Lords Sitting of 19 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
BLYTH GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SAN DOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

JUTE CONTROL
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the, Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the announced intentions of removal of available "Controls," they are yet able to announce plans for removal of control from jute manufacture; and if not, what are the reasons for the continuance of the present control.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there is no control of United Kingdom jute manufacture, and the only control that remains is the centralised purchase by the Jute Controller in Dundee of Indian and Pakistan jute yarn and manufactured goods. Until an alternative method of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry can be worked out and introduced, I am unable to announce plans for the removal of this centralised purchase. The

807
unrestricted imports from India and Pakistan of the much lower priced imported goods would have a serious effect on the prosperity, efficiency, output and employment in the Dundee area, where the industry is heavily concentrated. I cannot at present give any indication when it will be possible to introduce alternative safeguarding methods.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply and regretting that he is unable to give an indication of when control may be relaxed, may I ask whether, since any continuance of the existing system of bulk purchase appears contrary to the principles of G.A.T.T., under which we have taken engagements, it does not seem likely to give encouragement to other countries to break their engagements with G.A.T.T., and particularly to encourage France to persist in her present policy (contrary to G.A.T.T.) of heavy export subsidies, so damaging to British exporters in neutral markets?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that is a complicated question, but I am afraid that I cannot accept that the matters are necessarily connected in the way which the noble Lord implies.

TEXTILE TRADE AND G.A.T.T.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majestys' Government whether, in view of the expanding textile industries in Asia and the expected increased exports, the existing commitments of the United Kingdom in G.A.T.T. preclude action which would tend to compensate low Asiatic wage costs by protection of higher labour cost structure in the United Kingdom.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am not quite sure which Asian countries my noble friend has in mind. Japan and China are not, at present, parties to G.A.T.T. and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the admission of Japan was set out in the recent White Paper, with which, no doubt, my noble
808
friend is familiar. The other main textile-producing countries in Asia are members of the Commonwealth and, as my noble friend will be aware, imports from these countries enjoy duty-free entry in the United Kingdom under long-standing arrangements which are in no way connected with G.A.T.T. For most types of textiles we have commitments under G.A.T.T. not to increase import duties above their present level on imports from the territories of other Contracting Parties. But, as my noble friend will realise, these have only a limited relevance to the problem he has in mind.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I must utilise the words of the noble Lord and say that this is a rather complicated reply. It prompts me to ask the noble Lord to indicate more clearly whether, should it be that our commitments under G.A.T.T. do not preclude any protective action where special circumstances are considered to need it, as in the case of jute control which he has just explained, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider further protection for textiles in the United Kingdom if employment is threatened by volume imports from low wage-cost countries—as, for illustration, cotton, semi or fully manufactured, from within or without the Commonwealth, such as is now hampering Lancashire. Alternatively, is the Government resigned to the prospect of progressive contraction of presently installed manufacturing capacity for cotton textiles?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has there material for a two-day debate, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not answer many of his supplementary questions, only a few of which I have followed. If he is suggesting that we should have a cotton control in the same way as we have a jute control, I should like to point out that a cotton control would be a much larger and more complex affair than the jute control, which has a staff of only about thirty and is a comparatively simple organisation.
LORD CALVERLEY: Would the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, agree that even one of Lord Barnby's Dundee fairies could not abolish all this with a wave of a magic wand?
LORD BARNBY: Accepting my noble friend's difficulty in giving a reply, I will

809
ease the matter for him by asking consideration in the proper quarter on my putting down a Question not for oral answer. But may I ask the noble Lord to make recommendations in the proper quarter that imports of fully or semi-manufactured cotton, exported from low wage-cost countries for processing in the United Kingdom be admitted only against an undertaking for re-export?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's first supplementary question with relief. His second supplementary question I will certainly bring—again with relief—to notice in the proper quarter.

DRINK AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: 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 what progress is being made in the study of a test of fitness to drive a road vehicle where drink is suspected as contributing to road accidents; and when effective action may be expected to curb this menace to road safety.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, research on the effect of alcohol on driving skill is being undertaken under the ægis of the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The tests should be completed in the autumn and the report published about the end of this year. Her Majesty's Government will decide, in the light of that report, what action is required in this matter.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that these investigations have been going on for some time. I hope that they are not being conducted in too leisurely a manner. May I ask whether the instrument to which I made reference when last I raised this question—namely, the "Alcometer"—is included in the investigations? And may I also ask the noble Lord whether he has seen a report by Doctor Spriggs, F.R.C.S., late City Police Surgeon in the City of Leicester, with regard to alcohol and road accidents? I look upon that as a very important document on this subject, and I should be glad to put a copy of it into the hands of the noble Lord, if he has not
810
one already, at the same time asking that it should be considered in the proper quarter.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in answer to the first of the noble Lord's supplementaries, may I say that I understand that these investigations are being carried out as speedily as possible, but they are, of necessity, complicated. The noble Lord's second supplementary was concerned with a machine which I believe is popular in America where it is called the "Drunkometer." There are three machines altogether, the "Drunkometer," the "Alcometer" and the "Intoximeter" I understand that Professor Drew is aware of the existence of all three, and he will no doubt investigate them if he sees fit. In answer to the noble Lord's third supplementary, I am aware of the report of the police surgeon of Leicester which he mentions. If there is any particular item to which the noble Lord would like particular attention to be drawn, perhaps he will be good enough to let me know.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that every day's delay in dealing with this question gives rise to further anomalies? Did he, by any chance, read the report of a case which appeared in the papers on July 16? The case was that of a German commercial traveller who was "had up" in Birmingham and fined for being drunk in charge of a car. This man felt that he was under the influence of alcohol; he stopped his car, locked it up, and got a bystander to telephone for the police. Eventually he was fined £15. What he did was in compliance with the law as it is in Germany. This man complied with the German law, but not, of course, with the English law.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the answer to the first of the noble Earl's supplementaries is: Yes, I am aware that there are anomalies. The answer to the second supplementary is: No, I have not seen that report, but I now know all about it.

STROMNESS HARBOUR (GUARANTEE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.49 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) REGULATIONS, 1955
2.52 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, these Regulations provide for the superannuation of persons engaged in the National Health Service in England and Wales, except employees of local health and education authorities. They consolidate, with Amendments, existing Regulations, the principal of which are the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950. The Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House have reported that "the regulations do not raise important considerations of policy and principle, and are founded on precedent," but because
812
of their length and complexity the Committee thought that the special attention of your Lordships' House should be drawn to them. The Regulations are necessarily long and complex because they cover a comprehensive code dealing with a variety of people, from kitchen maids to consultants, and cover general medical and dental practitioners, as well as staff receiving wages and salaries. They protect the rights carried over by staff from superannuation schemes which covered them before the National Health Service was introduced, and they make certain provisions for the interchange of superannuation benefits to promote flexibility in the movement of staff from one place to another. I hope that, with that commendation, your Lordships will be good enough to accept the Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1955
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde not being able to be in his place in the House to-day, he has asked me to commend these Regulations to your Lordships. They follow the lines of the Regulations which the House has just approved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION (BENEFITS) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1955
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I would inform your Lordships that these Regulations are in essence the same as the corresponding Regulations for England and Wales,

813
which were approved by your Lordships' House on June 30, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I commend them to your Lordships, and beg to move their approval.
Moved, That the Draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) LIBRARY
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Ilchester, E. Drogheda, E. Bessborough, V. Mersey, V. Soulbury, V. Simonds (Chairman), L. Reid, L. Burden, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Fortescue (Chairman), E. Bessborough, V. Mersey, L. Amulree, L. Mancroft, L. Killearn, L. Ammon, L. Henderson, L. Lucas of Chilworth, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(3) WINDOWS OF THE HOUSE
The Sub-Committee on the Windows of the House was appointed as follows: D. Wellington, M. Salisbury, E. Drogheda, E. Munster, V. Mersey, E. Crawford, L. Burden, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) The Sub-Committee on the War Memorial was appointed as follows: D. Wellington, V. Esher, V. Stansgate, L. Methuen, and the Lord Great Chamberlain.
(5) ACCOMMODATION
The Sub-Committee on accommodation in the House of Lords was appointed as follows: E. Fortescue, L. Teynham (Chairman), E. Lucan, L. Rea, L. Burden, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(6) VICTORIA TOWER
The Sub-Committee on the Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower was appointed as follows: M. Salisbury, E. Munster, V. Thurso, L. Teynham, L. Amulree, E. Lucan, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2.—SUBSCRIPTIONS
The Report of the Sub-Committee was approved, and ordered to be circulated to Peers.
3.—NAUTICAL ASSESSORS
The Committee considered the payments made to Nautical Assessors attending an Appeal in the House of Lords in an Admiralty action and sanctioned the application to this House of the revised scale of fees laid down in Statutory Instrument 1954 No. 1025 (L.7), The Rules of the Supreme Court (Trinity Masters' Fees), 1954, with effect from 1st October, 1954.
The Committee also sanctioned the continuance of the payment to assessors of travelling expenses to the extent of first class railway fare between place of residence and London in connection with attendances at the House.
4.—EQUAL PAY SCHEME
The Committee sanctioned the appropriate scales of pay for women on the House of Lords staff in accordance with Treasury Establishments Circular No. 10/55, dated 16th February, 1955.
5.—CONSOLIDATION OF ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved the application of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 11/55, dated 29th March, 1955, providing for the consolidation of allowances for special duties, to members of the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applied.
6.—SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT
The Committee authorised the application of the senior scale of salary to the post of Office Assistant engaged in the Public Bill Office.
7.—OFFICE OF THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
The Committee approved the payment of a gratuity under section 39 (2) of the Superannuation Act, 1949, to Miss J. E. M. Everard, a former clerk.
The Committee sanctioned an additional payment to the clerk in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department for special duties in connection with temporary Civil Defence arrangements.
8.—EMERGENCY ARRANGEMENTS DURING TRANSPORT STRIKE
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 1/55, dated 4th January, 1955, providing for a special mileage allowance on the use of private motor vehicles during the recent Emergency, to any officer or official of the House of Lords.
The Committee also authorised the Clerk of the Parliaments in his discretion to refund the cost of extra travel expenditure incurred by any member of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee requested the Clerk of the Parliaments to take up with the Treasury the question of travel expenditure incurred by Peers during the Railway Strike.
9.—HOUSEMAIDS
The Committee sanctioned an increase in the rate of pay of the Housemaids in accordance with Treasury Establishments Circular No. 23/55, dated 30th June, 1955, relating to the pay of women cleaners.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, there is nothing in this Report to which I need draw the special attention of your Lordships. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Ascertainment of rateable value]:
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER) moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Earl said: The effect of subsection (8) of this clause, which my Amendment seeks to delete, is to prohibit the deduction of a sinking fund provision for renewals in the ascertainment of net annual value under Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Instead, the subsection allows the average annual amount of the expenditure incurred by the occupier on renewals. Your Lordships may remember that on Second Reading I referred to this provision at some length and I then told your Lordships that the deduction of a sinking fund provision for renewals has been the practice for many years in the assessment of water undertakings and
816
other public utility undertakings by what is termed the "profits method." The proposal to prohibit this practice aroused considerable opposition, both in another place and also among outside bodies.
In winding up the debate on this subsection in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister gave an undertaking that he would further consider this subsection, to see whether an Amendment should be made during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. Incidentally, during the course of his remarks my right honourable friend referred to the growing practice, in arriving at the assessment by the profits method, of allowing a notional sinking fund to an extent which made the result ridiculous. He said that he had no doubt that if the decision of the Lands Tribunal in the Birmingham case, which was then being heard, was favourable to the City of Birmingham, it would encourage a great extension of the practice, with the result that while the assessments of everybody else would be going up those of water undertakings would be coming down.
The decision of the Lands Tribunal in this crucial case was given on July 1, and I think that everyone concerned has had a good opportunity of considering the judgment. Let me say at once, in case there should be any doubt in the minds of noble Lords, that it is far from being a simple issue. But the essential point in the context of this subsection is that the sinking fund provision was reduced from the sum of £300,000 claimed to £200,000. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to assume that the principles which underlay the reduction can be applied to other similar cases, so that the assessments to be made on water undertakings for the purpose of the new valuation lists will not be unrealistically low. In these circumstances, my right honourable friend felt that his proper course was to recommend to your Lordships to-day that he should withdraw this subsection.
I feel that I should add this comment. It will, I hope, be understood that in the changing economic circumstances of today the whole question of the treatment of sinking fund provisions for rating purposes will need to be continuously and carefully watched, as well as the operation of other features of the profits method

817
of assessment, such as, for the sake of argument, the share of the profit allocated to the hypothetical tenant. If the need arose, any defects which developed could be put right in the further rating legislation which was foreshadowed in another place. I want your Lordships to realise that I am not definitely saying that further legislation on this difficult and crucial point will be necessary, or that the Government have any intention of introducing such legislation; but I think it necessary to give that warning so as to safeguard the future. This Amendment is one that will, I hope, be accepted by everyone, so that further controversy on this difficult question will be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, leave out subsection (8).—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It has been most interesting, listening to the noble Earl, to get a further insight into the complexities with which the Government have to deal in such a measure as this. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee at a laser stage, but I want to say that I was unable to be here on Second Reading, and this complexity which faces the Government disturbs me very much. A large number of people of my acquaintance are greatly concerned about a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Silkin on Second Reading—that is, the effect of the new valuations upon certain sections of the community, just as the noble Earl feared there night be some in the case of the Amendment he has just moved. If the Government are going to bring in amending legislation, I would ask them to remember that, unless something is done, grave injustice will be done to occupiers of premises rated as commercial houses or as shops, because they are to be treated far less favourably than pre-war houses, or a number of other industrial hereditaments. I do not wish to say more, but I ask the noble Earl to bring this point to the attention of the Minister, because I am sure he will hear a great deal more about it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly give an undertaking to convey to
818
my right honourable friend the views expressed by the noble Viscount.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Relief from roles for places of religious worship
(2) This section applies to the following hereditaments, that is to say,—

(a) places of public religious worship which belong to the Church of England or to the Church in Wales (within the meaning of the Welsh Church Act, 1914), or which are for the time being certified as required by law as places of religions worship, and

(b) any church hall, chapel hall or similar building used in connection with any such place of public religious worship, and so used for the purposes of the organisation responsible for the conduct of public religious worship in that place,

and also applies to any hereditament consisting of such a place of public religious worship as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection together with one or more church halls, chapel halls or other buildings such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON VISCOUNT DAVIDSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "hereditament," where that word first occurs, and to inset "building or buildings." The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the two Amendments in my name together, as the second is consequential on the first. I move this Amendment in order to make it clear beyond doubt that a church or chapel which forms part of a school is exempt from rating as if it were a church or chapel under the Poor Rate (Exemption) Act, 1833. It may be argued that the hereditament is the school itself, but I am advised that the addition of the words,
"building or buildings forming part of another hereditament"
will ensure that the chapel or church, which, of course, is used solely for religious purposes and is, in fact, part of the school, is treated in that way. I am a governor of a particular school where the parish church has become part of the school, and it would he a serious matter if the church became liable to rates and could not claim the protection of the Poor Law (Exemption) Act, 1833. I do not think I need say more. If the Government could favourably consider this Amendment, my friends and I would be exceedingly grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("hereditament") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Davidson.)
LORD REA: May I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, whether this proposal would include university colleges, which also have chapels of very much the same character as schools?
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I am sure that that would be the desire of those with whom I am associated. I cannot speak for the universities, but I am sure they are in precisely the same position. It seems to be an anomaly that places which are used exclusively for religious purposes should be rated as though they were used for entirely secular or even commercial purposes. I hope the Government will accept our plea, that places of worship, whether in a school or in a university, should be brought into line with the places of religious worship which were exempted under the 1833 Act.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Naturally, my right honourable friend is prepared to consider all these individual Amendments in a sympathetic manner, but this is one which I should find it difficult to accept. It is true that this Amendment and the one following in the name of the noble Viscount endeavour to amend Clause 7 with the intention of extending the exemption from rating under this clause to any building or part of a building which forms part only of a hereditament, and which is a place of public religious worship, or is a church or chapel wholly used in connection with a place of public religious worship. Before going into detailed arguments, let me say that the whole of this clause was drawn up in agreement with the Churches' Main Committee, which represents all the churches throughout the land, and with the association of local authorities as well. It is more particularly on that account that I should find it difficult to accept this Amendment.
There are three points that I should like to make with regard to this Amendment. Let me first clear my noble friend's mind of any doubt whatever that if there is any church throughout the country of any denomination which is used now for public religious worship, that building will have all the benefits which are enumerated in Clause 7 of this Bill. But it is
820
a clause which refers only to public religious places of worship and not, I therefore, to private places of worship. I am advised that there cannot be many places of public religious worship in this country which are an integral part of a rateable hereditament. The chapels attached to our schools and colleges, for example, are generally private, although there may be exceptions, and in individual cases those exceptions may be relieved of rates.
Secondly, if in any particular case a place of public religious worship is in a building or a group of buildings at present assessed as a single hereditament, there seems to be no reason why it should not in future be treated as a separate hereditament. That is quite possible, for Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1948, specifically provides that anybody who is aggrieved
"… in the case of a building or portion of a building occupied in parts by the valuation … of that building or portion of a building as a single hereditament"
may make a proposal for the alteration of the valuation list in that respect, There is the third point, that if, by any chance, there should be a place of public religious worship which is attached to a school in such a way that, for some abstruse legal reason, it cannot be treated as a separate hereditament, then to the extent that the school (including, of course, the place of religious worship) has enjoyed sympathetic assessments or rate reliefs up until now, it seems probable that the local authority will give them similar reliefs in future under the next clause of the Bill. I mentioned to the noble Viscount at the beginning of my remarks that in the case of places used for public religious worship they are in point of fact de-rated. The church to which he was referring, and with which he is connected as a governor of the school, will undoubtedly receive all the benefits which are set out in Clause 7 of the Bill. But with the best will in the world, I do not think that I could extend this clause any further now to include all private places as well.
EARL JOWITT: May I say that I have great sympathy with the noble Viscount here. What is the position to-day about the chapel of one of our great schools which is set aside for worship by the boys and the masters but to which parents come and also, when there is any vacancy,

