsorily acquired? Obviously it is different, because that is the purpose of this regulation. But it is not easy to see whether they are being treated in a more favourable or less favourable way than other owners, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could give us some explanation of that point. With those few words—indeed, that is all anybody can say, in view of the time we have had to consider the matter—I hope that we can have an assurance that in future we shall be given rather more time and warning of matters that require special attention than we have been given in regard to these particular regulations.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, as a member of the Special Orders Committee, I should like to express my gratitude and, I am sure, the gratitude of the other members of the Committee, to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the manner in which he has explained this Motion, and also justified our action. I take a measure of responsibility for this.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not criticising the Special Orders Committee, and there is no need to justify them.
LORD AMMON: I am not referring to what the noble Lord said. As the noble and learned Viscount has already indicated, your Lordships' attention has to be called to anything entirely new, or anything that is not founded on precedent. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has indicated that we were amply justified in taking the steps that we did take on those grounds. The matter was discussed. It ought to be said, too, that, so far as the Special Orders Committee are concerned, the papers are in the hands of the members some time before the meeting takes place. But the fact that we met only yesterday was not our fault. I think we may take it as an indication of our assiduity that in a short space of time we took the steps that we did.
4.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I deal with the points that noble Lords have raised in the order in which they were raised? I think the first point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wanted information from me was whether the consultation that I described had been useful, if I may put it in that way. I should like to say to him that of course all the bodies were given a full chance of considering the matter. But with regard to two of them in particular, it went far beyond that. The Federation of British Industries who speak for, I think, about twenty different sections of the mining industry, together with some of the surveyors, have been very close and thorough in their co-operation, and many amendments were made as a result. As I understand it—I hope the noble Lord will not take me to the fool of the letter—I think it was rather left to them. The local authorities, as I understand, had not any particular points of their own to raise. They knew that the matter would be threshed out in the other way. The other point about which the noble Lord asked me related to regulation 21, I think he will find that this follows the principle with which he is very familiar, and which he examined again in considering Part III of the 1954 Act. I do not think it changes the balance of preferment, if I may put it that way;
482
but I did tell the House of the three factors that it took into account—accumulated short workings, the rental up to the next period of break, and the possible existence of a profit royalty in those matters. I think they are the right criteria and the method of operating them does not change.
With regard to the general position, if I may say so to your Lordships, what we have heard to-day (with the exception that your Lordships have had to listen to a speech of mine) shows the value of the Special Orders Committee procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, said, the drafts of the Orders have been available for a period of about a week to the Special Orders Committee. I know that, having regard to the calls on your Lordships in general, it must be a relief to feel that that Committee do the work of examination; and, if I may intrude a personal matter, it is a gratification to me, because I think it was when I was a Law Officer of the Crown that the suggestion was put forward that there should be a corresponding Committee in the House of Commons to deal with this point. I am grateful to the Special Orders Committee that they have indicated that the matter should be examined. I have apologised to your Lordships as sincerely as I can for examining it at some length myself, and I hope that, at the end of the day, your Lordships will feel that the matter has been properly and seriously put before the House and that your Lordships will now approve these regulations.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had hoped that we should have received some reply to the point I made. I am not complaining in the least: of course I am grateful to the Special Orders Committee for having drawn our attention to the difficulties of these regulations. My point was that we knew that they had drawn our attention to them only this morning, at the earliest. That does not give us an opportunity of giving to them that attention which the Committee thought was necessary. Nor am I complaining of the way in which the noble and learned Viscount explained them, but surely this House is entitled to something more than that. We are entitled not only to have an explanation of these Orders: we are entitled to consider them and to try to

483
understand them for ourselves. My complaint is that we have not had that opportunity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that that aspect will be considered by my noble friend the Leader of the House, and by all of us who have to deal with these matters from the departmental aspect. I can only tell the noble Lord that it is one of the difficulties—we found it in another place, as well as in your Lordships' House—of getting suitable intervals of time between the various stages that have to be gone through. I can assure the noble Lord, on behalf of my noble friend, and on behalf of the Departments which we can influence, that in the future we will try to see that a reasonable time is given to your Lordships for studying and considering regulations which take that course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1954
4.16 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am treating either your Lordships or my native land with any disrespect if I deal with these regulations quite shortly, because they are almost identical, apart from two points, to the English regulations. The first is that in the Scottish regulations an enforcement notice is not necessary, because that is already covered by Section 21 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. The second point is that in Scotland the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, is not yet in force, and therefore the definition has been inserted to cover the position which now obtains in Scotland where, as I understand it, the official arbitrator still carries on. Apart from these two procedural differences, the regulations are identical, except for some minor modifications to comply with the law of Scotland. As I have said, there is no disrespect to Scotland in dealing with these regulations in this way, but as the matters are almost identical I hope that your Lordships will not wish me to repeat my explanation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations,
484
1954, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, apropos of what my noble friend Lord Silkin said, I ask the attention of the Leader of the House on this point. I think that in future we should avoid this sort of situation. We have a Special Orders Committee performing the most valuable work for us. They direct our attention to Orders at which your Lordships ought particularly to look, and with regard to this Order they said:
"In the opinion of the Committee the Regulations cannot be passed by the House without special attention."
