Lords Sitting of 22 July 1957

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

  THE 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent announcement, it can be stated which roads, at present derestricted, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation proposes to make subject to a 40 m.p.h. speed limit; what is the total mileage involved; how many of these 40 m.p.h. speed limits it is now proposed to apply to roads now being reconstructed or due for reconstruction under Ministry of Transport proposals to bring them up to modern standards; whether the application of this 40 m.p.h. speed limit is intended to reduce the average speed of vehicles on roads at present derestricted and, if so, whether it is considered that the roads affected will be unsafe in spite of the huge sums now being spent, or to be spent, on them; whether any estimate has been formed of the cost of the reduction of the average speed of
  2
  traffic in the case of roads so affected; and whether it is intended to bring these questions before Parliament before bringing them into operation.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, with your Lordships' concurrence, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the roads in the London Traffic Area, not at present subject to any speed limit but on which it is now proposed to place a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. The total mileage is sixty-five, and this includes five-and-a-half miles of recently constructed or reconstructed road and twelve miles on which reconstruction is due to begin this year.
  It is the intention of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to review the case for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on the affected roads as they are brought up to modern standards. A 40 m.p.h. speed limit on roads carrying heavy traffic, if properly observed, should permit the maximum flow of traffic with the greatest safety and reduce the dangerous overtaking which now too often takes place. Observations on certain roads included in this list indicate that this speed limit will not greatly affect the speed of driving of the majority of road users, and no economic loss should result. Parliament has already agreed to the principle of an experiment with speed limits of 40 m.p.h. in the London Traffic Area, but the regulations imposing this speed limit on particular lengths are made by statutory instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
  Following is the List referred to:
  LIST OF ROADS IN THE LONDON TRAFFIC AREA NOT SUBJECT TO A 30 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO IMPOSE A 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT.
  1.Trunk Road No. 36 (A.406)

  (i) From Western Avenue (A.40) in Ealing to the western junction with the London-Edinburgh Trunk Road (A.1) in Finchley.

  (ii) From the east junction with the London-Edinburgh Trunk Road (A.1) Finchley to 53 yards north-east of Edge Hill Avenue, Finchley.

  (iii) From 50 yards east of Green Lanes (A.105) Southgate to Great Cambridge Road A.10) Edmonton.

  (iv) From 16 yards east of Chingford Road to 150 yards east of Hale End Road, Walthamstow.

  (v) From High Road, South Woodford eastwards for 130 yards.

  (vi) From 130 yards east of High Road, South Woodford to Eastern Avenue (A.12) at Gants Hill, Ilford.

  2.Trunk Road No. 9 (A.4)

  (i) Between Chiswick High Road and Wood Lane, Osterley.

  (ii) Between the Parkway, Cranford and Harlington High Street.

  (iii) From the western end of the Colnbrook Roundabout to 98 yards east of Lynwood Avenue, Slough.

  (iv) From 120 yards east of Approach Road, Taplow, to 10 yards east of Ellington Road, Taplow.

  3.Trunk Road No. 6 (A.3)

  (i) From 50 yards east of Josephs Road, Guildford, to 74 yards each of Woodbridge Road and from 135 yards south-west of Bearbarn Road to a point near the railway bridge south of Ash Grove.

  (ii) From 110 yards north-east of Burpham Lane to Boxgrove Road.

  4.Trunk Road No. 10 (A.40)
  From Old Oak Road, Acton, to Alperton Lane.
  5.Trunk Road No. 12 (A.41)

  (i) From 46 yards north of Finchley Road, Hendon, to 18 yards north of Park Road, Hendon.

  (ii) From 63 yards north of the south arm of Selbourne Gardens, Hendon, to immedately south of Great North Way (A.1)

  6.Trunk Road No. 35 (A.41)

  (i) From Barnet Way at Apex Corner to 80 yards north of Glendale Avenue, Hendon.

  (ii) From immediately west of Purbrook Avenue, Watford, to 150 yards west of Gammons Lane, Watford.

  7.Trunk Road No. 1 (A.1)

  (i) From the Great North Road (A.1000) Hornsey to 25 yards east of Greenhalgh Walk, Finchley.

  4

  (ii) From 78 yards north-west of western junction with Addison Way, Finchley to a point immediately north of Finchley Lane.

  (iii) From 200 yards north of Ellenbrook Lane, Hatfield to 275 yards north-east of Green Lanes, Hatfield.

  (iv) From 80 yards south-west of "The Drive" Welwyn Heath to the boundary of the Welwyn Rural District (Boundary of London Traffic Area).

  8.Trunk Road No. 31 (A.10)

  (i) From 70 yards east of the eastern al m of Waltheof Gardens, Tottenham to the North Circular Road and from existing de-restriction signs near Edmonton Cemetery to approximately 400 yards north of Bullsmoor Lane.

  (ii) From 275 yards south of College Road (B.156) to 140 yards north of Church Lane (B.157) Cheshunt

  9.The Roundway (A.1080)
  From 45 yards north of Lordship Lane (A.109) to the Great Cambridge Road (A.10).
  10.Trunk Road No. 3 (A.12)

  (i) From immediately east of High Street, Wanstead (Wanstead Tube Station) to Ley Street and from 225 yards east of Oaks Lane to 50 yards east of Bawdsey Avenue, Ilford.