821
visitors from outside? In a sense, it is for public worship. Anybody can go in if there is room to accommodate them, the first place being given to the boys. What happens to those place to-day? Are they subject to rates? I ought to know the answer, but I do not. If you rate this school as one hereditament, must that hereditament be assessed taking into account the fact that there is this chapel? It seems to me extraordinarily hard if that is so. Can you get out of it by saying, "Let us then separate this chapel from the rest of the hereditament, and let us treat it separately"? It seems to me that even there you are in the same dilemma. If the chapel is used for non-public worship, whatever that may mean, then you may not be able to get off rates. The matter needs further consideration and clearing up. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with the point of view which the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, has expressed. Whether his Amendment is apt to achieve the result he desires, I do not know. I think the Committee would like to be told in a very elementary way the answers to the questions I have asked the noble Earl, because those who advise him will know all about this matter and he can tell us and set our minds at rest.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Let me see whether I can reply to the noble and learned Earl. Of course, I cannot give him any indication as to what happens at public schools at the moment. Some, undoubtedly, get sympathetic assessment, and others do not. As to private chapels at public schools, I understand that they are not necessarily de-rated, because they do not come within the terms of this clause as places of public religious worship. On the other hand, there are individual schools which hake been sympathetically assessed by local authorities in the past, and I have no doubt that local authorities will do that again. But it would be impossible for me, without making considerable inquiries, to say whether individual schools have or have not benefited in the past through the system of sympathetic rating. It might interest my noble friend Lord Davidson to know that I asked precisely the same question this morning, and I understand that very few of the chapels at the great universities, or attached to any of the colleges at the great universi-
822
ties, are in fact de-rated at all in the terms of this clause.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of three Amendments to subsection (2), of which the first was, in paragraph (a), to omit the word "and." The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and is intelligible only if read in conjunction with them. Therefore, with the permission of the Committee I should like to speak on all three Amendments, although I shall be moving No. 2 only. The purpose of the Amendments is to give exemption from rating to community centres and village halls which are not attached to any particular religious organisation. The Bill as it stands, provides relief for church halls, chapel halls and similar buildings used in connection with public religious worship. The halls to which my Amendment relates are normally those where social activities take place, possibly without reference to religion at all, though in many cases they are sponsored by a religious organisation.
I imagine that in a village which is fortunate enough to have a church hall the women's activities may take place in that hall. Or it may be children's classes or clubs, and all sorts of gatherings of that kind, which are, of course, of great value to the community. But there are villages where there are no church halls, and where the villagers have got together and provided a hall which is similar in all respects to the kind of hall we are talking about in Clause 7 (2) (b). Such a hall is not necessarily associated with a church, but it is, as I say, doing all the work and carrying out all the functions that a church hall would be carrying out, possibly under very much greater difficulties as regards finance and so on. It seems hard that such an organisation should not get the same advantages as regards rating as the church hall does. I need hardly say that in this Amendment I am not in the least attacking the principle of exemption for the church hall and the chapel hall: I am simply seeking to extend it to other types of activities which are doing exactly the same work but where they are not connected through

823
force of circumstances with any religious denomination.
My suggestion is that those cases often need even more sympathetic treatment because they are in greater need of funds than the halls or centres associated with a church. I should like to put them on exactly the same footing. It may be said that it would be difficult to define these places, but the Amendment seeks to define them. I am quite sure that the noble Lord who is going to deal with this matter will be able to pick holes in the Amendment—indeed, I could do so myself; but the fact remains that an attempt is made in Amendment No. 4 to define the class of hall to which it is intended to apply. It is a hall which already is exempt from tax chargeable under Schedule A which, as the Amendment says,
"provides for exemption from tax in respect of lands owned and occupied by charities."
It must, therefore, be a village hall which is owned by a charity, is not run for profit, is recognised by the Inland Revenue as such a place, satisfies all their conditions and is exempt from Schedule A. I would submit, therefore, that no particular difficulty arises on the score of definition.
Nor do I think that, if this Amendment is agreed to, it necessarily opens the door to any other type of charity, because it deals with the same subject matter as the clause deals with—church halls and similar buildings. To say that, because exemption from rates is provided for community centres or village halls, it must therefore be provided for a host of other charities may be a good debating point—though I am sure the noble Lord would be the last to make it—but would not be a very convincing answer. I should tell the Committee that this matter was considered in another place. The Amendment is in identical terms to an Amendment which was discussed there. Great sympathy was expressed for it, as no doubt the noble Lord who will reply will express in this case, but those who sponsored this Amendment were not satisfied with sympathy: they wanted relief. I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to giving something more than sympathetic understanding of this Amendment and will find it possible to agree to the principle. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("and").—(Lord Silkin.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I am certainly not going to find fault with Lord Silkin's draftsmanship, which I think is very ingenious, if he will allow me to say so; nor am I going to make any unsympathetic reference to the idea that the noble Lord has put before us, because I think he has undoubtedly shown that, on the face of it, an anomaly could now exist. If there were three adjacent villages, one with a church hall, one with a village hall and one, say, with a "Co-op." or Conservative hall, all having, simultaneously, a flower show, you would have exactly the same activity but a different sort of rate levied on each of the three halls. The rate for the church hall would be governed by the provisions of the Bill which apply to it; the village hall that has been described to us by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, would receive very favourable consideration under the Bill; and the third type of hall would be charged under yet a different form of rating. On the face of it, there is an anomaly. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has suggested that I should be the last person to take this point; but, in point of fact, I now propose to take it. I see difficulty in, and little justification for, singling out community centres and village halls from all other types of property occupied by charities as particularly deserving of exemption from rating. While sympathising very much with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, we consider that such halls should be left to be covered by the general provision in Clause 8 relating to the rating of charities. By providing for the limitation of rate payments in the years 1956–57 to the amount paid in 1955–56, and for proportionate remission in later years, I feel that we have gone far towards relieving the people running village halls and community centres from any worries about additional rate burdens.
Furthermore, I would call your Lordships' attention to subsection (4) of Clause 8, which leaves it entirely to the discretion of the rating authority to decide to give further relief, or even a total remission of rates in the type of case to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred. In

825
cases, therefore, where the rating authority choose, by remitting all the rates, to recognise the value of the part played by these buildings, the halls and centres may even be better off under Clause 8 than under this proposed Amendment: because, if the Amendment were carried so as to bring them under Clause 7, the rating authority would have no option but to rate them in respect of any profitable lettings; whereas, under Clause 8, they need not do so.
I appreciate the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that village halls and community centres are often used in exactly the same way as church halls are used by the Church and, indeed, by clubs and societies associated with it. But I hope the noble Lord has not lost sight of the main justification for this church hall provision. This is the enlargement of an existing exemption, contained in Section 1 of the Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1833, in favour of
"churches … chapels, meeting houses or premises… exclusively appropriated to public religious worship."
It is the analogy of attendance for public worship, rather than the analogy of the flower snow, to which I wish to draw attention. The exemption to which I have just referred covered what at that time would probably have been regarded in the normal case as almost the sole religious activity of the church in its own premises. In the 120 years which have since elapsed, the work of the Church has spread in other directions, and many activities ancillary to public worship are carried out by them under their auspices in church halls. This changed position of the Church, to which the noble Lord has referred, has been recognised by rating authorities who in recent years have commonly given the halls to which we have been referring nominal or reduced assessments. Clause 7 puts this treatment of church halls upon a statutory basis.
The same historical claim to the extension which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants cannot be made for community centres and village halls and, if the claim is based solely on analogy with the current use of church halls—that is, the use of the church hall for the flower show to which I have referred—I cannot see why it should not go further to cover the "Co-op." or the Conservative hall which houses exactly the same
826
function. I do not think it would be right to make this Amendment, although I ant as sympathetic as the noble Lord considered I should be. We ought to leave the rating authority to use their discretion in these cases. There will be, as my right honourable friend indicated in another place, an opportunity to see how the policy of the local authorities develops in this direction, and when legislation is before your Lordships on a later occasion there will be an opportunity to consider, in the light of experience, whether something further needs to be done. Meanwhile, the halls and centres to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, refers are at least protected against any ruinous increases in rates. I think the noble Lord may feel, on reflection, that if such halls are left under the Bill as it stands, without his Amendment, they may well he rated even more favourably than they would be if his Amendment were passed. On those grounds, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SILLKIN: The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am not at all satisfied with the speech that he has made. I think he is misconceiving the position when he compares the activities of the village hall with those of the Conservative or, for that matter, the Labour association. I do not think that is the right analogy, and I should be very surprised if either of those praiseworthy organisations could be regarded as charities or could receive exemption from Schedule A tax under the Income Tax Act, 1952. I should not for a moment think that they would. If they do, I should like to look into it further; but I am sure that they do not, and therefore I think the analogy is an incorrect one.
LORD MANCROFT: It is only the analogy of use that I am trying to bring in. The three halls may be fulfilling the same function on the same afternoon.
LORD SILKIN: That is the other point. I am not really concerned with what happens on a particular afternoon; I am concerned with the day-to-day, year-to-year, use of these halls; and the use is identical. If you have a church hall you may have a women's institute meeting there every week, and various other activities; and if there is no church

827
hall you may have a village hall doing exactly the same thing. I should be prepared to take a chance that on occasion they may be rated for occasional activities, but on balance I think that we should gain if they were exempted. I do not feel that I can withdraw the Amendment; it is a matter on which the Government must decide. If they say "No," I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee on a Division; but I would ask that the Amendment be put.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Relief from rates for premises of Royal National Lifeboat Institution
".—(1) No hereditament to which this section applies shall in the case of any rating area be liable to be rated for any rate period beginning on or after the date of the coming into force of the first new valuation list for that area.
(2) This section applies to the hereditaments for the time being vested in or occupied for the purposes of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is perfectly clear, but perhaps the Committee will allow me to introduce it in a few words so that your Lordships may understand why the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is anxious for this matter to be considered. Under the existing law, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is considered by the Inland Revenue as a charity, and is therefore exempt from the payment of income tax on both property and dividends. Under the law, churches, chapels, scientific, literary and fine art societies are all exempt from the payment of rates, and, if the rating authorities so decide, Sunday Schools may also be exempt. To come down to a better analogy, under Section 731 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Trinity House was exempted from all taxes, duties and rates. On the other hand, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is liable for and pays rates on all types of property which it possesses—its headquarter offices, its depôt which your Lordships may sometimes pass on the Barnet by-pass, its district offices, its mechanics' cottages, and its lifeboat houses. It seems rather anomalous that whilst both Trinity House and the Royal
828
National Lifeboat Institution are interested in the saving of life at sea, one is exempted and the other is liable for rates.
Another point of importance which everybody really knows is that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is discharging a service to the whole of the community in the British Isles as well as to those from other countries who unfortunately come to grief. On the whole, rating authorities in the past have been very good to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and in many cases they have asked us to pay only nominal sums, or at any rate reduced sums in payment of rates. But under the Local Government Act, 1948, the responsibility for assessments is, I understand, transferred from local valuation officers to the Board of Inland Revenue, and I do not think they have any discretionary power in the matter. We have 140 lifeboat stations and stores around our coasts, and about 100 are not assessed for rates; but the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is required to pay between £3,000 and £4,000 a year in rates.
The funds of the Institution are derived, of course, entirely from voluntary sources; they are derived from flag days, legacies and so on. Every year we have to provide a very large sum in order to keep the service afloat—we have to provide for an expenditure of £750,000 every year; and of course the cost of everything has gone up. The largest type of boat will to-day cost us £36,500 as opposed to about £10,000 before the war. If there is any considerable increase in the amount we have to pay by way of rates, it will become a serious question for the Institution. May I appeal to the noble Lord who is going to reply to consider this matter sympathetically, as indeed he said he would? It is quite possible that my Amendment is not in the correct form. If it is not, I shall be only too delighted to re-draft it, or it might be more convenient to move it again in a better form on another stage of the Bill. But I beg the noble Lord to see whether he can possibly help an Institution with which, I am sure, he will himself have every sympathy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: The Royal National Lifeboat Institution occupies a very special place in our affections and our respects; whether it should occupy a special place in this Bill is a slightly more difficult matter. As the noble Earl has said, it is perfectly true that something like 100 out of the 148 lifeboat stations around the coast are not assessed for rates, while the other 48 are. As was argued, I think, in another place, and also in a letter to The Times newspaper, this seems anomalous; the matter ought to be clarified. I have not been able to discover why 48 eating authorities are rating lifeboat stations—perhaps the reason is that in the absence of any statutory power to give favourable treatment to the Institution, they felt that they could not allow them any relief from rates. Statutory permission is now being given by subsection (4) of Clause 8 of the Bill, to which I nave already referred in a previous Amendment. This will enable rating authorities to reduce or remit the payment of any rate upon, among other things,
"a hereditament occupied for the purposes of an organisation (whether corporate or un-incorporate) which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable …"
That gives rating authorities an opportunity of showing their good sense and discrimination in the exercise of their power.
The difficulty with which we are confronted in endeavouring to meet the point of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is how does one define the type of organisation to which one would like to give exemption in the way suggested by the noble Earl? The provision must be such that other bodies will not be affected one way or the other or given offence because they consider that they deserve the same exemptions as are suggested by the noble Earl. If the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is exempted, why not the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Y.M.C.A. and the Boy Scouts? One can think of a large number of highly deserving and proper charities, or charitable institutions, which have widespread activities and considerable accommodation similarly to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and which might equally claim exemption. In selecting one deserving case such as that mentioned by the noble Earl, we should,
830
perhaps, be implying that others were less deserving, or even undeserving, and should, I think, run serious risk of injuring many good, charitable organisations.
Without in any way decrying the valuable and world-famous work of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, I would ask my noble friend, Lord Howe, whether he is not content with the wide provisions contained in Clause 8 for exemptions and benefits of the kind which he now seeks. I hope he will appreciate the difficulty with which Her Majesty's Government would be faced. I should prefer to leave the matter as it is in the Bill, and I hope that local authorities (as I am sure they will) will make full use of Clause 8 to unify the benefits that they bestow on organisations such as this. As I have already explained, if they do not do so, Parliament will have a chance of reviewing the question. While entirely sympathising with what my noble friend has in mind, I would ask him not to press his Amendment but to satisfy himself, if he will, that the benefits for which he asks can very well be obtained under the Bill, and that his Amendment, if accepted, might cause considerable embarrassment and difficulty.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Munster have made the same point about subsection (4) of Clause 8, explaining that local authorities have been given power to grant exemption or remission, partly or wholly, as they wish. I understand they already have that power and that this confers no new power upon them. The noble Earl referred to 100 local authorities who appear to have exercised this power and 48 who have not done so, in presumably identical circumstances. May I ask the noble Lord what additional powers are being conferred on local authorities?
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say a few words following upon what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Lord mind if I received an answer first, for this is an important point. If the noble Lord is raising a different question, would it not be convenient first to get an answer to this one?
LORD MANCROFT: If the House so wishes, I will try to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I understand that the reason for confusion in the past was that there was uncertainty in the minds of local authorities as to their position. Under this clause there can be no uncertainty at all and we hope that all will follow the example of the good and liberal-minded authorities.
LORD SALTOUN: With regard to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I should like to add some points for the consideration of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Our legal advisers are not quite satisfied whether, under Clause 8 (1) (a), although we are a charity from the Inland Revenue point of view, we are also a charity from the rating point of view. Our advisers are not sure that the definition of these two things is the same. My other point is that though it is probably reasonable that we should pay rates on our offices, coxswains' houses and so on, it is felt that lifeboat sheds come into a rather special category. The ordinary lifeboat shed takes nothing from the public service except services such as electricity, for which normal rates are paid, though normal use is made of the road which the crew use when assembling on service. It may even be that the Institution, in particular cases, is performing a valuable and expensive public service by maintaining its lifeboat shed, as at Selsey, where a certain amount of coastal protection work is done, of necessity, by the Institution in order to maintain access to the shed. It seems to me that such sheds are in a special category quite unlike anything else.
LORD DERWENT: Will my noble friend in replying deal with this point? I never sympathise with the tremendous fear of precedent in the Inland Revenue Department, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has dealt with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howe, that Trinity House has already provided the precedent. I should like to know whether or not that is the case. If there is fear in the mind of the Inland Revenue Department that a precedent will be created, that fear seems to be somewhat misplaced.
EARL JOWITT: There seems to be no doubt at all that the power given in
832
subsection (4) of Clause 8 is not a new power. Local authorities have always had that power, and the conjecture that local authorities, in 48 out of 148 cases, have not given complete exemption because they were in doubt as to their powers seems to be rather far-fetched. Is there the slightest evidence that any of those 48 local authorities which have exacted rates have said, "While we should very much like to exempt you altogether, unfortunately we have not the power"? Had that happened, I am sure that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution would have answered, "Yes, we have been exempted right, left and centre. We have exemption under 100 local authorities." I do not believe that that is the reason for non-exemption. I believe that these local authorities knew perfectly well that they have the power, but, for reasons that seemed to them good, those powers were not exercised in 48 cases although it was decided to do so in 100 other cases.
I believe that this Amendment goes too far. I should not like exemption to be allowed to extend to headquarters. It should apply only to lifeboat stations around the coast; knowing, as we all do, what inestimable service those stations render to us, I think there is a strong case there. There may be others, like the St. John Ambulance Brigade, who have an equally strong case. If so, they should put forward their claim for examination. I should not like to turn down what, on its face, may appear to be a very good claim, simply because there may be others who have not yet made any claim and who might also be entitled to sympathetic consideration. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill, if not now, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will limit his Amendment in the way I have suggested, making it applicable only to lifeboat stations around the coast; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at the matter again and see whether they cannot, to that limited extent, deal with this matter in the way suggested by the noble Earl. I consider this to be an exceptional case and that these people should have the exemption which is asked.
LORD MANCROFT: In a case like this, where we are all sympathetically disposed towards the body in question