Their Report is dated December 15, which was yesterday, and I suppose that the paper calling attention to that would be published this morning. I do not think it is much good one having a Special Orders Committee doing this sort of work unless there is a reasonable interval of time between the result of their researches and the information they give to the House.
I may be wrong about this particular case, but I am sure we shall all agree that, where this Special Orders Committee do make this sort of report, there ought to be an interval of time so that we may have a chance of looking through the regulations. There are so many regulations nowadays that we cannot look closely at all of them and we have this Committee to tell us what we ought to study. I am not making any complaint. I am not suggesting that we should not pass these regulations, or anything of that sort. I am merely asking the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to look at this matter and, if I am right in the information given to me, I think it is something we ought to try to avoid in the future. In future, when this Committee make this sort of recommendation there ought to be a reasonable interval of time before the Orders come before the House, because it is hardly courtesy to them, if they make this sort of recommendation, that we should be given so little time in which to look into the matter. I commend this point to the notice of the Leader of the House.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not at all dissent from what the noble and learned Earl

485
has said. What happened was that this regulation, unfortunately, did not come to the Special Orders Committee until December 8. They took at least a week to consider it very carefully, and therefore it did not come away from them until yesterday; and it came to us this morning. Of course, the time is very short. It is one of those things which we all know, in both Houses of Parliament, sometimes happens just before a Recess. It was important that these regulations should be passed through Parliament before the Recess. I am sorry to say that they have been jammed up at the very end of the period, and the time which has been given for the consideration by your Lordships of this Order has not been as long as I should certainly have wished. I can only promise the House that I will do my best to see that these things do not happen if they can be avoided.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES DRAFT ORDERS
4.21 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, a glance at the Order Paper will show your Lordships that there are no fewer Than fifty-two Draft Orders standing in my name. I understand that it is not likely to be to the taste of the House that I should move each one separately and discuss it in detail. Therefore, I propose to address your Lordships for a short time upon the general principles underlying these Orders and not discuss the details of them. In doing this, I am following two highly reputable precedents, to which I shall refer in the course of my remarks; but that does not mean for one moment that any of your Lordships who desires to make any individual point on any individual Order is not fully entitled so to do. I hope that that procedure will meet with the approval of the House.
These Draft Orders give effect without modification of any kind to the recommendations contained in fie recent reports of the Boundary Commissions. The Commissions submitted their reports in pursuance of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. This Act consolidated Acts of 1944 and 1947. The 1944 Act gave effect to recommendations of the Speaker's Conference for
486
the establishment of permanent Boundary Commissions, and laid down agreed rules for redistribution. The 1947 Act made certain amendments to the rules which had been agreed between the parties after experience had shown that the original rules were in some respects too rigid. The Commissions had first to make an initial general review of constituencies on which they reported in 1947. Those recommendations were given effect—with some changes to which I shall have to refer in a moment—by the Representation of the People Act, 1948. The Commissions now have to make further general reviews at intervals of from three to seven years, and to submit periodical reports showing the constituencies into which they recommend that the country should be divided to give continuous effect to the redistribution rules. The Redistribution of Seats Act provides that recommendations made in these periodical reports are to be given effect by Orders in Council, the drafts of which must first be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The principles behind the Welsh and Scottish recommendations call for little comment from me, but your Lordships may well ask why so many and such drastic changes should be necessary in England so soon after the last general redistribution. The answer is indicated in paragraphs 14 and 17 of the English Commission's report. The fact is that this crop of recommendations is the aftermath of the changes made to the Commission's initial recommendations in 1948. I do not want to revive an old controversy, least of all one that mainly affects another place, but it is impossible to understand the present recommendations unless one remembers that in 1948 seventeen borough seats additional to those recommended by the Commission were created during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill through another place. The creation of these extra seats upset the balance of representation between urban and rural areas, and between different parts of the country which the Commission had been at such pains to create; and the great majority of the present recommendations are necessary solely in order to restore that balance.
I do not mean to say that the Commission have sought to reverse everything

487
that was done by Parliament in 1948–far from it—but the creation of a larger total number of seats clearly altered the whole mathematical basis of the scheme of redistribution, and also gave some parts of the country more seats than they were entitled to, and made it equitably necessary to create other counterbalancing new seats in other parts of the country. Each of these Draft Orders requires the approval of both Houses before it can be made. When it has been made, it will take effect in fourteen days. This means that the 1955 register will be based on the new constituencies; but the changes will not affect elections until the next General Election: any intervening by-election will be fought on the old constituency battleground.