  (ii) From Mawney Road, Romford to 150 yards west of Heather Avenue.

  (iii) From Paynes Bridge to Maylands Way, Harold Wood.

  (iv) Between Sawyers Hall Lane and Oliver Road, Brentwood.

  11.Trunk Road No. 33 (A.13)
  From immediately east of Beckton Road, West Ham to just cast of Dover's Corner. Rainham.
  12.Trunk Road No. 34 (A.2)

  (i) From the L.C.C./Kent boundary near Crown Woods Way to 53 yards east of the eastern parapet of the river bridge at Bourne Road, Bexley.

  (ii) From 37 yards east of Heather Drive eastwards to a point 70 yards east of Low-field Street, Dartford.

  13.Rochester Way (A.2)
  Between Lower Jackwood Close, Woolwich and the London County Council boundary.
  14.Sidcup Road (A.20) Woolwich

  (i) From a point near Eltham Road southwards to a point 90 yards north-west of the western end of the River Quaggy bridge parapet.

  (ii) From a point 5 yards east of West Park eastwards to a point 3 yards cast of Mervyn Avenue.

  15.Westhorne Avenue (A.205), Woolwich
  From a point 5 yards east of Burnt Ash Hill north-eastwards to Eltham Road.
  16.Cray Avenue (A.224)
  From Sevenoaks Wav to Court Road (A.224).
  17.Oakley Road (A.233), Bromley
  From Bromley Common (A.21) to Westerham Road (A.233).
  18.Westerham Road (A.233) Bromley
  From Oakley Road (A.233) to Keston Church.
  19.Cockfosters Road (A.111)

  (i) From 70 yards north of the southern arm of Chalk Lane to 50 yards north of Wagon Road.

  (ii) Between Cockfosters Station and 70 yards north of the southern arm of Chalk Lane.

  20.Bramley Road and Enfield Road (A.110)

  (i) From Prince George Avenue to the last house near Cotswold Way.

  (ii) From its junction with Cockfosters Road to its junction with Prince George Avenue.

  (iii) From a point near Cotswold Way to the "Jolly Farmer" Public House.

  21.Bushey Road (A.298)
  From near Grand Drive to Kingston By-Pass (A.3).
  22.Greenford Road (A.4127
  Front 150 yards north of Uxbridge Road, Southall to 150 yards south of Ruislip Road, Ealing.
  23.Yeading Lane and Church Road (A.312)
  From Barnhill Road to Western Avenue.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is quite sure that the standard of construction or reconstruction of modern roads is entirely adequate to modern conditions, if the first thing you have to do is to apply a 40 m.p.h. speed limit to it? It is my submission—and I would ask the noble Lord whether he agrees—that the road construction of modern standard ought to be able to compete with traffic at 40 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. plus.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl holds this view, and it has been advanced before. There may be something in it. But this is an experiment, and I think it would be as well to see how the experiment goes and whether the noble Earl's hopes or fears are fulfilled. We have not had much experience in this country yet, though they have had considerable experience in America. It has proved satisfactory and helpful there, both in reducing accidents and in maintaining an
  6
  even flow. We should like to profit by that experience and see whether we cannot have equal advantages in this country.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to refresh the memory of the House? If my memory is correct, the noble Lord or his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave an undertaking to the House that this experiment would be tried in London in so far as the limit on various stretches of road at present restricted to 30 m.p.h. would be increased to 40 m.p.h. My memory does not take me back to an undertaking by the Government that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit would be instituted on roads that had no restriction. Might I also ask the noble Lord again whether my recollection is correct—and I am in the recollection of the House—that this experiment is to be confined to London, and that it cannot be extended outside the London Traffic Area until a report has been made to the House as to the results of the experiment?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord is taxing my memory rather far. I am sure he is right on his last point. I think that was a point he himself made in the course of our debates. At the moment it is intended that the experiment should be confined to the London area and the roads principally leading into London. As I say, this is purely an experiment. I do not remember that any undertaking was given that the experiment would be confined to roads hitherto exercising a 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Those roads, of course, are being included in the experiment. It is principally the roads which have no limit which we are now limiting to 40 m.p.h. and with which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is concerned in his Question. I think it applies to both.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask this question? My memory is not quite clear, but if it is, no word was said in your Lordships' House when we had the debate that it was intended to restrict roads which were at present unrestricted to a 40 m.p.h. limit. The experiment, so far as I understood it, was that the 30 m.p.h. limit in some cases would be raised to 40 m.p.h. But, to make it clear, if I or the noble

  7
  Earl, Lord Howe, put down a Question, would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer it?
  LORD MANCROFT: Of course I will. I am afraid I cannot carry that in my memory, but I did not think it was confined to one—I thought it included both.