833
and do not wish to do anything hard, I should be unwise were I firmly to shut the door on the suggestion made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He has certainly put his finger on the principal difficulty which would arise if we agreed to the noble Lord Howe's Amendment. But I still think the difficulty which I have put before your Lordships is a real one. If we accept this Amendment we let in a flood of perfectly deserving charities, and we shall never know where to stop. Trinity House, if I may say so, is not a fair precedent to cite: it was I believe, exempted by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. In answer to the other point which was made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I would say that, if my memory serves me aright, the rating authorities have no specific statutory power to remit rates for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I think that is so, but I will check it. I believe that these remittances have been made merely by way of sympathetic assessments, without any statutory powers at all. We cannot accept the noble Lord Howe's Amendment in the way in which it is at present framed; but it would, I think, be discourteous in the extreme, in view of all that has been said, to refuse to look at this question again. I will certainly look at it again in the light of what has been said. But I must say that I hold out only slender hopes, because I see no way of letting in the R.N.L.I. and keeping out the Boy Scouts, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Y.M.C.A.
EARL HOWE: I should like to thank the noble Lord who has just replied and other noble Lords who have spoken for the sympathy they have expressed with the work of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I can understand the noble Lord's fear of setting up a precedent and letting in other organisations. But there is a contrast between the Boy Scouts and the other organisations which the noble Lord has mentioned, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. We are concerned with saving life at sea. There is therefore an analogy between us and Trinity House so far as that point goes, for, surely, the labours of Trinity House are directed to the same end. If I may, I will try to draft an Amendment in
834
accordance with what has been said during the debate, and in accordance with the remarks of the noble Lord who has just replied, and put it down for another stage of the Bill.
LORD CALVERLEY: I hope that the Committee will refuse to allow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to withdraw his Amendment. The acid test is that 48 of these stations are taxed or rated, and we know definitely that 100 are not taxed or rated. That shows that there is a grave anomaly. I think that this Committee is capable of settling it, and of seeing that lifeboat stations around the coasts of Britain are free from tax. I am quite ready to go into the Division Lobby on, this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Committee will allow the course which my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, has recommended to be adopted. No decision has been taken. What I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wanted was for further consideration to be given to what he regarded—and this I can well understand—as an important point. That consideration is now to be given. If Lord Calverley or anyone else wishes to take this matter further, the appropriate occasion for doing so will be at a later stage of the Bill, when the Government have given full examination to the point.
LORD CALVERLEY: I am always ready to listen to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I believe we are going to get what we want; therefore I say no more.
EARL HOWE: With the permission of the Committee, I will now withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to rates payable by charitable and other organisations
8.—(1) This section applies to the following hereditaments, that is to say—
(a) any hereditament occupied for the purposes of an organisation (whether corporate or unincorporate) which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare;
(c) any hereditament consisting of a playing field (that is to say, land used mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open-air games or of open-air athletic sports) occupied

835
for the purposes of a club, society or other organisation which is not established or conducted for profit and does not (except on special occasions) make any charge for the admission of spectators to the playing field:
(2) For the purposes of the making and levying of rates in a rating area, for the year beginning with the date of the coming into force of the first new valuation list for that area (in this section referred to as "the first year of the new list"), and for any subsequent year, the amount of rates chargeable in respect of a hereditament to which this section applies shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be limited as follows, that is to say—
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON VISCOUNT DAVIDSON moved, in subsection (1) (a), before the word "profit" to insert "private." The noble Viscount said: This is another Amendment, a very simple one, concerning educational establishments. We want to ascertain beyond all doubt what schools will benefit under this clause. The word "profit" is ambiguous, and even in the Ministry of Education's own regulations for school grants the words used are "conducted for profit," in one place, and "conducted for private profit," in another. It would obviously be reasonable to exclude from the operation of this clause schools conducted for a profit which accrues to individuals. But we do not want to exclude schools which, though technically they make a profit, use it for the purpose of the trust or other corporate body responsible for the conduct of the school. It is to get an assurance from the Government that I am moving this Amendment. I want to make it certain that schools which are conducted by a charity or by a corporate body will be able to have what I prefer to describe as a "surplus," rather than a "profit," for the educational purposes for which the school is run or the original trust was created.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, after ("for") insert ("private").—(Viscount Davidson.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps I can set my noble friend's mind at rest. I think that in what he said he was really discussing educational organisations which are not, in fact, those established or conducted for profit but which, by having, say, several hereditaments under their control, do in fact make a profit in the course of one year and make up losses on the other hereditaments which are attached to the principal ones. If that
836
is the point my noble friend has in mind, then I can assure him that it is already covered by this clause. There would therefore be no need to insert the word "private" as my noble friend proposes.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: I thank the noble Earl very much, and with the permission of the Committee I will now withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out all words after "profit." The noble Earl said: The atmosphere this afternoon has been charged with sympathy and good will towards all these deserving causes. I can only hope that this Amendment will be the lucky one, and will lead to a concession by Her Majesty's Government. The purpose of the Amendment is slightly to widen concessions given in the Bill in respect of playing fields under Clause 8 (1) (c). Clearly, since playing fields have been included in this clause, the intention is that the bodies conducting them should be assisted by some concession or relief in rating which is permitted to the rating authorities under subsection (4) of Clause 8. Playing fields so qualifying are defined as those:
"used mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open-air games or of open-air athletic sports) occupied for the purposes of a club, society or other organisation which is not established or conducted for profit …"
That is all very well. This gives the limiting form that these clubs, societies or other organisations are not permitted, except on special occasions, to make any charge for the admission of spectators to the playing fields. Probably most of your Lordships know many cases of small clubs whose finances are permanently in a precarious condition. Yet if they are to secure this rating relief they are not allowed to ease their financial position by charging any "gate" for matches except on special occasions.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can give any indication of what these special occasions would be. Presumably every rating authority regards the matter in a separate light, and naturally there will be differences in the conclusions to which they come. I can imagine, for instance, that when the

837
cricket club at Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh invites South Africa to play a match, that would be regarded as a "special occasion," and they would be permitted to charge without losing their rights under this clause. On the other hand, what of a match, home or away, between Much-Binding and Little Puddleton, an occasion that happens only once or twice a year—would that be considered a "special occasion" and allowed? If the words I seek to delete were left out, any club which is not established or conducted for profit and which owns and operates a playing field would qualify for this rating relief. I think it is a serious matter. We all know of small clubs struggling along. In many cases, if they do not get this relief, I suspect that they have to resort to some dubious means of raising money. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 28, leave out from ("profit") to end of line 30.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Earl has explained fully the purpose of his Amendment. He will have noticed, as will other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this clause, that two requirements have to be fulfilled before subsection 1 (c) can operate. The first is that the playing field is occupied by
"a club, society or other organisation which is not established or conducted for profit."
The second is that "except on special occasions" no charge must be made for the admission of spectators to the playing fields. It is the second of these requirements which the Amendment seeks to leave out. Before I go on to my next point, may I define to the noble Earl the special occasions when entrance fees may be charged for spectators? It may be, for instance, to raise money for the purpose of buying stumps, cricket bats, and so on, for the purposes of the club. That would be a circumstance which would allow a charge to be made as a special occasion.
My right honourable friend included these two requirements in the clause simply and solely to distinguish clearly between those bodies of great substance and standing who can look to the "gate" money to help them to meet their liabilities, including rates, and those bodies of a humbler sort which do not enjoy revenues of that kind and often find it
838
extremely difficult to make both ends meet. There are two extremes which would illustrate this. Two places which come to my mind are the rugby football ground at Twickenham and the lawn tennis grounds at Wimbledon, where charges are made for admission; and then there is the village cricket field, which is probably rented from a local farmer. The whole purpose of Clause 8 is to bring help to the small amateur club, society or other organisation which in the past has been in considerable difficulties, due to the heavy charges it has to meet. But the noble Earl's Amendment would make the scope of the clause far too wide; It would bring in those bodies which, however deserving they may be (and I will not argue that point with him), are certainly not "hard up" or in need of the financial help which the noble Earl would like to give to the smaller clubs.
LORD CALVERLEY: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lucan. On Second Reading I asked the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor a question about the premier university in this country, which plays first-class cricket at Fenner's. I asked whether he would let me know if that would be rated as a profit-making undertaking, and I hope that the noble Earl will to-day be able to give me a reply. The noble and learned Viscount told the House that he was interested in a subordinate cricket club connected with Oxford University. I am interested in a cricket club run by a police constable called Bryden in my own village, which is known to millions of people. He is trying to raise funds for his cricket club, and the noble and learned Viscount said that if it were not for profit we could have a bazaar in our chapel but that we could not run a football pool—a matter about which the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was talking last week. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will be able to reply with lucidity about what we shall be able to do.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I find the noble Lord's question extremely difficult to answer. If a friend of his is endeavouring to form a cricket club which is not to be conducted for profit, then of course I this clause will apply to it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I am sorry that he does not go the whole way with me. If playing fields are a good thing, I do not see why the big playing fields should not get relief in the same way as the small ones. After all, they add to the sum of amenities available for the population, and we have to remember that, by their nature, playing fields cover a great deal of ground and, presumably, are rated highly. What will give most pleasure in what the noble Earl said was his interpretation of a "special occasion." If rating authorities will look at it in that way, that any occasion designed to contribute to the funds of a club owning the playing field can be regarded as a "special occasion," and therefore will not prevent rating relief, that will give great pleasure everywhere. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is almost drafting. It redefines the local authorities who are excluded from the benefits of the reliefs given by Clause 8 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, leave out from ("by") to end of line 34 and insert ("an authority having, within the meaning of the Local Loans Act, 1875, power to levy a rate.").—(The Earl of Al roister.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 3, leave out from ("than") to end of line and insert ("it would have been").—(The Earl of Monster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("that amount is") and insert ("it is thereby").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.11 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided also that the provisions of this subsection limiting the amount of rates chargeable in respect of any hereditament shall only apply as from the commencement of the rate
840
period in which the occupier of the hereditament submits to the rating authority a claim in writing to the effect that the hereditament is one to which subsection (1) of this section applies."
The noble Lord said: It is clear from speeches of noble Lords this afternoon that there is a general desire to help genuine charitable organisations, but I think we should remember, in the first place, that this clause will apply to many organisations which have not been given sympathetic rating assessments. These organisations will benefit because, whatever the nature of the premises they occupy, they will not have to pay more by way of rates than they have hitherto paid, while perhaps other similar deserving organisations will not be treated in that favourable manner, because they are not within the definition contained in the clause. On the whole, I suppose local discretion is best in these matters. Secondly, in cities where there are many charities, such as university cities, while we are being helpful to charitable organisations, I think we should, at the same time, remember that the clause as a whole will of necessity mean higher rate poundages to be paid by the occupiers of other hereditaments. It may be an unpleasant thing to say, but the facts ought to be known and faced in this connection. Many people may argue that local ratepayers will have to pay higher poundages because of help afforded to a charity which is national in its scope. But one cannot help that; one has to take the rough with the smooth. Thirdly, there is no provision, as I read it, to deal with cases where the expenditure of a local authority increases.
I have made those general comments in connection with the clause before coming to the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The rating authority will often not know whether the organisation has secured recognition as a charity. But the onus seems to be on the rating authority to limit their rate collection to the amount payable before re-valuation. If the rating authority collect the full amount, and the ratepayer subsequently realises that he could have claimed relief, he may then do so, and claim refund without restriction as to time. The rating authority cannot protect themselves against such a claim by giving the three years' notice, as they would not realise that the organisation was a charity. For this

841
reason, I submit to your Lordships that any organisation claiming relief should be required to submit its claim to the rating authority and, following the general practice with regard to proposals, the claim would be operative from the commencement of the period in which the claim itself is made. I would submit that that is a fair and reasonable proposition. If through carelessness or for any other reason an organisation omits to put in a claim where it is entitled to this relief, then it is quite unfair that the claim should back-date for two, three, four, five years or more. That is the substance of the Amendment, and I submit it to your Lordships for what I hope will be your favourable consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has moved an Amendment which provides that the limitation of rates chargeable under Clause 8 (2) ought to apply only from the beginning of the rate period in which the charity or other organisation has made a written claim. I know that the object of the Amendment is to meet the fears, which have no doubt been expressed to the noble Lord, as they have to me, of the Association of Municipal Corporations. They have said—and I think the noble Lord said it, too—that a rating authority may be unaware of the charitable status and nature of a particular body, and they may, therefore, fail to reduce the rates payable by that body in the first year in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this clause. The charitable body may then realise that it could have made a claim for relief, and it may do so; and it is suggested that it may claim a refund without limitation of any period of time at all. I can set the noble Lords mind at rest about that at once. If any charity has paid the full amount of rates for the year 1956–57, it has no right whatever to claim a refund, and it will not be able to claim the right to a remission or a reduction of rates for subsequent years under paragraph (d) of that subsection. It will, however, be eligible for remission or reduction at the local authority's discretion, under subsection (4) of that particular clause. Therefore I think the noble Lord will see at once that
842
the fears of the Association of Municipal Corporations are not founded on good, solid facts.
I agree with the noble Lord that it may well be that the rating authority will not know whether a particular organisation comes within the definition of the word "charity." But if (as they probably would) they issue a demand note for the full amount of rates from the beginning of 1956 to 1957, it will then be upon the organisation itself, as the clause applies at the moment, to ask for a remission or a reduction of rates to that particular stage of time. If the rating authority then agree that the organisation is entitled to relief, the demand note will no doubt be amended, giving the relief to which the local authority have decided the charity is entitled. On the other hand, if the local authority took the view that the organisation was not a charity within the meaning of the clause, then the organisation could, under Acts of old and ancient date, appeal to the courts for their decision. I feel sure that it is desirable, as the noble Lord will readily agree, that rating authorities should do all they can in the first instance to ensure that charitable and other bodies within the scope of this clause are fully aware of the rights which they have, and encourage them at the same time to stake their claims for treatment under the clause as soon as possible, preferably well before April 1 next year, when the whole Bill comes into operation. I think the noble Lord can rest assured that once a charity has paid a rate under the terms of this Bill it cannot claim a refund from the local authority at all.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. I can assure him, from my knowledge of the way in which local authorities have worked in the past, that they will give every sympathy to the charitable organisations, and try to work the Act in the letter and in the spirit. Otherwise, they would be frustrating the obvious wishes of Parliament. But, as I understand it, it would be impossible for any charitable organisation to establish a claim after a number of years for repayment of rates covering a number of years if those rates have been levied because the local authority had not been aware that it was a

843
charitable organisation within the definition, or because the charitable body had for various reasons omitted to apply. The charitable organisation then would be unable to get a refund covering a number of years. With that assurance, I am quite ready to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can assure the noble Lord that that is correct.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Nothing in this section shall affect any exemption from, or privilege in respect of, rates under any enactment other than this section."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 8 of the Bill. The subsection would secure that nothing in the clause would affect any exemption or rating privilege which a hereditament affected by the clause would otherwise enjoy. Noble Lords may remember that I explained on Second Reading that Clause 8 of this Bill is very limited. It does not exempt anything from rates. All it does, by subsection (4), is to give rating authorities complete discretion to reduce or to remit the payment of any rate chargeable on a hereditament in the categories which I have described in subsection (1) of the clause. It also does this. It secures that the amount of rates paid in respect of those hereditaments in 1956–57 shall not exceed the rates paid in the year 1955–56. It also gives the organisations concerned the right to a proportionate remission in rates for subsequent years unless three years' notice is given of the intention to reduce or to discontinue that remission. Clause 8 was introduced in another place in substitution for a subsection in the original Clause 6 of the Bill. When the provision concerning the charities was in the same clause as that concerning relief from rates for places of religious worship, both were subject to a subsection in substantially the same terms as are used by the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that words similar to these appear in subsection (5) of Clause 7 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall be agreed to?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have listened with great care to the discussions which have gone on, and in which the Ministers have made reference on many occasions to the difference between Clauses 7 and 8—what could be done under one and what could be done under the other. It is obvious that noble Lords in all parts of the House are exceedingly interested in getting reasonably level and just treatment for different charitable bodies and educational establishments which have been set up for good public social purposes and are working without profit. What some of us fail to understand, however, is why there should be this distinction drawn between organisations coming under Clause 7 and those coming under Clause 8. Clause 7 gives complete exemption from rates to religious hereditaments or buildings, yet in the case of other organisations, which may have an equally good claim for exemption, any future action, except in so far as it is not to be mulcted in any penalties against their previous benefits, is left entirely to the local authority. If it is possible to do what has been done in this Bill in Clause 7 for religious institutions, why should it not be done for the good cases which are covered by Clause 8?
I should be the last person to suggest that local authorities do not do their work well, but there is a great difference between local authorities as we find in all sorts of cases. Take, for example, the matter of which the Government have made a great deal—that is, what should be done to assist housing in rural areas, in farms and the like, which is a very good objective. Because the matter is left entirely to the discretion of the local authority, some farmers in the country are getting grants for repairs to farm houses and their servants' houses, and the like, while others in other parts of the country are getting no such grants. I should have thought that, where a great problem like this is involved, and having regard to what has happened in the past with regard to housing, if there is a good