London County Council elections are held on Parliamentary constituencies, each constituency electing three county councillors. The London Orders accordingly provide that the changes which they make are to operate also for L.C.C. elections, and are to come into force for this purpose at the next ordinary L.C.C. elections on March 31 next year. That is, I think, a point which has probably not escaped the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of their report, the English Commission have made two important suggestions for amendments of the law. Legislation, of course, is not in issue at the moment; and if there is to be any, it must be preceded by careful consideration and discussion between the political Parties, and the need for it will not arise until the next general review begins to fall due. The Government, therefore, have no firm pronouncement to make on the subject at present. May I tell your Lordships, however, that the Government will be glad to give every consideration to what is said in both Houses about these suggestions of the Boundary Commission at the present time, and to consider the possibility of legislation in due course.
The first suggestion is that the interval between general reviews of constituencies should be extended. I do not think there is much doubt that there will be widespread support for this suggestion. The other proposal is that the rules for redistribution should be somewhat relaxed, in order to relieve the Commissions
488
of any necessity to recommend changes purely for mathematical reasons.
We are at a very interesting moment in our constitutional history, for we have to consider the results of the first periodical review of constituencies by permanent Boundary Commissions under permanent machinery. For that reason this is naturally an occasion of particular interest to this House. Your Lordships will agree that it is right and fitting that this House should play its part in the constitutional process of giving effect to the recommendations arising out of that review. At the same time, as I have indicated, I do not suppose that your Lordships will wish to inquire closely into the merits of particular changes or particular boundaries. These are matters of the most intimate domestic concern to the Members of another place, where they are, I understand, being considered at this moment with an anxious and uninhibited thoroughness. We in this House can take a little more detached view about them.
I remember, of course, that in 1948 the creation of seats not recommended by the Boundary Commission was not passed over in silence in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill—indeed, I remember there were one or two speeches which almost came into the category of taxing—but there was no discussion at all, at any stage, on the details of constituencies as set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. That Schedule corresponded closely with the Draft Orders which we are now discussing. That precedent may well commend itself to your Lordships on this present occasion. It was, I think, at the instigation of the noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison, whose advice we always took so readily in these matters, that we took that course on that occasion; and the precedent was again followed on the advice of the late lamented Lord Shepherd, when the Order of 1951 was being discussed by your Lordships. I hope that that precedent will commend itself to the House to-day. In conclusion, I would say that I feel the recommendations made by these distinguished, independent and impartial Commissions are such that we in your Lordships' House, at any rate, may accept them with entire confidence. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the following Draft Orders be approved:
Parliamentary Constituencies (Crewe, Knutsford, Nantwich and Northwich) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Reading, Newbury and Wokingham) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Bedford and Mid-Bedfordshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Derby and South East Derbyshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Plymouth) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Gateshead and Jarrow) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Billericay, South East Essex, Romford and Southend) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Chelmsford, Chigwell and Woodford) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Gloucestershire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Hampshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Hertfordshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (North Kent) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Blackburn, Chorley and Darwen) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Liverpool and South-West Lancashire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Manchester, Oldham and Ashton under Lyne) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Warrington and Newton) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Bosworth and Loughborough) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Harborough and Leicester South East) Draft Order,1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Fulham and Hammersmith) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Woolwich) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Spelthorne, Feltham and Heston and Isleworth) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Harrow) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Newcastle upon Tyne) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Nottinghamshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (South-East Staffordshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Dudley and South Staffordshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Stoke on Trent) Draft Order,1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Wolverhampton) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Croydon) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Kingston upon Thames, Surbiton and Wimbledon) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Sussex) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Birmingham and North Warwickshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Yorkshire, East Riding) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Huddersfield, Colne Valley and Penistone) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Bradford, Brighouse and Spenborough and Dewsbury) Draft Order, 1954.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Wakefield and Hemsworth) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Leeds) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Sheffield) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Carmarthenshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Swansea) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Newport and Monmouth) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Bute and North Ayrshire and Central Ayrshire) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (East Aberdeenshire, West Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Edinburgh Central and Edinburgh Pentlands) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Glasgow Scotstoun, Glasgow Hillhead and Glasgow Woodside) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Glasgow Pollok, Glasgow Craigton, Glasgow Govan and Glasgow Gorbals) Draft Order, 1954.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Midlothian, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and Edinburgh East) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Glasgow Springburn, Glasgow Central and Glasgow Kelvingrove) Draft Order, 1954.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Stirlingshire and Stirling and Falkirk Burghs) Draft Order, 1954.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Edinburgh North and Edinburgh West) Draft Order, 1954,
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West (Glasgow Bridgeton, Glasgow Provan and Glasgow Shettleston) Draft Order, 1954,
—(Lord Mancroft.)