  SPEED LIMIT SIGNS
  3.12 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is anticipated that the drivers of motor vehicles will be able to distinguish between the various speed limits involved in the proposal to increase the number of speed limits in the latest proposal for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit in view of the extreme concentration of traffic on our existing roads.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the presence of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit will be indicated, as at present, by street lamps, or by small replicas of the initial sign where there are no lamps. The beginning of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit will be indicated by a large and distinctive sign, which will be repeated in miniature on or near each street lamp or at small intervals where there are no lamps. Even in congested conditions, no motorist need be in doubt whether he is on a length subject to a 30 m.p.h., or 40 m.p.h., speed limit, or not subject to a speed limit.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, again thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether, in the case of roads which are restricted to 30 m.p.h. the 30 m.p.h. signs are to be reproduced? The point is this. Under the present condition of traffic, it is difficult to be quite sure which sort of sign you pass.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point. The authorities have looked at this matter very carefully. They are most anxious not to do what the noble Lord fears may be done, namely, confuse the motorist; and I think they have succeeded. If he will be good enough to look at the first experimental length, which is in Watford Way—the exact reference is given in the list to which I referred a moment or two ago—
  8
  I think he will agree that no confusion can possibly occur.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Am I right in saying that the signs would be left only in the case of the 40 m.p.h. limit and not in the case of the 30 m.p.h. limit?
  LORD MANCROFT: No; I am talking about the 40 m.p.h. limit now. I am not discussing the 30 m.p.h. limit at all.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell the House that, as this is only an experiment, which was criticised very harshly when it came before this House in the Road Traffic Bill, he will be prepared to give an undertaking that this experiment will be carried on for only a specific time? If a Question is put down, will he be prepared to state when it is the Ministry's intention to discontinue the experiment and present a report to Parliament?
  LORD MANCROFT: If the noble Lord likes to put that down as a Question, I will do my best to answer it.
  LORD FORBES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to prohibit all unauthorised signs and advertisements alongside our main roads? At present. there are so many signs that the driver has one eye on the road and the other eye on trying to find out which is the official sign and which the unofficial sign.
  LORD MANCROFT: I think that what the noble Lords says has much force. We discussed this question in some detail during the discussions on the Road Traffic Act, 1956. Indeed. so far as I can remember, there are specific provisions in the Act (I think in Section 35), and there is certainly a specific provision in the Act of 1930, Section 48, which gives the highway authority express power to do exactly what the noble Lord wants. Many authorities exercise their power quite rigorously and, in the course of the debate on the 1956 Act, many of your Lordships—and, I think, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and myself—expressed the wish that more highway authorities would exercise more stringently the power given to them by the law. There has been considerable improvement of late.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, on a question of Business, do I understand that at the appropriate time a statement on the Muscat question is to be read in this House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gosford will make a statement at about half-past three.

  TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  GENEVA CONVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
  CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
  FEDERATION OF MALAYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  FINANCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  3.18 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Lord Chairman of Committees, the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, is not here to-day, and just in case there are any questions on this Report, it might be as well to postpone its consideration until to-morrow, if the Leader of the Opposition would think that reasonable.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree.
  Order of the Day discharged.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion standing in the name of the Lord Chairman.
  Moved, That the Lord Silkin be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Home).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  3.19 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 14 [Revocation of approval and recovery of grant]:
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from the first "Minister" down to and including "consideration," and to insert:

  "(a) shall, if so requested, give to any person who appears to him to have an interest in the land concerned or to whom the relevant grant would be payable, a written notification of the reasons for the proposed revocation; and

  (b) shall afford to every such person"

  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it will no doubt be within your Lordships' recollection that in Committee on this Bill we raised the question whether it would not be reasonable to put into the Bill some provision to ensure that where any farmer finds that approval of an improvement is to be revoked, on a report submitted, he should be given a copy of that report. I have had the advantage of conversations with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on this matter. He was very

