Lords Sitting of 9 July 1957

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

WATER CONSERVATION AND IRRIGATION
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: 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 (a) what surface-water conservation policy they now incline to, by which applicants for permission to extract irrigation water throughout the drier coastal counties may be assisted in their efforts to step up food production; (b) for how much longer the reply "not sufficient information yet" will be considered an adequate answer to applicants being refused by river boards every week; and (c) whether the loss on average of 60,000 acres per year to development is not the justification for these farmers to try for increased production by this new method.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the loss of agricultural land to building and other development is less than is suggested by my noble friend, Lord Albemarle; it has however averaged about 37,000 acres per year in England and Wales over recent years. Irrigation can at selected times and places have a beneficial effect on agricultural production, and should not therefore be discouraged, provided the demand for water for that purpose is not incompatible with other local water requirements.
As I told the noble Earl in our recent debate, a sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee is at this moment inquiring into the extent to which the demand for water for all purposes, including irrigation, is increasing, and the problems involved in meeting it. This inquiry is more comprehensive than any previously undertaken, and its results should show whether or not further measures are required to conserve water
814
in all or in selected areas of the country. Pending the outcome of this inquiry Her Majesty's Government think it would be premature to seek powers to impose further controls.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his courteous but, as I must confess, in some ways disappointing reply, may I put this supplementary question: Whether the Minister considers it might be helpful if he, as statutory conservator, made orders for weir construction in rivers where dry weather results in insufficient depth of water remaining, thus precluding irrigation?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that might indeed be helpful, and I will put the point to my right honourable friend. However, I suspect that he may still wish to wait until the report of the committee is available.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it is a good thing that we should wait and see the report, and I am obliged for the tone of the Answer; but it seems to me, from all the noble Lord has said, that it would be most helpful to the agricultural industry if we could be assured that, apart from the preference that must be given to, say, water for persons in houses in these areas—that is to say, water for human requirements—the second preference should be for agriculture, before you meet industrial needs in your planning. For example, there are industrial developments on the Blackwater and they are now proposed on the Stour and other East Coast rivers. If a preference in water supply could be given to agriculture over these other projects, which could be put elsewhere in damper areas, it would be most helpful.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is not easy to strike a balance between the rival concerns and interests, as I said in our recent debate, but I think there is much in what the noble Viscount says.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that a lot of the inconvenience caused to householders is not so much the shortage of water as the shortage of a system to supply water?

ADVERTISEMENTS AND LITTER
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, whether their attention has been called to an advertisement in the Folkestone, Hythe and District Herald in which Peter Dominic Ltd. commend their beer in cans as follows:—"So handy! No empties to return, just chuck them over the hedge …"; whether Peter Dominic Ltd. or the newspaper has prima facie thereby committed any breach of the existing law; whether expenditure on an advertisement that incites persons to scatter litter will be allowed as a trade expense in the computation of tax liability; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to punish such disreputable propaganda and to protect the countryside.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the phrase
"So handy! No empties to return, just chuck them over the hedge …",
to which my noble friend takes exception in his Question, occurs in the course of advertising material which the firm concerned intended to be of a facetious character. Unfortunately some people, including, obviously, my noble friend Lord Conesford, have interpreted this facetious wording as an incitement to increase the spread of litter. The newspaper that printed the advertisement and the firm concerned had no such intention and regret that such an interpretation should have been put upon the passage from which the noble Lord quotes. They are in fact strong supporters of the anti-litter campaign and they have informed me that they do not intend to use this material in future. I think in this case my noble friend may feel that the rest of his Question no longer applies.
LORD CONESFORD: On the contrary, my Lords, I feel that every bit of it applies very strongly. While thanking my noble friend for explaining that the company was trying to be funny, may I ask him specifically what the answer is to that part of my Question which inquires whether expenditure on this
816
advertisement will be allowed as a trade expense in the computation of the company's liability for tax? Does my noble friend not think that it would be rather odd if various public bodies are paying for advertisements advising people not to scatter litter and a company that issues an advertisement inciting them to scatter litter is allowed thereby to reduce its tax liability?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the test is not the wisdom or otherwise of advertising expenditure incurred by a trader, and that outlay on advertising, which is of a revenue nature, comes in general within the ordinary rule that allowance is made, in computing taxable profits, for expenditure wholly or exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade. I recognise the validity of my noble friend's point about subsidising by this form of tax rebate one's rival's interests. The point occurred a little while ago in the campaign in which "Mr. Cube" was engaged. In that case "Mr. Cube" neither apologised nor withdrew.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if my noble friend cannot give any assurance that the expenditure on this advertising will not be allowed to diminish the company's tax liability, is he now convinced that there is an urgent necessity for legislation to deal with litter?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am convinced that my noble friend thinks so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the local authority in the area in which the advertisement appears have power to proceed, as the advertisements tend to encourage local people to break their bylaws?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have taken legal advice upon that point, and my advice is that it would be a borderline case and probably not easy to win.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I take it that the borderline would be the hedge, and it rather depends what is on the far side of the hedge?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the company is genuine in its desire to prevent the scattering of litter, could it possibly devote the profits that it expects to

817
derive from this advertisement to one of the societies endeavouring to combat litter?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will see that the noble Lord's request reaches the company.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL
2.45 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 Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 117 agreed to.
Clause 118:
Application to certain civilians
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, but subject to the provisions of this section, the following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) sections fourteen, thirty-eight and thirty-nine;

(b) sections forty and forty-one, so far as they relate to the sections aforesaid;

(c) sections forty-two and forty-three; and

(d) Part II so far as it applies to an offence under any of the said sections,

shall apply to a person of any class described in the Third Schedule to this Act who is within the limits of the command of any officer commanding any of Her Majesty's naval forces outside Her Majesty's dominions, as they apply to persons subject to this Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Her Majesty's dominions" and insert "the United Kingdom or any colony." The noble Earl said: Clause 118 is exactly in line with Section 209 of the Army and Air Force Acts to enable civilians employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces to get the benefit by the N.A.T.O. Status of Forces Agreement and other similar agreements. This means, in short, that where these circumstances apply, the Government of the country in which the offence is committed agrees that such persons can be tried under the Naval Discipline Act. The effect of this Amendment enables this arrangement to apply
818
not only to foreign countries, but also to Commonwealth countries. This is necessary because the Status of the Forces Agreement applies, of course, to Canada and we have similar arrangements also with other Commonwealth countries. I think that is all I need say on this Amendment, which in fact does not change at all the purpose for which this clause is intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 13, leave out ("Her Majesty's dominions") and insert ("the United Kingdom or any colony ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Am I to understand that this is intended to exclude specifically Her Majesty's dominions where the Fleet may be at any given time? Why are you confining it to the United Kingdom or any colony?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The position is this. As the Bill is now drafted, it excludes all Her Majesty's dominions, which means the Commonwealth or Commonwealth countries. We now propose to confine the exclusion to the United Kingdom and colonies. That means that the Status of Forces Agreement can be used where it is appropriate and agreed in Commonwealth countries. What we are doing is confining it rather than extending it.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask a question, which is probably irrelevant, relating to the W.R.N.S.? The position in the war was, and, I believe still is, that whereas the Women's Auxiliary Air Force and the A.T.S. were subject to military discipline, the W.R.N.S. were not. A considerable sense of grievance about this was felt by the other two Services, and it fell to me during the war, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, to interview these people to try to see whether I could get some sort of solution. I remember well that the Admirals took the view, very strongly, that 999 out of every 1,000 of their girls were the right sort of girls, and if they had one who proved, if I may use: a vulgarism, to be a "dud", it was far better that she should go, and they did not want the power to send for her to come back to the Service. I believe I am right in saying that that still prevails. I have no doubt that a sense of grievance is felt by the other two

819
Services to whom the contrary provision applies. Am I right in saying that it is still the law that the W.R.N.S.—who have given and are giving a most valuable service—are not subject to naval discipline, and that the girls in the Air Force and the Army are subject to military discipline? Is it thought that this anomaly should be continued? I ask merely as a matter of curiosity, because it was a subject which concerned me at one stage during the war. Then I came to the conclusion that it should be so, and it may be that it is thought that it should still be so. I should like to know.
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for what he has said, because it enables me to say that I am entirely at one with him that the service which the W.R.N.S. give to the Royal Navy is most valuable. I did not know that the noble and learned Earl went into this question. I am grateful to him for the conclusion he came to during the war that they should not be subject to naval discipline. We find that quite unnecessary. I was unaware that there was any sense of grievance in the other Services. So far as I am concerned, I see no advantage at all in bringing the W.R.N.S. under the Naval Discipline Act except in the limited circumstances envisaged by this clause.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged for what the First Lord of the Admiralty has said. It follows what I said on Second Reading. But if there was any objection at all so far as I was concerned, it was not raised by me with the other Services; it was raised by the then Director of the Women's Royal Naval Service, who thought that the W.R.N.S. ought, for the sake of their honour, prestige and position, to be treated as the others. That position was overruled. I entirely support what the First Lord has just said. It is quite unnecessary. I do not need to add all the other remarks I made on Second Reading.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First to Fifth Schedules agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: These are drafting Amendments. Strictly speaking, all these enactments ceased to have any effect when we repealed the Act of 1866. However, for the sake of clarity I think it is desirable that they should be removed from the Statute Book. Accordingly, I beg to move the next four Amendments together.
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 32, at end insert—

("47 & 48 Vict. c. 39.

The Naval Discipline Act, 1884.

The whole Act.")

Page 71, line 34, at end insert—

("9 Edw. 7. c. 41.

The Naval Discipline Act, 1909.

The whole Act.")

Page 71, line 40, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 30.

The Naval Discipline Act, 1915.

The whole Act.

5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 73.

The Naval Discipline (No. 2) Act, 1915.

The whole Act.

7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 34.

The Naval Discipline Act, 1917.

The whole Act.

7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 51.

The Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917.

Section seven and the First Schedule.

12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 37.

The Naval Discipline Act, 1922.

The whole Act.")

Page 71, line 46, at end insert—

("1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 64.

The Naval Discipline (Amendment) Act, 1938.

The whole Act.

4 & 5 Geo. 6. c. 29.

The Naval Discipline (Amendment) Act, 1941.

The whole Act.")

—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 51, in the third column, leave out ("In section thirteen, subsection (3).") and insert ("Section thirteen").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 15, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 6.

The Ghana Independence Act, 1957.

In section four, in subsection (2), the words 'and in section eighty-six of the Naval Discipline Act as amended by the revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955'.")

—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

AGRICULTURE BILL
2.57 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.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provision for stability of particular guarantees
(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, the power of the Minister to vary a determination made in pursuance of an order under section one of this Act in respect of any produce specified in the First Schedule to this Act, or to vary during a guarantee period an order made under that section in respect of any such produce, Shall not be exercised in a manner which, in his opinion, would reduce the amounts payable to the producers of that produce unless—

(a) the reduction is made in pursuance of the conclusions of the Ministers from the annual review last held before the commencement of that period; or

(b) the Ministers are satisfied, in consequence of a special review, that the reduction is expedient in the public interest.

LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (6) after "would" to insert "increase or". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name
822
on the Marshalled List. The first three Amendments all go together; the second and third being consequential on the first. Throughout the Bill, and particularly in this part, reductions both in guarantee and in other respects are freely mentioned, but there does not appear to me to be any means whereby the Minister can increase the amounts paid to the producers in respect of guaranteed prices. Under subsection (6), the Minister can reduce the amounts payable, the maximum reduction having been fixed in a previous subsection. There are two grounds on which he can reduce the amounts payable. The first is by reason of what may have happened in the Annual Review the previous year; and the second is if, after a Special Review of prices has taken place, the Minister considers it; expedient in the public interest that some reduction should be made.
I envisage that the same set of circumstances may be in reverse. There may come, a time when no reduction falls to be made but when it would be expedient in the public interest that some increase in prices to the producer should be forthcoming. I am hoping that the words which I suggest will be introduced into the Bill so that the Minister is assured not only that he has power to reduce the amounts payable, subject to the percentages referred to in the Bill, but that he can, on occasion, increase them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, after ("would") insert ("increase or ").—(Lord Wise.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): Clause 1 (4) of the Bill says in effect that subject to the following provisions in Part 1 the guaranteed price for any scheduled product determined after an Annual Review may be subsequently varied by the Minister. Clause 2 (6) then goes on, however, to restrict the discretion of the Minister to vary a guaranteed price in such a way as to reduce the payment to producers—which is what the noble Lord has said—but at the same time it leaves unfettered his discretion to vary a guaranteed price so as to increase the producer's return. The effect of the noble Lord's three Amendments would be to

823
prevent the Minister from increasing a guaranteed price between Annual Reviews unless the increase were also in pursuance of the conclusions of Ministers from previous Annual Reviews, or from conclusions after holding a Special Review.
As at present drafted, the Bill follows the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Unexpected circumstances may arise between Annual Reviews which might justify the Minister in increasing the guaranteed price or making payments of additional sums to producers in some other way. This happened, for example, last year, when there was an unexpectedly heavy fall in the guaranteed price of fat cattle and when the additional payments to producers were made. In such circumstances, there may be no need for taking the formal step of holding a Special Review—indeed, the extent of the loss falling on one section of the industry only might not be such, when viewed against the economic circumstances of the industry as a whole, as to justify a Special Review. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that, as explained in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the White Paper on the long-term assurances, the unions have accepted that Special Reviews should be held only if the relevant effect of a particular cost-change is more than three-quarters of 1 per cent. of the total value of the guarantees. I hope that the noble Lord appreciates that in fact his Amendment would limit the Minister's power to increase more than the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I trust he will not press the Amendment.
LORD WISE: In view of the assurances which the Minister has given, that it is possible for the Minister to increase producers' prices, should occasion arise, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provision for stability of overall guarantee
3.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section two of this Act, any guaranteed prices or factors relevant to the operation of guaranteed prices determined in pursuance of orders under section one of this Act for guarantee periods beginning in any year shall be such as to secure that the aggregate value of all those prices together with the aggregate
824
value of all relevant production grants payable in respect of annual grant periods beginning in that year, is not less than the amount produced—
(a) by taking ninety-seven and a half per per cent. of the sum of the aggregate values of the corresponding prices determined and production grants paid or payable in respect of guarantee periods and grant periods beginning in the last previous year; and
3.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "ninety-seven-and-a-half per cent. of". The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I expect it must be obvious to the Committee that I wish to raise the whole issue of the way this piece of Government policy is being made statutory. The situation seems to me to be a difficult one for the members of the agricultural industry, in view of the things which were so brilliantly said on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Archibald. Moreover, the point that I want to bring to the notice of the Government is one which was debated at considerable length in another place in Standing Committee, and I have never yet seen any really adequate answer to the general case which was then put.
We have already said—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is true—that we are grateful that the necessity for a long-term policy has been accepted in principle. It has taken a long time for that to come; and in the course of the interim period there have been, in our view at any rate, departures from some of the most important principles of the 1947 Act. But this long-term policy must not result—as, judging by experience already it seems likely to—in lower prices to the farming industry as an industry; and in prices being taken more or less upon a scale—although I agree that that scale is modulated in certain circumstances year by year. In contrast, practically every other industry in the country can go to the general public and demand from them whatever price they like, having regard to the state of their production, the general rise in their fixed overheads, such as charges for capital, wages, and prices in the international market from which they obtain their raw materials. The question of what profits they make or anything of that kind does not arise: it is simply

825
in the hands of the industry to extract (though I am not saying they always do this) the highest price they can, the best profit they can make. In this way they can put themselves in an entirely different position from that of agriculture, because what they do not expend in increased wages they can plough back, as capital investment, for the expansion of that industry. That is the position of industry in general; but it is not the position of agriculture—not at all.
In the first place, agriculture is subjected to what is, I suppose, an almost compulsory adhesion to an award which is literally a statutory award of wage increases—and wages have been steadily going up. That fixed overhead has to be met. Farmers are subject to all the vagaries of general industry in the constantly increasing cost of capital to be put into the industry, mostly by loan or borrowing. Whether it is long-term loans from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, bank advances or private loans, we see the same thing operating: capital is costing mere to raise.
But when it comes to the actual price that farmers can get for their commodities, they are in an entirely different position from the majority of other industries in the country. I am not against a measure of control of price, especially in an industry which, because of its necessity to the country, as well as the fact that it has all these outside conditions to meet, receives Government grants in aid. Therefore, in the general interest of the consumer and the taxpayer I am not against—indeed, my Party has always been in favour of—a reasonable control of price. But, of course, it becomes quite impossible for the agricultural industry to maintain its position if, in an interpretation of the Government's long-term policy there is a constant drive to reduce the price of the commodities, whereas the Price Review figure always leaves a substantial amount of the extra cost to the farmer to be made up by what is called increased efficiency by the farmer.
Since the last Review the farmer has once more been called upon to meet not only another wage award but also increased transport charges. Something like £1 ¾ million is to be added to the figure of £24 million extra cost for which the Government did not see fit to give any assistance at all to the industry. All
826
that was to be made up by increased efficiency on the part of the industry. I wonder what sort of thing would be said by almost all the other industries of the country if that kind of condition were laid upon them in return for what the State does for them—for the State does a great deal for other industries. It has done it by the de-rating machinery and by the very considerable safeguards of tariffs. But it has never laid on those industries conditions such as are laid upon the agricultural industry here; and in order to retain permanently, or even for a long period, those benefits provided the industry must conform to increases of efficiency of £25 million, £30 million or £40 million per annum, according to the standard of judgment of Her Majesty's Government. No such condition is laid upon the rest of industry.
What is the fact to-day? One need only pick up a newspaper this week and read the ordinary returns of the cattle markets to see how the Government, in what is a subsidised product, penalise themselves by their policy in having constantly, week by week, to increase their subsidy on cattle because of this dogma of free competition in the markets. The farmer is no better off as a result, except that he has a price for his cattle which is nearer stability than it otherwise would be. It is the same with other agricultural commodities which are being marketed.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Archibald will not mind my quoting that brilliant phrase of his speech on Second Reading, as he will not want to make it a second time. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 204, col. 311] that the Bill makes the agricultural industry
"an island of deflation in a steadily rising flood of inflation."
That is true, for almost everywhere agricultural prices to the farmers are going down. There is no real control of price in the sale of most of the commodities to the public, and what the farmer is losing in price is often not being passed on to the consumer. I saw in the Farmer and Stockbreeder in the early part of April, a statement by a Mr. Morris, who obviously knew both sides of the fence, for he was a producer and also a retailer of milk and had studied the retail arrangements. Whereas 5d. per gallon was being deducted from the