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out in his admirably clear explanation of these regulations, the subject of Parliamentary representation is rather a delicate subject for your Lordships. I shall endeavour in my remarks to tread as delicately as did the noble Lord in his. What I should like to do is to draw the attention of the House to two of these Orders—those dealing with Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington, and Fulham and Hammersmith, two of the Orders affecting London. In doing so, I should like at the outset to make clear that I am not in the least concerned about the effect of these Orders on the representation of London in Parliament. Of course, that is a subject we are entitled to discuss here, just as we are entitled to discuss finance or any other subject; but it is not a matter that I, personally, wish to deal with. My observations will therefore be strictly limited to the effect of these proposed changes on local government in London.
The London County Council and some of the metropolitan boroughs strongly object to both of these Orders. What I should like to do is to state their objections, with which I personally agree, and to give the noble Lord opposite an opportunity, if he so desires, to reply to them before the House takes the final step of approving the Orders. In my judgment, there are two reasons why these proposals will have a harmful effect on the government of London. The first is this. As your Lordships are aware, the electoral divisions of the County of London are, in fact, the Parliamentary constituencies; that is laid down by Statute. The consequence is that any changes in the boundaries or composition of London constituencies will also change the system of local government in London.
The result of the second of these Orders, the one dealing with Fulham and Hammersmith, which two boroughs are now to be merged, will be that one Parliamentary seat in London will be completely eliminated and, as a consequence, the London County Council will be deprived of one electoral division and three of its elected members. At present there are 129 members of the London County Council, and the effect of this Order will be to reduce their number to
492
126. Many of your Lordships have served on the London County Council—at least, one noble Lord who sits on the Front Bench has been a member of the Council; I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was at one time a member—and they will, I know, fully realise how much work the members of the London County Council have to do and what an extremely busy authority it is. They will sympathise with the difficulty which I am going to put before your Lordships. The loss of three elected members will throw even more work on the other members, and as there has been no substantial lessening of the responsibility of the Council since the last election in 1952, it is a real addition to their present work.
Unlike the metropolitan boroughs, the London County Council meets in the daytime, in the ordinary hours of work, and the result of putting additional work on the councillors will be to make it even harder for professional men and women who have to earn their living in the daytime to serve as members of the County Council. This will increase the unfortunate tendency, of which I know those of your Lordships who have been connected with the Council are aware, for the ranks of the councillors to be recruited from persons who have reached an age at which they can retire from employment and are therefore free to give hours of work in the daytime to the committees of the Council. This is certainly contrary to efficient local government, because members of a local authority need to be recruited from persons of all age groups—the vigour and energy of youth is needed as well as the ripe wisdom of older persons. That is one undesirable effect that we see resulting from this Order.
The other effect of these two Orders, taken together, is that they increase from nine to twelve the number of metropolitan boroughs in London partly or wholly merged with other metropolitan boroughs for Parliamentary, and consequently for county, purposes. I am glad to see that the Report respects the integrity of the ten London boroughs south of the Thames—that is something, at any rate; but north of the Thames, instead of reducing the number of boroughs that are at present divided between different Parliamentary constituencies, three more are added and will now be dismembered. We had hoped that a reduction might be

493
possible. The first of these Orders will add part of Hackney to the Parliamentary constituency of Bethnal Green, and, as I have already said, the second Order will merge Fulham and Hammersmith. Not only will this weaken the community spirit of the metropolitan boroughs, which I think is something that everyone would wish to strengthen, but it will not make it easier for the voters of these metropolitan boroughs to be fairly represented when matters affecting them are discussed and decided by the London County Council—very often matters of considerable importance.
A further serious difficulty and inconvenience for London in regard to these Orders, which was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is that they will take effect before the London County Council election, which is due at the end of March of next year. The difficulty for London is that a period of three months is simply not long enough to allow for the reorganisation of the electoral divisions of the county which are affected by these Orders. I really cannot see why local government elections should be treated differently from Parliamentary elections. Why should not the date upon which these Orders take effect be the same for local government elections as for Parliamentary elections? We do not know when we shall have another General Election, but I think we can be fairly certain that we shall not have it before next March. To that extent, therefore, I think it is perfectly fair to say that the local authorities are being roughly treated as compared with Parliament.
I think that one of the things the noble Lord will say, if he wishes to reply to these observations, is that these changes in London local government follow necessarily from most desirable alterations in the London constituencies. Of course, in so far as logical necessity is concerned, no one would disagree with that proposition; but it is highly questionable whether the particular alterations in respect of the London constituencies that have been made should have been made in order to bring them closer to an electoral quota or average electorate of 57,122 persons.