  11
  kind about it. We were not able to get exactly what was asked for, but I think the insertion of the Amendment which stands upon the Marshalled List, and which has been agreed, will go a long way to help any person who wants to be able to state a case for himself. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his consideration and that of his Ministry. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("Minister") to ("an") in line 43 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
  LORD WISE: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to refer to the fact that later on, in Amendment No. 3, I have down a similar Amendment which refers to a later clause, Clause 17, in which the subsection is identical in words with the present subsection. I wish to support my noble Leader in what he has said in regard to this particular alteration. I was greatly concerned to see that the tenant, or whoever is responsible, should be given, at the commencement of the proceedings, some sort of information about what was wrong in regard to the question of the grant, and also about how he should proceed. If the Government are prepared to do that, it will, I think, meet our case. When the report is received from the Minister, the person concerned will know, having, had prior information, the basis upon which the report has been made. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, this Amendment requires the Minister, before using his power to revoke his approval of a proposed improvement for grant on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1), to give, on request, to anyone who seems to him to have an interest in the land, or to whom the grant would be payable, a written statement of why he proposes to revoke his approval. The clause already requires him to afford to those concerned an opportunity to make representations, but this additional safeguard will enable them to know the case for the proposed revocation, before they come to answer it. We are grateful for this Amendment, which we think is helpful.
  12
  We already make similar arrangements under Section 6 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, although there is no statutory obligation to do so. We had intended to do the same under this Bill, but we are quite prepared to accept this proposal to make it a statutory obligation to do so. In our debate on the Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Bathurst asked whether adequate notice of proposed revocation would be given. The answer to this is, "most certainly." The practice in hill farming grant cases will be followed.
  Roughly, this is what will happen. Well before the formal procedure is invoked, we shall inform the man that it has been noticed that he has not complied with his bargain with us, and he will be asked to put the matter right. Then a period of negotiation will follow—in our experience over several months—in the hope of settling the matter amicably. If we reach an impasse, a letter will be sent to him giving him notice that we propose to revoke the approval and asking him whether he wishes to state a case, orally or in writing, to the county agricultural executive committee. If he wishes to be heard in person he will be given a date on which to appear, usually with about a fortnight's notice. After the hearing, the committee will report the matter to headquarters, where the decision will be taken. Our experience of the hill farming schemes is that, in practice, the man will always get several month's warning.
  My noble friend Lord Clitheroe also asked whether the reasons would be stated in writing. This question is, of course, answered by our acceptance of the noble Viscount's Amendment. We accept an obligation to give a written explanation to any person who appears to have an interest, if he asks for it. In practice, as I explained, our reasons will have come out much earlier in the preliminary correspondence. We are also prepared, after a hearing has taken place, to give in writing the Minister's reasons for the conclusion he has reached in the light of the report of the hearing, if we are asked to do so by the person who is given a hearing or by any other person with an interest in the land who would have been entitled to a hearing.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked on the Committee stage what was the real reason for refusing to let a man see the cause upon which

  13
  the revocation was based. It is clear from what I said earlier, that we are ready and willing to give in advance the reasons for the proposed revocation, in order to enable the man to defend himself, and, after the final decision has been taker, to explain why. The only question left is whether all or part of a certain report should remain confidential to the Minister. Since I gave our views on this matter in Committee, the Report of the Franks Committee has appeared, and this of course, has provided a fresh starting point for consideration of the whole question of disclosure of reports of officers holding inquiries. So soon after publication of the Report, it would be idle for me to pretend that I can state a Government view on the matter; and, indeed, the considered views of other sections of opinion have yet to be formulated and expressed. For the present, it would clearly he futile to try to settle, in relation to this Bill, dealing with agriculture, a procedural question of so great general significance. I would therefore suggest that we must leave the matter there for the present and await the outcome of the Government's consideration of the Report.
  On Question. Amendment 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, hut 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.
  3.26 p.m.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "mortgage." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. In order to inform noble Lords as to what is the meaning of this Amendment, may I read the words at the end of Clause 16 (2) which I seek to leave out? They are:
  "and any compensation for disturbance payable under Section 34 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948."
  14
  Under Section 34 of that Act compensation is payable to a tenant for disturbance on an agricultural holding, for various reasons; and I think I should make plain exactly what these reasons are, in order to show why I seek to have this Amendment made to the Bill.
  The two reasons for disturbance are these. There is, first, the notice given by the landlord to the tenant to quit the holding, for which compensation may later be payable. Secondly, there is the case of a counter-notice by the tenant. Under Section 32 of the Act, which deals with the taking of portions of farms, if portions are taken, it is possible for the tenant to give notice by counter-claim that he will quit the whole of the farm. Compensation is payable under these two sections of the 1948 Act, provided that certain matters referred to in Section 24 of the Act do not apply. These particular matters which do not apply refer to the bankruptcy of tenants, to the nonpayment of rent, to the non-carrying out of certain things, and matters of that sort which affect the landlord. If the tenant does not do them, then he has no claim for compensation for disturbance.
  If compensation for disturbance is payable, the amount of the compensation is arrived at in this way. Generally it is reckoned to be one year's rent, but it may rise to as much as two years' rent, provided that the tenant has given notice to the landlord that he is also to have a sale of his stock and implements and the rest of it, so that the landlord can value them. In such a case he can then claim on his loss of sale, but no more than the equivalent of two years' rent. Under the present provision, if there is an amalgamation of holdings and a grant is payable, the tenant who is disturbed can claim compensation, and it may quite well be that if a portion of a farm is taken over for this particular purpose under this Act, the tenant can give to the landlord notice that he desires to quit the whole of the farm, and compensation may have to be paid for disturbance upon the whole of the farm, subject to the various qualifications which are outlined in the previous Act of 1947.
  The point that I have in mind is that it might be possible for a fairly heavy claim for compensation to be made, and whereas the landlord is under an obligation, under the two previous Acts of 1947

  15
  and 1948, to pay a disturbance claim if notice to quit is given by him, it does not seem right that if certain other circumstances arise the State should, under this particular Bill, come in and relieve the landlord of one-third of the obligation which he would have had to meet had he given notice under the previous Acts.
  I feel it is important that we should take note of this particular deviation in this Bill from the two previous Acts, for it does not seem quite fair that when a disturbance claim has to be made and where the circumstances of giving notice are similar to those under which notice has been given under the previous Acts, the landlord should be relieved not only of legal and other costs but also of one-third of the disturbance claim which he might have had to meet. For that reason I seek to amend this particular Bill. The additional cost may be heavy and may arise in many hundreds of cases of amalgamation of farms and land. I hold the view that as the liability has already been provided in certain circumstances under previous Acts, this particular Act should not now relieve the landlord of one-third of his liability for a disturbance claim. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 39, leave out from ("mortgage") to end of line 40.—(Lord Wise.)