827
farmer because of the state of the trade, he said "We are being treated very well as retailers. We are not being treated nearly so well as producers. I can buy a gallon of tuberculin-tested milk, bottled, at 4s. and a fraction of a penny, and I am allowed to sell it at 5s. 8d."
To pursue now a so-called long-term policy in which it is fixed in advance that the tendency will always be to deflate the farmer's price, whatever may be the rise in his costs, seems to be a pure anomaly. This is not the kind of figure which ought to appear in the Statutes of this country. We on this side of the House are proud of the general foundation established for the progress of agriculture in the 1947 Act. We remember with great interest the basis of the opposition to that Bill in the Standing Committee in another place; those opposed to that measure did not want to accept Clause 1 at any price. We are glad to see that after all these years of experience, the fundamentals of Clause 1 are put into this Bill. But when it comes to drafting administrative action based on a Statute like this, at a time when the whole tendency will be for inflation as at present, with a steady fall in prices paid to the farmer and with costs having then to be met from some other wonderful and blessed thing called "increase of efficiency" which nobody can measure—something in which there can never be a real level of achievement in this vast industry throughout the Kingdom but which can always react to the detriment of the individual farmer, his living and his family—we find that Her Majesty's Government fail to take the necessary steps.
I want to be fair. In the modulation of this process to which I have referred, some increases have been given here and there, but there is not a farmer—unless he is a very large farmer, with large capital resources—who has not found himself, on the whole, worse off in the last three years than he has been at any other time since the operation of the 1947 Act. That is the real fact. It is supported over and over again by our knowledge of the facts. If necessary, I could demonstrate it myself but I am not going to do that here this afternoon. I feel that we have a perfect right to move this Amendment to see what Her Majesty's Government really have to say about it. I do not think it would harm the general scheme one
828
whit if this figure were to be omitted altogether. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("ninety-seven-and-a-half per cent. of").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
3.17 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: I was most interested in the speech just made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. There is one point which I thought he might mention. He knows it as well as I do, because he is a practical farmer. We do not seem to take into consideration what a great gamble farming is and the fact that it is the Clerk of the Weather who decides. One may have everything in apple-pie order to have a magnificent harvest; then the weather turns against one and a great deal of the crop is lost. I can remember, as no doubt many noble Lords who farm can remember, that only three or four years ago, right through the area where I live, we never got in our hay. We got it cut but could never get it in, and in the end we had to burn it all. That shows what a great gamble farming really is, in all senses of the word, whether in regard to crops or the production of milk, beef or anything else. The weather has an enormous amount to do with it and that is one of the things that we cannot control I hope that the Minister, in dealing with this Bill, will take that seriously into consideration, so that if there is any disaster such as occasionally happens with regard to the weather, the farmer will be helped out of his difficulties.
LORD ARCHIBALD: After the flattering things that my noble Leader has said, it would be ungracious of me not to support him on this Amendment. But that is not the reason for my supporting him; I support his Amendment on its merits. May I say, in the first place, that the decision to protect agriculture by a series of deficiency payments was a decision made by the Government, not by the agricultural industry. I believe I am right in saying that when this matter was under discussion the farmers' unions indicated that instead of deficiency payments they would prefer the normal method of protection by tariff. I am not going to argue the merits of the one against the other, but I emphasise the point that the decision to make it deficiency payments was a Government decision.

829
That being so, I do not think the Ministry of Agriculture should always take a weak attitude towards the Treasury and be apologetic about the amount that they have to spend on deficiency payments when they have, in fact, themselves determined on deficiency payments as a method of policy. They should have the courage to stand up to the implications of the policy instead of—which is what we are seeing—showing this desire to reduce the burden on the Treasury translated into a system of reducing the earnings, the wages, of the farmers.
Let me give an example of what happens to-day. If wages in, say, the engineering industry go up possibly by sixpence an hour, then the farmer who gets a repair job done by a local agricultural engineer finds his bill for the repair has gone up from what it would have been a year ago. And if he goes into it he finds that not only is the wage item in the bill increased by the sixpence but the 50 per cent., or whatever the percentage may be, that goes on for overheads is applied to the extra sixpence, so that the agricultural engineering firm is, in fact, making another threepence profit. The Ministry do not do anything to encourage agricultural engineers to absorb their increased costs by increased efficiency. That is an argument which is reserved for the farmers only. It may be very Haltering for the farmers to single them out as the one industry in the country which is expected to be so efficient that it can absorb a substantial part of its rising costs, but I am bound to say it is expensive flattery, and there is a degree of insulation in this which is really becoming too much to be borne.
No farmers, I think, would grumble if, on its being found that they were able to produce more cheaply by reason of increased efficiency, they were asked to share the advantages of that with the consumer. I think all farmers would rejoice if they were able to produce more cheaply and to share on a reasonable basis with the consumer. But that is not what is happening. The farmer produces more cheaply and he gets no benefit from it. And, apparently, neither does the consumer; the benefits seem to fall down the cracks somewhere between the primary producer and the consumer. In
830
the circumstances, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that year by year increases or decreases in costs should be taken into account, and that, at least, there should not be this psychological acceptance of the idea that there should automatically be a decrease of 2½ per cent. I think it would be very encouraging for the industry if the Amendment were accepted.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think that both the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, are really suffering under a considerable delusion. Lord Archibald claims that no industry except farming shows this increase in efficiency. To be honest, the figures taken for agriculture are based on the figures for industry, and possibly are actually lower in some cases than the generally accepted figures for industry throughout the country.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but may I point out that I did not say that no other industry showed increased efficiency. I said that other industries were not expected to absorb increased costs only by means of increased efficiency. That is quite a different thing.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think they are expected to absorb a considerable amount of increased costs by increased efficiency. To say that the farming community are expected to put the whole of their increased efficiency towards the whole of their increased costs is equally not true. We have never suggested that, neither has the industry said that we have asked them to do it. We ask them to accept a proportion, and I think we are justified in doing so. The noble Lord said, I think, that over the last few years farmers had received no benefit at all from their increased efficiency. I cannot quote all the figures this afternoon, but that just is not true. Farmers have had a very reasonable share of the benefit from their increased efficiency.
LORD ARCHIBALD: In that case, why has net income not increased?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: If the noble Lord would care to refer to the speech which I made in this House not so very long ago, he will see that I quoted the position as being that on the normal

831
weather basis net income would be higher than it had ever been before. That seems to me hardly a decrease in the income. The noble Viscount, in moving this Amendment, has, in fact, asked for a pure "cost plus" basis for this calculation. We feel—and, in fact, so do the representatives of the industry—that it is only right and fair that there should be a certain amount of latitude allowed to the Government to the extent of 2½ per cent. The National Farmers' Union themselves fully accepted that there must be a little scope for the Government to weigh up all the various factors that they have to weigh up, including the figure for increased efficiency.
The trend of the speeches of both the noble Lords opposite has been that this 2½ per cent. is something that is going to come off every year. That, again, is an entirely false assumption. Two and a half per cent. is the maximum reduction possible. The amount certainly was not reduced by that last year, and there is no reason to assume at all that it will be so in the future. This part of the Bill adds very considerably to the Act of 1947 and it gives assurance where in fact it was badly lacking. It gives the industry a very considerable safeguard. Perhaps I might point out that in 1951, when the Party of the noble Lords opposite were in power, in fact, they gave an award of some £43 million against a total cost increase of £76 million. If this Bill had been in operation then, the award which they would have had to have given would have been very considerably more than the £43 million which they, in fact, gave. I feel it is really giving the industry a reasonable assurance, and that it is only fair that there should be scope for adjustment. So I would ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems clear that we are going to get nothing out of the Government to-day. Therefore, in parting with this particular matter, I think it might be as well to point out one or two things that rise in my mind as a result of the Minister's reply. I think the Government are moving true to form. They are returning to the "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost" sort of line in their general economic policy, as distinct from real controls in the interests
832
of national prosperity. This really seems a repetition for the farming industry of what started in 1920, with the repeal of the Corn Production Act. The presentation made by the Government in this matter must make every thinking farmer very careful as to what he is going to do in the future. When we compare the success and prosperity of different classes of industry—rural and industrial, manufacturing and agrarian—the great difference is not in the wonderful increase in efficiency of other industries, not in their absorption of the increased costs and constantly rising wages, but in the fact that these are based on the complete freedom they have had in the prices they charge the community. Farmers have had no such freedom in fixing their prices. That seems to me to have been completely overlooked by the Government in their consideration—and I am sure that it is a sincere consideration—of what is a fair deal for farmers.
As regards the other part of the noble Earl's reply to my noble friend about what happens to the margins between the price the farmer gets and the price of his products when they get to the consumer, I do not think that there is any shadow of doubt about what happens. It can be seen over and over again every day in the markets. If the noble Earl were to get up and tell us, for example, what it is costing the taxpayer in deficiency payments now, on the Government's basic policy, it would be perfectly well seen. When a man buys a Grade 1 steer for beef at £5 per cwt., the Ministry make up a large deficiency payment to the farmer; but what is the public getting? Is the public really getting cheaper meat because that is the butcher's price in the market? Will the noble Earl say that the general public are getting anything like the advantage they should have from these heavy declines in the market? I feel that the economists who are at work in the Treasury and sometimes advising the Ministry of Agriculture produce this result: that it is always the primary producer and the primary commodities who receive the first attack from the deflationists. That is what started the crash in 1921 and led to the awful disaster of lowering standards of life and growing unemployment from 1920 onwards. It is because I do not want to see that happen that I disagree so fundamentally with the Government's policy. I shall ask my colleagues to divide.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Application to sugar beet prices]:
3.40 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, to leave out the third "and". The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I will speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 inclusive together and I would ask your Lordships to approve an alteration due to a printing error on the first page of the Marshalled List of Amendments. Amendment No. 9 should read:
"Page 6, line 3, leave out from (' 1956 ') to the first (' for ')"
and so on. The point is that there are two words "for" in line 4. These are all drafting Amendments which have been found to be necessary if Clause 4 is satisfactorily to achieve its purpose of bringing the guaranteed prices of sugar beet, which are fixed under Section 17 of the Sugar Act, 1956, within the
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darwen, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Greenhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Sempill, L.

Hyndley, V.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Grantchester, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Soulbury, V.

Hastings, L.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

Wellington, D.

Jessel, L.

Amulree, L.

Leconfield, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Baden-Powell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Moyne, L.

Bathurst, E.

Barnby, L.

Newall, L.

Glasgow, E.

Birdwood, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Braye, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Munster, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Rea, L.

Perth, E.

Chesham, L.

Remnant, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Salter, L.

Selborne, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Sandys, L.

Digby, L.

Sinha, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dynevor, L.

Somers, L.

Cilcennin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Forbes, L.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Freyberg, L.

Westwood, L.

Falmouth, V.

Glentanar, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

ambit of the long-term assurances of Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill.
Clause 4 says that references in Clauses 2 and 3 to orders under Clause 1 or to prices
"determined or to be determined for any guarantee period in pursuance of such an order, shall be construed as including references to section seventeen of the Sugar Act, 1956, and to prices determined or to be determined under that section…"
We are advised that the present wording of the clause is not satisfactory, because there are, in fact, no references in Clauses 2 and 3 to any prices "to be determined". Also, it does not properly bring to bear upon sugar beet the provisions of Clause 2 (3), which says that if there has been a change on the basis of a guarantee this must be allowed for in comparing the guaranteed prices for one year with that for the previous year. Nor does it properly bring to bear upon sugar beet the proviso to Clause 2 (4). This says, in effect, that if an order under Clause 1 applies primarily, but not exclusively, to a standard quantity, the

835
Minister may direct that, for the purposes of the comparison between guaranteed prices in different years, only the standard quantity shall be taken into account. These difficulties in the present drafting are all corrected by the Amendments which I now move. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 48, leave out ("and ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 49, leave out ("or to be determined ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, after ("order") insert ("and to the arrangements in force under the said section one ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, after ("references") insert ("respectively").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("1956") to the first ("for") in line 4, and insert ("to the prices initially determined under the said section seventeen ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, at end add ("and to the arrangements in force under the said section seventeen, and the power to give directions under the proviso to subsection (4) of section two of this Act shall be exercisable in relation to home grown beet as if any directions under the said section seventeen were an order under the said section one.").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Power to make provision for protection of guarantees
5.—(1) For the purpose of supporting any arrangements in force by virtue of an order under section one of this Act, and in particular of securing that payments (whether made by or on behalf of the Minister under any such order or by a Board to whom payments are so made) are made in proper cases only, the Minister may by order make provision—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, after the first paragraph of subsection (1) to insert:
"(a) for regulating the treatment, storage, distribution or use of any produce to which
836
the order applies or for controlling the prices to be charged for any such produce;"
The noble Viscount said: This clause has a perfectly clear purpose, which is indicated in the rubric:
"Power to make provision for protection of guarantees."
I am entirely in favour of the general purpose of the clause, but what I want your Lordships to see is that, unless we can do something of the kind I suggest in this Amendment, then there will be no guarantee to the farmer that he will have such conditions created for him that he will be able, in an expanding industry, to find an expanding market because the ultimate prices are reasonable in relation to what he himself gets for the product. That will involve making proper controlled arrangements for storage, and the like, in regard to certain of the commodities, the improvement of, say, refrigeration in some cases and of cleaning in others—and some of these matters are covered by the one or two agriculture marketing schemes that exist.
With regard to the prices to be charged ultimately for any such produce, if we are to protect the guarantees it seems to me that we shall have to see that what the farmer gets £x for, the consumer also gets at a reasonable price. In the case of one or two necessities such as milk, Governments of the day have seen more or less—more in some cases, and less in others—that it is necessary for the general public health that milk should reach the consumers at a price which they can reasonably afford in order to provide for the health of their families. But in more recent days the attention of the Government has been turned to trying to get reductions in its national overall Budget, and in its health and welfare schemes. The Government have considerably increased the price of milk to the recipients of milk through those channels, which in my view is a great blunder.
As I have indicated in regard to meat and certain other commodities, their system is working in quite the other direction, and where a grant is made by the Government in respect of low prices in the open market the Government itself, following its own deficiency payments, have to make such a large grant as to be a burden on the taxpayer. Yet, in spite of the fact that the wholesale purchaser of the agricultural commodity gets a