I am sorry to have to mention figures, but I do not think it is possible to put this argument as it should be put without referring to a simple figure, which is the
494
figure of the average electorate as calculated by the Boundary Commission, and the figure they give is 57,122 persons. But if the Boundary Commission had obtained this figure of the average electorate, which is sometimes technically called the electoral quota, in another way, and in a very simple way, by dividing the total number of voters in Great Britain by the total number of Parliamentary seats—this is laid down as an instruction in the 1949 Act—then the result would have been an average electorate of 55,670 persons, a substantially smaller figure. But the average London electorate at the present time is 56,935 persons and therefore is in excess of an average electorate obtained simply by following the instructions of the Act. Had this figure which I have just quoted been taken by the Commissioners, then London would not have lost a Parliamentary seat, the London County Council would not have been deprived of three members and the various other changes I have mentioned would not have occurred.
No doubt the noble Lord will reply that the Commissioners were also bound by law, by a provision in the Act, to ensure that the existing number of Parliamentary seats should not be "substantially" increased. The word used, "substantially," is gloriously vague; it is not defined in the Statute and has already been interpreted in an entirely different way by equally responsible people, in Parliament and outside. While I do not wish to make the obvious argument that could be made, one other argument ought to be put. What arises here, particularly on the point on which so much turns, the meaning of the word "substantially" in the 1949 Act, is the need for amending the Act and, of course, for agreement between the Parties about matters that require alteration. I was glad that the noble Lord opposite said that Her Majesty's Government had in mind at least two important amendments which were recommended by the Boundary Commission in its Report. From the standpoint of local government I very much hope that consideration will be given to having reviews of Parliamentary constituencies at intervals less frequent than every three to seven years. These reviews are extremely unsettling to local authorities, compelling them to waste a great deal of their time and energy. The less frequently these

495
reviews occur, when right consideration is given to changes in population, the better.
Everyone, whatever his Party, wants a fair and reasonable system of representative government in this country, at the centre and in the local authorities. I therefore appeal to Her Majesty's Government and to the noble Lord opposite to try to achieve revision of the 1914 Act in a way which would be acceptable to all political Parties. If we all turn our minds to it I cannot see why representation should not be taken right out of Party politics in the same manner as adult franchise or the secret ballot or any of the other essentials of democracy. The attempt should be made, and I hope it will be made by the present Government.
4.45 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I am particularly interested in this matter. I feel that the procedure now being adopted is quite contrary to public interest. I have in my hand a letter from the London County Council, who are not what one might call a firebrand authority. They say, summarising:
"… the Council wish to express the strongest opposition to the Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington Order and the Fulham and Hammersmith Order, on the grounds that (i) they contravene the provisions of the Second Schedule to the 1949 Act"—
referred to by my noble friend who has just spoken—
"which envisages that the boundaries of metropolitan boroughs and electoral constituencies shall be coterminous save in exceptional circumstances …"
The significance of that point is reinforced when one realises a situation which has not yet been mentioned here: that, South of the River Thames, Parliamentary constituencies and those pertaining to borough elections do not have boundaries that overlap one another, so that County Council and Parliamentary and borough council organisations can work as an efficient machine. The new proposals put forward in the Fulham and Hammersmith Order and the Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stoke Newington Order will upset that situation. Already North of the river there are a good many places where that has happened. These Orders will disturb a movement towards a better arrangement. It is undoubtedly better to have Parliamentary, County
496
Council and borough council organisations together, so that each area governs all relevant matters centrally. That is a very convenient arrangement which makes the County Council and metropolitan borough work in London go very well indeed. I speak from intimate knowledge of London, especially in the field of education services, and I know how excellent an arrangement it is to have things as they now stand. I sincerely hope that your Lordships' House will not accept these two Orders now before us. I believe that they are wrong in fact and in principle, and ought never to have been introduced.
4.48 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to those already uttered in criticism of the Orders submitted to your Lordships' House. First, however, I desire to pay a tribute to the Boundary Commissions. They have done an honest, sincere, impartial and objective job according to their lights, and in nothing that we say from this side of the House do we desire to criticise the way in which the Commissions have carried out their work. They have had an exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, task. They have had to reconcile three almost irreconcilable factors. First, they have had to ensure that the number of constituencies in the country was not substantially increased, and to provide that Scotland and Wales have their fixed quota, with no substantial increase in England. Side by side with that task, they have had to provide, so far as possible, that constituencies should be equal in size. In London, they have also had to secure that, so far as possible, local boundaries were not interfered with in fixing the new constituencies. Nevertheless, I would submit that the Commission have given undue weight to one of the factors and inadequate weight to the other two.