  DISTURBANCES IN CENTRAL OMAN
  3.34 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, disturbances have recently been taking place in Central Oman, a remote and difficult area in Arabia, over which the Sultan of Muscat and Oman re-established his authority at the end of 1955. These disturbances have been stimulated by the former Imam of Oman, whom the Sultan allowed to retire peaceably in 1955 to a village in the area. The former Imam and his brother, Talib, appear to have managed to acquire a limited quantity of arms and have been trying to persuade some of the local tribes to defect against the authority of the Sultan. While they have had some initial success, the unrest still remains localised.
  16
  The Sultan of Muscat and Oman has requested British assistance and this request has been agreed to. The local British authorities are considering with him the best form which this might take. They have been given discretion within certain limits to take military action. Small scale precautionary movements of our forces have already taken place. The reasons for this action are that the dissidents have clearly received assistance from outside the territories of the Sultan. It is, therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, right that we should respond to the Sultan's request for help. We have had friendly Treaty relations with the Sultan and his predecessors for the past 150 years.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl first whether we have any treaty obligation to come to the military aid of the Sultan? He referred to the Treaty of 1939, but there is no reference to military aid in that: it is a commercial treaty. My second question is: is it contemplated that we should send, from outside, military aid to the Sultan?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount's first question is that our relations are at present governed by the 1951 Treaty of Friendship. There is no military treaty as such. No forces have in fact been moved into Muscat, apart from overflying by aircraft on reconnaissance.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a supplementary question? If we do not fulfil a request from the Sultan of Muscat and Oman, is not the effect on other Sheikhdoms of the Gulf, to whom we have obligations, going to be extremely deplorable?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I believe I have already answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bird-wood, by saying that our local military authorities in the area have already been given discretion, within certain limits, to take action.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is it a fact that we may find ourselves faced with the necessity of moving our forces outside into the Oman area for the purpose of suppressing, any rising?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, there is no question at the moment of using land forces and there is therefore no question of land forces going into the area.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is there any evidence at all that it is really outside foreign oil interests who are moving in these matters? It is rather important that the nation should know, when they are considering the wisdom of any action that may be taken.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the only real interference from outside of which we know is concerned with arms. So far as we know, anything else is rumour.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl claim that we could have the right under any treaty to move in forces to suppress a rising?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I do not think there is any question of any right. We have no right to go in with our forces but we have been asked to go to the aid of the Sultan.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am speaking of international rights. I have asked Her Majesty's Government whether there is any international right to send in forces, because it is a very dangerous precedent to establish.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, does the noble Viscount mean whether we have a right to go in of our own accord?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No, by invitation.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: We certainly have the right to do so.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I would refer the noble Earl to the case of Hungary on which there was a very clear statement by the Chairman of the Bar Council and late Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross. He said there is no such right. I am not speaking of the merits of this dispute, but I point out the extreme danger of our asserting the right of our Government to send in forces, even if demanded by the local authorities.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, that is a rather different problem.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that Her Majesty's Government should bear in mind their responsibility for the protection of the lives of Britons, who, so far as I understand, are situated about one hundred miles from the seat of the possible area of operations?

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  3.38 p.m.
  Report stage resumed.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may we return to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise? As the House will appreciate, compensation for disturbance is quite an expensive item, being the equivalent of between one and two years' rent. The noble Lord spoke of one year's rent, but nowadays on average it is nearer two than one. It is payable when the tenant quits after the landlord has given him notice to quit, but not when the tenant has himself given notice. We included it in the list in the clause because it is a substantial part of the owner's costs in arranging an amalgamation of the type which we wish to see take place.
  I would point out, first of all, that these amalgamations will be eligible for grant-aid only where one of the farms is uneconomic and where an economic unit will be formed at the end of the arrangement. At the same time I should like to make quite clear that by grant-aiding this item we are in no way attacking the security of tenure of the tenant farmer. Provisions for compensation for disturbance are not intended to deter landlords from giving notice to quit, but, as the words themselves indicate, are intended to compensate the tenant for losses which he incurs as a result of having to leave.
  As your Lordships know, the tenant's security of tenure rests not on this but on other parts of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which enable the tenant, subject to specified exceptions, to require the landlord to get the Minister's consent to the notice, and lay down a number of conditions which must be satisfied before the Minister may give his consent. This Bill does not touch these safeguards for the tenant, and his security is unaffected by it. I would once again emphasise