837
most substantial reduction in the price which has hitherto been charged, there is no corresponding decrease to the general consumer. That can be obtained only if the Government are prepared to control prices. Competition in that sense is obviously not working at all, and in consequence the general tendency is for labour to be leaving the agricultural industry and for labour in the distributive industries to be constantly increasing. In all the Governments with which I have been connected, either in or out of office, I have always heard the argument that what this country needs most of all is a trained, loyal, diligent nation of producers, and that, while distribution is necessary, our general economy should be so ordered that the distributive costs are kept at the lowest possible level. Yet the system which is going on now seems to be in the opposite direction.
I believe the Government could help a great deal by putting this paragraph at the end of this good clause in the Bill—because in general it is a good clause for the protection of the guarantees. I hope the Government will have the courage to take a step forward, and not be kept back because it is somebody else's political dogma. I hope they will act in the interests of the nation at large and endeavour to see that agriculture keeps prosperous and expands, and be prepared to make grants for that purpose and see that the consumers also get the advantage. That can be done quite adequately if this paragraph is put in and operated in the right spirit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The purpose of Clause 5 as it stands is to enable the Minister to make, by order, such provisions as are necessary to ensure that the guaranteed payments are given only to those who are entitled to them, and that the Exchequer is thereby protected. We have experience of the kind of powers needed for this purpose, and are in fact relying now upon orders made under Defence Regulations for the protection of certain of the guarantee arrangements. In the light of that experience, we think that the powers given to the Minister under Clause 5 in its present form will fully meet that need.
838
The words of the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount go a great deal wider, as I am sure all your Lordships will appreciate. They might, I think, be held—and I think probably the noble Viscount would like them to be held—to justify drastic interference with free enterprise in relation to any produce mentioned in the First Schedule. The Government have no intention of drastic intervention in marketing, especially as there are nowadays large producer-controlled organisations concerned with all the products listed in the First Schedule, except cereals, and they do not consider that a comprehensive provision of this kind is warranted for the purpose of Clause 5. The noble Viscount referred to milk. I admit that in that one special case retail prices are at present controlled under Defence Regulations. The Government are still considering whether to seek permanent powers to control the retail price of milk when the Defence Regulations are revoked, but if they decided to do so they would certainly not regard the present Bill as an appropriate basis for statutory retail price control.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Earl allow me to ask him a question with regard to the price of milk? He said, quite correctly, that there is an overall control of the price of milk, carried out, I suppose, by the Milk Marketing Board under the powers given to them. What guarantee has the farmer in this matter that his product is being properly marketed? Take, for example, the present flush of milk. Milk was being sold in April and May in all counties, with the exception of Cornwall, for less than 1s. a gallon. For the same commodity the retail customer is paying 5s. 8d. a gallon. The benefit goes to the people who turn this milk into other forms of food such as cheese, ice cream, milk chocolate and all those things which have such a large margin of profit. It seems to me that if, to keep up with the expansion capable in agriculture, you cannot get some control of those prices to make sure that reasonable quantities are sold, then your whole scheme is always in great danger.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should like to correct the noble Viscount on one point. The retail price of liquid milk for human

839
consumption is controlled by the Government. The price of milk for manufacturing is the best price which the producers' board can get. As the noble Viscount will appreciate, we have flush periods every year. Frankly, I do not see how we are going to avoid them. During those periods it is difficult to get rid of all the milk, even for processing. But even this year we succeeded in having no waste of milk at all, which does the industry great credit.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would not the Minister agree that if we get those commodities sold at a reasonable price retail, or at reasonable wholesale prices to the firms who distribute them retail, we should get a better demand for the extending quantities? That is what we are after—to get real control of price so that we can get justice for the producer.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: There is a great demand for these home-produced products. There is no difficulty in dealing with the normal side, but it is difficult to expect manufacturers to have equipment just to deal with a great flush in May and June, because inevitably that will have to stand idle for a good deal of the rest of the year. Until we can control this flush, which at the moment is largely governed by nature, I am afraid we shall continue to have that position.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Repeal of certain enactments relating to livestock and cereals
10.—(1) The Livestock Industry Act, 1937, and Parts I, II, and III of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939 (which made provision for the payment of subsidies in respect of home-grown oats and barley, for promoting the sales of such barley and for the payment of subsidies in respect of fat sheep) shall cease to have effect.
4.0 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "The Livestock Industry Act, 1937, and"). The noble Lord said: I am aware that this Amendment wears rather a strange appearance, and I do not wish to stand before your Lordships as the apostle of obsolescence or to support what has been declared,
840
with almost unobtrusive airiness, in the Explanatory Memorandum an "obsolete" Act. But I wish to take this opportunity of suggesting that in sweeping away this Act something more than what is obsolete is being removed, and that is the beginning, at any rate, of a very desirable control of livestock markets. Clause 10 seeks to repeal that particular Act, the Livestock Industry Act, 1937, but Section 17 of that Act provides for the making of by-laws
"for regulating the holding and conduct of auctions in respect of livestock"
at premises where markets are held, and also
"for fixing or limiting the charges"
which persons holding such markets may make, and for regulating the management of such premises and for fixing the days on which and the times at which such premises may be used for holding livestock markets. Section 33 of that Act enables a scheme to be made for regulating the carrying on of the business of effecting sales by auction of livestock at market premises.
The reason given for the proposed repeal of this Act, and consequently of the two sections, is that the Act is an "obsolete enactment." I am advised that the local authorities concerned are strongly of the opinion that Sections 17 and 33 of the 1937 Act should not be repealed—at any rate not quite so sweepingly—without something being placed in their stead. There is, in the view of the local authorities, a need not only to retain existing powers to control auctioneers but for additional powers to be conferred upon local authorities who are market owners. I would add that I have no doubt that, through an oversight, there was no consultation, as is usual in these cases, with the Association of Municipal Corporations before the Bill was introduced. Such consultation would have enabled the authorities, and that Association representing the authorities, to express their views, and provided at any rate some opportunity for the market authorities to be heard. What is at stake is a principle rather than particular statutory provisions. I am aware that neither Section 17, to which I have just referred, nor Section 33 of the Livestock Industry Act confers any powers upon local authorities.
Section 17, in providing for the making of by-laws regulating auctions and charges, confers the by-law-making power upon the Livestock Commission, an independent body constituted under the 1937 Act. Section 33, in enabling a scheme to be made for regulating sales by auction of livestock at market premises, also confers the scheme-making power upon that Commission. What is of concern is the lack of power to control auctioneers at livestock markets, and anything which would take away the existing powers of control would make it very difficult to achieve the efficiency which benefits the buyer, the seller, the auctioneers themselves and the ratepayers, who are, after all, the owners of the market.
For that reason I have seized this rather belated opportunity (because the point escaped notice earlier) to oppose in principle the repeal of the Livestock Industry Act, 1937, to which, almost, as it were, by a side wind and without any consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing local authority market owners, we are now asked to agree. As your Lordships are aware, the Association to which I have referred represents all the county boroughs and non-county boroughs in England and Wales, and all but one of the metropolitan boroughs. Many of those local authorities can and do operate livestock markets, and they are very concerned about the weakness in the degree of control they are able to exercise in their markets with respect to the number of auctioneers who may claim rights to sell stock therein.
The proper marketing of cattle, I am advised, is one of the pillars of the agricultural industry, and it is accordingly most desirable, surely, that the marketing should be properly regulated. There should be no question of undesirable persons being allowed to set up to auction cattle in public markets. Persons who have little or no experience should not have those rights. I suggest to your Lordships it is most desirable, too, that the owners of public markets should have complete control over those who use the local authorities' premises for their trade. The reputation of a market depends not only on having a large variety of stock of every kind but on the efficient way in which the business is conducted. Where market owners can control the number
842
of auctioneers operating in the market, they can control a rota system, with consequent benefit to the buyer, the seller, the auctioneers themselves and the ratepayers who are the owners of the market. A market authority can—and many do—possess powers to refuse unsatisfactory stock. Why should they not be in a position to refuse unsatisfactory auctioneers? A local authority is running a cattle market not for the personal profit of its members but for the benefit of the ratepayers as a whole. Why should a local authority, just because it is a local authority, be placed in the position of having to permit a person of bad reputation or of financial instability to carry on business in its market premises?
Coming back to the point with which I started, there is in this Act which we are asked to abolish legislative precedent for the further powers which I have suggested are desirable. They are contained in Section 33 of the Livestock Industry Act, 1937, which provides that service schemes prepared under that Act
"may make provision … for securing that … a person shall not, except under the authority of … the body administering the scheme, carry on the business of effecting sales by auction of livestock, or any particular description of livestock, on premises to which livestock markets bye-laws apply."
It is my suggestion that that kind of control should be not only retained but enlarged, and should be given to local authorities. I appreciate that that is a matter which cannot easily be dealt with in this way by this Amendment. I also appreciate that at the end of what I have to say there will be little alternative for me other than to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Before doing anything of that kind, I would make of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a simple request—namely, that he will give an assurance that he will provide for the Association which represents local authorities in charge of markets, or in charge of the premises, an opportunity of discussing with suitable persons in the Ministry the question which I have outlined and which admits of much greater elaboration with those officials. It is a simple request, and I suggest that before this Bill proceeds to its Report Stage and Third Reading, it would be not only desirable but in keeping with precedent that this consultation with local authorities concerned

843
should be allowed to take place. I am not asking for any assurance to-day that the Minister will agree to their wishes, but merely that he will listen to what they have to say before even he refuses to do it. I suggest that it is a reasonable request. I am not in any way implying that they have been deliberately sidestepped. I think it probably was an oversight that they were not consulted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("The Livestock Industry Act, 1937, and").—(Lord Milverton.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The powers of the Livestock Commission have been with the agricultural Minister since 1939, by virtue of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939, but no general by-law under Section 17 of the Livestock Industry Act has ever been made, and by-laws applicable to particular markets have been confined in use to limiting a few occasional markets to be held on particular days. Representations have been made by the Association of Municipal Corporations about the desirability of giving local authority market owners the power to limit the numbers and to select the auctioneers practising at their markets. After consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, we told them that there appeared to be no adequate case for giving local authorities power to restrict the Common Law rights of any person to buy or sell goods in a public market, either directly or through an agent or auctioneer, provided that the market by-laws are complied with. Of course, these by-laws can be made by the local authorities independently of the Livestock Industry Act.
However, we are fully prepared to watch the situation and, if experience reveals a real need to revive any part of the 1937 Act, we will consult with the interests concerned to see how best we can meet that need. I am quite prepared to say that we should be glad to meet the representatives to whom the noble Lord has referred. Although, of course, I cannot commit the Government to making any concessions, we shall be most willing to receive them in the next week or so.
LORD MILVERTON: I should like to thank the noble Earl for the assurances
844
that he has given. That is all that I would ask at the present moment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation of Part I]:
4.16 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in the definition of "consultation with producers," after "with" to insert "any person or." The noble Lord said: Consultation with producers is mentioned in Clause 9 of the Bill, which says that the Minister shall exercise certain powers
"with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with producers."
I seek by this Amendment to amend the definition of "consultation with producers" in Clause 11 by including the words "any person or" before "such bodies of persons." It may be said that, further on, the Bill says that the Minister shall consult
"with such bodies of persons as appear…to represent the interests of producers…."
But a case may arise where it may be necessary for the Minister to consult with one individual rather than with those who represent bodies of agricultural producers. There may be a specialist; there may be a local farmer of influence who may not be a member of recognised bodies of producers; there may be somebody who can bring to bear on the carrying out of this measure matters upon which the Minister may wish to consult. In order to tidy up the definition, and to give the Minister power to consult with one individual as well as with such bodies of persons, I thought the words "any person or" should be introduced into the definition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 27, after ("with") insert ("any person or").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The definition of the expression in the Bill follows exactly the wording used in certain places in Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Section 2 (3) of that Act, which remains on the Statute Book, refers to
"consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to them,"—
that is, the Ministers—
"to represent the interests of producers in the agricultural industry."

845
Section 4 (3) of that Act refers to
"consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to the appropriate Ministers to represent the interests of producers of the produce in question."
Similar wording is employed in Section 6 (1), but of course the later sections are replaced by Part 1 of the Bill. It may be said that precedent is not an infallible guide, but the Agriculture Act, 1947, has been in operation for ten years, and no difficulty whatever has arisen from the use of this form of wording which has been adopted again in the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord is suffering from slight misapprehension here, but while the Minister must consult these bodies who represent the various sections of the industry, he is perfectly free as to whether he consults individuals as well. If it were made compulsory for him to consult individuals, he would be in a rather difficult position, because no single individual can represent the interests of the producers as a whole. They, surely, must be represented by some body or bodies, and not by an individual. Therefore, while assuring the noble Lord that the Minister will be perfectly free to con-suit with any individuals he may wish to consult, I would ask him not to press this Amendment.
LORD WISE: I fail to find in the Bill any reference to consultations with one individual but in view of what the Minister has said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WISE LORD WISE had given notice of an Amendment in the definition of "produce", after "dead)" to insert, "mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act". The noble Lord said: Since I drafted that Amendment, rather restricting it to the produce referred to in the First Schedule of the Bill, I find that the Minister has the right to extend the meaning of "produce" under Clause 8 (1) and possibly it would be better to leave that power in the hands of the Minister rather than restrict him by including these words in this particular definition. So, unless the noble Lord the Minister wishes to reply, I will not move my Amendment.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Grants for long term improvements of agricultural land
(2) An application under this section may be made by any person having an interest in the land far the benefit of which such an improvement is proposed or by any person intending to acquire such an interest if the improvement is approved, and shall contain such particulars as the Minister may require.
(3) An application under this section may propose more than one improvement and the Minister may, as he thinks fit, either refuse to approve a proposed improvement or approve it in whole or in part and subject to any conditions he may specify; but he shall not approve any improvement unless he is satisfied—
(a) that the land for the benefit of which the improvement is proposed is agricultural land occupied together with buildings and is capable of yielding a sufficient livelihood to an occupier reasonably skilled in husbandry, or will be capable of doing so as a result of the improvement; and
(c) that the improvement is of such a nature that a prudent landlord, having regard to its cost and to all other circumstances would be willing to make it.
4.23 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from "proposed" down to and including approved. The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to Clause 12 (2). By this Amendment I seek to omit from that particular subsection the words:
"or by any person intending to acquire such an interest if the improvement is approved,"
Here I have in mind the point that unless somebody has a definite interest as owner or occupier of a property to which an improvement takes place, he should not, whether or not he desires to acquire an interest in the future, have the right to make application to the Minister for a grant for such improvement. If these words are left in, the door is open to anybody else who may wish to purchase a particular property in the future or to acquire any interest at all; he can go to the Minister at any time before he has acquired that interest and obtain the Minister's consent to an improvement That is a benefit which we, as legislators, should not nut into the hands of any individual.
It may be said in reply that this sentence refers to people who have a vested interest, or some future interest, in

847
a particular property, either through the hereditary system or in any other way. It appears to me, however, that this sentence refers to a possible purchaser or somebody who may wish to obtain possession of a property but who will not do so unless the Minister has already granted the application on the improvement. For that reason I feel that these words are undesirable and may lead to a good deal of misrepresentation and mischief in regard to properties as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 14, leave out from ("proposed") to ("and") in line 15.—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: This provision enabling the Minister to treat with persons intending to acquire an interest, which follows the precedent of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, is meant purely to simplify and speed up the administrative process when a farm is changing hands. For example, in the later stages of a sale, between the exchange of contracts and completion, it will be convenient to be able to deal with the prospective owner, particularly as the vendor will not always be willing to act for him. I should like to mention here that an assurance was given in another place that we should see to it, by administrative means, that serious consideration will not be given to any application from outside parties without satisfying ourselves that the approach is made with the full knowledge of the present owner. Naturally a prospective purchaser is entitled to demand that an initial inquiry should be treated confidentially, but it would be made clear to him at an early stage that we could not act behind the present owner's back. I can assure the noble Lord that that is the object here—to ensure that we shall not get delays when an obvious purchaser is coming in or when a new tenant who has already agreed to take the farm is not actually in possession. We do not want work to be held up because of the fact that technically he is not actually the occupier.
LORD WISE: On the assurance of the noble Earl the Minister that this particular subsection is not open to abuse and will not be open to abuse, and that the Minister will see to it that proper safeguards
848
are given, not only to owners but to tenants of property, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved in subsection (3) (a), after "occupied" to insert "as such or". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 go together, and with the permission of the Committee I should like to speak upon the two. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 12 (3) you will see that the land for the benefit of which the improvement is proposed is agricultural land occupied together with buildings. What I seek to do here is to make the benefits attachable not only to agricultural land occupied together with buildings but also to bare land, and in the next Amendment I include small holdings.
In the Agriculture Act, 1947, the expression "agricultural land" is defined in this way:
"'agricultural land ' means land used for agriculture which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business, or which is designated by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection, and includes any land so designated as land which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be brought into use for agriculture."
It provides that pleasure grounds and such like should not be treated as agricultural land. The point I have to make here is that there may be many stretches of good pasture land or grazing land which could well be formed into an economic unit—which is what we are referring to throughout the Bill—if provided with buildings. According to the Bill, if there are no buildings on an area of land—it may be reasonably large or fairly small but yet sufficient to provide a proper livelihood—it is not possible to obtain an improvement grant for the erection of the buildings.
If noble Lords will refer to the Second Schedule of the Bill they will see there many matters which are eligible for improvement grants. They will find that many of these improvements can, in effect, refer to land without buildings. For instance, paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule refers to
"Erection, alteration, enlargement or reconditioning of permanent farm buildings …"
The third paragraph reads:
"Making an improvement of roads, fords and bridges"

849
The fifth reads:
"Provision of pens and other fixed equipment for use in connection, with the sheltering, gathering, marking, dipping, spraying, treatment or feeding of sheep and cattle."
Later in the Schedule we get mention of
"Reclamation of waste land. Removal of hedges …"
and so on. All these are matters set out in the Second Schedule as eligible for improvement grants which can attach themselves to bare land as well as land with buildings. I am sure that considerable uneconomic units can still remain uneconomic unless we can provide them either with buildings or some convenient place where occupiers can feed or winter or summer cattle or sheep as the case may be.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister, on this occasion, will open the Bill wider and bring in the stretches of land which can be made into small farms and small holdings. It is well within my experience that when a county council buy a farm for the purpose of small holdings they erect houses and buildings on portions of that farm, if it is a large one, in order that they may make separate economic units. I am particularly anxious that no suitable land in this country should be left in a state in which it is not an economic unit by reason of the operation of this particular measure. I hope that the Government will therefore agree that they can bring in such a definition as I suggest in these two Amendments, and that their improvement grants will attach to land with buildings, land without buildings or smallholdings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after ("occupied") insert ("as such or").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We refrained advisedly from asking for the power for which the noble Lord is now asking, because the underlying principle of the scheme is that the object of the grants is to improve existing farms, not to create new ones In this country there is virtually no virgin agricultural land, and the creation of new farms can really only come from splitting up existing holdings into smaller parts. The usual result of this is to replace one good livelihood by two or more relatively poor ones for a larger number of occupiers, and while these might produce in greater quantity,
850
the net product is unlikely to be any larger: in other words, there is no expectation of increased efficiency as the result of it.
With the present shortage of tenancies, there is some temptation to landowners to split up holdings on a speculative basis. This may well increase the total rent obtainable, or show a profit on sale with vacant possession, but the nation is unlikely to benefit from better returns or, therefore, by way of reduction in price guarantees. The formula adopted in the Hill will not prevent grants for reclamation of derelict land which is to be incorporated in an equipped holding, nor will it prevent the provision of buildings for bare land farmed in conjunction with a nearby farm already provided with some buildings. I appreciate that the noble Lord wants to see more units; created, but, while I have considerable sympathy with that, I feel that the risk of creating too many small uneconomic units of a type which we are not anxious to encourage is too great to take.
LORD WISE: I am deeply disappointed by what the Minister has said, for I feel that I have a case here. Cases are well known outside your Lordships' House where assistance has been given in the development for agriculture of bare land. But if the Government do not feel inclined to give way, there is nothing more I can say about it. I am afraid I must, with reluctance, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.39 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "reasonably skilled in husbandry" and insert
"actively engaged in agriculture and with experience of the practice of good husbandry".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a question of some importance in regard to improvement benefit and the land. The words which I am taking objection to in this Amendment occur in Clause 12 (3) (a). They are "reasonably skilled in husbandry." It seems to me that these words are very difficult of interpretation, and I have suggested in my Amendment that there should be substituted the words
"actively engaged in agriculture and with experience of the practice of good husbandry."