They have regarded it as their duty to ensure that the number of Members of Parliament is not substantially increased, but in so doing they have misdirected themselves. I do not for a moment suggest that they have acted in bad faith, but I believe that in securing the one factor—avoiding a substantial increase in the number of Members of Parliament—they have failed to give adequate weight to the undesirability of cutting across local boundaries in London. Nor have

497
they given adequate weight to the desirability of securing for the whole country (not merely for England) equal representation. Both my noble friends who have spoken have dealt with the effect on London, and I should like to assure noble Lords opposite that the effect is a very serious one. Anyone who has any knowledge of the growth and development of London well knows how these boroughs have grown from small beginnings, from village communities sometimes, into living entities. They become what those of us who are in the planning world describe as "neighbourhood units." Living things, organisations, have been created on the basis of these local government boundaries and authorities. It is no good the noble Lord jeering at that.
LORD MANCROFT: I am not jeering at the noble Lord at all. I have been for some time myself on the council of a metropolitan borough. I have heard it said time and again, both there and in other boroughs, that people do not know what borough they live in. I have heard that said in many boroughs, and so I am sure has the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord must have heard the wrong people. Certainly in the majority of boroughs people really do know, if only because they pay rates, in which borough they are living. They know where their Town Hall is and where their local organisations are. And in any case, one wants to encourage that knowledge and the spirit which goes with it.
LORD MANCROFT: I quite agree with that.
LORD SILKIN: One wants to encourage it and not to throw these things into the melting pot after a few years. Our criticism of these Orders is that of the three requirements the Commission were called upon to satisfy, they tried to satisfy one and did not give proper weight to the other two. I should think that, so far as London is concerned, the most important of the three requirements was the one to maintain and foster local patriotism and local organisations, and so on. And local patriotism is very strong is some places. I could give the noble Lord a number of illustrations in order to remove the area of difference which exists between us. I know the
498
noble Lord is always very fair in controversy of this sort. For my part, I would say that there are some boroughs in London of which his statement might be true, but that it is difficult to know where the dividing line comes. On the other hand there are a great number of boroughs where local patriotism is intense.
LORD MANCROFT: I am sure of that.
LORD SILKIN: Some of my best examples may be in South London, but I do not think that that affects the general line which I am taking; next time it may well happen that the same thing will occur in regard to South London. Let us take, as an example, Fulham. It is an entity, a unit. The people who live there are intensely proud of belonging to Fulham. They may even be intensely proud of their Members. It so happens that ever since I have been interested in politics, Fulham has always had a particular type of Member representing it. I remember Sir Cyril Cobb, and to-day we have Dr. Edith Summerskill. Whatever one may feel about their views, the Members representing Fulham have always been personalities. And I think that that fact reflects the character of places like Fulham. There are other London boroughs in exactly the same position.
I do not know what is going to be the effect of this change on the organisation of the boroughs concerned. It looks to me as if there might be a break-up of these units. If these boroughs are to be broken up for Parliamentary purposes and for purposes of the election of members to the London County Council, I imagine that it will follow that the same thing will happen in respect of borough councils. I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, can give us an answer upon that point. But if it does not happen automatically, clearly the next logical step is to interfere with the actual construction of the local authorities themselves. I find it exceedingly difficult to understand how you can have representation on the London County Council spread over several boroughs, and representation in Parliament spread over several boroughs, without the construction and constitution of the local authority itself coming into question.

499
The logical thing to do, once you have gone along that course, would be to create new local authorities which would coincide in their areas with the areas of representation in Parliament and on the London County Council. I am not advocating that, of course. But I say that this is the thin end of the wedge which may lead to the reconstruction of the London boroughs. If that is going to take place—I am not suggesting even that it is not desirable; I am not suggesting that London government is not in need of reorganisation—it ought to be undertaken, I submit, as a separate process, and not by means of this side wind to alter the representation in Parliament.
Noble Lords will be aware that the point that I have made has been taken in the courts. In fact, it was put rather more strongly than I am putting it, because it was alleged in an application made in the Chancery Division on Tuesday last that the Commission had gone wrong and had misinterpreted one of the instructions under which they were required to act, namely, that in fixing the electoral quota they had fixed it by reference to England alone, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel has explained, instead of fixing it by reference to the country as a whole. The learned judge found himself in a difficulty in giving a decision—I hope that I am not misrepresenting him. I read the report of the matter in The Times very carefully, and the impression I had was that he thought the complaint was well-founded, though he was very loth indeed to make a pronouncement. At any rate, he did not think that it was ill-founded. But his view was that Parliament was the body that should make the decision; it was a matter for Parliament and not for the courts. That to me is a little surprising, because I was always brought up to believe that where there is a legal wrong there is a legal remedy in the courts. Apparently, in this case, Parliament is regarded as the high court.