845
case for giving these exemptions and reductions in the case of these charities, Parliament should settle the case for itself and assert it with authority in the Bill.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Viscount has called attention to the difference between Clause 7 and Clause 8 of this Bill. I think I can relieve his mind of some fears by reminding him straight away that under Clause 7 of the Bill churches and chapels which are used exclusively for public and religious services are exempt from rates. In point of fact, that has been the law for many years. We have decided to add to that clause church halls or similar buildings used in connection with the church, so long as they are not let for profit. That is all Clause 7 does. Clause 8 deals with an entirely different sort of property. It deals with three specific categories. The first is a property which is occupied by charitable bodies or similar organisations and not run for profit; the second is almshouses; and the third, playing fields. I would point out to the noble Viscount that those three types of property are different from a church or a place of public religious worship. Moreover, subsection (4) of Clause 8 is doing something which is quite new, because in the past local authorities have only had the option of remitting or reducing rates if they felt inclined that way. Under this clause, if it becomes law, there will be an obligation on the shoulders of the local authority to carry out these proposals, subject, of course, to what I said in answering the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I hope that that covers the questions which the noble Viscount addressed to me.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I am sure he has done his best to put me right on the matter, but I did not feel that his explanation went the whole way. It does not seem to explain quite the differences which were mentioned before under subsection (4) of Clause 8. There, certainly, reduction or remitting is left entirely in the hands of the local authority. I appreciate the fact that the law has been strengthened in favour of these charitable institutions by the first part of the clause, but what the noble Earl said did rot seem to me to fit
846
in quite with the spirit of subsection (4), I do not want to move any Amendment or Vote against the clause, but since the Government are to consider further the kind of case raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, this afternoon with regard to lifeboats, I would point out that the same thing applies to a number of specific purposes, especially, for example, what is mentioned in Clause 8 (1),
"any hereditament…for…the advancement of religion, education or social welfare."
If the relief granted in such cases is to be left, in degree at any rate, to the discretion of the local authority, one may expect to see a good many anomalies, if I may judge by my local authority experience with regard to local farmers' houses.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: There is one question I should like to ask on this: what do the words "social welfare" mean?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should attach to the meaning of "social welfare" the words which are in the clause of the Bill. I understand that "social welfare" means the social welfare of the people. I would not think there was any difficulty upon that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: All of the people, or some of the people, or some particular class, or what?
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Other reliefs from rates]:
LORD MANCROFT: For reasons which I shall seek to explain to your Lordships on the Motion that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 11, 12 or 13.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MANCROFT: Clause 9 and Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13, are concerned with a subject not particularly attractive for a warm afternoon's debate—giant sewers. The sewer in question here is in East London. These three Amendments were put down to meet a point raised by an honourable Member of the Opposition in another place, but since they have appeared on the Order Paper an interesting situation has arisen, behind which I think I detect the delicate touch of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It appears as a possibility that if these three

847
Amendments, which are concerned only with the London County Council, are included in the Bill, the Bill will thereby be converted into a Hybrid Bill. I am not an expert on procedure; I am not clear precisely what a Hybrid Bill may be, or precisely what would be the effect on the passage of the Bill if it was a Hybrid Bill. It is a technical matter on which we must seek advice not only from the experts but also from the Lord Chancellor (who, unfortunately, is not able to be present to-day) and, indeed, from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he is willing to help. I will say no more than that but merely explain to your Lordships that, for those reasons and the desire to seek further and better particulars about this matter, we are not moving these three Amendments.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has rendered a great service to me personally in relieving me of the obligation of making what I would regard as a rather difficult, uninteresting and highly technical speech. I wish he had told me last night that he was not going to move these Amendments, because I gave him notice that I was intending to deal with the subject on the lines that he has indicated. If I had known last night, I should have had a more restful night than in fact I had. However, it is only fair to the Committee that I should say a few words on this matter, but not on the question of a Hybrid Bill. I am perfectly willing to explain to the noble Lord what a Hybrid Bill is so far as it is known. It is not absolutely clear. Not a lot is said about it in the textbooks. In my view, this is not a Hybrid Bill; but, apart from the fact that these Amendments would have made this Bill a Hybrid Bill, there are merits in this matter which ought to be put on record. If the Committee will tolerate me for a minute or two, I should like to say what those merits are.
The law at present is that local authorities are rated in respect of their sewers. When this Bill was about to be introduced, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government met the local authorities and explained the Bill to them, saying that it was the intention to relieve local authorities of rates in respect of their sewers. The local authorities were delighted. The London County Council were present and
848
expressly raised the question of definition and whether the particular sewers referred to in the Amendments were covered. They were assured that they were and that they would be exempt. These particular sewers happen to be outside the area of the London County Council.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, certain members of my Party coming from West Ham, where these sewers are, raised the point that they thought it was iniquitous that the London County Council should be relieved of rates in respect of a particular sewer. These were the grounds they gave. They said that it is an ugly sewer—some of them called it a "monstrosity"; that it is a big sewer—it is one of the biggest in the country; that it is above ground—which is unusual, but not confined to the London County Council; and that it occupies a large amount of space—over thirty acres of the area of this local authority are sterilised on account of the existence of this big, ugly sewer. The Minister was not impressed by the argument. In fact, he said that he was opening a pumping station on the site of this sewer and he thought it had a certain kind of grandeur. If that is his idea of grandeur, I must confess it is not mine. But if we take all those reasons together, they do not seem to me to constitute a sufficient justification for treating the London County Council separately. There are big sewers in other parts of the country but none as big as this—for, after all, London is a very big place and has a good deal of sewage to dispose of. The London County Council are doing the job not only for themselves but also for a number of adjacent areas—and, if I may say so, they are doing a very good job, too.
There was a good deal of pressure, and eventually the Minister agreed to put down an Amendment in this House to reimpose a rate on the London County Council, and on the London County Council alone, and only in respect of this length of sewer. From beginning to end, except on the occasion when the Parliamentary Secretary met the London County Council and the other local authorities, when it was agreed that they should be treated in the same way as the others, the London County Council were never once informed of the change in the intention of the Minister, and it came as a great surprise and shock to them

849
when they were informed that they were about to be re-rated, and that they were to be the only authorities in the country to be so treated. It is true that when the noble Earl was moving the Second Reading he made some reference to it. He will remember that I then asked him whether the London County Council would be consulted and he said (I thought rather cryptically, but I did not suspect that there was anything sinister about it) "on the form of the Amendment." I accepted that, and it is a fact that they have been consulted on the form of the Amendment—that is to say, they have been told "You have got to pay rates, but is this Amendment adequate to impose rates upon you?" That is all; they were never consulted on the merits. I submit now, in case this Amendment is reinserted, that there are no merits whatever in imposing rates upon the London County Council alone in respect of this particular sewer.
I should not have fought strongly if all sewers were to he re-rated. I do not understand the ground for relieving of rates sewers and not village halls; but the noble Lord need not tell me. It seems to me odd that we should relieve all local authorities of those obligations and that much more deserving bodies should not be relieved. But be that as it may, to single out the London County Council seems to me monstrous. If you are going to make beauty, or even size, the test of whether a building is rated or not—all sorts of buildings are involved—it might be extended to individuals, which would be a shocking state of affairs. Moreover, the question of sterilising the land arises even when the sewer is underground. If it is a big sewer you still sterilise the area of the land that is above the sewer, because in a great many cases you must have access to it. I really could not understand, and I would have asked the noble Lord to tell me, on what ground of justice it was proposed to levy a rate upon the London County Council.
There is one other point that I should like to mention in case this is ever reconsidered, and that is, that the idea of those who were supporting the Amendment was that the borough in whose area the sewer was situated would get some benefit as a result of the rating. In fact they were going to get no benefit whatever because the additional rates that they would have got would have been
850
deducted from them out of the equalisation fund, and West Ham and the other boroughs associated with them, would therefore have got no benefit by the levying of a rate on the London County Council, although mistakenly they might have thought that they would. So that the whole thing is a complete mystery to me. But in addition to that of course, putting it very broadly indeed, the hybrid provision relates to cases where an individual is singled out for special treatment in a Public Bill. In those cases he is entitled to be heard before he is condemned to that special treatment, and is entitled to be heard by counsel and so on. Of course, nothing of that kind has happened, and if it had been held that this Amendment converted the Bill into a Hybrid Bill, then the London County Council would have been entitled to be heard on it; presumably it would have gone to a Select Committee and the Government would not have got the Bill for a long time to come.
I hope that the noble Lord can give me some information as to what is going to happen to this. On the time-table we have our Report stage and Third Reading on Thursday. Is the noble Lord able to tell me whether the Government propose to put this Amendment down again at a later stage, or are they going to drop it? If they are going to drop the Amendment then naturally—this is not an inducement—the Bill will have a much easier passage on Thursday than might otherwise be the case.
LORD MANCROFT: I think it preferable that I should not enter into any of the interesting points which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made in his remarks because we may well have to discuss all this again at a later stage in the Bill. Whether we do intend to pursue the matter I cannot for the moment tell him until I get the chance to consult with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but I will certainly try to give the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as much notice as I possibly can. I hope he will acquit me of any discourtesy in not having told him last night that this Amendment was not going to be moved to-day. I would have told him had I known myself, and we should both of us have had a more peaceful night.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Increase of controlled rent in consequence of revaluation]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first of the Amendments to Clause 12 is almost drafting. It provides that if the tenant has not served a suspense notice he will have to pay the increase of rent on account of the increased rates not only until the proposal is settled but until the date of the next demand for rates after the proposal is settled. Under the subsection as drafted, the tenant, if the proposal succeeds, would be able to recover from the landlord only the increase of rent paid by him before the proposal was settled. The effect of this Amendment is that he will be able to recover also the increase which accrued between that date and the date of the next demand for rates. To some small extent it will benefit the tenant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("the proposal was settled") and insert ("the date on which the next demand for rates in respect of the dwelling-house is made").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are dependent upon the Committee's approving Amendment No. 17 which is merely drafting, for it serves to define the meaning of the word "landlord" for the purpose of the clause. I beg to move all three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 44, leave out ("from the landlord");
Page 21, line 8, leave out ("from the landlord");
Page 21, line 10, at end insert ("and any rent recoverable by virtue of this subsection shall be recoverable from the person (if any) who on the said date is the immediate landlord of the tenant of the dwelling-house (being a tenant of the whole of the dwelling-house who has no sub-tenant of the whole of the dwelling-house) or, if there is then no such tenant, shall be recoverable from the person who is then the owner of the dwelling-house.").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 193 (3) of Local Government Act, 1933
". In subsection (3) of section one hundred and ninety-three of the Local Government Act, 1933, for the word 'fourpence' there shall be
852
substituted the words one shilling' and for the word 'eightpence' there shall be substituted the words 'one shilling and sixpence'."
The noble Lord said: Like most other noble Lords who have moved Amendments this afternoon, I am seeking relief; but unlike those noble Lords, in this case I seek relief for local authorities. The purpose of my Amendment is to empower parish councils to spend annually more money without obtaining the consent of the parish meeting. It seems to me that having to obtain the consent of a parish meeting is a cumbersome and inefficient procedure, and a relic of long past days which ought not to be any longer continued, at any rate within the sums now applicable.
The question may well be asked: why should there be any limit at all in the case of parish councils, when there is no limit for district or county councils? I am not sure that there is any real answer to that question; but I am not asking for the limit to be altogether removed, merely for it to be raised. Some parish councils are very much larger than some district councils, which are not subject to any limit. According to my statistics, there are some parish councils in this country which in population are twenty-five times the size of the smallest borough; and if that borough can spend anything that it likes (subject to the auditor), without any limit and without consulting the inhabitants, why should not a parish council which is so very much larger do the same? After all, parish councils, like other local authorities, are subject to the fetters of electoral control, and if they are extravagant they can be dismissed by the electors. I am all for retaining that sanction, but why should those councils be treated differently when they, like the others, can be dismissed by those who put them into office?
Since the figures which I now seek to alter were first fixed, in 1894, times have changed, and so has the value of money. The figures then were 3d., 4d. and 6d.; that is, 3d. without the consent of the parish meeting and 6d. with consent. Those figures were changed in 1929, by the Local Government Act, and became 4d. and 8d. respectively. I now seek to change them to 1s. and 1 s. 6d.—surely a very modest request, considering the change in the value of money since 1894 and 1929. Moreover, many parishes are now greatly handicapped by the very

853
small sum produced by a penny rate, a sum which has, Of course, been diminished by derating and is now lower than it was before. If my figures are correct, there are about 1,300 parishes in England and Wales in which the product of a penny rate is less than £5—in other words, they can spend only £20 a year without the permission of their parish meeting. Surely that is a position whch ought to be remedied.
I found one rather delightful case where the product of a penny rate is minus 11d., which I understand to mean that the cost of collecting a penny rate is more than that penny rate produces—another little anomaly which ought not to be retained, except in the history books. That is the parish of Strixton, in the county of Northampton. At the other end of the scale, there are five parishes where the product of a penny rate is over £500, which is a great deal more than that of many districts and boroughs, and of more than one or two counties, I believe. Parishes of that importance and status should not be restricted, as they now are, and should not be compelled to obtain the consent of a parish meeting. In a parish of 25,000 people, a parish meeting is not a very efficient body to determine questions of this sort. To begin with, where would they meet? Again, in the case of a few very small parishes the product of a penny rate is so low that it is almost, if not entirely, absorbed by the cost of electing the parish council.
I have raised this point before in your Lordships' House. There are some parishes which can spend only the product of a 1s. rate in three years without obtaining the consent of the parish meeting and where it costs them the product of a 10·d. rate to elect themselves, leaving only l·d. to spend in the remainder of the three years. That is another absurd position which I suggest ought to be put right. Then, the curious position now obtains that a properly elected parish council is more restricted in its spending power than a parish meeting which is not elected at all—another situation which I do not view with any favour and which I consider is wrong. I might have asked that the limit be entirely removed, as it is with every other local authority; I am not suggesting that step at this stage, but am merely making the extremely modest
854
request that the amounts should now be 1s. without the consent of the parish meeting and 1s. 6d. with the consent of the parish meeting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this Amendment has been moved in such a charming and interesting way that instinctively one feels sympathy towards it. I have not the faintest idea what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, is going to do about it, but this strikes me as being one of those Amendments about which one would like to think a little longer. It is an attractive suggestion to give these councils the power to spend more money. But what are they going to do with the money when they get it? I am not sure what their powers now are, though I know that as a general rule they are very limited. I suppose that there are one or two parish councils with a population of 25,000 or the noble Lord would not have referred to them, but they must be very few indeed, and they already have quite a lot of money and, so far as I know, few powers to exercise. When one has a lot of money in one's pocket and no great responsibility as to the spending of it, there is a great temptation to get rid of it anyhow.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, may be right, and there may be a good reason for raising this Amendment. But the normal parish council with which I am familiar is a small body that virtually elects itself; it is not really popularly elected: a few people get together and elect: themselves without any pretence to a democratic election. I should therefore hesitate to give them more money. In any case I feel that this is not a proper Bill in which to make an Amendment of this kind. It would be more appropriate in a Local Government Bill than in a Rating and Valuation Bill. I am in some difficulty because we have had little time, and if one is to express a view one ought to have an opportunity of examining the matter much more closely. We are restricted to a very rigid timetable. We saw the Bill only last Saturday week. We have had our Second Reading and are now at the Committee stage and the noble Earl appears to expect to get his Bill the day after to-morrow. One would like to examine this much more closely I hope that the noble Earl will express

855
sympathy (as he does for every Amendment) and say that this is not the place in which to move an Amendment of this kind but that, when we get legislation on local government later, we will by all means look at the matter.
5.0 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is almost revolutionary in his proposal, and he rather under-stated the case. He mentioned the figure of 1,300 parishes where the product of a penny rate is less than £5. Then he gave a classic instance of one parish of 25,000 people. Of course, most of your Lordships are simple men and, listening to the noble Lord, we almost thought that every parish council had in its area a population of 25,000. They have not. In most cases it is nearer 2,500, or even 250. If there should be a council having a population of 25,000 in its area, I am certain that if it required any considerable amount of money for a purpose that was not extravagant it could levy a rate and raise it. The noble Lord put up the bogy of the parish meeting. He wondered what place one could find outside the Nuremberg rally field where a meeting of 25.000 people could be held. In this country, I do not think he would get 25,000 people. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench with regard to this proposal. I do not see how this Amendment can properly be included in this Bill. I am rather glad that there is a parish meeting with a quorum of three persons or upwards which can veto, sometimes, the rural district council. What Lord Merthyr has been telling us is, in effect, that he ought to introduce a Bill for the unification of rural councils. We have this unification. As he knows, it comes into the ambit of the administration of the countryside. There is an amalgamation of various rural councils in the larger body which may have an area with a population of 25,000—and I should say many of them have. But, I shall listen with delight to the noble Earl, Lord Munster—or to the result of the collaboration of the brain power of the two pundits on the Government Front Bench—telling us how we are to answer this conundrum. It seems to me that the answer is to appeal to Lord Merthyr to think again.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think the reaction of the Government towards this Amendment is similar to that expressed by Lord Silkin. Undoubtedly, this is not a Bill in which we can insert a new clause to amend a section of the Local Government Act, 1933. Nevertheless, I think I ought to give my noble friend some indication as to why his proposal for a new clause would not be agreeable to Her Majesty's Government. The expenses of a parish council are chargeable separately on the parish, but parish councils themselves have no power to levy rates direct: they must issue a precept to the rural district council. Under Section 193 (3) of the Local Government Act the amount of the precept must not, unless sanctioned by an Order of the Minister, exceed an amount equal to a rate of 4d. in the pound, or, with the consent of the parish meeting, a rate of 8d. in the pound, chargeable in either case on hereditaments in that parish alone. That is a very important point to which I shall refer again in a moment. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to alter that. It would change these limits so that, without any ministerial sanction, a parish council could require a rate of 1s.—instead of 4d.—in the pound, at their own discretion, or 1 s. 6d.—instead of 8d.—in the pound, with the consent of the parish meeting. They would, of course, still require an order from the Minister before they could precept for more than 1s. 6d. in the pound. I am prepared to admit that, as the noble Lord has said, the expenses of parish councils have gone up very considerably over recent years. But it is an interesting fact that although there are over 7,000 parish councils throughout the country, only 400 have found it necessary in the past twenty years to apply to the Minister for orders approving higher amounts. It should not be thought, by reason of my making that announcement, that they should all now apply to the Minister to approve higher sums of money for their spending.
I wonder (Lord Silkin has already made this point) whether this is a time when we should consider raising these rate-poundage limits—and for this reason. Parish councils are, naturally, concerned with the amount of money they can raise. That has always been determined by the product of two variable factors—the total of rateable values in the parish and the rate-poundage. By raising the levels of