  19
  that the whole object here is to assist in any reasonable way we can the production of economic units out of uneconomic ones. We do not believe that it would be right that we should in any way encourage the retention of units which are completely uneconomic. At the same time we do not wish to bring n any form of compulsion towards amalgamation. It must be done voluntarily. We feel it is necessary that there should be this provision in the Bill, and so I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
  3.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are very much obliged to the noble Earl for the clear statement which he has made upon this matter, but I am not at all sure that it will satisfy my noble friend Lord Wise. The noble Earl has particularly emphasised in his reply the voluntary nature of the process that will be followed in order to secure amalgamation of what would otherwise be uneconomic units. But it seems to me that the landlord's position will be this: he will be able to make the best possible arrangements in the amalgamation, either to dispose of the whole of his interests in the particular farm or piece of land in the amalgamation, at a price which he is willing to accept, or to become a part owner of an amalgamated agricultural unit. He should be able to obtain an economic return upon his retention of his share in the land.
  I think that what my noble friend has in mind is this. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, there is no liability upon the State in any way to assist the landlord in regard to sums he has to pay for compensation, and it ought surely to depend entirely on the nature of the voluntary arrangement entered into for amalgamation as to whether this part of the cost should fall for Government grant or not. That, I think—if I have interpreted my noble friend's idea sufficiently well—is the test question which we are trying to get settled while the Bill is going through Parliament to-day.
  There is much which the noble Earl has mentioned with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and nobody wants to be arbitrary in any sense or to try to prevent a general move for the amalgamation
  20
  of uneconomic units. But it does not seem to me to be right, in the interests of the general taxpayer, to bring in a new form of Government grant to a landlord who may very well be doing just as well out of the amalgamated unit as he would be doing out of a single unit which is to be incorporated in the amalgamated unit. I hope that we may have some fairly clear understanding from the noble Earl as to whether, in these circumstances, statutory provision for compensation to the landlord is really required.
  3.44 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will try to answer the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, now. I think he was under a slight misapprehension in his earlier remarks when he said that the landlord might become part owner of an amalgamated unit. There is no question of the payment of any grant except where the whole unit will be in one ownership. That applies to any of these grants. The ownership must be a single one as a unit. There must be no case of part A being owned by one farmer and part B being owned by another farmer and the two farmers working together. It must be a single ownership.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In fact it may well be a single ownership. A company may be formed to take over the amalgamated unit, and the man who was landlord of one section may become a shareholder or director of the company.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, that is quite correct. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is rather looking at this with the idea in his mind that the people concerned are prosperous farmers. As I said, we are dealing with a unit which is uneconomic and which can be made economic only by amalgamation with another farm. It is not a unit which could be made economic by improving its buildings. Grant aid will be given only because the area of land and the quality of land is such that it cannot on its own ever be economic. It must be in the interests of the nation that these uneconomic units should by degrees—admittedly over a very long period of

  21
  time—be reduced to an absolute minimum. In the long run money which will go in the form of subsidies to the farming industry will in time be reduced and eliminated. With regard to these uneconomic units, what we are doing is giving the owner some incentive to amalgamate. We do not feel that we are giving him something which he should not have or that is not in the interests of agriculture as a whole. We feel that just that little extra incentive is needed in getting these amalgamations done, amalgamations which are apt to be complicated and in regard to which the landlord may be given a great deal of trouble in dealing with the various buildings, and he involved in a great deal of extra expense.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should, like to reply to the noble Earl. In a way, I think he has proved my case fairly well for me. He has shown your Lordships that the person who benefits from this amalgamation is the owner of property who may be faced with a claim for compensation for the land which he has taken by the amalgamation and added to his own farm. So he gets it twice over. He improves his Own farm by amalgamating some other land with his original land, and then the State comes along and pays him compensation for disturbing the tenant whose land has been added to his own.
  Again, I think the noble Earl has proved my case, because he has stressed the reference I made to compensation for disturbance based on one year's rent. I agree that it can be two years' rent. It may rightly be, in these times, on the basis of two years' rent. The State has to bear one-third of that cost. For that reason I think we should remove this portion of the clause. The noble Earl has spoken of incentive. If the Government want to give the owner incentive, why do they not go a bit further and not only pay one-third of the disturbance claim but pay one-third of the tenant-right valuation? That would be an incentive indeed. But the Government do not do that. They stop at one-third of the disturbance claim. In view of the clauses of the previous Acts, by which there is a liability on the owner, the landlord, who gives notice. I consider that that particular landlord should bear the whole cost of the disturbance.
  VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, as one who has had experience of the type of land where this may apply, I would say that surely the amalgamation of two uneconomic pieces of land can quite easily make an economic piece of ground, but the amalgamation of two uneconomic rents does not make an economic rent for the landlord; and I think it is quite just that he should have some encouragement. Furthermore, as soon as farms are amalgamated, it is open to the tenant of the amalgamated farm, who takes over under his ingoing valuation a lot of usually derelict fences and so on, to get assistance under the Act to put the holding in first-class condition. Therefore, I should think that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have had some experience of precisely the kind of land that is contemplated, though I have none of the kind now, so I have no direct interest. It seems to me that a proprietor has so little to gain by such an amalgamation that it would be stupid to put obstacles in his way, and the noble Lord's Amendment would probably kill the operation of the Act. There is another side to it which ought to be considered. Where there are two uneconomic holdings there are two families living in the maximum discomfort. Is it not better to reorganise the whole of the land on an economic basis and have one family living in a reasonable amount of comfort and prosperity?
  On Question. Amendment negatived.
  Clause 17 [Amount and payment of grants under s. 16]:
  LORD WISE: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same as that of my noble friend to Clause 14, which was accepted. Therefore, I move the Amendment formally.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 18, leave out from "Minister" to end of line 20 and insert—

  "(a) shall, if so requested, give to any person who appears to him to have an interest in the land concerned or to whom the relevant grant would be payable, a written notification of the reasons for the proposed revocation; and

  (b) shall afford to every such person"—(Lord Wise.)