If that is the view, then I am appealing to Parliament. I appeal to Parliament on the ground that the Commission, acting in all honesty and sincerity, have misconstrued the regulations; that they have acted wrongly; that they have ignored what is, in my view, the most important of the three directions with which they had to comply, and that they
500
have confined themselves to acting on the one. In those circumstances, if it were possible for this matter to be postponed in order that the Government might reconsider it, I should have thought that that was the right course to adopt. These questions of redistribution are exceedingly delicate ones. They are delicate, of course, in this House, and delicate in another place. I may say that I have a personal interest in redistribution. I was a victim of one redistribution. I was, in fact, the victim of the very first of them. My seat in another place was completely obliterated as the result of redistribution. In my case, there was an illustration of objectiveness in the way in which the redistribution was done. I do not think anyone deliberately desired to blot me out in another place. But it is desirable that redistribution should be carried out above the Party level. It should not be thought possible that it could be carried out for the sake of Party political advantage.
I am not suggesting that the Government themselves have brought about this process of redistribution. This is the Report of a Commission which they have accepted, and I am not suggesting otherwise; but the fact is that the redistribution that is proposed might have vital effects on the constitution of the next Government, and that is a reason for hesitating and giving careful consideration to the recommendations, to ensure that there is no feeling anywhere in the country that one side or the other is going to get electoral advantage from what many of us feel is a misconception on the part of the Commission or a misinterpretation of the regulations. It is for that reason that I feel the Government ought to hesitate before they press for the passage of these regulations.
5.1 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I said a few words of a general character on this subject. I must confess that, as I listened to noble Lords pleading with the Government on this question, I could not help feeling—if I may say so without any wish to be in any way offensive in relation to them personally—that it is rather a case of Satan rebuking sin. If they have any complaint against this narrowly laid down procedure, it really must lie at their own doors: it is the result of legislation which they themselves passed.

501
The late Lord Shepherd, whom we miss so much, on occasions of this kind especially, put it extremely well, I thought, on a former occasion when similar Orders came before your Lordships' House in the days of the late Government, on February 20, 1951. What the noble Lord said was this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 170, col. 390]:
"Your Lordships will be aware that until quite recently redistribution of seats in the House of Commons took place only at odd dates and after prolonged intervals. …Under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949,"—
passed by the Government of noble Lords opposite—
"however, Commissions of a permanent character were appointed for each of four constituent parts of the United Kingdom; and, as a result, we shall receive Order of this description following upon the recommendations for changes, as the need arise."
That is exactly the procedure that has been used on this occasion, and if noble Lords opposite had not passed that Act we should not have been dealing with these Orders to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, went on to say—and this deals with the point which I think was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who complained that these Orders would operate at different dates with regard to local elections and with regard to Parliamentary elections—
"It is proposed that these Orders shall come into operation on April 1 this year, but they will not affect any Parliamentary election until the next General Election."
That is exactly the position now. I do not say that it is necessarily the right position, but it is the position which was laid down by the late Government and is exactly the procedure which we have followed at the present time. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referring to the Orders in question at that time, said that he hoped:
"that it will be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if I now move them en bloc."
That, too, is exactly the procedure we have adopted on this occasion. In all these ways we have adopted exactly the same procedure as the noble Lords opposite used in their day.
A good deal of discussion has taken place this afternoon over the question of certain constituencies where the boundaries have been changed. Complaint has been made that the course proposed is illogical, and contrary to the Schedule to
502
the 1948 Act—I think that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. I do not want to go into details of what has been done by the Boundary Commission. I can only explain the reasons which I understand actuated them in the decisions which they took. The main reason is that which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—that is, they did their best to try to equalise the voting power of the various constituencies. For example, before this redistribution, in Bethnal Green there were 41,000 voters, roughly speaking; in Hackney South there were 75,000, and in Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, there were 81,000. Under the new arrangements, Bethnal Green has 63,000, Hackney, Central, 67,000 and Stoke Newington, 66,000. Over that block of London an attempt has been made to create three constituencies with, broadly speaking, equal voting power. Noble Lords may criticise it, but it was the view of the Boundary Commission that that was a very important consideration to have in mind; and I think it is. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Boundary Commission had a terrible job, for obviously they had a number of general principles by which they conceived themselves to be guided, and very often these may have led to very complicated results. But I think nobody can say that they behaved in an improper manner in attempting to achieve equality of votes over these constituencies.