851
Perhaps I may not be well advised in using the word "actively". If the Government would accept the Amendment without that particular word, that would satisfy me in the circumstances.
In regard to this particular matter we should cast our minds back to the Agriculture Act, 1947, in which good husbandry was defined, and if we are making grants to these farmers we should be assured that the practice of "good husbandry", not just "husbandry", should take place. I do not want to weary your Lordships with the definition of good husbandry in the Agriculture Act, 1947. There is a full definition in Clause 11 of that Act, which deals with the efficient and proper cultivation of the land, the stocking of the land, the securing and maintaining of crops, the protection and preservation of crops and the necessary work of maintenance and repair. It is a full definition of what we want to ensure from the occupiers of land to which improvement grants apply. For that reason I have suggested in this Amendment that the words "reasonably skilled in husbandry" should be widened so that it would be better understood that these grants are for the purpose of promoting on all our farms good husbandry as defined by the 1947 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, leave out the words ("reasonably skilled in husbandry") and insert ("actively engaged in agriculture and with experience of the practice of good husbandry").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We are chiefly concerned in this Bill with the improvement of the land, and I think that we should deprecate any proposal that grant should systematically be refused to the actual occupier because of a low standard of farming. If we take the case of the landlord who, looking ahead to the day when the present tenant will go, considers that it is an advantage to make an improvement now, I think that it would be unfair, to say the least, to deprive him of the right to a grant merely because the present occupier is inefficient. Perhaps the noble Lord feels that there is a section of farmers who employ managers or bailiffs and whose own knowledge of farming is not very great. They have been called "hobby farmers". I should like to say clearly that, from my experience
852
and from the experience of my Department, many things said about "hobby farmers" are not well founded. Many of these farmers, although they may not know exactly when certain crops should be planted and what mixture should be sown in certain fields, have the broad future of agriculture much more in their minds than some farmers who deal with the day-to-day work of the farm, and it would be a pity to see these people deprived of assistance in raising the standard of their farms.
LORD WISE: I was hoping that the noble Earl might accept my suggested Amendment to my own Amendment. He knows full well that I am much concerned with the livelihood of those engaged in agriculture. I admit that there are many others who play important parts in the industry and make their contribution to its economics and to the country's production. I have nothing whatever to say against "hobby farmers "—the expression came from the noble Earl and not from me—but he knows that I am particularly anxious that there should be a sufficient livelihood for the men who work on the farms, who know their jobs and practise good husbandry, and that is the part of my Amendment which I want to press.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: They will get grant just as much as anybody else.
LORD WISE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (3), to add to paragraph (c):
"himself or to pay compensation (whether or not he was liable under any enactment to do so) to a tenant for making it".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment slightly modifies the terms of the "prudent landlord" test. As Clause 12 (3) (c) stands, the Minister may approve an improvement for grant if
"it is of such a nature that a prudent landlord, having regard to its cost and all other circumstances, would be willing to make it."
With the Amendment, the Minister may also approve the improvement if a prudent landlord would be willing to pay compensation, irrespective of any statutory liability to do so, to a tenant for making it. In an earlier announcement,

853
I stated that grant will be payable to landlords, owner-occupiers and tenants who must, where this is necessary under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, obtain the approval of their landlord or of the appropriate Minister, but that the cost and the extent of the improvement must not exceed the provision which a prudent landlord might be expected to make or to be disproportionate to the capacity of the unit to support it.
I am indebted to my colleagues on the Advisory Committee on the Farm Improvement Scheme for querying whether the formula in Clause 12 (3) (c), really gives effect to this intention. On further consideration, we have come to the conclusion that there is a risk that it might tie our hands too tightly in relation to improvements made by tenants with their landlord's consent, or to the same improvements if made by owner-occupiers. The formula covers the usual case where a landlord might well have made the improvement but agreed as a matter of convenience, that his tenant should do so; but it does not safely cover the case where it is not in doubt that the improvement is of permanent value, but where, because its value is uncertain, the prudent landlord will expect the tenant to make it under an agreement to accept compensation from the landlord on outgoing. This is a common practice where, for example, permanent poultry equipment, such as a deep litter house is involved.
The references in the Amendment to "compensation" deserve a word of explanation The Agricultural Holdings Acts provide for statutory compensation where the improvement appears in the appropriate Schedule. Most of the improvements in the Second Schedule to the Bill are covered by the compensation provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, but not quite all—for example, shelter belts or cattle grids on highways. For clarity, therefore, the words "whether or not he was liable under any enactment to do so" are included, to show that the test is simply a test of whether a prudent landlord would be willing to pay compensation voluntarily, because it was worth his while to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 33, at end insert ("himself or to pay compensation (whether or not he
854
was liable under any enactment to do so) to a tenant for making it").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Amount and payment of grants under s. 12]:
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (2), after regulations, where that word occurs a second time, to insert "or of a specified part of any such improvement". The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together. These Amendments modify the provision of standard costs in Clause 13 (2). The regulations which the Minister may make to provide for standard costs are limited, as subsection (2) stands, to any improvements specified in the regulations. We are advised that this does not give power, in the case of complex improvements, to specify parts of such improvements. The first Amendment gives the power which is now lacking. The second Amendment is consequential, and provides for grants to be calculated in two parts: the part to which standard cost applies gets grant at the standard rate in the regulations, and the remainder is grant-aided on the basis of the actual cost.
This Amendment may prove to be of considerable practical importance. A preliminary study carried out on behalf of the Advisory Committee on the Farm Improvement Scheme has suggested that under quite a large number of heads in the Second Schedule the farmer might get a fair amount of grant on his own personal labour if the regulations enabled improvements to be divided into separate operations; the simpler ones, like site preparation and concreting, capable of being done by the farmer himself, being put on standard costs, while the skilled work: needing a contractor is left on actual costs. The Advisory Committee have not yet reached any final view of the question of standard costs, but in view of the interest shown in both Houses in finding some way of assisting the farmer's own work, we feel sure that Amendments to make sure that the power to do so is sufficiently widely drawn will be welcome. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, after ("regulations") insert the said words.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("subject") and insert (" or, where the regulations make provision for the cost of part only of an improvement, one-third of the sum of the amount so specified for that part and of the actual cost (so far as approved by the Minister as having been reasonably incurred) of the remainder of the improvement, subject in either case").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (4), after "persons" to insert "having an interest in the land". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is somewhat on the lines of Amendment No. 15, which I moved previously. Clause 13 (4) of the Bill says:
"The grant shall be payable to the person or persons by whom or on whose behalf the work required for making the improvement is done…"
I seek to insert after the word "persons" the words, "having an interest in the land." I think that if the payment of a grant is made it should be made only to a person who has a definite interest in the land at that time. No money should be paid to anybody who is likely to wish to acquire an interest in that land. I do not think it is right to pay out public money in such circumstances. The grants should be payable only to a sitting owner or tenant, and not to any outsider. It may be suggested that it should be paid to the builder as the person who carries out the work; but surely it can be paid to the owner or the tenant who makes application for the grant, and to whom the grant is approved by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 19, after ("persons") insert the said words.—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The object of the wording, as it stands in the Bill, is that grant can be paid, for instance, to the contractor; and it may be convenient to all parties that it should be paid direct to him and not to have to go through the actual owner or occupier. The other cases which have proved quite frequent in the Hill Farming Act, which is rather similar, are where a group of owners get one of their number to act on their behalf and, organise a scheme to deal with the finance of it. It is much easier if the whole grant can be paid direct
856
to him instead of having to pay it to each individual. Those are the types of cases intended to be covered by this clause. It is with a view to assisting the occupiers, rather than the reverse, that these words are in the Bill.
LORD WISE: I should certainly prefer to have the grant paid direct to the owner or tenant. I realise that there may be circumstances in which it is paid to the owner or tenant and may go somewhere where it will not be paid to the contractor. So long as the Minister is certain that he has full powers to exercise his judgment in this respect, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Revocation of approval and recovery of grant
14.—(1) Where, after the Minister has approved a proposed improvement, it appears to him that the work required for making the improvement has been badly done, or has been or is being unreasonably delayed, or is unlikely to be completed, or that any condition subject to which the approval was given has not been or will not be complied with, he may revoke the approval in whole or in part.
(2) Before revoking his approval the Minister shall afford to the applicant for the grant and to any other person who is an owner or occupier of the land concerned or satisfies his that representations by him ought to be taken into consideration an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister, and shall consider the report of that person.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved to add to subsection (2):
"which report, or such part of the report as the Minister may determine, shall be made available to the applicant."
The noble Viscount said: The whole point of this Amendment can be seen quite easily from reading subsection (2) of Clause 14, as it stands. Here the Minister takes power to
"afford to the applicant for the grant and to any other person who is an owner or occupier of the land concerned or satisfies him that representations by him ought to be taken into consideration an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister, and shall consider the report of that person."
All this is in connection with any revocation that the Minister's Department might

857
wish to make in a particular case. All I seek to do is to insert words which will ensure that the report so received shall be made available to the applicant. I think that that is fundamental justice. It may be argued that there will be parts of the report which will have to be regarded as confidential. If there are facts brought against the particular person by the Minister's representatives to support a revocation of the grant, then any detailed report, surely, should be fully familiar to the applicant concerned, if he is afterwards to be given an opportunity to have an inquiry. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see that not only is justice done in these matters, but that it is seen in the Statute to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: In another place it was stated that we should wish to give aggrieved persons every opportunity to state their case as freely as possible and, where we could, to give them the reasons for refusal. But it was stated there also—and I have to repeat it—that we could not go so far as to disclose confidential reports. There is one thing which should be borne in mind here, and that is that the Franks Report on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries is expected quite shortly, and it is highly relevant. I think it would be wrong to create a precedent on a rather minor point in this Agriculture Bill. I think one should also bear in mind that the person making the report, if he feels that all or part of it may be made public, will be less inclined to speak his mind with complete clarity, complete forth-rightness, than if he feels it is a confidential report. Documents of this sort are one of the main means whereby the administrative machine of Government works. If we start allowing what always have been, and, I firmly believe, always should be, confidential reports to be made public, I think we should see a grave falling off in the standard of administration.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I do not feel very happy about this matter. It seems to me that, unless I have misapprehended the Bill, anybody who is going to
858
make application for a grant in aid of the improvements to be brought about will have had the matter inquired into at the beginning. The Ministry will have the advantage of quite confidential reports at that point, as to whether the farmer or owner concerned, as the case may be, is likely to make good use of the grant. The type of improvement to be brought about will have been examined; his plans will have been checked, and the whole project will have been thoroughly investigated. All I am asking is that, after all those things have been done and the grant has been made, if it is going to be revoked afterwards and the Ministry are going to take powers to see that such a person can have an inquiry into the decision to revoke, then the report upon which the revocation has been made should be supplied to the man when he comes to be heard at the inquiry. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask, and I hope it will be done.
LORD CLITHEROE: I wonder whether the noble Earl would tell us whether, when the Minister has revoked an order, the man will be given the reasons in writing by the Minister, so that he can at least see What they are? I can understand the difficulties of the whole report being made available, but will the reasons be stated in writing?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: As I said earlier, where we can we shall certainly give the reasons for refusal, and I imagine that they would be given in writing. I cannot see any reason why that should not be done.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think the Minister has answered my last point.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: What the noble Viscount is asking me to do is to accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Or show that my second argument is not good.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: As I said earlier, we do not feel that it is right that these reports should be made available, on the ground that the Franks Committee Report will be issued very shortly. I should certainly not like your Lordships to feel that I am hanging all the case on that Report, because I am not. We believe that it is

859
a vital part of the machinery of Government that these reports should be confidential, so that the Minister can get the best out of them.
LORD CLITHEROE: I am not quite happy, because here is a case where money has been paid over to a man who has spent it. He is then to be asked to return it—a very embarrassing situation for many people. I cannot think that is right, unless the Minister is prepared to give in writing at any rate the reasons which cause him to make that difficult decision—a decision which might cause grave embarrassment to a particular owner or occupier. Perhaps the Minister would consider that point before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I will certainly consider that point, but do not forget that the Minister has to take the individual into court. He cannot get the money back purely on the report of a person appointed by him, without going to court. He can act on that report, but he will still have to go to court.
EARL BATHURST: May I ask the noble Earl how much warning will be given to the recipient of a loan before it is taken back?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is rather difficult to say. The grant may not have been paid over. It depends a great deal on the standard of the work done. If the standard of the work is bad and the job is highly unsatisfactory, then the grant will not be paid over. If part has been paid, and the remainder of the work is then unsatisfactory, that part is the portion which the Minister will try to get back. I am afraid that I cannot give a time as to what notice will be given. It certainly will not be a short notice, because there is a considerable amount of work to be done by the committee and various representatives of other Ministries.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am still unhappy about this point. I do not want to prolong the discussion, and I think the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite, that some further consideration should be given to it before the Report stage, is a wise one. I do not propose to withdraw my Amendment, but I shall not divide against it at the present time. If I withdraw
860
it, it might look as if I were agreeing in some measure with the Minister, and that is not so. I do not think we have yet received a proper answer. It is no good arguing that we can afford, in a Statute of this kind, to wait for the Franks Report unless we are to have an Amendment after the Report to every similar piece of legislation, whatever Department is affected. I rather doubt whether that is likely to happen. We have had serious embarrassment, even in connection with the Ministry of Agriculture, in one or two cases in the past—I do not mean to name them, or to go into details.
I think it would be advisable if, between now and the Report stage, the Minister himself could authorise the noble Earl to say definitely what he thinks will happen in these cases. Will adequate notice be given, as the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said just now? Secondly, will the reasons be stated in writing; and, thirdly, what real reason is there for not letting the man who has been promised a Government grant see the cause upon which the refusal is based? I think that is reasonable. If the Government could put into the Bill something like this Amendment, they would not only do justice but would let the people see that the English Statutes can show justice at any time.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.10 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved to add to the clause:
"(4) An improvement scheme may be revoked or varied at any time by the appropriate Minister—

(a) on application in that behalf being made to him by the person or persons who under the scheme, as it stands, immediately before the revocation, or variation, is or are responsible for doing the work described therein; or

(b) in the absence of such application if that person, or each of those persons, consents."