  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am very willing to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15):
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, if I am in order. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing thanks to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. During the discussion of an Amendment to Clause 10 on Committee stage, when the Amendment was withdrawn, he gave an assurance that he would see that early discussions were arranged between representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who represent the local authorities, and officials of the Ministry. Those conversations were immediately arranged and took place, and they have proved very helpful. The Association are now perfectly satisfied that the repeal of the Livestock Act, 1937, will not be used in future as an argument against the consideration of any case that they may wish to put forward for granting local authorities power of control over their markets. I thought it was only right that I should inform your Lordships that the Association have been very courteously treated, and have expressed their satisfaction.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. It is always our wish to meet, whenever possible, the opinions of various sections connected with the Bill and I am glad to know that the noble Lord and the Association are satisfied with the discussions they had with us.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I should like, on the Motion for Third Reading, to say a word or two about the Bill as a whole. I am sure that in general your Lordships welcome a Bill which takes steps to improve capital equipment on our farms in order to make them more successful and economic. During the passage of the Bill, and even before its introduction, the Government had many questions put to them as regards the date for applications and the date from which the improvement grants scheme would be operated.
  24
  They have steadily resisted any real decision being taken in regard to grants until the Bill was on the Statute Book. I think that that was correct. No doubt a considerable number of applications have been prepared already.
  There is one danger which I see and which I hope the noble Earl will bear in mind. The larger estates, where there are obvious improvements to be carried out to make holdings more economical, are owned by people who have the necessary capital in hand, or the means of obtaining it forthwith, to meet the two-thirds of the cost of improvement not covered by grant. These people will be in a much more favourable position to benefit under this Bill than the smaller man, who will have to borrow the two-thirds he has to provide in addition to the grant which will be received. With the present high rates of interest for borrowing, it will not be easy for the smaller man to be able to partake in this excellent piece of well-intentioned State bounty.
  From listening to the debate, I understand that the Government are to spend up to £50 million over a period of some ten years. It may well be that, as that period goes on, the situation may improve a little for the smaller man, but what I should like to know is whether, now that the Bill has got this far, it is the intention of the Government to confine the expenditure, for the time being. to round about £5 million every year, so that there will always be money available for the later years of the ten-year period, in case the smaller man is able to accumulate sufficient resources of his own or borrow enough to be able to launch a scheme qualifying for Government grant. I think that the way in which this scheme is administered, in meeting the need of the whole country and not merely of those sections of it who are better able to finance them and who will be hastening to make their applications, will have a great effect upon the ultimate general success of the scheme. I think that it would be helpful if, upon Third Reading, the noble Earl could make some statement on what is the general administrative intention of the Government.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I say, first of all, that I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions on this Bill at its various stages. If I may say so, there has been a realistic approach from all sides. The

  25
  noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has asked me two specific questions. First of all, dealing with the position of the large and wealthy landowner, as opposed to the rather more impecunious owner of a farm, I think that it is only fair to point out that, under the present rates of taxation, anyone who pays a high surtax will benefit only to the extent of about 7 per cent. from these grants, instead of getting the full 33⅓ per cent., of which the smaller man, paying little or no tax, gets the full benefit. I think that is a material point. It means, in fact, that these grants are of real assistance to the people who need them most.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the noble Earl saying that the capital grant is subject to annual income tax or sur-tax, or is he referring to the gain that will ultimately accrue to the persons who can carry out the improvements?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: What I am referring to is that it is possible to lay off expenditure on agricultural improvements against income tax and stir-tax. The higher you are up in the sur-tax bracket, obviously, the greater the benefit you will receive; and for those in the top bracket the fact that the grant-aided portion of expenditure does not rank for tax allowance does reduce the value of these grants to something of the order of 7 per cent. as compared with something of the order of 33⅓ per cent. for those who pay less tax. It is not our intention to confine expenditure on grants to £5 million a year, or to have any annual limit. The intention is that we should go ahead and get the work done. What the position will be if, in six years' time, the £50 million has all gone, I am afraid I cannot forecast at all. A lot can happen between now and then; we might no longer have to employ a credit squeeze, and there might be a freer movement of money. In any case, it might he considered well worth while to have more. But, as I say, it is certainly not our intention at the moment to confine the expenditure to £5 million a year.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad to have that guidance, but it seems that it might leave the impression on the smaller farmer that, unless he can raise his share of the money required, he will be squeezed out of this
  26
  bounty and that it will be extended only to people better off than himself.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think that is an unjustifiable assumption by the noble Viscount.
  On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (NAVY, MARINES AND SERVICE CIVILIANS) (OVERSEAS) BILL now REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS. DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  4.3 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15) Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ARMY (CONDITIONS OF ENLIST MENT) BILL
  Order of the Day for the House to be in Committee read.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the Question that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. I have been giving some consideration to the point I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as to when a statement could most conveniently be made regarding the intention of the Government on retaining the statutory powers of the 1947 Act and any Amendments to that Act which may have occurred since then. This Bill is entitled:
  "An Act to make further provision as to the transfer to the reserve or determination of service of persons serving in the army for a term of twenty-two years."
  The general position of Army reserves has been very much affected by the procedure which has been followed concerning the National Service enlistments under