857
rateable values the revaluation will automatically raise—without any need to change the rate-poundage limits—the limit on the amount of money parish councils will he able to secure in the future. It will have to be considerably higher than it is to-day. I suggest that my noble friend should not press this Amendment, but that he should wait and see whether the fears which he has ex pressed, that the rates which parish councils are at the moment authorised to raise will he insufficient for their requirements, more especially when the new rating valuation lists come into operation, are justified. For these reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to say just a few words with regard to what Lord Silkin has said. He asks: What would this money be spent on? I will just give him one or two examples. Take a parish which has not the right to spend the product of more than a 4d. rate without leave of the parish meeting. That product might be £20 a year. One of the things parish councils seek to spend their money on is obtaining the services of a competent clerk. I think your Lordships will agree that one cannot get very efficient service for, say, £20 a year. That is just one example. My next example is this. The average cost in, at any rate, one group of parishes—a population group of parishes—of a contested election is £22 a year. That is more than the figure of £20 a year.
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble Lord think he can get a competent clerk for £60 a year?
LORD MERTHYR: In the parish in which I live the clerk is paid £52 a year—£1 a week. That is, of course, payment on a part-time basis. The answer to Lord Silkin's question depends entirely on the size of the parish and the amount of work which the clerk has to do. All I am saying is that of course you cannot get a full-time clerk for anything like that. There are some parishes with full-time clerks, but the vast majority have part-time clerks, many of whom are paid nothing at all. What I am suggesting is that it is desirable that more clerks should be paid, and that it is also desirable, in the interests of efficiency, that those clerks who are paid should be paid rather more
858
than they are paid now. I will not press the Amendment, as I have said, but I would add this final comment. Because not all parishes, or anything like all parishes, have asked the Minister's permission to spend over the second limit, it does not follow that there are not a great many who would like to spend, without the consent of the parish meeting, more than they have been able to spend. The noble Earl quoted the restriction on spending more than the upper amount without the permission of the Minister. That was a point upon which I did not touch. What I was speaking on was spending without permission of the parish meeting. However, I am inclined to agree that this is perhaps not the most appropriate Bill in which to introduce this Amendment, and for those reasons I have no hesitation in asking leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment and the next to Clause 13 merely preserve from repeal the existing power of rating authorities to recover their costs of applying for distress warrants. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 17, leave out from ("1827") to ("which") in line 18.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 21, at end insert ("and in section one of the Distress for Rates Act, 1849 (which relates to warrants for distress) the reference to reasonable charges, in relation to distress for rates, shall be construed as a reference to the fees, charges and expenses chargeable in accordance with any order for the time being in force under this section.").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First to Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Adjustment of rates payable by charitable and other organisations]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think it would he convenient to discuss together the three Amendments to the Fifth Schedule. The first alters the wording of paragraph 2 because, as it stands, the

859
paragraph does not apply if the alteration in the list is not made until after the end of 1955–56. I am advised that this does not conform to the general position under rating provisions, for if, upon the completion of structural alterations in 1955–56, a proposal is immediately made to alter the list, any consequent change in the assessment takes effect from the date of the structural alteration. That is so even if the proposal is not settled and the list altered until after the end of 1955–56. This Amendment, and the two drafting Amendments which follow, would bring the paragraph into conformity with the general provision. The effect would then be that in calculating for the purposes of Clause 8 (2) the total amount of rates which were charged in respect of the hereditament for 1955–56, the hereditament would be treated as if rated for the whole of that year upon the assessment as altered in consequence of structural alteration made during the year. The total amount so calculated then constitutes the limit for the amount of rates chargeable in 1956–57. It is a somewhat complicated point, which I hope I have explained sufficiently clearly to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 24, leave out from ("made") to ("that") in line 25 and insert ("(whether before or after the passing of this Act) in the valuation list in force in").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD SILKIN: I think the House ought to be clear about this matter, and I am afraid I am not. Does the noble Earl mean that if in the course of a year improvements are carried out which would justify a higher assessment and a higher assessment is made, that operates retrospectively for the whole year? That is what I understand him to say. In other words, if the year is from April to April and an improvement is carried out and completed in January of that year, the higher rate has to be paid for the whole year. I can understand that for the next year, of course, but I understood him to say it was for the whole year.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The effect of the Amendment which I have moved would be that in calculating for the purpose of Clause 8 (2) the total amount of rates which were charged in respect of the hereditament for 1955–56, the hereditament would be treated as though it had
860
been rated for the whole year upon the assessment as altered in consequence of the structural alteration made during the year, and the total amount so calculated then constitutes the limit of the amount of rates chargeable for the next year. I think that what the noble Lord has said is correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 6, leave out from ("than") to ("apart") in line 7 and insert ("it would have been").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 8, leave out ("that amount is") and insert ("it is thereby").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 36, at end insert—

("32 & 33 Vict.c.40

The Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act 1869.

The proviso to section one.")

—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment alters the extent of the repeal made by the Eighth Schedule of this Bill of Section 63 of the Local Government Act, 1948. It is little more than drafting and there is no point of controversy therein. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 35, column 3, leave out from ("the words") to end of line 38 and insert ("from 'and every notice' to the end of the subsection").—(Lord Mancroft).
On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
5.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a financial Bill with five separate unrelated proposals in it. Clause 1 sets out a new permanent limit to the Civil Contingencies Fund. At present the permanent capital of that fund is £1· million and it is supplemented by £125 million of drawing power on the Consolidated Fund, which is renewed every year in the Expiry Laws Continuance Act. Instead of this annual Bill supplementing the permanent capital, we now propose that there should be permanent drawing powers of £.73· million, with a, power to reduce hat amount at any time by Treasury order. The peak of drawing powers, £250 million, was reached in 1946; it was reduced to £125 million in 1950, and the decline to £73· million to-day marks the decline in Government trading. We still have the agricultural guarantees to deal with, and the uncertainty of their cost still makes it necessary to have this sum available for the Civil Contingencies Fund. Of course, nothing can be charged to this Fund permanently; an Estimate and a Vote must be provided in due course. That is the first subject. Clause 2 enables the Treasury to lend money out of the Consolidated Fund to the Minister of Agriculture, to lend to the Potato Marketing Board. In the past the Ministry itself traded in potatoes and the fund came out of their trading Vote. The Potato Marketing Board are not traders in the same sense, but they must have money to make advances to growers and to buy surpluses where required to do so. It is considered better practice that this working capital should be loaned to them, and that any losses they make should be carried on a Vote, rather than that the total of advances of working capital should be carried on a Vote itself. The £30 million involved is considered enough to provide working capital to the Board in a year of great unfavourableness to the Board.
862
Subject number 3, in Clause 3, is to increase from £15 million to £30 million the amount that may be advanced from the Consolidated Fund to finance the Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund, out of which are made advances to local authorities in Northern Ireland for capital projects such as housing, and so on. It is generally accepted that the rate of interest on these advances in Northern Ireland should be the same as in corresponding cases in Great Britain. It happens that the Government of Northern Ireland cannot at present borrow at rates which would enable them to make advances at such a parity. We therefore propose to extend to Northern Ireland the benefit of money from the Consolidated Fund to the extent of a further £15 million, and we hope that this sum, plus their local resources, will carry their local loans fund for another four years. Then we come to Clause 4, which winds up the Road Fund and provides that all moneys formerly paid out of the Road Fund shall, in future, be paid directly out of money voted by Parliament. Not since April 1, 1937, have certain specific revenues been hypothecated to the Road Fund. This clause really formalises what has long been the working practice.
Clause 5 deals with the arrangements at the Bank of England and the National Debt Office for dealing with unclaimed Government stocks and dividends. We seek powers to introduce modern and simpler methods which will save labour. The actual proposals are somewhat technical, and I do not propose to outline them to your Lordships unless I am asked. I can assure your Lordships that the procedure for making claims is precisely the same as at present, and that claims established by bona fide holders will never be refused, however old they may be. These new arrangements will not apply to stock held on the Dublin Register of the Bank of Ireland. Those are five entirely unrelated and, I hope, uncontroversial subjects, and I trust that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CERLWORTH: My Lords, I rise only to comment on one of these clauses and to ask Her Majesty's

863
Government one question. The noble Lord has read the last rites and, I suppose, has given a decent burial to the poor wretched corpse known as the Road Fund, which has been kicked about the mortuary, as the noble Lord has said, since 1937. I have often heard it stated as a fact that the dead turn in their graves. I do not know whether that is so, but if they do, I feel certain that the dead body of the originator of the Road Fund in 1909, one Lloyd George, has turned over this afternoon. I am not going to resurrect the past, because no useful purpose would be served. Every successive Government in this country, of every political colour, must bear a share of the blame. I am not going to add up how many thousands of millions of pounds have been collected from the road users of this country to provide roads for British traffic to travel upon, but I will say this quite definitely: that I should think every Government, when they see the state of the roads in this country to-day, must hang their heads in shame, because we have now reached a stage of paying £475 million per annum into the General Exchequer. As I have said, no useful purpose is served by bringing up that matter to-day, but I want to ask the noble Lord this question. The Road Fund is now dead, so that the cost of all extensions of our roads, and also of their maintenance and upkeep, will be dependent on a yearly grant from the Exchequer.
LORD HAWKE: Is the noble Lord referring to the Vote by Parliament to Her Majesty's Government for those purposes?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes; and it comes at the whim of the Treasury. The noble Lord might not like my language, but I am nearer the truth—in other words, what we spend on the roads in this country is decided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been able to pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament all these years. And I have not the slightest doubt that succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer, of whatever Party, will proceed to do precisely the same.
I want to ask the noble Lord this question. How is the £147 million project, which was brought in with such a flourish of trumpets by the present Minister of
864
Transport—that at last we had a road plan—to be financed, if it is to be subjected to a yearly dole from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What guarantee can the noble Lord give on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the present road scheme will not go the same way as all the other road schemes: Chamberlain had one; Barnes had one, and now Boyd-Carpenter has one. The first two have gone at the whim of a Chancellor. What guarantee has the country that next year or the year after, at the first sign of an east wind—because we shall have east winds; we have had them in the past, and we shall have them in the future—the first thing to be sacrificed will not be the roads of this country? What guarantee will the noble Lord give me? What plans have the Government made to safeguard that position? I have heard a good deal about taking the authority for roads out of the hands of the Ministry of Transport, putting it into a national road authority and raising the money by public loan to get it out of the clutches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have never been a greater supporter of those schemes. In fact, I have been a critic, because I could not conceive of any scheme that would prevent an impecunious Chancellor of the Exchequer from getting his clutches on the money. But I am becoming more converted to the idea that we must take the construction of the nation's roads out of the hands of the Ministry of Transport and have a national road authority. I do not know whether we should be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire; but the frying pan is hot, and the fire could not be much hotter.
I am not going to develop this subject this afternoon, because I do not expect an answer from the noble Lord, but I shall return to it next week when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has a comprehensive Motion on the Order Paper to bring up the whole question of roads in this country. I always like to be fair to the Government. I have tried to give them notice of my questions, but I have never yet succeeded in getting an answer. However, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast," and I am now giving them a week to find an answer to my question: what assurances can they give this country that the present road expansion scheme will not go the same way as all the others—because there is not a Road Fund or some

865
guarantee that the money will be forthcoming? That is the only point I have to make. I am not going into this matter in detail, though other noble Lords might like to do so. I am only saying that we must all regret the years that the locusts have eaten, and I hope that the Government will be able to find some better method of financing the roads in the future.
5.33 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I disagree with only one word said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and that was when he said that it serves no useful purpose going into the past. Next week I, too, hope to speak on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Howe, also on the question of financing road construction. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, I should like to point out how the methods of Government finance of road construction in times past have failed in every case except one. That one case is the Road Fund which, as your Lordships know, has been unconscious for eighteen years and which we are now finally to be asked to knock on the head and then bury.
This Road Fund was produced by Mr. Lloyd George in 1909, when Chancellor of the Exchequer He took the long-sighted view that the internal combustion engine had arrived, would increase, and would need special roads. He also took the view that as the expense of dealing with these special roads would help a special part of the community, he would put a special tax or special taxes on that special part of the community. This is what he said in his Budget:
"The brunt of the expense must be borne by motorists, and to do them justice they are willing, and even anxious, to subscribe handsomely towards such a purpose, so long as a guarantee is given in the method and control of the expenditure that the funds so raised will not merely be devoted exclusively to the improvement of the roads, but that they will be well and wisely spent for that end.…"
Those words could be said to-day. Road users are quite prepared to be taxed specially, as long as the tax raised provides them with the roads they need. In that same Budget debate, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, as he then was, leading the Conservative Opposition, said this:
"If it—the new petrol tax—is going to the support of the roads, we think it a very fair proposition; if it is intended to take it for the general revenue we shall oppose it."
866
So the leaders of both the main Parties at that time in the House of Commons felt that it was a fund to be raised by special taxation, levied on a special section of the population, and to be used for special purposes—the very far-sighted Road Fund.
All went well until 1926, when Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Winston has been widely blamed, and quite wrongly, for being responsible for the break-up of the Road Fund. If Sir Winston's policy at that time had been carried on up to now, we should have had adequate roads. What was happening at that time was this. Road taxes were averaging £18 million a year. We were spending on roads £18 million a year. But Sir Winston saw that with the increase of motor vehicles, more taxation would be coming in than could be spent in any one year, so that the taxation raised would always be ahead of what could be spent. Therefore he took the view that it was quite proper to allot to the Road Fund two-thirds of that taxation, the remaining one-third going to general revenue.
LORD CALVERLEY: I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, but could he tell the House the actual words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
LORD DERWENT: At that time?
LORD CALVERLEY: Yes.
LORD DERWENT: I do not think I can.
LORD CALVERLEY: Will the noble Lord give way while I tell him? He said: "I have got to raid some hen roost, and I am going to take what I need from the Road Fund." Every politician since has been either a robber or a burglar.
LORD DERWENT: What he went on to say—I am paraphrasing—was that if the Road Fund was established on that basis, there would in the future be adequate funds to provide the roads that were essential for the increasing amount of road vehicles. He forgot, I think, that he was not going to be Chancellor of the Exchequer for ever, because ten years later, in 1936, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, w ho knew perfectly well that this Fund had been raised for a special purpose,

867
levied on a special class of the community, and was a special Fund distinct from other funds, not only took £5- million which was standing at that time to the credit of the Fund, but also said that in future no taxation would go into that Fund and that any money that was needed would be voted year by year by Parliament.
LORD CALVERLEY: He was an honest person.
LORD DERWENT: From that day to this, there have never been sufficient funds, not only for new construction, but for keeping the roads in order. At that time, in 1936, certain members of the Party of the noble Lords opposite opposed this move very strongly. Of the members of the Labour Party who spoke on that occasion, I think the one who summed up the situation best was Mr. Chuter Ede, who said:
"How could five-year programmes be submitted when road authorities were dependent on an annual statement in the Budget? Would there be any guarantee in the future that long-term programmes would be carried out?"
That is the position of road finance today. I am quite certain that noble Lords opposite, or rather members of the Party of noble Lords opposite, when they came to power were still of the same opinion. But what has defeated them is the method of finance by annual budgeting. That has made it impossible to provide adequate funds in advance for what is a commercial construction.
In February of this year a slight improvement in road construction was announced, an increase of funds: but what did we have? How can a Chancellor of the Exchequer say what he is going to have in advance? He said that he hoped—using that word which everyone connected with roads dreads, "hope"—that during the next four years he would be able to authorise £147 million expenditure, but of course that was not what he was going to spend in the next four years. He hoped (again "hoped") that he would be spending in the next four years OM million. He does not know; he cannot know. The money is not yet there for him. What does this hoping to authorise £147 million expenditure and hoping to spend £97- million amount to? If in the four years before the war the same work had been carried out at to-day's
868
cost, it would have cost £180 million—more than the Minister hopes to authorise now and almost twice as much as he expects to spend. We have argued this subject time and again but it is quite impossible to provide funds for long-term financing of road construction by annual budgeting. Your Lordships to-day are going to be asked to kill and bury the Road Fund, the only form of Government financing we have seen in this country which has held out any hope whatsoever of getting adequate roads. Surely, before your Lordships agree to that, we are entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government to tell us what form of financing they are going to use. The present form of financing has failed in the past, is failing to-day and will most certainly fail in the future.
5.43 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, noble Lords have delved back into the past. My noble friend behind me has sought comfort in the financial policy of the late Mr. Lloyd George, but I also can draw lessons from the past. The lesson that I draw from the past is how right the Treasury are in their great prejudice against ever having specific revenues earmarked against specific expenditure. How well the debate to-day shows the great difficulties in which one lands oneself if one does! The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has asked me certain specific questions, one of which is. I think, relevant to the Bill which we are discussing: that is, how money will be produced for the financing of the roads if the Road Fund is abolished. The answer, simply, at the moment is that the Road Fund has become a species of banking account into which the Ministry's Vote is paid and out of which the Ministry pays for roads. By abolishing the Road Fund we are merely reducing the number of banking accounts operated by the Ministry. It will not make the slightest difference to the amount of money provided, how the money is provided or when the money is provided. I feel sure that the wider questions will be dealt with in our debate on roads next week; I am afraid that it would be quite impossible for me to attempt to answer them on a small financial Bill to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, since your Lordships accorded a Second Reading to this 13il1, one small point has arisen to which I think I ought to make some passing reference. As your Lordships know, the new arrangements suggest that licensing for twenty-four hours a day shall be permitted in those bars at the international airports of our country that lie within the customs barrier. That confines the facilities to bona-fide travellers and a few airport officials. As has been pointed out to us, it is felt that facilities will be available to the airline pilots, and some fears have been expressed less the pilots be subjected to a certain temptation. I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far as British air lines are concerned, the rules are most strict. In both Corporations and in the independent air lines, no pilots are allowed to drink at all whilst in uniform, and no pilot is allowed to drink at all for eight hours before he flies an aircraft. Of course, these same pilots are subjected to the temptations of twenty-four-hour licensing in other airports of the world which they visit, but no difficulty has arisen in that respect. These rules have been most scrupulously adhered to. I think I can set at rest the minds of those who have feared that the pilots may be subjected to some temptation. With that brief reference to the point that has recently arisen, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has made that explanation. Yet there is still a certain amount of perturbation about the fact that these increased drinking facilities are being provided. The noble Lord has given an explanation which makes clear what he said on Second Reading [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 193 col. 602]:
"I must admit that certain airport officials can also make use of the bars—people who work there, like the police, the immigration officers and staff from the Home Office."
He was careful to follow the words which I have quoted by saying that if he himself,
870
connected with the Home Office, were on the spot he would not be entitled to use the facilities. I3ut the point arises: why should it not be shown that these facilities are for the people for whom they are intended? The noble Lord's speech on Second Reading showed clearly that the facilities were intended for bona-fide travellers who were still travelling and not for those who were landing and coming into this country—at least, not so much for them. It seems to me that the fact that there is still a loophole for people who are not intended to be covered by these facilities is regrettable. Surely, it could have peen shown in the Bill that only bona-fide travellers were entitled to make use of the new facilities that were being provided.
But I am glad to think that the noble Lord has removed the much greater misapprehension that was in the mind, for example, of the noble Earl. Lord Rosebery, when there was a discussion in this House on July 7 on the tourist industry. In concluding his speech, the noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 534]:
"It means twenty-four hours' licensing in Prestwick which will be most welcome—not that we are a particularly thirsty race ourselves, but it will enable us suitably to welcome our guests from overseas, and also from England, at all hours of the day and night."
Obviously, in the light of what has fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill on the Second Reading and to-day, it is clear beyond a peradventure that the idea that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, had about the way in which the facilities would be available is erroneous. I am glad that that position has been made clear. Air passengers coming in, who are within the customs barrier, will have an opportunity of using these bars; but I take it that those who are meeting them will not have the opportunity of using the facilities.
LORD MANCROFT: That is quite right.
LORD MATHERS: I suggest that that would he a serious thing, because it would mean that the friends who were meeting the air passengers coming in at any time of the day or night, and wishing to treat their friends, would naturally themselves take liquor and thereby would perhaps not be able quite so safely to take their friends away from the airport to their