The noble Earl said: The reason for this Amendment is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will agree to the principle that a landowner should have the right to appeal to the Minister to vary or change a grant that may have already been made. Suppose circumstances should change suddenly, without any previous notice to the owner: it would seem fair that the owner

861
should be able to get either a different grant, or possibly a larger or smaller one should that be necessary. The kind of situation I have in mind is where a tenant dies suddenly and a new tenant comes in to take over the holding on which a grant had been given and possibly already paid, but the new tenant does not wish to take over those particular buildings and a new scheme may be needed. A landowner should have that right to ask the Minister to vary the grant.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Bathurst.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The wording here follows very closely the wording of Section 4 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, which makes a similar provision for hill farming land improvement schemes. This Amendment is not necessary to enable the changes contemplated by the noble Earl to be made. The Hill Farming Act is on different lines from Part II of this Bill. The Hill Farming Act provides not for individual improvements but for comprehensive schemes for doing everything which requires to be done to bring the farm up to a full state of efficiency. A hill farming scheme is approved or rejected as a whole and, without the provision in Section 4, grant would have to be repaid if the scheme were stopped or changed in the middle.
But this Bill deals with individual improvements and, as each is completed, grant will usually be paid on it as a separate item. If the owner decides not to go on with a second improvement, he does not get grant on it, but it does not affect his entitlement to grant on the earlier improvement. A formal revocation or variation would thus have no utility.
It is true that sometimes grant for one item of improvement will be made conditional on another improvement being done at the same time. For example, where a cowhouse is built, it may be a requirement that a water supply is provided. That case will be governed by Clause 14 (1) which provides that, if a condition of the approval has not been complied with, the Minister may revoke the approval in whole or in part. This power is permissive and, if the Minister were satisfied that the breach of the condition had a reasonable explanation, he would not be bound to use the power.
862
In practice, we envisage that if an owner has second thoughts after an improvement or a group of improvements has been approved, he should simply re-apply, and, if we are satisfied, we should give a fresh approval. Nothing more than that is required.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply, and especially the last paragraph in it, which I think is exactly what landowners would like to hear. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Grants towards costs of amalgamation
(2) An application under this section may be made within the time within which applications under section twelve of this Act may be made and may propose any transactions necessary or expedient for securing that agricultural land which is not an economic unit, but which together with some other agricultural land could form an economic unit, shall be owned and occupied with that other land; and the said costs are surveyor's fees and legal costs, stamp duty on any conveyance, tenancy agreement or mortgage, and any compensation for disturbance payable under section thirty-four of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.
LORD WISE LORD WISE had given Notice of four Amendments, the last of which was to leave out Clause 16 and insert a new clause. The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House, I should like to deal with the next four Amendments together. I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 as the points in those Amendments have already been dealt with in two previous Amendments this afternoon. I should like to say a few words on Amendment No. 28 to explain the reason for the proposal of this new clause.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF BUCKING-HAMSHIRE): Perhaps the noble Lord will formally move Amendment No. 25 when he comes to it, and then withdraw it.
LORD WISE: I should like to say a few words on the reason for the proposed new clause. Under Clause 16 as it stands in the Bill, it is possible for the Government to make a grant in regard to
"surveyor's, fees and legal costs, stamp duty on any conveyance, tenancy agreement or

863
mortgage, and any compensation for disturbance payable under section thirty-four of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948."
That is in regard to the amalgamation of units, which amalgamation may entail certain costs to the owners or the tenants. This may necessitate certain compensation, but I think that it is wrong in principle that we should agree to pay such costs to anybody. They are costs which generally fall upon either the landlords or the tenants in regard to land matters, and, if amalgamation takes place, it may be that these costs will be high or low according to the area of land and the circumstances involved. But for the Government to suggest that they will pay one-third of the cost in regard to those amalgamations is, I think, wrong. As noble Lords will see, in the new clause which I have drafted on the basis of the old clause, leaving out the question of the costs, I am not averse from amalgamations, if amalgamations of land or units can take place; it is simply the question of costs. I join issue with the Government on this matter and think it would be better that the door should not be open to all sorts of amalgamations to be brought to the Government and for part of the costs of amalgamation to be backed by the State.
In regard to Amendment No. 27, noble Lords will see that the new clause which I suggest embodies part of Clause 16 (3) as follows:
"An application under this section may be made by any person having an interest in any of the land the ownership and occupation of which as an economic unit is proposed in the application…."
But what I seek to do is to give the occupier of the land notice of such application. Under the clause as it stands at present, there is no liability on the part of the owner to inform the occupier of the land that an application has been made for an amalgamation. I think that that is wrong and that the occupier should be informed as to what may happen to his particular farm or area of land. I will move according to the direction of the Lord Chairman in regard to the various Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, after ("land") insert ("as such or occupied with buildings or as a small holding ").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am not quite clear upon which Amendment I am supposed to be talking.
LORD WISE: May I rise again to say that we have already dealt with that point and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WISE: I beg now to move Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, after ("approved") insert (" provided that the occupier of the land has been notified of the application").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Are we speaking on Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29?
LORD WISE: I think the Lord Chairman wishes the noble Earl to speak on Amendment No. 27.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If I may say so, the noble Earl the Minister can answer to all the Amendments as explained, but the noble Lord has simply formally moved Amendment No. 27 so that the noble Earl can talk to it.
5.20 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: First of all, on Amendment No. 27, we have already given an assurance, which I am happy to repeat, that we shall see that all the interested parties are informed. It may be possible to ask why we prefer to deal with this matter by administrative means. I think the answer is this: it is not always feasible to guarantee to notify the occupier in every case, although as a rule he is easy to identify and to inform. But problems will arise. We have come across this difficulty on a number of occasions in administering Part II of the Agriculture Act. In fact, the occupier in law may not be the farmer himself, but a trustee holding the tenancy on his behalf, or the executors of a will. In such cases it would, I think, be preferable for the Minister not to be precluded in the last resort from entertaining the application. But, where possible, I can assure the noble Lord that we will certainly notify all those concerned.
Now there is the question of the noble Lord's new Clause 16 and the deletion of Clause 17. As the noble Lord has

865
said, our object is to pay grants of one-third of the cost of certain incidental expenses on these amalgamation transactions. His new Clause 16 and the deletion of Clause 17 in fact leaves intact the power to approve or reject proposals, but removes entirely the power to pay any grant. The effect of this, legally, is to rob the provision for amalgamation of all practical purpose. No one would have any reason to ask the Minister for approval, for it could not lead to a grant, and refusal of approval would not affect their freedom of action under the general law.
The case for these grants is that they are complementary to the improvement grants. I think it is generally agreed that it would be wrong to pay grants to improve holdings which can never produce a decent living; and I think it follows that an uneconomic holding will simply go from bad to worse unless something is done for it. The amalgamation grants are offered to make these holdings large enough to be economic and so suitable for improvement grants. On Second Reading I gave the noble Lord some figures of what the cost of an amalgamation on a 40-acre holding might be, and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them now. But they are considerable, and if we are to help these units which, on their own, can never come to anything worth while or be anything less than a burden to their occupiers, I feel that we must have these amalgamation grants.
LORD HAWKE: Would my noble friend say whether he is prepared to see that the occupier and the owner are informed in these cases? Because I gather that the person interested in the land may be some quite different body.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can certainly give my noble friend that assurance.
LORD WISE: In view of what the noble Earl has said, there is nothing else that I can do. I am against the payment of money from State funds for this particular purpose. If there is any cost arising from an amalgamation or the sale or purchase of land, then those dealing with that particular transaction should pay it. I am afraid that this may lead to applications elsewhere, which I think would be a disadvantage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 27, and do not move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Supplementary provisions as to orders and regulations
19.—(1) Any power of the Ministers to make orders, or regulations under this Part of this Act shall be exercised with the consent of the Treasury.
5.26 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "with the consent of the Treasury" and to insert "by them". The noble Lord said: I have been quite peaceful through the earlier part of the afternoon and this may be a somewhat rebellious Amendment. But in this particular instance, in regard to Part I of the Bill where there are varying amounts of money involved in the payment of grants, I thought it right and proper that the Minister should consult not only the Treasury, as he does, but also the producers. In regard to this particular Part of the Bill, in which the amount of money is allocated over a period of ten years (the sum being £50 million, and not exceeding £55 million), it would be in order for the Ministers, as authorised Ministers of State who are to approve these various schemes and grants, to be masters of their own house and to carry out the work under the Bill without having to go to the Treasury for consent to spend the money. The amount is fixed. I take it that the allocation is in the hands of the Ministers. The refusal or the giving of the grants is in the hands of the respective Ministers, and I think the time has come when, if Ministers are authorised by Act of Parliament to carry out the wishes of Parliament, they should have the full authority to carry out the administrative work and put the Act into operation. I may find myself in trouble in trying to "wash out" the Treasury in this instance; nevertheless. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, leave out from ("exercised") to end of line 27 and insert ("by them").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: If it had been the intention that the Minister should have unfettered control over £55 million, then it would have been put in the Bill as £55 million and not as £50 million,

867
with a possible extension if, it was required. I think it is normal practice that the Treasury, having agreed to the allocation of certain grants for a certain purpose, are more than content that the Minister responsible should get on with it. But where there is a proviso that there can be an extension under certain conditions, if it should be required but is not in the original demand from the Treasury, the Treasury must, I think, be consulted. At that particular time, when the £50 million is used up and the Minister of Agriculture says, "I want my extra £5 million," the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to consider the circumstances applicable at that particular time and decide whether the state of the country is such that they can afford that extra £5 million. I think that is only reasonable. If it had been the intention of Her Majesty's Government that £55 million should be the total figure in any circumstances, that would have been written in as £55 million and there would not have been the need to go back again.
LORD WISE: I am very sorry. I was trying to give the Minister of Agriculture the freedom which is spoken about so much at the present time, but if the noble Earl the Minister is still anxious that the Treasury should help to allocate the money, I can say no more. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Constitution of the Authority]:
5.32 p.m.
LORD WISE: In the absence of my noble Leader I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. It deals with the composition of the Authority and provides that there shall be two persons, instead of one, capable of representing the interests of persons employed in agriculture. This matter has been spoken about in the past. It was mentioned on Second Reading and in another place, and I believe it is the desire of those employed in agriculture that there should be an increase in their representation. It may be said by the Minister that if we increase the representation of agricultural workers we shall have to increase the representation
868
of other bodies also, and the total number of members of the Authority. But workers in the pig industry are very concerned and knowledgeable, and from many points of view it would be better to do so, for it would not only create interest among agricultural workers in their industry but would enable them, as members, to give assistance and advice to the Authority. I know that if that were done, it would be very acceptable to farm workers generally, and particularly to members of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. They would appreciate that their interests were being safeguarded by additional membership of that Authority. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion Her Majesty's Government will grant what we on this side of the House desire. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, leave out ("one shall be a person") and insert ("two shall be persons").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: As the noble Lord opposite has said, we are most anxious not to increase the size of this body. The Reorganisation Commission said that it was very necessary to limit the numbers of an Authority of this kind to enable it to act as efficiently as possible. As the Committee will remember, the Commission recommended that there should be two members representing agricultural workers but they did not recommend any members to represent employees of processors or distributors. We felt that it was very necessary that there should be equal representation of workers on both the production and the distributive sides of the industry, and we have taken one worker from each. We believe that is right. If we were to accede to the noble Lord's request, we should undoubtedly have to increase other representations, and before long we should have a very large Authority or a very unbalanced one. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD WISE: I regret the reply of the Minister, which will also be received with regret in many quarters by workers engaged in the industry. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Short title, commencement and extent
37—
(2) This Act, except subsection (3) of section thirty-six, shall come into force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven.
LORD WISE: On behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. It is self-explanatory. It seeks to amend the words "first day of September" to "first day of August". It was mentioned in another place that it is desired that this Bill should become an Act at the earliest possible moment, in order that improvements which are contemplated may be started, and possibly finished, by the time the winter comes upon us. For that reason the date is suggested as August 1 rather than September 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("September") and insert ("August").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill first came before another place there was considerable pressure for the date of operation to be brought forward. We are now within some three weeks of the proposed new date, and I think your Lordships will appreciate the very considerable administrative problem that would be created by suddenly bringing forward the date from September 1 to August 1. By now, most people have made their plans for work to be done this autumn and it would be of little help to them to have the date brought forward, apart from the very considerable difficulties which that would make on the administrative side.
It might be helpful if I were to give the Committee such information as I have on how these requests are coming in. Dealing with provisional applications, which were invited from May 1, in England and Wales the numbers received actually fell from 1,750 in May to 1,550 in June. On the other hand, the number of inspections that took place rose from 250 in May to 1,150 in June. Assuming that applications continue to come in at the expected rate of about 1,650 per month, we should be able to cope with them; but for the immediate future it must be confessed that we are
870
slightly in arrears. The first inspection is not always the only one necessary before a scheme can be approved. The applications are fairly evenly divided over the whole country but possibly the south-western region is leading, with 800 applications received and 250 inspections carried out.
LORD WISE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Improvements eligible for grant under s. 12]:
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved to add to the Schedule:
"3. Provision or improvements of heating equipment."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I beg to move this Amendment. In the Second Schedule there are listed at least twelve different kinds of improvements which are eligible for grant. My noble Leader seeks to add an additional one—namely, the provision or improvements of heating equipment. I understand that under the Bill it is possible in regard to improvements to accept buildings for heating purposes, but that it may be difficult to accept movable or fixed equipment. I move this Amendment in the hope that heating equipment may be considered amongst other things. There is a provision in the Bill in regard to electric light and power, but whether heating might come under that particular heading or not I could not say. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Wise.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved embraces a large number of items. "Heating equipment" covers such items as boilers, immersion heaters and electrical sterilising equipment; infra-red heaters and lamps for pigs; the heating equipment in incubators, the motors and fans for air blowers in grain-dryers and grass-dryers; and, of course, coal and oil-fired heating installations in horticultural glasshouses. It is not our intention to assist by grant this type of equipment, which is largely of far too short a life to

871
make it worth while doing so. It is our intention to assist in the case of buildings in which grain-drying plant is housed but certainly not with the actual plant itself—certainly not with the motors and blowers and the actual heaters. I am afraid that we must exclude short-lived material of this sort.
LORD FORBES: Could the noble Earl state whether it is intended to include grain storage bins?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes, the intention is to include grain storage bins.
LORD WISE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: This Amendment adds to the Schedule of improvements which may be grant-aided, railway crossings and creeps to enable farm traffic to cross railway lines. They are usually known as "accommodation crossings". The Schedule, as it stands, would cover these in some cases, but not all. If the crossing were a bridge, or linked two stretches of farm road, it would be eligible as part of the bridge or road; but if it were a level crossing or creep simply connecting two fields, it would not. An Amendment is needed to make accommodation crossings generally admissible. Widening of crossings is often desirable to enable modern farm machinery to pass, and generally anything that can be done to mitigate the effect of severance by railway lines will, I think, be welcome. The need relates particularly to crossings over railways, as the railway authorities, while prepared to improve these crossings, usually expect the cost to be met in full by the interested parties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 26, leave out ("and bridges") and insert ("bridges, railway crossings and creeps.")—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS BILL [H.L.]
5.48 p.m.
House in Committee on re-commitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee on re-commitment of the Bill (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I think it would be convenient if I simply said this. This is a Consolidation Bill, as your Lordships will have noted. I beg to move that the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we just took that Question, and we need not go through the rest of the Bill, if that is the wish of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

PARISH COUNCILS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
5.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest in this matter, because I am Vice-President of the National Association of Parish Councils. In that connection, may I say that I am glad to see here this afternoon the noble and learned Lord who is President of that body? Parish councils comprise bodies of an infinite and strikingly marked variety. I mention for the interest of your Lordships that in area the largest parish in England and Wales, that of Stanhope, in County Durham, is larger than the smallest county; that in population there are several parishes, of which the largest, I believe, is Watford, in Hertfordshire, which are larger than two counties in England and Wales; whilst in rateable value there are also several

873
parishes which are larger than at least one county. At the other end of the scale, there are also some striking figures. There is a parish of only eleven acres, namely, Chester Castle; there is a parish with a population which is sometimes nought, though not always so, I understand—that of Claverton, also in the County of Chester.
Upon these varied authorities this Bill seeks to confer some modest additional powers, and I invite the agreement of your Lordships to the conferment of these powers. They are, by any standard, of a local nature. I am the first person who would agree that there are some services which demand a large area of administration, but, on the other hand, I would assert, with confidence, that there are some other services which require for their efficient administration a very local and limited interest. For example, whilst I would never suggest that every village should have its own police force, I would suggest that every village might be allowed to have its own clock and decide whether it is to pay for it or not. As has frequently been said by many persons, local government must not only be government; it should be local if possible.
Part I of this Bill seeks to confer these additional powers to improve the amenities of our villages, I am going to draw attention to Clause 5 first, because all the clauses which precede it are subject to that clause. Clause 5 lays down that if these improvements are made not on a road, then the consent of both the owner and occupier of the land concerned must first be obtained. If the improvements are carried out on a road which is not a highway or on a public path, a like consent must be obtained. If the improvements are neither on a road nor on a road which is not a highway nor on a path, then the clause gives what I think will be a useful table of the necessary consents. It lays down in every case the body from whom consent must be obtained before any of the preceding clauses are operative. There is also the statement in Clause 5 that "consent must not be unreasonably withheld" and there is provision in subsection (3) for arbitration.
I should like to go through these, clauses, I hope very quickly. Clause I gives power to provide seats and shelters in roads. Parishes have already the
874
power to provide certain seats and shelters but not, curiously enough, on roads. Furthermore, they have no power to maintain the seats which they have. Therefore, though they may be given a seat, the seat must be allowed under the present law to fall to bits, so far as I understand it, because there is no power to repair and maintain it. This clause does away with the old Act of Parliament entitled the Public Improvements Act, 1860, which becomes redundant if this Bill is passed, and is repealed by this Bill. I ought to explain why it has been found desirable to repeal this Act by this Bill and also the Lighting and Watching Act, 1833. The reasons are, briefly, that both those Acts are not only very old but are also highly inconvenient to work. For example, one of them applies only to parishes which have more than 500 people, and many do not. Also, a two-thirds majority is required instead of a simple majority which is more in keeping with modern needs. So that that Act is repealed and there is a new power to provide and maintain seats and shelters on roads as well as in other places.
Clause 2 gives to a parish the power to provide a public clock. That will be a concurrent power with that held by rural district councils, who already have the power. It is to be noticed that rural district councils do not often exercise this power, presumably because they do not want to pay out of the rates of the whole district for a clock in a single village. Clause 3 is a relatively important one. It repeals the old Lighting and Watching Act, 1833, and substitutes for it new powers for the parish councils to light roads. Again the old Act has been very awkward to work and for that reason was not adopted so often as it should have been, though I am informed that 1,780 parishes now have adopted the Act and are operating it. It is laid down in the clause that where the old Act is now being operated there shall be no hiatus. The powers will be transferred to the council under the new Act, if it is passed, so that there shall be no break in the continuity and lighting. They are continued by subsection (2). There is a proviso to subsection (3) which prevents overlapping with rural district councils who also have concurrent powers to light roads.