Though the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I know, speaks with great authority on these subjects, I thought that in the latter part of his speech he exaggerated the effect of the fairly limited changes recommended. I got a sort of impression that the whole of London government would go up in smoke if these things were done. Nobody really believes that. We might have had a better arrangement or a slightly worse one than the Boundary Commission have recommended, but surely it is not the end of local government in London or right to say that we may have to consider a completely new system.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Nobody suggested it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh yes, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, for the purpose of the record I should like to say that I did not suggest that this in itself is going to disorganise local government in London. I said that this is the first step, and that the logical step to take in future would be to break up local government units as we know them. That is the logical step.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise if I over-stated the noble Lord's case, and I quite accept what he now says; but I think that even that is an exaggeration of the results which are likely to accrue. It is purely a matter of opinion, and he may hold a different view from mine. But I repeat once more that the procedure we have adopted has been exactly the same as that adopted by our predecessors. Yet I saw no record, in those debates which I have looked through, of noble Lords on the other side of the House intervening on former occasions. They remained discreetly silent and seemed quite happy. I know that noble Lords on this side equally did not intervene. On the occasion which I have mentioned, on which the late Lord Shepherd spoke, he was the only speaker. After that, the Question was put and the Motion was agreed to without further ado. It is surely a little late in the day to express serious doubts about procedure which appeared to be completely satisfactory on earlier occasions.
As I see it, the real point is this—and it is an important point, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and also. I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: is the present machinery perfect? Does the present Act, in the light of experience, work as well as it was intended to do? Obviously, nobody complains of the intention at all; the question is, has it worked? I think there is always room for improvement. Indeed, we already have it from the Government spokesman in another place that he thinks the matter ought to be very seriously considered, and there is none of us, I imagine, who would not agree with that view. No legislation, however well-intentioned, works as well as it was intended to do. No doubt these constant interferences with boundaries are inconvenient and productive of great friction, which ought, in my view, to be avoided. But the fact remains that by the Act of 1948 these Boundary Commissions were brought into existence, and in my view,
504
until the Act is altered we must use them as they were intended to be used. To reject their recommendations whenever we individually do not like them can only lead to chaos.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that these things ought to be above political considerations. I would entirely agree with that. We have sometimes felt—though I do not wish to say more—that certain changes that were made and which were not entirely in accordance with the recommendations which the Government of the day had received might have been interpreted as having a certain political bias. We do not want to fall under the same accusation. If Parliament is to have the final responsibility, as has been suggested, then I feel that where that final responsibility lies is over the modification or alteration of legislation; that is where it really should be. If we are all convinced, as a result of the experience of the last six years, that this present well-meant legislation does not achieve the objects we all had in mind, then by all means let us reconsider it. But do not let us juggle it about and reject the conclusions reached by great Commissions of this kind whenever they do not suit us. As I said before, that would lead to greater chaos than any alterations which the Government are proposing to approve under the present Orders.
5.12 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, with a great deal of what the noble Marquess has said I am entirely in agreement. He has the right to poke fun at us and to point out that it is our legislation which has given rise to this trouble. All I would say is this. I hope that all of us, even the youngest of us, can learn by experience and begin to see that a scheme which we thought a good scheme, when pressed to its logical conclusion is a bad scheme. I find myself in agreement with the noble Marquess as to the line that this House should take. We have agreed to all these Orders being put en bloc, and we do not propose to divide against any of them, because, as he rightly said, this is the machinery which has been provided by the Act of Parliament, and that machinery must be carried out unless we have another Act altering it. Therefore, I feel that we are playing our part in assisting the Government to do what is necessary under the existing Act.

505
But I do not want this matter to pass without saying this—and indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rather suggested that we might make an observation about it. I very much hope that new legislation is going to be produced, because I feel that it is most unfortunate that we should regard all these constituencies, with all their traditions, as mere units of a certain number of people, to be broken up from time to time, so that one never knows for any length of time where one stands. I was a Member for a constituency in the old days, and I know what intense pride they have about their own traditions. It always seems to me that the English people make themselves most ridiculous when they try to be logical. No doubt it is right that we should have each constituency of the size of 57,221 electors, or whatever the number is; and no doubt it is wrong that one should represent 80 and another 40. So, for the sake of trying to be logical and ironing out this matter, a scheme has been initiated which has worked out as we see. These eminent people, who have been perfectly honest in the way in which they have approached this matter, have done this thing, absolutely riding roughshod over all local traditions and history to try to get us a better-balanced House of Commons. There it is. We have got to let these Orders pass in this House,
506
as I see it. I have no doubt that these Orders tell against us, but the next lot of Orders may tell against the other side of the House.
I hope that we in this House, at any rate, shall be impartial, to this extent. I suggest that the best thing we can do now is to give this Commission—as they rather suggest themselves—a long holiday; I hope that they will pack their bags and go away for another twenty years, and then at that time they, or perhaps some other Commission, can come back and do the work equally skilfully. I should not like this opportunity to pass without saying that that is the opinion of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, not only because it is thought by some who understand these matters (I know nothing about them myself) that these particular Orders are likely to be an advantage to the Party opposite, but because I feel it a bad thing that the constituencies should be broken up in the way I have indicated. I say no more. These Orders shall pass; we certainly have not tried to obstruct them in any way, but I thought it only right to say what I have said before we let them pass.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past five o'clock.