871
destinations. I hope that these facilities will be carefully watched and that they will not, as some people feel, be simply a stepping stone to a further relaxation of drinking restrictions in this country.
I urge upon the Government the necessity for safeguarding the position very strictly indeed. The drink interests in this country are most powerful, and there is no doubt that, on the pretext of serving the reasonable needs (as they will put it) of people coming here from abroad, they will want a further extension of facilities of this kind. We in this country put restrictions upon the sale and supply of alcoholic liquor, and rightly so; we do it because our experience shows that alcoholic liquor can be a dangerous thing. I hope that the experience of the past will guide us in seeing that these facilities are not abused and are not extended, because there is still a long way to go before we are able to frustrate or remove the conditions and the menace caused by the abuse of the drinking habit.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS) BILL
5.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in view of the cordial reception given by your Lordships to all forms of good cause today, I consider that I am most fortunate that it has fallen to me to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is only a small Bill involving a change of wording in existing Statutes, but its effect will be quite important and will result in the removal of an anomaly. The Bill, I think, will commend itself to your Lordships from every point of view. For the past thirty years blind persons living in their own homes have not had to pay any fees for their sound wireless receiving licences, but as things are at the moment the full fee has to be paid when a blind person's household has a television set. The aim of the Bill is to enable a reduced fee to be paid in those circumstances, and thus to restore a concession made to all who were entitled to it before there was television.
872
The free sound licence was first given to blind people under an Act of 1926. The substance of its provisions was reenacted in the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949; but neither that nor the earlier Act enables the Postmaster General to remit the part of the sum which is now payable as a television licence fee. The television licence also covers sound reception, and since the introduction of the combined licence in 1946 a blind person's household cannot obtain the remission of £1 which it would be able to do if there were no television in the house. The obvious desirability of putting this matter right is handicapped at the moment by the lack of statutory power for the Postmaster General to remit a part of the licence fee: he may remit all or he may remit none. While, under the 1949 Act, he is empowered to issue a free combined licence, the representative associations who speak for the blind do not ask for it—indeed, they do not want it. We agree with them that that would not be the right solution.
I do not think your Lordships require any words from me to emphasise the importance of helping the blind community and of doing what is now possible to help them enjoy the sound radio which has been of such great value to them. I should like just to add that, if this Bill is enacted, although the precise, detailed arrangements for the working of the rebate scheme are not completed, it is my right honourable friend's intention to make financial benefit effective just as soon as he has the power to do so, and we earnestly and confidently hope that this will be done before the House rises for the Summer Recess. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Chesham.)
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House will wish me to extend their congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on the very confident way in which he has performed his first task from the Government Front Bench. We hope that all future Bills that he may introduce will be as uncontroversial as this one. Nobody would wish to say anything against this small concession, but at the risk of appearing a little ungracious I would point out that this is certainly a very small concession, and that there are a

873
number of other concessions for the blind community which have been put forward and to which we hope the Government will in due course give favourable attention. Subject to that comment, we wholeheartedly welcome and support this Bill.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Benches I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the confident way in which he has handled this Bill. We hope that he will be as lucky in the subject matter of other Bills that come his way. We certainly support this Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the kind words which have been said by both noble Lords give me great encouragement and also considerable hope for this small Bill. I should like to make one thing clear: the Bill does not represent any form of scaling down. Although, as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, there may be other matters to be considered, this Bill was drawn up with the greatest of good will and good feeling between the representative associations for the blind and Her Majesty's Government, All we are keen to do now is to get it through just as quickly as those representative associations have requested.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MOTOR RACING ON PUBLIC ROADS
6.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state their policy regarding the closing of public highways for the purpose of motor racing; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have at last arrived at that part of the Order Paper which will interest quite a number of noble Lords. At this hour of 6 o'clock I ought perhaps to have prefaced my remarks by apologising for detaining your Lordships; but as the sun is still shining, and as I hope we shall get through the business before darkness falls, perhaps your Lordships will bear with me. At this time I feel that we can quite rightly ask Her Majesty's Government to declare their policy on this very serious matter. It was for that reason that I put this Motion on the Order Paper. Let me tell your Lordships that I have no intention of dividing the
874
House on this particular Motion; if I had had that intention, I should have worded my Motion differently.
The time has arrived when Her Majesty's Government must say quite definitely what is their policy in regard to the closing of public highways for the purpose of motor racing. An Amendment to the Road Traffic Bill was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to revise the law so as to give powers to the Minister to close roads at certain times and upon certain specific dates so that motor racing could be held by approved bodies. When the Paymaster General, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replied on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 191, col. 352]:
"I feel that it is not possible to overestimate the degree to which the closing of the Queen's highway constitutes an invasion of personal liberty. It is really making a public road into a private road, and no one should in any way misconceive the significance of doing so."
The noble Earl went on to say (col. 353):
"We must be under no illusion. People in the locality where this racing took place would be personally affected in a very high degree."
He also said (col. 353):
"I am sure this Committee will agree that, however desirable this project is, it should not be carried out in Face of strong local opposition."
With all that, one can find not one criticism. When the noble Earl said he thought that the right procedure in this matter was to promote a Private Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked (col. 354):
"But if this is to be done by Private Bill, may WO have an assurance from the Government that the Ministry will not oppose automatically such a Private Bill, because if they are going to do that it will be a waste of time putting it forward?"
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, then said:
"I will readily give the noble Lord the assurance that the Ministry will not automatically oppose a Private Bill."
Speaking with great respect and goad will, I feel that perhaps the noble Earl went a little far, because there is opposition to this proposal in this country. It has come to a head through a project put forward by the Derbyshire County Council to promote a Private Bill for the purpose of closing, at various times during the year, approximately twelve

875
miles of public highway in the middle of the Peak District Forest Park—a national park. I understand—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who I understand will reply for Her Majesty's Government will correct me if I am wrong—that the matter comes up to-morrow at a meeting of Derbyshire County Council for decision as to whether or not they are to promote this Bill. It is unfair to spend the ratepayers' money on the promotion of legislation and thereby cause a vast number of well-meaning citizens to subscribe thousands of pounds for a fighting fund to oppose such legislation by Private Bill procedure if—as I suggest to your Lordships would be the result—such a Bill would be abortive. I cannot understand how anybody can think that such a Bill would ever pass through Parliament, because at some time during its passage Her Majesty's Government would have to advise Parliament on whether it should be supported or opposed.
Citing this as a specific illustration, I would point out that this projected route is in an area right in the middle of the Peak National Park; half the route runs along an A-class road and some part of it runs along other roads which are State-aided. As your Lordships know, any road works authorised by the Ministry of Transport attract, as a grant of the taxpayers' money, 75 per cent. on A-class roads, 60 per cent. on B-class roads and 50 per cent. on C-class roads. Here we have a project which, it is said, will attract something in the region of 100,000 to 250,000 people. After some £2 million or £3 million has been spent on this road to make it safe for racing under modern conditions, there will be all the other services that will be necessary in connection with a large number of people—buildings, stands, lavatory accommodation, sewage disposal, and car parks for an estimated minimum of 25.000 cars. Moreover, modern technique in motor racing demands in the interests of safety that roads shall be considerably wider than even the widest road on this proposed circuit. With speeds in modern motor racing now reaching 185 miles an hour, and likely, with modern technical developments, to reach 200 miles an hour within a short space of time, just think what space and what size of road will be needed to enable racing to be carried on without undue danger to the public. The
876
unfortunate happening at Le Mans has pinpointed this need, and in the official inquiry that was held by the French Government it was admitted that the cars at the time when the accident occurred were travelling at about 155 miles per hour.
I have here photographs of two of the roads that will form, or which it is proposed should form, part of the circuit of which I am speaking. These roads today are about 15 feet to 18 feet wide, because they are B-class roads. Is it really thought that these roads, which run through one of the most beautiful parts of the Peak district, are going to be made wide enough to ensure safety? Are we going to take down all the beautiful stone walls, that are such a feature of this part of Derbyshire, in pursuance of this project to form a race track, a track which will have to be there for 52 weeks a year, whether it is used or not? To my mind, this is unthinkable and unnecessary, and I am going to tell your Lordships why I think it is both. Let me say at once that I am not opposed to motor racing. I was bred and born in the motor industry, and if your Lordships will forgive a personal reminiscence I may tell you that when, at the age of 17, I was a humble improver at the Clement-Talbot works in London I worked on the car which was driven by Mr. Percy Lambert in February, 1913, when it became the first car in the world ever to travel 100 miles in one hour. I have been brought up in the atmosphere of this industry, and I say to your Lordships that, definitely, motor racing to-day is a sport, a dangerous sport, and immediately you remove the element of danger from it the public appeal lessens. Therefore, I say you must carry on this sport on private tracks of which there are a number in this country—for example, Goodwood, Silverstone, Donington and Aintree.
What great advantage can you obtain from transferring motor racing from those tracks to the Queen's highway, with all the attendant inconvenience to people and with the colossal monetary expenditure that would be involved? What advantage is there in transferring it from those private tracks, admirable as they may be, to the public highway? I am not going to be so foolish as to class present-day motor racing with that sadistic sport which has recently made its appearance and which is called "stock car racing." That, I think, is about the lowest form

877
of entertainment I have ever witnessed. The only thing that attracts crowds to it is its brutality and the chance of seeing an accident, because the whole thing is based on that possibility. It has no rules; in that it is like all-in wrestling. But we have properly conducted race tracks in this country where safety precautions can be taken and hazards can be guarded against; and seeing that we have these tracks I say that it is unnecessary for the Queen's highway to be used for racing.
Now what are the points in favour of this project? It has been said—I expect the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will fiercely contest this contention of mine —that the advantage of motor racing to the technical development of the motor industry to-day is practically negligible. It is in fact so small as not to be worth consideration. And I say that from personal experience. All the motor cars that race on these circuits are prototypes. Whatever happens to those motor cars, and all the technical experience gained, makes not one jot of difference to the little modest motor car that is bought by Bill Jones or Peter Robinson. The noble Earl shakes his head; but I am going to prove it. It is most significant that the two greatest motor car manufacturers that the world has ever seen gave up racing a long time ago. One of these firms is Rolls Royce. I quote their advertisement, which states that that produce the world's greatest motor car. I sincerely believe that is true. On the other hand, there is the Ford concern, the greatest mass-produced motor car manufacturing undertaking the world has ever known, which gave up motor car racing 50 years ago. The last time Rolls Royce ever entered a competition, so far as my knowledge goes, was in 1910 in the Isle of Man. Henry Ford himself once drove a Ford racing car in 1904, and a Ford car has never since been raced by the firm. So it was not necessary for those two great firms to indulge in motor racing for reasons of technical development.
And the motor industry itself has spent nearly £500,000 on constructing the finest proving ground in the world—though it is little known. If your Lordships would care to possess yourselves of copies of the brochure which I have here, you will be able to read all about it. This proving ground was built by the motor industry,
878
it is run by the Motor Industry Research Association, and the whole cost was borne by the industry. The cost of its upkeep and its running is shared by the motor industry and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Here you have a track three miles in circumference permitting speeds of 150 miles per hour. There are special roads built to test every feature of motor vehicles. There are stretches reproducing the worst of the Continental roads. There are submerged tanks, water splashes, wind tunnels and roads producing various effects, including noise effects. All these are designed to ensure the best possible scientific testing, and they are used by the motor industry to-day.
If we come to the really logical argument in favour of motor racing in this country, there is one, and that is prestige. But what prestige can be gained by racing on the Queen's highway that cannot be obtained by racing on a private circuit, with all the safety conditions that can be devised? It is unthinkable, I submit, that we should close roads in this country, because as soon as that is done they will have to be made safe for speeds of over 200 m.p.h. Then the human element comes in. I do not want to discuss the sad fatality at Le Mans, where so many people were killed, but the real cause of that disaster was the human element. When cars are passing each other at terrific speeds on relatively narrow roads. I say that somebody has to take the responsibility for it. If people want to go and see a dangerous sport on private grounds, let them go—I will not stop them. But I consider it wrong to encourage people to think that in this country we can allow our roads to be used for that purpose. That really is the case, and I seriously ask Her Majesty's Government to say what their policy is.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I have recently had a slight passage of arms about the road programme. If we have money to spend, either the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' money, there are plenty of road projects which should attract money and which would be of benefit to the economic needs of this country. Motor racing is a type of sport which should not be discouraged, but it is not a factor to be taken into consideration as a contribution to the economic needs of this country. There is great opposition to this proposal. I think that other noble Lords will have

879
something to say about the attitude of the Society for the Preservation of Rural England. There is stiff opposition to this project in the Peak district. There is the Town and Country Planning Act, under which the national parks were constituted for the recreation of the people. Will not this proposal cut across the whole conception of national parks? Perhaps the noble Lord would like me to quote what the Hobhouse Report said on this matter. The Report said:
"They need the refreshment which is obtainable from the beauty and quietness of unspoilt country.
…a progressive policy of Park Management will be needed, to make use of the resources of the National Parks for popular enjoyment and open-air recreation. Such a policy must be wisely applied to ensure that the peace and beauty of the countryside, and the rightful interests of the resident population, are not menaced by the excessive concentration of visitors or disturbed by incongruous pursuits…For the motorist there should be good roads but not speedways."
Again I ask the Government to tell the House what their policy is. Is it to encourage a sport in conditions that are going to be dangerous to the public? Because there is nothing comparable with this. It is something about which the Government have to make up their minds.
In conclusion, I should like to correct something which appeared on Monday, July 18, in the Manchester Guardian, a paper for which I have a high regard and whose Parliamentary reporting and Lobby correspondence are usually of a high order. Commenting on this debate, it said that I proposed to ask what the Government's attitude is to closing highways for motor racing, and added:
"He is understood to have suggested that it would he just as sensible to have horse racing on public roads."
I have never been so foolish as to suggest any such thing. There is nothing to compare between the two. I would suggest that if views of mine, or alleged views of mine, on such an important and perhaps slightly controversial matter as this are going to be published, at least I should have an opportunity of stating them beforehand. In conclusion, I would ask the Government to treat this matter seriously and say that, with the present congestion of our roads and in our present economic conditions, they could not
880
give their support to the closing of the Queen's highway for motor racing. I beg to move for Papers.
6.26 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest, as I am sure have all noble Lords, to the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I was much interested in this Motion because I wondered what sort of line the noble Lord was going to take. I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord's anxieties have rather outrun his discretion, in one or two ways. First of all, the noble Lord told us that he knows a lot about motor racing and that he was with Mr. Percy Lambert, whom I also well remember; then he told us that motor racing was no good to anybody and that it had done nothing for the private motor vehicle.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I did say was strong enough, without its being exaggerated. I did not say that motor racing was no good to anybody.
EARL HOWE: I withdraw that remark if the noble Lord thinks I misrepresented him. But the fact remains that there is hardly a feature of the modern motor vehicle that does not owe something, at some stage in its development, to motor racing. If we take detachable wheels, if we take tyres—the noble Lord shakes his head about tyres: I can assure him (and he knows as much about it as I do) that the development of the modern pneumatic tyre owes a terrific amount to motor racing. There is hardly a thing one could think of in the modern motor vehicle of which the same is not true. Take, for example, disc brakes. Several of our manufacturers are experimenting with disc brakes at the present moment, and there is no doubt that if they can be developed they will be of enormous advantage to the whole world of motor vehicles. They combine lightness with great efficiency.
Be all that as it may, I do not think that this is the moment to tackle this question of motor racing and to try to obtain from the Government, in advance as it were, a sort of declaration of faith before we know whether a Bill is to presented and what the nature of the Bill will be. To listen to the noble Lord, one might imagine that we had a Bill before

881
the House and that included in the provisions of that Bill were clauses to enable motor racing to take place every morning, every noon and perhaps all night all over the country. The facts are fairly simple. There is a stretch of Class A road between Buxton and Ashbourne to which the noble Lord referred, and there is also a Class B road which forms a sort of back leg. To make that road suitable for motor racing would not involve great alteration. I have been round it with the county surveyor and have seen exactly what the proposal is, so far as that road is concerned. It would do nothing to impair or alter the character of the countryside or of the national park. The road would be slightly widened, but that would not harm the national park or the countryside. The spectators could be well taken care of. The road runs through a little valley which has cliffs of a sort on either side, and the spectators could remain on the top of the cliffs in complete safety and would be able to see about two miles of road. It certainly would not be possible, nor would it be necessary, for motor cars to obtain speeds of 140 or 200 m.p.h., about which the noble Lord spoke just now. No doubt high speeds would be obtained on the Class A road, but on the back roads the speeds would be dependent on the nature of the curves and so on.
The noble Lord also mentioned the Council for the Preservation of Rural England—and indeed they have a lot to do in that area of Derbyshire. If you go there and talk to the local people, one of the things you will be told is that many of the visitors to that part of the world when the daffodils are out have a habit of going round the countryside pulling up the daffodils in bunches, bulbs as well, and tying them on to bicycles and going off down the road; and later these delightful plants are thrown away because the people are too tired to go further with them. Visitors to that part of the world are not so popular as many people might think. I do not know whether the same thing goes on in other national parks or beauty spots, but one has seen the same happen to bluebells. Then you will be told that the amount of litter left by visitors—there is no question of motor racing people having left it—is appalling. Be that as it may, I feel that we should retain a sense of proportion in these things.
882
Then there is the question of track racing versus road racing. Track racing produces very artificial conditions. Silverstone, Aintree and other tracks of a similar character are, on the whole, rather flat, and in places extremely wide; and they introduce a lot of artificial conditions. But in road racing the cars are used under natural conditions; the standard and skill of driving required are much higher and the test to which the vehicles are subjected is much more considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to the appalling tragedy which occurred in France the other day. I happened to be there, and I know not only what happened, but many of the causes of the accident. One has to be careful, when referring to what happened at Le Mans, because the whole question is still sub judice. Following that accident, the French Government set up two committees, each presided over by a French Cabinet Minister, and they have not yet reported. Another committee was also set up, a sort of police inquiry, which took place on the morrow of the race. I do not want to say too much about it, but I feel that the causes which brought about that accident at Le Mans were fairly simple to understand, and it is quite possible that an accident of that kind might never occur again in a million years. It required certain prerequisites to bring it about, and the chances against those same circumstances all being present again are literally millions to one. But motor racing is dangerous, and to a certain extent that may be in subtraction. However, in this country we have taken the greatest possible care of spectators at every stage, and mercifully, on the whole, we have been fairly free from serious accidents. Motor racing has taken place on the roads in Northern Ireland, in the Isle of Man, and also in Jersey, in the Channel Islands. It has been conducted very well, and has, I believe, been a source of great enjoyment to a great number of people.
I do not know that there is much more that I can say to your Lordships. Before we go into action against the proposal, I feel that we ought to have a Bill before us. I do not think it is a good idea to beat the air and to try to kill this proposal until we know what is in the Bill.