875
Subsection (6) continues a system which operated under the old Act by which part only of a parish could be supplied with lights and these could be paid for by part only of the parish. That often gets rid of the opposition from rural districts which have no lights and who object to paying for lights in the local village. Subsection (8) lays it down that expenses under this section will be outside the rate limits. Here, again, the old Act is followed. Your Lordships will be aware that at present there is a limit to the expenditure of parish councils—a 4d. rate without the consent of anybody else, an 8d. rate with the consent of the parish meeting and more than an 8d. rate with the consent of the Minister. For this purpose, and one or two others which are mentioned later, the expenditure is outside the limits and not to be calculated under them.
Clause 4 gives power to provide parking places for cycles and motor cycles, but not for cars. There are already, it is thought, adequate powers in other authorities for dealing with motor cars. Under subsection (1) these places can be part of a road; and under subsection (2) they may be on recreation grounds, open spaces and physical training lands which are already in the possession of the Council. But if those lands are taken for this purpose, then there is a limit to the size which may be used; it is not to be more than one-eighth of the whole area, or 800 square feet, whichever is the less. That does not sound very much, but I think your Lordships will agree that some limit must be placed on the appropriation of land for this purpose. In subsection (4) there is provision for the proper notice, and in subsection (5) for appeal to the magistrates' court in case of any dispute. Clause 6 gives parish councils power to contribute to the doing of the powers under this Bill by other persons. In other words, if a parish for any reason does not want to operate this part of the Bill itself, it may, by arrangement, contribute towards the doing of the work by some other local authority. Your Lordships will remember that the word "person" in this context includes local authorities. In subsection (3) there is a useful power to combine with any other parish, or more than one, in working this Part of the Bill.
876
I pass now to Part II of the Bill, and to Clause 8. Under the present law it is frequently necessary for parish councils to obtain the consent of the county council to many things that they do. In future, to a considerable extent that necessity will be removed. It has been found, in practice, that it occupies a great deal of correspondence and time; rarely, if ever, is the consent refused—it is almost automatically given—and it is thought that in some cases specified here in subsection (2) it could now be done away with. Clause 9 gives a useful power, which is enjoyed now by all local authorities, to insure the members of the local authority and parish council against accident. It is not a question of "servants" here, but "its own members". Clause 10 gives a power to contribute towards burial ground.
Clause 11 is of some interest, and may be of some importance. It makes it mandatory for the trustees of parochial charities, other than ecclesiastical charities, to submit a copy of their accounts to the parish council. There is now a provision under which the chairman of a parish meeting can demand these accounts but apparently a parish council cannot; and your Lordships will appreciate that it is more difficult for a chairman of a parish meeting to enforce his claim in the case of dispute than it would be if the whole council had a claim and it was not met. So this clause gives to the council a power to have before them the accounts of those charities. Clause 12 is of some importance. It increases the maximum number of members of a parish council from 15 to 21. If one bears in mind the size of some of these councils—and I would mention again that there are several of over 20,000 people—I think it will be conceded that 21 is not an unreasonable maximum number. I would just point out that not only is it a maximum, and therefore cannot really be abused, but it still remains at the discretion of the county council to fix the number. The clause really only widens the discretion of the county council: instead of any number up to 15, it will in future be any number up to 21; but the county council has the last word. So that a small parish with an exaggerated idea of its own importance cannot by a stroke of the pen or a resolution increase its own numbers.

877
Clause 13 is a financial one. I did not find it very easy to apprehend, at first sight, but it deals with the complicated subject of block grants I remember being told years ago that there were only three people in England who understood what block grants were all about. Your Lordships may wonder why Scotland is mentioned here, in view of the fact that this Bill does not apply to Scotland. I am told that the answer is that if the block grant for England and Wales is altered, it may involve a consequential alteration in the block grant for Scotland, which, being interpreted, means, I think, that if England gets more, Scotland may get less. So it is necessary to mention Scotland here.
Clause 14 deals with the question of groups of parishes Under the present Local Government Act it is possible for numbers of small parishes to group themselves together and to exercise the powers of a single parish This clause makes it quite clear that the powers conferred additionally by this Bill can be exercised by a group, just as by one parish. Clause 15 and the First Schedule set out, I hope quite clearly, all the items of expenditure which are to be left outside the rate limits, which I have already mentioned to your Lordships. If this Bill is passed, in future there should be no doubt in anyone's mind which items do nor count for those rate limits and which do.
I hope I have said enough to explain the clauses of this Bill. It is not a long Bill though some of the clauses are not as simple as they may appear at first sight. The Bill does not apply to Scotland. May I, with all respect to my Scottish friends, say that in this matter of parish councils Scotland is still in the wilderness? I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Teviot is not here, because I know he had a devastating answer prepared to that, if I said it. With those words, I commend the Bill to the House and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
6.8 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House will be exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for the clear, careful and comprehensive way in which he has explained what might otherwise be a
878
somewhat unintelligible Bill to those of us who have not the good fortune to be, or to have been, members of parish councils. The noble Lord has explained that this Bill confers modest additional powers of a local character on parish councils. I feel that many of us do not perhaps attach sufficient importance to the work that is being done by the parish councils. They are, of course, in the true sense of the word, "local" authorities—at least, I was going to say that until the noble Lord explained that there were some parish councils with a population of 20,000, larger than some counties. But I imagine that those are exceptions, and that the ordinary parish council is one which is truly local in character, where ordinary men and women have the opportunity of serving the interests of the immediate locality.
Of course, it is a good thing that more and more people should be brought into the field of local government, even if it is on parish councils. Since this Bill has been introduced, I have been astonished at the number of noble Lords who are themselves parish councillors, or even chairmen of parish councils The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has explained this Bill so carefully that there is really nothing further that needs explanation. All I wish to do is to say that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill very much and hope that it will become law at the earliest possible time, so conferring on the parish councils these modest additional powers.
6.11 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY: My Lords, I do not intend to keep your Lordships more than a few moments, but I should like, in the name of the Church, to extend a warm welcome to this Bill. As has been observed, the Bill may seem to be dealing with trivial matters—that is, I suppose, in some measure true. But those of us who know the countryside know that often what may seem a small matter to the generality of the citizens of this country is, in fact, a matter of considerable moment in the life of our rural village communities up and down the country.
In all this, I have specially in mind Clauses 2, 6 and 10. Clause 2 has to do with public clocks. As your Lordships will know, public clocks in most villages take the form of a clock in the tower

879
of the parish church, and they have always been of the greatest possible service to the local community. Until now, church people have been responsible for the expense, which is sometimes considerable, for the upkeep and repair of such clocks. They will still be responsible, but we gratefully note that, under Clause 2, parish councils are given permission and power, if they so wish, to share in this expense. This clause will be widely welcomed by all concerned, not least by church people.
Similarly, this excellent little Bill is thinking not merely of the present generation but of past generations as well, for in Clause 10 there is reference to arrangements about burial grounds. Ninety years ago, the compulsory church writ was abolished. The result is that, since then, the cost of providing, maintaining and extending the local churchyard has fallen upon the church people of the parish, as represented in their parochial church councils. Under Clause 10, opportunity is provided for the whole community, as represented by the parish council, once more to share in this cost, though, of course, as your Lordships will have noted, that is permissive. I need not detain the House any further, but I did not want this useful Bill, if I may call it that, to go unwelcomed by the Church and, not least, by the church people.
6.15 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for the extremely clear way in which he has explained the purpose of this Bill. My sole purpose in rising is that at the present time one so frequently finds that affairs, both local and public, are being made the purpose of larger bodies that one is pleased and gratified to find that some powers have been delegated to the lesser of our local authorities, the parish council. That is a good way of creating an interest in local affairs, and noble Lords on these Benches give our warm support to this Bill.
6.16 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships on behalf of the Government. I, too, should like to take the opportunity of congratulating my noble
880
friend Lord Merthyr and the National Association of Parish Councils on their success in preparing and introducing a Bill which is so widely supported.
The proposals of the Bill, as your Lordships know, are modest, but I believe that they have been agreed by all parties and bodies likely to be affected. The importance of this Bill does not lie only in its contents. The work which has gone into the preparation of the Bill, and the general support it has attracted, are evidence of the steady and growing interest in parish affairs, which is in welcome contrast to the gloomy stories of apathy on local government matters which we so frequently hear on all sides. We are shortly to discuss once more the problems of local government reorganisation, as conditions have changed radically since the comprehensive review in the last quarter of the 19th Century.
The matters contained in this Bill are remote from the fields in which the fiercer controversies rage. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ely drew particular attention to the subject of clocks. I think the parish of Grantchester is within his diocese. He may remember that the parish clock at Grantchester stood more or less permanently at ten minutes to three. I should hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, if he does not share my dislike of introducing further penal clauses into Bills, would consider some means of ensuring that, if a parish does maintain a clock, it shows the right time.
Your Lordships can also rest assured that this Bill will not cut across the moves which the Government have in mind in connection with local government finance and reorganisation. Nor, I am advised (and I have been specifically asked upon this point), is there any danger that its passing will in any way hamper the regular introduction of the Select Vestries Bill, with which proceedings in your Lordships' House customarily commence at the start of each Session. Parishes are among the smallest and also the most ancient of our institutions. In them, democratic government operates in closer touch with local residents than in any other local government unit. What is more, it functions without the assistance (if that is the right word) of radio and television propaganda, which is coming to play such

881
a prominent part in political life elsewhere. This Bill is evidence, I think, that local government in our parishes is firmly founded, and on behalf of the Government I support cordially the Motion for its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The present situation is that in Britain the amount that may be spent by a Parliamentary candidate is, in counties, 2d. per elector, plus £450; and in boroughs, 1½d. per elector, plus £450. On the other hand, at present in Northern Ireland the amount that may be spent is 2d. per elector, without the £450. Your Lordships may want to know the reason for this difference. It lies in the fact that in Northern Ireland the constituencies are larger; and the reason for that, again, is that as we all know, the people of Northern Ireland have representation at Westminster as well as in their own country.
Under this Bill, all the differences between Northern Ireland and Britain in respect of these scales will be removed. In future, therefore, the scales allowed in Northern Ireland will be what they are now in Britain, which I have already enumerated to the House. I think I should just mention the significance of paragraph (c) of Clause 1. That refers to payments to election agents. Previously, in Northern Ireland, a payment to an election agent by a candidate, provided that it was below certain specified limits, was excluded in calculating the total; but that was not so, I understand, in this country. In future, if this Bill is passed, there will be no difference; in other words, the payment to the election agent in Northern Ireland will no longer be excluded. That is all I need say about
882
this small Bill. I should perhaps mention that the reason for its introduction is simply this: that it has been found in practice by candidates for Parliament from Northern Ireland to Westminster that the present scales laid down under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, are inconveniently low. It is therefore sought to raise them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I rise merely to say that we on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill. We regard it as quite a useful measure and we give it our support. I was a member of the Speaker's Conference which originally drafted the figures to which the noble Lord has just referred for these constituencies in England, Wales and Scotland. I can quite understand now the desirability of extending the same provisions to Northern Ireland. Therefore, we on this side, as I say, fully support this measure.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Benches we also should like to support this very small but clear Bill, which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord. He did not touch on the point whether the people of Northern Ireland are in favour of this Bill, but I feel that they are not likely to have any objection to it. It brings about a very desirable uniformity. I am sure that we on this side of the House wish it a successful Second Reading.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have only to say, on the subject of this Bill, which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, with his customary and most commendable clarity, that your Lordships appreciate that it is a matter which affects only honourable Members in another place. It passed through that other place without any opposition and, as Her Majesty's Government view it as a measure which is reasonable and equitable, we hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At this late hour, I hope it will not be necessary to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments in connection with the Bill. The object of the Bill is to enable local health authorities—that is, the county and county borough councils—to make their ambulances available for use, on repayment, for suitable purposes outside the scope of the National Health Service Acts. In January, 1956, the Guillebaud Committee, which inquired, as your Lordships will recollect, into the cost of the National Health Service, recommended inter alia that amending legislation should be introduced to make clear beyond any doubt that local authorities had the power to levy a charge when ambulances are provided for purposes outside the scope of the National Health Service Act.
There is power under Section 63 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, enabling local health authorities to provide their ambulances, on repayment, for any of the purposes of authorities constituted under the Act. This power is used, for example, in the occasional provision of ambulances to take mental defectives to occupation centres. Local health authorities have no power, however, to run their ambulances, on repayment, for purposes, however suitable or desirable, outside the National Health Service. The establishment of a comprehensive public ambulance service has led to the disappearance of many ambulance hire firms and to-day the only ambulances available in a district may be those provided by local health authorities.
The new power in this Bill could be used, for example, to provide ambulances to stand by at sports meetings or other large public gatherings to deal with possible casualties, and, of course, the promoters may be willing and anxious to pay for such a service. Again, most large industrial undertakings are obliged by Statute to provide ambulance facilities for their employees. It is obviously more convenient for all concerned if this obligation can be discharged by the local health authority on an agency basis. The
884
new Bill would remove any doubt as to a local health authority's power to enter into such an arrangement. Schemes in which workmen requiring out-patient treatment but able to use public transport are taken at fixed times to hospital from their work and back again in order to reduce the time away from work, could be operated on behalf of the employers and employed concerned.
I should make it clear, however, that the Bill does not enable extra vehicles to be provided for purposes of the Bill over and above what is necessary for the authorities in discharge of their duties under Section 27, and authorities would, therefore, only be able to supply ambulances for reward under the power conferred by the Bill when this could be done without impairing the standard of service to be provided under Section 27. But those of us with any knowledge of the working of the ambulance services to-day know that most authorities have spare capacity outside peak hours which could be usefully employed on such work as this Bill suggests. Authorities would be expected to ensure that a full economic charge was made whenever ambulances were used under their new power. May I make it clear that there is no question of imposing a charge on members of the public for ambulance journeys within the National Health Service.
Clause 1 (2) seeks to exempt local health authorities from the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1956, requiring motor vehicles used for carrying passengers for hire or reward to be licensed as public service vehicles. As the law stands, if payment is made for the carrying of patients in a local health authority's ambulance, the vehicle would need to be licensed as a public service vehicle. Although the number of occasions when individual patients will be carried at their own expense in a local authority's ambulance is likely to be very small, it is desirable that local authorities' ambulances should be granted general exemption from this licensing requirement.
My Lords, this Bill was introduced in another place by a Member sitting on the Government side, and was carried through all its stages without any opposition. May I suggest to your Lordships that the Bill is a common-sense and practical measure