  27
  the 1947 Act. We all hope that the voluntary recruiting effort which has been outlined to Parliament will be successful, but I, for one, can never feel free in my mind of the dangers which might arise if we failed to get the necessary numbers of recruits to fulfil the commitments which we must meet at all times in the Commonwealth. I do not want to see the country without powers, apart from entirely re-enacting legislation, to maintain both our Forces with the Colours and any Reserves considered by the authorities to be essential.
  Is it, therefore, quite clear that it is not intended to repeal finally the National Service Act? I ask that because it has been stated over and over again that after 1960 no more recruits will be called up under National Service, and that that particular form of service will have ended by 1962. Does that mean that in the meantime you are going to repeal the National Service Act; or are you going to hold it in reserve, in case there is a failure to reach the minimum defence requirements from the voluntary processes which are now being put into operation?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the answer to the interesting point the noble Viscount has made is that there will be no repeal of the National Service Acts, since their powers will be needed for the next few years both to call up young men reaching the age of 18 before December 31, 1958—though their entry into the forces may be delayed up to two years—and to provide for the continuance of many powers under the Act required for National Service men actually called up in the Forces or undergoing their Reserve period of liability. On the other hand, it is not proposed to give extended effect to the existing powers in Section 1 of the current Act to call up boys who have reached the age of 18 beyond the date of December 31, 1958, to which Section 61 of the current Act was extended by the Order in Council of 1953.
  Therefore, the situation is this. Naturally, we all hope that the recruiting policy of the Government will bring the men in. My right honourabie friend the Minister of Defence in his White Paper said:
  "If this expectation"—
  28
  that is, to maintain the forces by Regular recruitment—
  "after the end of 1952 should be falsified by events. Parliament would have to consider the action to be taken."
  That means that the present Act runs out if we fail—as we very much hope we shall not, and we are not countenancing failure—to get the Regular recruits, and then we should have to come to Parliament again. I hope that answers the question of the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I rather gathered from the first part of the statement that what the Government are really doing is to suspend the operation of Section 1 of the Act. They are not repealing the Act at the moment.
  LORD MANCROFT: No, it is not quite that. The Act will run out of its own accord and could not be called into use again for the purpose which we are now discussing. We should have to come back to Parliament for new powers.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER or HILLSBOROUGH: Where is that cancellation of the powers of the Act in the Statute? Is it in a draft Statute? I am not at all sure about this question of how the Statute runs out.
  LORD MANCROFT: I have not the Statute with me to answer the noble Viscount's question, but I think what happens is this. The particular section that we are now discussing has been once renewed, and cannot be renewed time and time again automatically. We could not call it in aid again, but should have to come back to Parliament for new powers. I am certain that that is the fact.
  On Question, Motion agreed to and House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15):
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, now that we have passed the Committee and Report stage, I wish to register that I am a little

  29
  apprehensive about the future on the point that I raised on the Motion to go into Committee. It is quite certain that, to get on with this scheme, the Government must have their Bill to-day, and I have no intention of holding it up. But I hope that when we debate the Army Estimates (I think it is on July 31) we may have some further opportunity of discussing the matter. It is one thing to have an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book which can be used again in case of necessity, and quite another thing to be sure that we shall always be able to get new legislation of such an important character as that which is now being allowed to run out. It is rather an important point. I do not want to raise it in this form on the Army Estimates unless I have made it quite clear to the noble Lord that I am not quite satisfied about the position. I think the matter will have to be dealt with again.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. May I make quite certain that I understand what is worrying him? It is not the fact that we may have difficulty in getting the regular recruits—that, we all know, is a problem. As the noble Viscount knows, a special Committee has been set up, under my own chairmanship, to deal with that problem, and we are doing it as energetically as possible. Is this what is worrying him? I have told him that if we have to renew any form of National Service—which we hope we shall not—then we shall have to come to Parliament
  30
  again. That is the point which is worrying the noble Viscount, is it not?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
  LORD MANCROFT: I quite understand.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it has been agreed through the usual channels that, owing to the large amount of Business that we have to get through on Thursday, the House will meet on that day at 2.30 instead of at 3 o'clock.
  DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON-COXGREEN FOOT BRIDGE) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

  B P TRADING BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.