883
I personally hope that the Government will not go too far. They should always reserve to themselves the right to consider every proposal on its merits. I am certain that if a Bill is promoted it will never propose that motor racing should take place every day of the week. It will probably propose that power should be given to close the roads for a race on a specified maximum number of days in the year—possibly from four to six times a year—during certain hours of practice, probably a two-hour or three-hour period early in the morning when there is nobody about. There is no doubt that if motor racing did take place on this particular circuit in Derbyshire, as proposed, it would be of great financial benefit to the various towns in the area. One is told by people in Buxton that the hotels there are nothing like so prosperous as they used to be—and I can well believe it. Various other towns not too far away, such as Ashbourne, Derby and so on, would no doubt benefit; and the various garages in the area would also experience a better time than they have been doing. Let us, in any event, wait until we see what the Bill contains before we declare ourselves opposed to some proposal about which we know nothing at the present moment.
6.40 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for moving this Motion at the present time. We think that he has chosen an extremely apt moment for doing so, as I believe that the Derbyshire County Council are to consider to-morrow a resolution to promote a Private Bill in Parliament. This Bill will seek to establish a motor racing circuit in the Peak National Park. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has spoken about motor racing in general, but I should prefer at this late hour to confine my remarks to the proposal about the Peak National Park. I should like to say at the outset that I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to say that he is sorry he cannot be here to-day, and he has asked me to speak also on his behalf. He and I, of course, are in complete agreement about this non-Party matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as your Lordships are aware, is the President of the Sheffield and Peak District Branch of the Council for the
884
Preservation of Rural England. The Council is, of course, very concerned about this whole proposal. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If I heard him aright, he said that nothing in this proposal would alter the character of the national park. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Earl, but I cannot believe that, and in the course of my speech I hope to say why this is so.
To start with, if the Derbyshire County Council really thought that this scheme would make very little difference to the national park, why did they conduct the first investigations in such secrecy? The decision was made, I believe, in consultation with the R.A.C. and other interested parties; but they did not at any time consult the Peak Park Planning Board or the National Parks Commission. It is believed that the parties to the original investigation were the Ministry of Transport, certain motoring organisations and the Derbyshire County Council. But the whole thing was done in a very secret manner, and the first news came out during the debate on the Road Traffic Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has pointed out. The Manchester Guardian, in a leading article on May 5 last, said:
"There is a good deal more to a racing circuit than roads, cars and drivers."
I simply cannot believe that it will be possible to establish a circuit, even for a day or two during the year, and that, at the end of the event, all the people
"shall fold their tents, like the Arabs,
"And as silently steal away,"
leaving the country completely empty and without any scars, just as if nothing had happened. That I just cannot believe, and I should like to outline briefly some of the objections.
I am not going into the question of interruption of public highways, because that aspect has been fully dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. But I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the new track—I refer to the track which the Derbyshire County Council decided upon after objections had been made to the first track—is actually nearer to Dovedale and the Manifold Valley than the old track was. Furthermore, the revised route extends into the tributary dales of the River Dove. Also, Hard Dale and Hartington Long Dale will both be part of this circuit. The

885
Peak National Park was designated by the Minister of Town and Country Planning on April 17, 1951. May I just remind your Lordships of the purposes of the National Parks Act, 1949? They are, first, to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of national parks; and, secondly, to encourage the provision of facilities for enjoying the national parks and of the opportunities for open air recreation and the study of nature provided by them. Surely, the establishment of a motor racing circuit in a national park would appear to be directly contrary to the intention of this Act.
There are further reasons why the amenities of this particular park in the Peak District should be preserved. First of all, four-fifths of our population live in urban districts, and many in a smokeladen atmosphere surrounded by the ceaseless flow of traffic. The Peak National Park is situated in a very large industrial area of this kind. Its amenities would be denied to the public who enjoy it over the week-end, and denied to provide entertainment for those who are not primarily interested in national parks but in high-speed motoring. These, of course, are indirect effects, but may I just point out one or two of the direct effects on the countryside itself. We are told that crowds of 100,000 may be expected. But this is a very conservative figure. The attendance at the recent Le Mans rally, where the tragic accident took place, was in the region of 250,000—a quarter of a million people—and the region surrounding Le Mans is much more sparsely populated than the region surrounding the proposed Peak District circuit.
It has been estimated that half the population of England live within sixty miles of Buxton. Most of this vast crowd will arrive by motor car. It will be necessary to provide parking facilities for at least 25,000 vehicles. Then there will have to be servicing and refuelling facilities, public conveniences, catering facilities and also arrangements to clear the litter—not only the small amount of litter left by the few visitors to the national park, which was referred to, quite rightly, by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but litter left by a quarter of a million people. I cannot see how gatherings of such magnitude can do anything but cause a general degradation of the soil. What about the effect on the limestone rubble
886
walls made of loose stone which stand for centuries if left alone but which, if sat upon or maltreated by large crowds of people, will deteriorate, with the consequent trouble from straying cattle and stock of all kinds? We shall have to think of the noise for the wretched residents and farmers—they are living in the circuit, and are completely surrounded by the track—and the disturbance also to the village of Hartington. What about the effect of all this noise on cattle?
Then there is the risk of possible injury to ancient monuments. The local archæological association are, I understand, very worried about this, as the area is rich in remains of this kind. Race meetings, I gather, always take place at week-ends, and week-ends include Sundays. We shall therefore have to consider—
EARL HOWE: I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to mislead anybody, but we do not race in this country on Sundays.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am glad to have that correction from the noble Earl. I was misinformed. There is also the question of police. The police forces are already suffering an acute shortage of manpower. They have not enough men to control normal traffic, and yet they will be called upon to deal with special diversions and this enormous influx of traffic to the area.
Apart from these matters, there is the question of the special installations which will be needed for the track. I find it difficult to believe that the roads will be left exactly as they are. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, it is difficult to tell until we see them built, but I imagine that pits will be required; that they will need a wide finishing straight, and possibly a grandstand. No doubt, if there are more accidents the authorities will have to consider the erection of safety fences on both sides of the route. I cannot see how all these installations can do anything but change completely the character of the countryside.
EARL HOWE: I hesitate to intervene again, but perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. The installations for pits, grandstand and other things are purely temporary in character and are taken away again. They would be the same as those in Northern Ireland. I am sure the noble Lord knows what they are.
LORD STRABOLGI: Even a large temporary stand must leave some effect on the country. There is also the question of the track being used for the rest of the year by amateur drivers, in sports cars or on motor-cycles, with the consequent danger to other people using the road. Many people are also concerned about the effect that these race meetings will have on the standard of driving, when people who leave the race meetings become infected by motor racing techniques and cause accidents. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the tragic accident at Le Mans. If I understood him aright, he spoke of it as being almost unique. I only wish he were right. But according to The Times of June 13 last, the figures of killed and injured in race meetings since 1947 total 267—so Le Mans is by no means unique. There were accidents at Modena, at Munich, and at the Swiss Grand Prix; there were accidents at Weyberg in 1952 and at Le Mans in 1955. We only hope that the one at Le Mans will be the last, but I do not think we can necessarily assume that this will be so.
There is also the question of the export trade. I do not wish to say much about this aspect, except that we all recognise the great contribution which the motor industry is making to our export trade. I believe it is an argument to say that motor racing, by helping the designs of domestic cars, will help our export trade. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about disc brakes. He has an unrivalled knowledge of these things. I can only cite, if I may, an argument on the other side by the Sunday Times Motoring Correspondent in the issue of June 19 last, in an article which was entitled, most aptly, I thought, "Roman holidays of speed." The writer doubted whether racing nowadays helps to produce the cars the motorist wants to use. He pointed out that the speeds achieved are out of all proportion to those in ordinary use. Furthermore, this writer, stated that the modern sports racing car derives more from aeroplanes than from ordinary touring cars. These racing cars bear little relation to the models for public use. Therefore, I do not think we can say that by establishing this road racing circuit in the Peak National Park we are helping the export trade in any way whatsoever. In fact, if we consider
888
the loss of amenities to the Peak District, which is an important centre for tourists and others who come there to see the beautiful countryside, and also houses of the importance of Chatsworth, I should say that that was a far more important consideration to take into account than the very doubtful value of motor racing to the export trade of the motor industry.
In conclusion, I would say that in my view the establishment of this circuit is directly opposed to the spirit of the National Parks Act. Furthermore, it cannot be done without spoiling the countryside and affecting the peace and amenities of the local residents and visitors to the area. It will cause danger to spectators; it will adversely affect the standard of driving, and it will not help our export trade. I sincerely hope that the Government will not permit it.
6.57 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I have a keen interest in the national parks. I was responsible for passing the National Parks Act, and therefore I feel that it would perhaps be appropriate if I said a word or two on this Motion. First, I would remind the House of what the Motion really asks. It is that the Government should
"state their policy regarding the closing of public highways for the purpose of motor-racing."
This is not a debate on the merits or demerits of motor racing itself, upon which certainly I have no particular qualification to speak, and a good many others of your Lordships may not have. Motor racing, as such, is probably a good thing. I should be quite prepared to accept from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it has been responsible for vast improvements in the quality of our motor cars and still has a part to play. But what we are asked to consider is whether it is appropriate that motor racing should take place by means of closing public highways to the public and also, since we are not discussing this in a vacuum but in relation to a particular project for the Peak District, whether in particular it is appropriate that motor racing should take place in the Peak District, and in the centre of the Peak National Park. It is on those grounds that I should like to address myself for a short time to your Lordships. First, on the question

889
whether we should sit back and say nothing because we have not a specific project in front of us—whether we should wait until a Bill is before the House—I would say that this question has reached sufficient definiteness to enable us to express a view. It is no longer an academic question. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth tells us that an actual project is coming before the Derbyshire County Council tomorrow. It has been considered, it has been canvassed in the Press and I think we all have a fairly good idea as to what the project is. The question is, should we just sit back and allow the Derbyshire County Council to promote a Bill and incur large expenditure in the promotion of that Bill; or should we say, knowing pretty well what is involved, what the views of the Government are, so that they may promote their Bill with that knowledge in mind? If, in spite of the policy of the Government, they still want to promote the Bill, there is nothing to stop them; but I think it would be right that they should know what the Government have in mind on this question.
I imagine that there are two points that the Government will consider. They certainly will not be passing an opinion on the merits or demerits of motor racing as such; they will express a view on the desirability of closing down a number of miles of public highway for a certain part of the year. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth gave us some idea of the extent of the highway. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has been good enough to pass round a number of maps from which your Lordships can see that the roads proposed to be closed are important roads. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will see that it is fairly definite; that we have a project before us, and we know what is in mind. There are trunk roads, Class A roads and Class B roads, and in the aggregate it is proposed to close a very big mileage of roads.
Is it right that the ordinary traveller using these roads should be deprived of the use of them, should probably be diverted long distances (because I cannot see any satisfactory alternative roads within easy distance) at possibly short notice, and at great inconvenience? I think that is a factor which Her Majesty's Government ought seriously to take into consideration. After all, the trunk roads are paid for wholly by the community as
890
a whole, and they certainly are not paying for these trunk roads in order that they may be converted, even for a short time, into racing tracks. As to the other roads, for which considerable contributions are made out of public funds—60 per cent. or 50 per cent. or less—the same considerations apply.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he would say the same in the case of cycle racing?
LORD SILKIN: I should not say the same in the case of cycle racing unless it were proposed to close the roads. If it were proposed to close the roads for so many days in the year, I would say the same thing, whether it were for horse racing or any other kind of racing. The noble Earl will appreciate that I am not discussing racing as such; but I think the Government ought to take serious note of whatever activity takes place on a public road which results in its being closed, particularly as these roads are being provided out of public money.
The second point is the character of the area chosen. It is probably the most beautiful part of England. There may be differences of opinion about that—everyone has his favourite part of the country. When I had to do with the national parks, I put the Peak District "No. 1" as a national park, because of its extreme beauty and because of its tremendous importance to a large number of people living within distance, who would be able to take advantage of it. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that half the population live within a radius of sixty miles. I think that is probably true. This area in particular is one which is much in need of a beautiful playground of the type provided by the Peak District; and to deprive the general public of the enjoyment of the national park, even for a limited number of days, in order that certain people should enjoy motor racing is, I think, utterly wrong. I do not know whether or not the evil consequences which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, foresaw would follow, but it was certainly not the intention of the framers of the national parks legislation or those who for long advocated a national park movement that it should be possible to close the area, or close the centre of the area, for a substantial number of days per annum.

891
I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seriously means as an argument for using a portion of the national parks that a number of people are inconsiderate enough to pick daffodils and bluebells in the area. I regret it is true that a number of people do not yet know how to use the countryside. That was one of the things appreciated by everybody who took part in the legislation and in the movement. People have to be educated to treat the countryside in a proper way—and they will. The more it is used in the way in which it was intended to be used, the more people will gradually appreciate it. I have seen the same thing happening on housing estates where, for the first year or two, it is quite impossible to grow any flowers by the wayside, or even to get the grass to grow—the "kids" seem to take a delight in pulling up everything that grows. But gradually the estate improves in appearance; gradually the children, and still more the adults, learn to respect the countryside. I think that in a few years' time the noble Earl will find a vast difference in the way in which people will treat the national park areas. But I cannot see why, because of that, it should be legitimate to use a large part of the national park area for the purpose of motor racing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will be able to tell us this afternoon, first of all, that the Government are opposed to using public highways for the purpose of motor racing; and secondly, that in any event they would regard the Peak District and especially the national park portion of the Peak District as wholly undesirable for that purpose.
7.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised a subject which is certainly interesting; it is controversial, and I think that the controversy probably cuts across Party lines. Moreover, he has raised it in a Legislative Assembly which probably contains more racing drivers than any other legislative assembly in the world. There are three main interests which are likely to be involved in road racing. There is, first of all, that of the motor manufacturers, in their engineering capacity: they want an opportunity of testing out their components under the most exacting conditions. Then there is
892
the same industry in its selling capacity. It is almost our most important export industry to-day, and there is no doubt that we gain more sales abroad if our cars have done well in international racing—I do not think anybody can deny that. It is even claimed that in certain countries where road racing is extremely popular we gain general export prestige in other things than cars through going in for racing—that is, provided that we win. We must win. The third consideration is motor racing as a sport or entertainment. We do not take quite the same interest in it as they do on the Continent, or in some South American countries, but I have heard that anything up to a quarter of a million people have been known to gather in this country for a motor racing meeting. All these interests, to a greater or lesser extent, are anxious to have a road circuit.
The first question one should ask is: why are they not satisfied with existing alternative tracks in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, thinks they ought to be? Generally, the answer is that these tracks tend to be rather too short, so that sufficient cars cannot be raced on them at the same time; and they tend to be devoid of natural—
A NOBLE LORD: Hazards?
LORD HAWKE: Shall we say features, such as hills, corners and so on, which are the real and proper test of motor car components. So, from the engineering point of view, our present tracks are by no means ideal. From the selling point of view the important factor is doing well against the Continentals in top-class meetings; our present tracks may not always attract the first-class teams because, in prestige, they will be unable to compete with Continental meetings. For those reasons it seems that we ought to have a new circuit. From the angle of sport and entertainment the chief necessities are easy access to a site within the right distance from big centres of population, with adequate accommodation for cars, with hotels and other amenities. The problem of finding an area suitable for a quarter of a million people to gather is an extremely difficult one which is not solved in our existing tracks because most of those people have to come along the public highway to reach the track. From