885
which will enable local authorities to perform useful services which are at present, rather illogically, outside their scope? It is because of that that I venture to commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Burden.)
6.31 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like, extremely briefly, to support what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has said about this Bill. I am sure that the various anomalies to which he has referred are perfectly genuine. One has come across instances where the ambulance service has been rather hampered by the restrictions upon it, and I am sure that this Bill will do a great deal to remove those anomalies. I am sure that noble Lords on these Benches have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
6.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I rise merely to say that the Government consider this a useful Bill and give it every support. Its purposes have been explained in detail by the noble Lord, but if I may put the position in my own words it is that, on the one hand, there is a demand for ambulances on hire, and on the other there is a supply available in the local authorities in England and Wales who maintain ambulances as part of the National Health Service. What the Bill does is to enable the supply to meet the demand.
As the noble Lord has said, it is obviously a sensible measure, especially now that the number of privately-owned ambulances is much smaller than it used to be. The Bill applies only to the use of ambulances for purposes outside the National Health Service, and therefore does not mean—here again the noble Lord made the point—that people will be charged for the service that they now get free. I understand that the intention is to send out ambulances on hire only when they are not in use as part of the National Health Service. My Lords, I join with noble Lords who have already spoken in commending the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHEQUES BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before I formally move the Third Reading of this Bill, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a word on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is unable to be present here to-day Your Lordships may recollect that on the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord threatened to put down on this stage of the Bill a redrafted Amendment to Clause 1. He has asked me to say that he has not put down this Amendment, not because he in any way abandons the principle behind his Amendment but in order to save your Lordships' time. He has also asked me to say that if, at any stage during the discussions on this Bill, he appeared to criticise the banks, that was not his intention; he thinks they have behaved with perfect propriety throughout, and they have in no way sought the protection conferred upon them by this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF ST. JAMES'S THEATRE
6.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to take all possible steps to save the St. James's Theatre. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the very short Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, whether the Government are prepared to take all possible steps to save the St. James's Theatre. I hope that this House will forgive me if, for as short a time as I can, I give some of the background to the Question that I am asking. Most of it will be familiar to your Lordships, and I will therefore be quite brief.
The St. James's Theatre was built in 1835, and therefore is one of the two remaining Georgian theatres in London. It has had a long and distinguished history and tradition. I need only mention a few names of famous actors and actresses who have been associated with the theatre. Sir George Alexander

887
had a long tenancy as actor-manager. Mrs. Patrick Campbell was a sensation in The Second Mrs. Tanqueray. The theatre saw the first performance of The Importance of Being Earnest, The Prisoner of Zenda and The Last of Mrs. Cheyney. I am sure that the very titles bring back nostalgic feelings to many of your Lordships. There have been many other famous performances at this theatre. Since the war it has been the London home for a festival and repertory theatre from all over the country, arranged and financed by the Arts Council. No doubt noble Lords will have seen Sir Laurence Olivier in Anthony and Cleopatra and Cœsar and Cleopatra. Many foreign countries have used this theatre for special seasons, including the Comédie Française and the Jean-Louis Barrault Company—and so I can go on. The theatre has, I think, an almost unique history in the theatrical world.
In 1954 an application was made to the London County Council for approval, in principle, of a scheme to pull down the theatre and for the erection of a block of offices. The London County Council gave approval. I think that if that application had been made to-day undoubtedly it would have been refused. Everybody recognises that to-day in that part of London there is a superfluity of offices—indeed, the Minister at that time, Mr. Duncan Sandys, actually prohibited the London County Council from giving planning consent for change of user into offices. Why the London County Council gave their consent in principle, I cannot say. No doubt it was a mistaken decision; I think they would be the first to admit it. But I should be the last to blame them. They get many thousands of applications. I was myself chairman of a town planning committee of the London County Council for five years, and I should be the last to say that it is impossible for that Committee to have made a mistake during that period. But I think they would frankly admit that they were mistaken.
After giving that decision, unfortunately, when the detailed application came along they felt themselves bound to approve the decision to change the user and to approve the plans; and last month the London County Council gave formal approval. The applicants are not being slow in making use of that approval. If
888
one is to accept the statements in the Press they propose to begin demolishing the theatre next month.
I want to make just one point about the way in which these applications are made. I am not criticising, but it is a fact that very often the general public know nothing about an application until it is too late. If the public had had an opportunity of knowing that this application in detail was being made, public opinion would, I believe, have been sufficiently aroused to make itself heard and felt. But public opinion had no opportunity because it did not know that the application was being made. Indeed, between 1954 and the present day the general impression throughout the country remained that this matter was not being proceeded with because the Government were opposed to the change of user into offices in that area.
Consent has, however, been given, and we have the extraordinary paradox that a theatre which I believe everybody would recognise is required and should remain in existence is being demolished, and that a block of offices, which everyone would recognise is not essential in that area at the present time, is to take its place. Why are we in that position? I believe that, but for the question of compensation, the London County Council would be only too glad to revoke the consent which they felt obliged to give. They have the power to revoke the decision, as has the Minister. I need hardly inform the noble Lord who is to reply (he is as well aware of it as I am) that under Section 100 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there is power to revoke a decision at any time; but I recognise that the same Act (I believe by Section 22) requires that in those circumstances compensation must be paid.
The leader of the London County Council recently stated quite bluntly that the Council would have revoked the decision but for the fact that compensation has to be paid, and that he thought it was unfair to burden ratepayers of London with that compensation. There is a general feeling prevalent that the amount of compensation would be in the neighbourhood of £50,000, though I do not know where that figure comes from. To me, it sounds greatly excessive, in view of the terms of the Act, because—

889
again speaking of what one reads—the actual cost of converting the theatre into offices is only £200,000; therefore a figure of £50,000 as compensation for revocation would seem to me excessive. But I am not at this moment quarrelling with the figure; and even if it were £50,000 I feel that that money would be exceedingly well spent in protecting one of our priceless heritages.
Since the war, we have already lost eight theatres in London. London is increasingly becoming one of the world's tourist centres and the theatre is one of the places to which tourists naturally gravitate. There is an increasing need for theatres. It may be asked why any particular individual should therefore be required to run a theatre at a loss. As a matter of fact, the St. James's Theatre has never been run at a loss except in the early years of its existence. I have seen the published figures of net profits, and in recent years, and certainly since the war, it has made a profit every year. I do not say there has been an enormous profit, or that it would not be a more profitable undertaking to build offices: but certainly in the last five years the theatre has made a substantial profit. There is therefore no excuse on that ground. The theatre can be run at a profit and with a view to rendering a public service.
Her Majesty's Government have themselves recognised the importance of the living theatre. In this year's Budget they abolished, at a cost of £2¼ million, the entertainments tax on the living theatre. I praise the Government for their attitude towards the living theatre, but it seems to me rather strange that they should do that on the one hand and yet, on the other, boggle at the amount of compensation that might be payable in order to preserve this historic theatre. I want to appeal to Her Majesty's Government, in the strongest possible terms, first to take steps to revoke the decision. There is a great urgency in the matter. If nothing is done, there is the threat that demolition will actually begin in the next few weeks; so, in order to hold the position, some step must be taken immediately. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government, who I am sure recognise the value of this theatre to the tourist industry, and also to the cultural life of the country, to preserve one of the few surviving
890
theatrical monuments. It may well be that, at the end of the day, it may not be possible even to provide the necessary money as compensation; but at least let there be sufficient time and opportunity to see what can be done by those who are lovers of the theatre and anxious to preserve it. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to give an assurance that "first aid" steps will be taken forthwith to see that this matter does not go by default. It will then be possible to see what active steps can be taken to preserve this theatre.
6.47 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his Unstarred Question. Each year the treasures of this kind that we have in this country, our historical buildings, seem to get in shorter and shorter supply, and actually have to be sought out; whereas in my youth one seemed to be able to go round the corner and find some building which one looked upon with real pleasure as a reminder of past beauties. It is rather a paradox that this plea for conservation should have come originally from the Benches opposite the Party of conservation, but I have no doubt that from those Benches, too, there will be support for the view of the noble' Lord, Lord Silkin.
Speaking from Benches which are in opposition for longer periods than those of any other Party, I have noticed that it is always the Government who are reluctant to take the kind of steps which we are now urging. I remember that when the Labour Party were in power I urged them not to spoil the surroundings of Westminster Abbey by going too far with the new Colonial Office building; and there were many other projects, such as the Westminster Precinct site, which were shelved time and time again. Now it is a Conservative Government who jib; and yet, talking to them individually, whether Ministers or Back Benchers, one finds them fully appreciative of these beautiful things and as anxious as anybody else to preserve them; so that it would look as if it were the Department behind which was difficult. But if one approaches civil servants one finds them extremely civil, appreciative and sympathetic, and I am sure the difficulty does not lie there. There seems to be an

891
innate obstinacy which is not in the Government or in the Department behind them. I hope that this little debate tonight will make them loosen up and give the concession which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seeks.
6.50 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I rise very strongly to support the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I am convinced that we are intervening to stop a blunder that will be deeply injurious to London, and deeply injurious to the reputation of Her Majesty's Government. I want to make a few perfectly simple points. The first point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is: for what purpose is it proposed to demolish this theatre? It is proposed to demolish this theatre in order that it may be replaced by a seven-storey office block to attract more office workers to the St. James's district. This is contrary to the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I do not know how many noble Lords have had an opportunity of studying the last Annual Report, the Report for last year, of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I do not wish to quote from that Report at length, but I should like to refer the House to two or three admirable paragraphs in the current number of the Economist, headed: "St. James's and the Octopus". It rightly connects this problem of St. James's Theatre with the question of attracting all these further office workers into this district—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, quite rightly referred. May I just read these few sentences from these paragraphs:
"Between 1948 and 1955, employment in the London region was growing half as fast again as in the country generally, and 35 million square feet of office space were built or licensed for central London. This tidal wave of office building foreshadows a still further increase in the number of jobs. As the proportion of London wives and dependants who go out to work is already extremely high, these jobs can only be filled by immigrants to London from other parts of the country. Where are they going to live?"
Then, the Economist analyses some of the possibilities and comes to the inevitable conclusion that these people will have to make long daily journeys from
892
outside London. The final words of the paragraphs are these:
"Unless the Government bestirs itself to preventive and curative measures—by switching some office building elsewhere, if it is only to the suburbs, and by at least keeping pace with traffic requirements—the octopus of over-concentration which throttled St. James's threatens to bring all London still nearer to a standstill."
I believe that those are the views of Her Majesty's Government themselves. Those are the views that follow inevitably from a study of the Ministry's last annual Report. So the first point I would put before the House is this simple and clear one: that the purpose for which this theatre is to be destroyed is to do something which, by the admission of the Government themselves, is contrary to the public interest. That is point number one. Point number two is that, in order to carry out this anti-social purpose, it is proposed to destroy one of the three or four most beautiful theatres in London. It is as though a thing undesirable in itself were made more tolerable because a great act of vandalism was to be associated with it. That is the second point, the destruction of a beautiful and valuable theatre.
Let me now come to the third point, which again was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—it is, again, not unimportant. The planning authority themselves admit that the decision is a wrong one. There has been no attempt by the London County Council to defend the planning decision on its merits—none whatever. This, in effect, is what the London County Council say: "If we reverse a bad decision then, under the Statute, it will involve us in a payment." The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the figure of £50,000 had been mentioned as a possible amount. That was mentioned by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in another place. But I agree, and the Minister will probably agree, that there is no certainty as to the figure. That figure is an estimate of what flows from correcting a decision which is admitted to be erroneous.
In these circumstances, what is the Minister's duty? I cannot quote verbatim what the Minister said in answer to a series of Parliamentary Questions in another place, but I can say that he admitted—as indeed he was bound to, because it is the fact—that he is responsible, under the Statutes, for the right

893
use of land. I think it is not a mere coincident that the first speech in this debate was made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who for so long occupied the important post of Minister of Town and Country Planning, and he is being supported from these Benches by the former junior Minister who had the honour of piloting through another place the two Acts of 1943 which gave authority to the Minister of Town and Country Planning and powers now inherited by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Under them the Minister himself (it is not a question of the local authorities) is responsible for the right use of land. The default powers he is given for correcting blunders by local authorities are not for use merely accordingly to his whim: they are for use to carry out the national purpose of the right use of land everywhere, and to correct a blunder in the use of land into which a local authority, for whatever reason, may fall.
Does the Minister dispute that this is a wrong use of land? Not at all! He has declared himself generally in agreement with his predecessor, Mr. Duncan Sandys, who mentioned this case of the St. James's Theatre as one that "slipped through". Mr. Duncan Sandys, as Lord Silkin pointed out, was by no means without hope of preventing what Lord Silkin and I are now anxious to prevent. But he himself, by implication, described the planning consent as a blunder. The words "slipped through" are applicable only to a blunder. How then can the Minister justify not using his undoubted powers? What is the reason he gives? He does not say that this is a right planning decision. Not a bit of it! He deplores the result as much as anybody. He deplores what is to go up in place of this theatre. He deplores the destruction of this theatre. What, then, is the reason he gives? The reason he gives is that, if the blunder were corrected, then, under Statute, a sum would become payable by the London County Council.
I have long known the Minister, as have many other noble Lords, and we all know that there is not a more conscientious man in politics. I am quite certain that throughout this affair he has been anxious to do the right thing, and is so anxious to-day; but in all seriousness I wish to express a legal doubt, which I hope will be considered by the
894
best legal brains in the Government, on whether he is being correctly advised by his Department on what are the considerations which he ought to have in mind in deciding whether to intervene to save this theatre.
In my respectful submission on the law, what he has to consider is: Is the proposed development consistent with Government policy on the use of land? Is it in accordance with Government policy that the theatre should be destroyed on this spot and that a great new office building should be put up there? If the answer is, "No; that conflicts with Government policy," then, in my submission, he must, or at least he ought to, take the steps which are within his power to prevent the blunder. It is not a relevant consideration, and he ought to be so advised, that the reversal of a blunder would lead under Statute to an expenditure of money; and the fact that he has sympathy with the local authority which wishes to avoid that result is not, in my respectful submission on the law, a proper consideration which ought to govern and decide his mind on this issue.
Under Section 100 of the 1947 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, of course the Minister must consult the planning authority. But the decision that he comes to must be his own. If the planning decision is a right one, of course he will not interfere with it; but if it is not, it is his duty to interfere, whatever the financial consequences are to the local authority that made the erroneous decision. Personally, I do not find any particular outrage in the thought that the local planning authority who make a wrong decision may have to pay for their mistake. It may make them much more careful next time.
It has been questioned sometimes how far a Government should take an unpopular course when that course is right, but it is generally thought to be foolish to rush to take an unpopular course when that course is definitely wrong. This particular course, which, I suggest, as did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is clearly wrong, has been condemned by every daily and weekly paper, quite irrespective of Party. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with quotations, but I should like to give one from a journal with which I am not in any great sympathy. It is

895
seldom that I quote the New Satesman with respect and in support, but I do ask your Lordships to read the article in the number of June 29, signed T.C. Worsley, which starts:
"So barbarism wins another triumph."
It says later:
"Mr. I. J. Hayward and his fellow-killers on the L.C.C. planning committee can congratulate themselves on only a minor victory over the decencies."
Now comes the paragraph which I wish to quote in full:
"Yet I, for one, should not care to be Mr. I. J. Hayward nor any other member of the Committee who decided that there was ' no reasonable course open ' but to agree to the demolition of this charming and unique little theatre whose surface has been lovingly rubbed by many fine and able craftsmen, and bears the patina of their achievements. It is not a pleasant thing to have a murder on your conscience, as they have; I wish I could think it would haunt them, one and all. I hope the histories of the theatre in the future will not forget to record, for as long as records run, the names of the assassins. And let them in justice record, too, that they ' regretted the loss of the theatre to London ' while ' seeing no other reasonable course open.' Let the insult of their crocodile tears not be forgotten either."
I know that there are some who have been impressed by a letter in The Times to-day form the pen of Mr. St. John Ervine. I have often been delighted by his pen and by his work, but I would make two comments on his letter. The first is the matter so well pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It is simply not true that this theatre cannot pay as a theatre. It has paid, and it has paid recently. There was a long and successful run of Mr. Rattigan's Separate Tables, which many noble Lords will have enjoyed. The truth is simply that the property would pay more if exploited for a purpose which is contrary to public policy. Secondly, Mr. St. John Ervine points out that this theatre is not in Shaftesbury Avenue, which he seems to think is almost a sine qua non. That it is not there is undoubtedly true, but the implications of that statement are very dangerous because neither is Covent Garden Opera House nor the Haymarket Theatre. If that argument prevails, it will not be long probably before we are threatened with the loss of the Haymarket Theatre and Covent Garden Opera House.
896
If Her Majesty's Government intend to do nothing to reverse this blunder, they should have the courage to proceed to the logical conclusion: let them scrap the Planning Acts altogether. I can see no justification whatever for pretending that they are in favour of the Planning Acts and then leaving this blunder uncorrected. To-day the theatre still stands, one of the most beautiful in London. It can still prosper as a theatre. No respectable argument has been produced for pulling it down, and it is to be pulled down to be replaced by a great office building, a replacement which Her Majesty's Government have themselves stated to be contrary to the public interest and contrary to the policy which they are generally enforcing. There is undoubtedly a statutory power to stop it. But even supposing there were not; supposing it were true that there was a real difficulty in stopping this proposal, what would have happened, I ask your Lordships, if any Minister in any Administration over which Sir Winston Churchill presided had said that he was impotent to stop something which ought to be stopped?
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is a humane and civilised man. To-day he has many great matters to occupy his attention. Nevertheless, I beg him, as an old friend, not to regard the issue which we are raising here to-night as unimportant but to give it his personal attention. It is not only the fate of the St. James's Theatre which is at stake; it is the good name of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I am going to be as brief as my noble Leader, Lord Rea, and take one minute of your Lordships' time. One point which has not been brought out is the question of the artistes, the people who go to R.A.D.A. and the Webber-Douglas School. They want to play at the St. James's Theatre and the Haymarket. They love it. That, to them, is tradition, because that is where Garrick and Beerbohm Tree played. So, for Heaven's sake! let us keep the place.
7.10 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I do not know who is the owner of the St. James's Theatre, but he decided that he wished to sell it, presumably because he found it was economically more profitable

897
to sell it than to keep it. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wishes to interfere with that decision, and so do the other noble Lords who have pleaded so persuasively. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was a little self-contradictory when he was dealing with the material side of the question, to which he devoted the greater part of his speech, because earlier on he said that a block of offices in this neighbourhood was not wanted, not from the æsthetic point of view but from the material point of view. That, I must say, is not my experience. I find that offices in the neighbourhood of St. James's are in very short supply.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. If I expressed myself not as lucidly as I should like, perhaps he will allow me to make myself clear now. I did not say that you could not let these offices. What I meant was that, from the planning point of view, the erection of offices in this area has been declared to be undesirable.
LORD BLACKFORD: Of course, that is a different matter. From the point of view of pare economic materialism, I think it is difficult to deny that it is desirable to replace an old theatre by a modern block of offices. Noble Lords who have pleaded so persuasively desire to set that decision aside and to preserve the St. James's Theatre indefinitely as a monument of architectural interest and of dramatic historic tradition. One needs to examine that proposition, for which we must all have great respect, and see whether the case has been made out. If one were talking about the theatre at Bristol—I forget whether it is called The Royal or The King's—I should be prepared to argue in favour of the retention of that theatre. Nothing could be more inconvenient or unhygienic, both back and front, or archaic, both from the point of view of the players and the audience; I know it well, both backstage and front, and it could not be worse. But I am very ready to retain that theatre, because it is a unique example of a mid-eighteenth century theatre. There is nothing else in the country anything like it, and as long as it can be retained I hope very much that it will be, although the outside of it has no architectural merit.
Noble Lords have argued in favour of retaining the St. James's Theatre as an object of architectural merit—the noble
898
Lord, Lord Silkin, described it I think as "a priceless gem", and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, spoke in somewhat similar terms. They wish, no doubt, to retain both the interior and the exterior. What merits does the interior of the St. James's Theatre possess? It is simply an obsolete, inconvenient, uncomfortable old playhouse. There is nothing historic about that. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, Georgian; it was raised in the days of good King William IV. If it is desirable to retain the interior of St. James's Theatre as an example of discomfort, then it will rank only second or third among London theatres, because the Criterion and the Lyric, Hammersmith, will easily defeat it for discomfort. I venture to think that it possesses no interior merit which is worth preserving from the architectural point of view. So far as the exterior is concerned, well, it has quite a nice façade, but certainly in the immediate neighbourhood in St. James's Street there are at least four buildings with which it cannot compare in any respect. Therefore I would submit that the case for retaining the St. James's Theatre, from the architectural point of view, is not made out.
Furthermore, one must remember that opinions upon the merits of architecture differ very much. The other day I was travelling on top of a bus towards Hyde Park Corner and we passed the building which has recently been erected by the National Farmers' Union. To my old-fashioned eyes it appears to be quite a nice building; and I should have thought that it would appeal to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Conesford, since it has certain Georgian embellishments and is not in the modern style. But behind me on the bus were two young architects—or they may have been architectural students; at any rate, they were young men in the profession of architecture. Nothing could have been more damning than their condemnation of this building as they passed They described it to each other as a monstrosity, and could not understand how any member of their profession could have been responsible for such an erection. Therefore there is a difference of opinion between people of the age of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself and those who are starting their careers. They may not, perhaps, have the same reverence for

899
buildings like the St. James's Theatre that we have.
Turning from that, we have to consider whether it has a dramatic tradition which qualifies it to be retained indefinitely—because that is what noble Lords are asking for—as a historic monument. I submit that there are only two theatres in London, excluding the Opera House at Covent Garden, which might qualify for that honour, and those are Drury Lane and The Haymarket. I should be very sorry indeed to see, and should certainly argue strongly against, the demolition of either of those two theatres. I would submit that they have a much stronger artistic tradition than the St. James's Theatre. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who spoke for a moment just now, said that Garrick appeared on the boards of the St. James's Theatre. But he cannot have thought very carefully before he spoke, because, of course, Garrick acted in his heydey just about one hundred years before St. James's Theatre was opened.
It would appear to me that the tradition, so-called, of the St. James's Theatre rests largely upon the twenty-six years' managership of Sir George Alexander. He was a most reputable and successful actor-manager, and during that period he produced a number of successful comedies: Lady Windermere's Fan, The Second Mrs. Tanqueray, The Importance of Being Earnest, His House in Order, The Prisoner of Zenda—I could go on for quite a long time. None of them were great plays, but many of them were amusing, successful plays. One or two, but not more than one or two, have since been revived. I do not think that that constitutes a historic tradition which justifies noble Lords in asking the Government to take steps to retain this theatre indefinitely as a historic monument, to be maintained by the owner, presumably—and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says at a profit, but I do not know how much profit. No doubt he would not have said it unless it was correct, but one cannot help remembering that about eight theatres have been closed recently in the Metropolitan area because they could not make a profit, and no complaint has been made about it.
Although Lord Silkin's and Lord Conesford's nostalgia for the St. James's
900
Theatre is on a high plane, there may be lowbrows who consider that the tradition of the Gaiety Theatre, in their sphere of dramatic interest, was as great or even greater than that of the St. James's. That might also apply to Daly's Theatre. When we talk about the success of Sir George Alexander and refer to him as a great actor and actor-manager, let us be careful not to exaggerate those observations, because the late Mr. George Edwardes, in his sphere of dramatic art, in the eyes of many was an even greater producer of works than was Sir George Alexander. One is inclined to think, perhaps, that works like The Merry Widow, The Country Girl, The Geisha, and so on, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I enjoyed so much in the days of our youth, have been revived more than Pinero's plays and Sutro's plays in the years that have gone by, and have given greater happiness to greater numbers than the works which have been produced at the St. James's Theatre.
For those reasons, although I respect the sentiments which animate the two noble Lords and Lord Rea, who have spoken so persuasively on the subject, I submit that they have not made out a case for retaining the St. James's Theatre, and I hope that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will not recommend the Government to take steps to spend the ratepayers' money in Westminster in compensating the owner and undoing the permission which has been given.
7.23 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes at this late hour, but I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that I do not think any speaker to-day has claimed that the sole reason for the retention of the St. James's Theatre should be as a historic monument. The reason why we wish to retain it is that it is one of the more successful theatres in London. Quite a lot of money was spent on it not so long ago, and I would not agree that it is an uncomfortable theatre; I think it a comfortable and an attractive theatre. I agree that it has a few disadvantages. There are, perhaps, rather more seats than there should be with which pillars interfere, but that is common to a great many of the older theatres. On the whole,

901
it is a comfortable, attractive and a successful theatre, and, as my noble friend Lord Conesford has said, it has had quite a big success with Separate Tables. With my knowledge of the theatre, going back over twenty years, I would say that it is certainly one much above the average of the general run of theatres in London.
LORD BLACKFORD: Then why does the owner want to sell it?
LORD GIFFORD: I will not say any more, because the case has been ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. But it is admitted, quite frankly, that this planning permission and permission for change of user has slipped through. I believe it is contrary to public policy to have more office accommodation in that area. Possibly it is popular because the people who work in those offices can be handy to the Clubs round the corner in St. James's Street. But whether that is public policy or not, I do not know. I appeal to the Government with regard to this most unfortunate lapse which has slipped through so far: will they not let down the net of Government policy and save this theatre from going over the weir of destruction before it is too late?
7.25 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I make no attempt to disguise my own feelings in this matter. I am a Londoner born and bred, and I pass this theatre, I suppose, half a dozen times a week. It is almost next door to my Club. I am, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, a Conservative. I do not like seeing anything, certainly not an old friend, disappear unless it has to. I am a keen theatregoer. I see from my programmes, which I keep, that I have been to this theatre twenty-four times in my life. My own feelings are quite immaterial to this matter. What I think is material is the facts, and some of them have gone a little astray. Perhaps I can help your Lordships to form another judgment if I lay some of the facts before you—facts which may possibly be new to you.
This matter was first heard of in January, 1955. It was heard of from Equity, who wrote expressing concern at the prospect of this theatre's loss. The Government asked the L.C.C. for a report. The L.C.C. informed the Government
902
that in 1954 outline planning permission was given for the erection of an office block on this theatre site. Your Lordships are familiar with planning, and will understand that this means that plans have to be submitted afterwards. But it is a permission and, of course, it enhances the value of the site. What the L.C.C. apparently had in mind was this. First, they felt that the use proposed conformed with the general character of the area and its zoning in the development plan as it then stood—I should like to emphasise those words, "in the development plan as it then stood"—which they had submitted to the Minister. Secondly, they felt that the office building proposed would conform with L.C.C. planning standards. The third point which they had in mind was this—it is one which has aroused some controversy this evening. The theatre was not included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historical interest, although it did appear on a supplementary list of lower grading.
May I remind your Lordships what that list involves? There is an Advisory Committee on Buildings of Special Architectural or Historical Interest. It is an influential body which sits under the able chairmanship of Sir William Holford, to whose plan we gave such an enthusiastic reception some months ago in this House. It also contains, among others, Mr. Goodhart-Rendel, Mr. John Summerson, Mr. Anthony Wagner, and the noble Lord, Lord Euston. It is the duty of that body to advise the Minister on just such points as this. For good or ill, whether we agree with them or not, they told the Minister that this building did not come in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historical interest. I would suggest that it is no good taking the advice of a body like that only when it suits you; you must either set them up and lake their advice or go your own way. My right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys, my present lord and master at the Ministry of Defence—who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, and whose keen interest in these matters, I think, is typified by his recent inauguration of a body known as the Civic Trust which has had a delighted and popular reception in the country—saw Mr. Prince Littler, the joint owner of the theatre, in

903
an effort to save it. Mr. Littler told my right honourable friend that application for permission by a prospective purchaser had been made without his knowledge, or without the knowledge of his partner, Mr. Gilbert Miller. They themselves, they said, had no present intention of demolishing or selling the theatre.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: What date was that?
LORD MANCROFT: That was in 1955. They went on to add that they were anxious to preserve the theatre if that was economically possible. Mr. Littler was not prepared to say, however, that if the permission were revoked he would forgo the compensation that could be claimed. That claim might amount to something like £50,000; indeed, it could possibly be more. I believe that I have heard a sum of up to £100,000 mentioned, though I am not positive on that—a large sum could be made out if permission were revoked. The London County Council were not prepared to revoke at that cost to the public funds. My right honourable friend the Minister was not prepared so to direct them.
In July, 1955, there were further talks between the Minister, Mr. Littler and Mr. Gilbert Miller. They told him that they had contracted to sell their interest to a Mr. Wingate, who intended to continue running the theatre as such, at any rate for the time being. Nothing more was heard of it until May of this year. There is one other event of 1955 which perhaps I ought to mention; that is, that my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys approved the London County Council Development Plan. He added, however, certain paragraphs to what is called the Written Statement which lays down policy according to which day-to-day control will be exercised. One paragraph which he added laid down that permission would not be given, except in very special circumstances, for a change of user for office purposes of residential buildings and places of assembly, such as St. James's Theatre, even in an office zone or in the Central zone. So the London County Council's hands have thus become, thanks to my right honourable friend, greatly strengthened.
Unfortunately, there is a fact that we have to face which not all of us are
904
prepared to face: that planning alone cannot save theatres. I cannot pretend that, now that this has been written into the "book of words" by my right honourable friend, no theatre will ever go out of use. The facts of life are against it; economics are against it. It is impossible to force someone to run a theatre if he does not want to, but it is now possible to prevent a theatre which is a good going concern from being sacrificed simply to make way for some more lucrative form of development. I hope that the L.C.C. will use this power sturdily—indeed, I know they will give us an assurance that they will. That is what my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys had in mind when he said in October, 1955, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has quoted
"To be frank, the St. James's Theatre slipped through the net before we got on to this point."
In May, 1957, we were told that detailed plans had been submitted to the L.C.C. for an office building on this site. The plans, with minor modifications, would conform with planning standards. The plans were put in by the present owners, whom I believe to be a property investment company, but I am afraid that I do not know what transactions have occurred since 1955. The present Minister, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, at once discussed this matter with the L.C.C. The L.C.C., as the House knows, were not prepared to revoke the permission, and my right honourable friend was not prepared so to order them.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I ask a question? I thought the noble Lord said that in 1955, in discussions with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Littler and Mr. Gilbert Miller said that they were not prepared to sell. What transpired so that in 1957 they were prepared to sell?
LORD MANCROFT: That, as I understand it, is what they did say at that date. What transpired between the two dates I do not know. Detailed permission was given by the London County Council in June of this year. These are the facts to date.
Let me make the Government's position perfectly clear. I should like to let your Lordships know exactly what the

905
Government think about this matter. I have given a pretty broad hint as to what I think. The Government much regret the selling of this theatre by theatre interests to commercial interests. The Government regret that planning permission has been given for office development on this site, but my right honourable friend feels, as your Lordships know, that he is not justified in giving a direction to the L.C.C. to revoke permission. There is, of course, no power to prevent demolition of any building unless an order is made for its preservation as a building of special architectural and historical interest. I have already referred to the statutory list explaining how that comes about. General powers are directed only to the question of what can be built in place of a building demolished.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord? I am very much interested in what he has just said. Will he suggest to his right honourable friend that he should take some legal advice, possibly of the Law Officers, to ascertain whether, disapproving of this development as my noble friend has just said he does, he is right to consider that the question of the payment that would be payable by the planning authority is a relevant reason for refusing to exercise his powers?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes. I have made a very careful note on that point; I am coming to that in a minute. We have had considerable criticism, both in your Lordships' House and outside, of the Planning Acts concerned with this transaction. Local planning authorities, as your Lordships know, take decisions on applications for permission. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision and then appeals to the Minister, the Minister's function is to be a refuge and help for individuals who may be unreasonably refused permission to do what in the course of their lawful business they want to do. The Minister acts across this philosophy when he directs local planning authorities not to give a permission which they think should be given.
To order them to revoke that permission goes further still. It can be done I admit; but it goes further still, and I submit to your Lordships that it should be done only in extreme cases, because it makes nonsense of responsible local
906
government. Certainly, it makes considerable nonsense of it if it is used as easily as some suggest. Not only that, but it causes real injustice to the citizen who has obtained permission and then has it taken away. In this case, as your Lordships know, heavy compensation was involved. The people concerned may not have acted wisely or in a way which meets with cur approval, or which pleases our sentiments or our particular interests; but that they have acted perfectly lawfully with their own property, within their rights, cannot be doubted.
The Minister has tried to save the theatre and, as I have told your Lordships, has considerably strengthened the hands of the L.C.C. for the future. What we have to ask ourselves is this. Are we going to tell somebody that he must run his property in a way he does not want to? Unfortunately, the fact is that this theatre is going out of use because the present owners are prepared to let it do so. Even if we take the hat round, as some have suggested, I cannot really see that that will save the situation.
There are the facts. I have made no attempt to disguise my own feelings about the matter. I have made it perfectly clear that the Government deplore the situation—I make no bones at all about that. I have made it perfectly clear that the Government have taken steps to prevent something like this happening again. I have also, I hope, made it perfectly clear to your Lordships that there is another side to the question, another injustice which might arise, another serious devolution from the powers of the Planning Acts if the course proposed by your Lordships and many others were to be taken. I hope I have shown that the facts prove that the Government have taken a decision which, however regrettable it may be to your Lordships, is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asks me to take steps to prevent the demolition of this theatre which, as we all know, looms near. I cannot hold out the hopes that he would like me to. All I can do is to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the particular legal point which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has made. I know he will give it the attention which an opinion coming from such a learned, interested and informed source deserves. I will

907
bring the whole of this debate to the attention of my right honourable friend. There is no point in having debates in your Lordships' House on matters which are of keen personal and public interest if the Government do not pay attention to them. But I think I should be doing something cowardly if I were to hold out hopes that my right honourable friend is likely to change his opinion.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I may address one or two remarks to my noble friend who replied for the Government in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Perhaps he would be good enough to refresh the House again on the conversation which took place between Mr. Littler, Mr. Gilbert Miller and my right honourable friend who was the Minister of Housing and Local Government. As I understand this conversation, it took place in the early months of 1955, when a figure of £50,000 was put upon the value of the St. James's Theatre. But at that time these two gentlemen, as I understand the noble Lord's answer, informed his right honourable friend that they were not prepared to sell, and, indeed, they were not contemplating selling the property at that price. If I understood my noble friend
908
correctly, in the course of two or three months they changed their attitude and decided to dispose of the building for that particular figure. Is that correct?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid I have no right of reply to the question of my noble friend, but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to say that the facts are as I have stated them. There are certain gaps, in that I do not know what transactions occurred on certain dates.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, would it not be proper that this matter should be considered afresh—that the whole matter should be gone into again before the time comes when this theatre is finally demolished?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have no right of reply, but I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say, first of all, that I am not satisfied, and secondly, that I propose to put down a Motion in the course of to-morrow asking that action on the demolition of this theatre should be postponed until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its views on the subject.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.