893
all points of view it can therefore be said that the present arrangements are not ideal.
It is claimed that the Derbyshire circuit could be made to meet all these requirements and, in addition, that it would serve the further purpose of bringing tourists to Derbyshire (which, in that respect, has been a little depressed since the war) and, moreover, would bring tourists to Great Britain.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but would not some tourists be inclined rather to keep away if they heard what was going on there?
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord, I think, rather minimises the interest in this sport. He is a great lover of the æsthetic and beautiful, but there are many people in this country, and still more on the Continent of Europe, to whose ears the noise of a motor car travelling at 200 miles an hour is music. Moreover, it is claimed that the traffic problem, which is an immense one, can be handled there, and that parking of the order mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, can be provided. Finally, the Derbyshire County Council are in favour of the scheme.
On the other side, very strong objections have been raised. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England, ramblers' clubs, the Corporation of Sheffield and local authorities of Chesterfield have objected, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has outlined many of the grounds for their objections. At this time of night I am not going to reply in derail to all the points in his speech, first because I do not feel particularly called upon to support any particular scheme and, secondly, because the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has already replied to several points. The general ground on which these authorities object is the spoiling of amenities which, they claim, would result. I have never visited the particular area in question, but from photographs and descriptions I understand that the precise area in which the circuit would be situated is a rather desolate region. Some people like desolation; I rather do myself, and so does the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But nobody can deny that the area is near great natural beauty spots and in a national park area; and opponents of the proposal might reasonably claim that the whole principle of the national parks
894
was being whittled away. I am not competent, nor do I wish, to argue the legal case as to whether there can be a motor racing circuit in a national park. I have no doubt that that question would produce great arguments; but I am informed that there is no certainty that this cannot be done, so such a scheme would not be turned down on that ground alone and the decision would probably have to rest more on the moral than on the legal case.
There is set out in Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the law which prohibits motor racing on the road; therefore either a general or a particular amendment of the law would be required. In the past, Governments have been hostile to such a change in the law. During the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, moved a new clause, which has been mentioned to-day, to permit the closing of roads for motor racing. Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept the proposal, but my noble friend, the Paymaster General, who has been quoted to-day, said that the Ministry
"will not automatically oppose a Private Bill on this subject."
This was a slight change in the attitude which Governments had shown up to that date. Her Majesty's Government are still not prepared to see the law altered in general, so that the only method open would be for those concerned to alter the law in particular, by promoting a Private Bill. In our view this is the most suitable way to proceed. Objections can be heard, safeguards can be inserted and, if necessary, compromises can be arrived at. I must add, however, that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared in principle to commit themselves to supporting, or even to not opposing a Private Bill. Such a Bill would be examined on its merits.
On the general principle of having a road circuit, insufficient interest has so far been shown, and insufficient controversy aroused, to enable public opinion properly to be tested. If one had to hazard a guess, it would be that public opinion might support the principle of a circuit but might yet be very divided when the various details involved came to be discovered. Her Majesty's Government would want to see the reaction of public opinion to any particular scheme and would have to be convinced that there were very strong grounds of national

895
interest before they could support any change in the existing law forbidding the closing of roads for racing. In that matter I believe that we are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. On the particular question of the Derbyshire scheme, up to date a good deal of opinion has been expressed against it, but its supporters have not been very vocal in public, and Her Majesty's Government do not really know how the general public would react to the proposal. It is for the Derbyshire County Council to promote a Bill, in the light of public opinion as it develops, and it is for them to satisfy Parliament that their proposals are sound. In the same way, should any other body wish to put forward another scheme this is precisely the course they, too, would have to take.
A debate in your Lordships' House, when the Government's mind is not made up, is a most valuable method of starting the ball of controversy rolling, from which something like public opinion can emerge. So we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (he has had to leave the House, but has asked me to make his apologies), and to other noble Lords who have spoken, and I am sure that the Derbyshire County Council will be grateful, too, for the opportunity that is being given for public opinion to develop, from which they can decide what is to be their policy. The views of the noble Lords who have spoken will, of course, be considered with care by my right honourable friend and the other Ministers concerned.
7.21 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for the care which he took over his reply. I could wish that he had given some sort of a lead, but he was very careful to balance the two points of view, not coming down on either side of the fence. He remained sitting, very uncomfortably, on the top of a fence which is a very spiky one. I rise merely to say what he has already said: that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has had to leave and has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He has also authorised me, on his behalf, to ask leave to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DUTY-FREE IMPORTS OF MACHINERY
7.22 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the interests of smaller manufacturers, they will reconsider their previous refusal to include consignments of plant and machinery of under £2,000 in value, within the concession of duty-free entry. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in opening the last debate, apologised for the lateness of the hour at which he started to speak on a new subject. If he had grounds for doing that, I am afraid I have still more substantial reason for apologising for rising to speak on a new subject at this late hour. But this subject is one of considerable importance to many manufacturers, and so I feel justified in speaking upon it now. It is a matter of some technical detail, and it may be that some of your Lordships are not fully conversant with what exactly is involved. I am afraid I must, therefore, take a little time in explaining my point.
First of all, in order to make my own position absolutely clear, I want to say that I am not asking for any fundamental change or any far-reaching change, such as, for instance, the complete removal of import duty on all plant and machinery that is imported into this country. That is the last thing I want to do. I am far too conscious of the tremendous importance to this country of the machinery makers' industry. I have the greatest admiration for the work they do, and whenever I can I encourage British manufacturers to use their machinery and their tools. At the same time, it has long been recognised—and here I am going back to the Finance Act, 1932, Section 10—that there are occasions when some pieces of productive machinery, which our manufacturers, for one reason or another, are not producing, can only be obtained, if they are to be used in this country, by importing them from overseas. It is clearly desirable in those cases—and they should not be many—that our manufacturers should be encouraged in some way to use those machines so that they can compete with their corresponding

897
manufacturers overseas. It is for that purpose, when such a piece of machinery has to be obtained in this country, that it is reasonable, and always has been regarded as reasonable, that it should be allowed to be imported duty free. In exactly the same way there must be a number of machines which our competitors overseas can obtain only by coming to this country, and if one regards it as give and take in that way, then surely there can be no objection to the point I am seeking to make.
In March, 1952, owing to balance of payments difficulties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suspended Section 10 of the 1932 Finance Act. This meant that all imported machinery then became liable to the full rate of import duty of 20 per cent. A year later, in March, 1953, the President of the Board of Trade set up a Committee under Sir Henry Wilson Smith to look into the long-term problem of the duty free import of machinery. It is almost exactly twelve months ago to-day that that Committee, in July, 1954, presented their Report, and in another place on July 29 last year the President of the Board of Trade announced his general acceptance of the Report, indicating that he was accepting it as a whole with one exception. The exception is one that I need not go into now. It needed legislation in order to bring it into existence. So the recommendations of this Report, which I have here, came into force on August 4 last year. The Wilson Smith Committee upheld the original "basic criterion for duty-free admission," namely, the nonprocurability of similar productive machinery in the United Kingdom. I would emphasise that it had to be productive machinery. In one respect the Committee, in their recommendations, went a stage further, and they suggested that the rules governing the issue of certificates should be made rather more flexible, so as to take into consideration cases where United Kingdom deliveries were unduly protracted.
So far one has no criticism whatever to make of the Report. But the Wilson Smith Committee introduced an entirely new consideration, and it was this: that no licences should be granted in the case of consignments of similar or closely associated machinery that came below a limit of value of £2,000. Now that is an
898
entirely new conception, and it never came into the picture before. And it is to this completely arbitrary—admittedly arbitrary—limit of £2,000 that I am objecting in my Question. This is by no means the first occasion upon which objections have been launched. The matter has been raised by correspondence with the Board of Trade. It has been taken up with the Consultative Committee which was established as a result of the Wilson Smith Report. There was a Question in another place on February 28. I put down this Question shortly before the Election, but as it was so close to Prorogation I removed it and put it down again shortly after the new Parliament assembled. I am glad to see that doing so has certainly goaded some of our friends in another place, because they put down Questions on this very matter on July 2 and July 7, and, if I am not out of order in quoting a rumour, I understand that the matter is actually being discussed on the adjournment in another place this evening.
To all the overtures that have been made on this point, we have never received what we consider in any way a satisfactory answer. The argument put forward, which is most unconvincing to my mind, has been based on two points. The first is that if the cost of administering these duty-free certificates is to be kept within reasonable bounds, then the scheme has to be restricted. The Committee suggested that it be restricted by cutting out all claims for certificates that come below the limit of £2,000, and that is now being done. I gather that the £2,000 limit was based on the fact that in 1951, the last year when the old scheme was working, that limit would have cut out about 60 per cent. of the claims.
The second reason that has been given is that the Government are accepting the Report as a balanced whole, apart from one point that needed legislation, and that if the whole question of the value limit had not been accepted, then the question of the resumption of duty-free licensing would have had to be reexamined in toto again. I do not think that these answers are other than extremely weak. Before the war when this scheme was in operation there was no minimum limit at all, though (and I understand the Report describes this) there was an unofficial unpublished figure,

899
put down for the convenience of administration, of a £50 limit, which was later raised to £100 in 1947. No one could possibly object to small limits of that nature.
During the investigations of the Committee a great many industrial organisations gave evidence of one kind or another. I find in paragraph 68 of the Report this statement:
"The question of the minimum value limit on applications has not been raised in the evidence we have received from industry."
I do not know how Her Majesty's Government have interpreted that phrase. I do not know how much weight they have placed on it. It could be grossly misleading, because, of course, industry did not give evidence on that point; it was not asked to do so. The question of there being an arbitrary limit was never put to those who gave evidence to the Committee, and the first time it appeared was when the Report was published. Therefore, to say that industry never gave evidence on the point and to suggest that industry did not mind a limit is, to put it mildly, unfair. The organisation for which I can speak with first-hand knowledge—the National Union of Manufacturers, of which I am President at the moment—gave evidence before the Committee, and at no time was any indication given to us that an arbitrary limit like this would be made. I assure your Lordships that if we had known about it, we would have given very strong evidence at the time and pointed out why we felt it would be wrong to incorporate such a provision.
The reason why we oppose this limit is that it discriminates against the small manufacturer in favour of the big manufacturer. Let me give a hypothetical case. I have here a number of actual cases which I could quote, but as time is getting on I am sure your Lordships do not want me to do that. Let me quote the case of a machine of the value of £450 which cannot be purchased in this country and therefore comes within the basic criterion and would be eligible for a duty-free certificate provided a sufficient number of machines were bought in one consignment to bring it about the £2,000 limit. A big firm wanting five of these machines would pay £2,250 and would get each machine for £450; but a little man who can afford to buy only one or
900
two machines has to pay full duty. Therefore, for an identical machine the little man has to pay £540 while the big man pays £450. That is an unanswerable case of unfairness. When we consider the proportion of industrial units in this country that are small units—I refer to those employing between 11 operatives and 100—we realise that this is a direct hit at the small man who is constantly being told to produce more and to be more efficient.
I have made some investigations into the amount of money involved. It is rather difficult to be specific, but so far as I can see the amount of money involved from the revenue point of view is comparatively small—I should say between £1 million and £2 million; but that is quite a large sum to place on the shoulders of small manufacturers. It may be argued against this that that is not the point. It will be argued (I hope my noble friend will not argue this) that all these applications under £2,000 increase the cost of administration. The fact remains that Her Majesty's Government are putting a completely unfair burden on the smaller manufacturers, and I should have thought that some more equitable procedure could have been adopted. I am the first to press Her Majesty's Government to cut down administrative costs and I appreciate that argument very well indeed; but this is a case where we have a thoroughly bad principle, discrimination at its worst, and I do not think it is a case of the means justifying the end.
It may be asked whether I have any suggestions of how we can get over this obvious difficulty. I know that some people have suggested that the £2,000 limit might be cut to £500. I do not think that that is necessarily a good suggestion. It would help a lot, but it would still leave a great deal of administrative work to be done. There is one other suggestion which I think is worth considering and I should like to put it to my noble friend. Seeing that the sum of money involved is so small, is it really necessary for there to be such a meticulous examination of all claims that come in under the £2,000 limit? Paragraph 30 of the Committee's Report draws attention to the immense amount of time used in the long-drawn-out investigations necessary for every one of these claims. Would it not be enough

901
to have a far more superficial examination for these smaller claims and then perhaps from time to time have something like a meticulous spot check? I understand that the idea of spot checking is in favour with Her Majesty's Government in certain directions these days, and that may be a solution of the question. So far all attempts to persuade the Board of Trade to change their attitude on this point have failed. I know that my noble friend has taken a tremendous amount of trouble to go into this point. If the answer he has before him is just another link in the chain of "Noes," then I would ask him not to use his brief, but to consider what I have said; and then perhaps he will be persuaded, if he thinks over it, to join with me in bringing further pressure to bear on the Board of Trade to change their policy. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
7.40 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I make a few remarks on the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, in favour of reducing the £2,000 limit at present imposed on the entry of duty-free machinery into this country. Although I do not agree with his arguments, and was not convinced by them, I think he was quite justified in raising this matter this evening, because it is of great importance to a great many manufacturers. My view on the question is, I suspect, the official one, so that if I anticipate any of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will make when he comes to reply for the Government, I hope he will forgive me. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has referred to the Wilson Smith Committee which was appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to investigate the whole question of the entry of duty-free machinery. When this Committee reported in 1954 they gave as their considered opinion that the only possible method of limiting eligible applications was by fixing a minimum value, which could be considered. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, is really in disagreement with this principle; what he is arguing against is the specific figure chosen. My own view is that a manufacturer will import a machine he needs whether he has to pay duty on it or not, although if he can avoid the duty, so much the better for him. I suggest that
902
a duty of 10 per cent. on a machine costing less than £2,000 is not an intolerable burden.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will touch on the administrative problems which would be involved if the present minimum of £2,000 were to be reduced. I know that early in 1952 applications were coming in at the rate of 1,200 a month. I do not know what. the figures are tc-day—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will tell us later—but I do know that if this minimum figure were to be reduced the Board of Trade would need a much larger staff to deal with the new flood of applications which would inevitably pour in. Then there is the additional burden on the trade associations, because they are constantly referred to on technical matters in respect of the machinery which is the subject of these applications. It may be that I am a little prejudiced, but I feel that a figure of £2,000 does rough justice. Let us remember that this is a concession that we are discussing. I contend that the duty-free concession should not be granted at all, unless, after proper examination, the applicant's case is proved, first, on technical grounds—and by that I mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, said, that it has been clearly established that there is no comparable machine made in this country—and secondly, on what I may call economic grounds; that is to say, that it can be shown that the amount of money involved in duty payable would make some difference to the applicant's cost of production. And by that I do not mean the £200 or £300 about which the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has been worrying. We all know that if the minimum figure were reduced to £1,000 there would still be grumbles from those not allowed a duty-free licence to import a machine costing £900.
I believe that the consultative committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, which is composed of makers and users of machinery, is of the opinion that this £2,000 minimum is a fair figure, and I hope that the Government will follow the advice of that body. If they do not, I would rather see the concession tightened up and the minimum figure raised. In my opinion, it is not in the interests of British industry that we should go back to the 1949–50 position, where, more than 50 per cent. of

903
the machinery coming into this country was duty-free. I do not know what the proportion is to-day, but I think it is quite substantial. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will let us know the actual figure when he replies. In conclusion, I think we should remember that the whole scheme became a farce by 1950 and had to be suspended. None of us wants that position to occur again. I would urge the President of the Board of Trade to harden his heart and to resist the temptation to extend the concession on duty-free machinery.
7.47 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, there was no need for my friend Lord Rochdale to apologise to your Lordships for bringing this matter forward, even at this intolerably late hour, because it is one of great importance. My task has been made slightly easier for me by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who has almost made my speech for me. Of course, the Wilson Smith Committee recognised fully that the value limit of £2,000, which my noble friend Lord Rochdale has explained so lucidly to the House, was inevitably a somewhat arbitrary measure and would give rise to various anomalies; but they could not find an alternative. It is clear also that the Committee gave the most thorough consideration to the effect of the value limit on the smaller firms to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, referred, but they concluded that it was essential, in spite of the fact that it would bear rather hardly on some smaller firms, as it undoubtedly has done. Her Majesty's Government considered that the whole revised scheme of duty-free licensing recommended by the Committee hung closely together and that the £2,000 limit was an essential part of it. The choice lay between accepting the Wilson Smith Committee point of view or rejecting the whole system of duty-free licensing of machinery altogether. The Government took the view that the national interest would be best served by the limited scheme of licensing which the Committee recommended. In short, we gave industry half a loaf (or perhaps half a lathe, as my noble friend Lord Rochdale would prefer), rather than no bread at all.
My noble friend mentioned the point contained in paragraph 68 of the Report. It is true that the Committee took a large
904
amount of evidence from users and makers of machinery on the general question of duty-free licensing, but they did not specifically consult industry about their proposal for the £2,000 limit. It seems to me that there would have been as little point in their doing so as for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask the taxpayers whether they would prefer larger or smaller tax concessions.
In accordance with another of the Wilson Smith Committee's recommendations, a Consultative Committee has been appointed, again consisting mostly of industrialists. The function of this Committee is to keep under review the general policy and administration of duty-free licensing of machinery and to represent industry's views to the Government. This Committee have received and considered representations about the £2,000 limit, and fully agree that it must be maintained as an indispensable part of the revised duty-free licensing arrangements. The Committee, I know, have investigated various schemes, including one or two of those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rochdale, and for various reasons—and certainly difficulties of administration and the amount of extra work which would be required were among them—they have not so far been able to find a satisfactory alternative. I do not know whether they have looked at the question of spot checks or not. I must confess that it does not appeal to me a great deal. I can see a serious risk of breach of some of our agreements in that, but I will make certain that the idea is investigated.
The answer to Lord Jessel's question as to how the scheme is working is that it has been in action eleven months now, and in those eleven months 4,600 cases have been examined. Of 3,700 applications that have been fully dealt with, about 50 per cent. have been granted duty-free licences. I fully appreciate the validity of many of the points which my noble friend Lord Rochdale has made. They are old and familiar ones. I have heard them before, and I still appreciate their validity. I sympathise with the firms that are hard hit by the limit. Her Majesty's Government have recognised from the outset that this or any other value limit is inevitably an arbitrary measure. They share the view of the Wilson Smith Committee that the field of duty-free licensing of machinery should

905
be more restricted than before, and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Jessel support that point of view. The Government have accordingly given, and are still giving, a great deal of thought to the possibility of devising other means of keeping within bounds the number of applications for duty-free licensing of machinery. So far, however, it has not been found possible to devise any method which would achieve this end without introducing even greater difficulties and anomalies. But if it is any comfort to my noble friend Lord Rochdale, the search continues. I hope, therefore, that he will not take my answer as the blunt "No" which he rather pessimistically foreshadowed. It is not that. At present, I can see no alternative and I am afraid that we shall have to continue this method, which I know causes great inequality, as any anomaly must. But at the moment we can find no other way of solving this almost intractable problem.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.