Lords Sitting of 11 December 1958

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Guilford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grand-father.

MENTAL ILLNESS
3.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 they are aware that only 2 per cent. of the Medical Research Council's budget is spent on research into the causes of mental illness, and whether, having regard to the statement in the Report of the Ministry of Health for the year 1957 that "psychiatrists are still a long way from a scientific understanding of most of the major forms of mental illness", they will take steps to increase facilities for such research.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): No, my Lords. The Medical Research Council's expenditure on research into the causes of mental illness has been steadily rising during the past few years, and in the present financial year will amount to some £130,000. This is over 4 per cent., and not 2 per cent., of the Council's annual budget. Arrangements have recently been made by the Council to undertake a full-scale review of research in this field with a view to considering its future development.
In addition, the noble Lord will no doubt be aware that a number of voluntary organisations and philanthropic trusts, such as the Mental Health Research Fund, the Nuffield Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Ford Foundation, make important contributions to psychiatric research. The Mental Health Research Fund, for example, spent about £36,000 during the
214
financial year 1957–58 and their total expenditure since 1954 is estimated at £86,000. During the past five years the Nuffield Foundation have also spent a substantial sum on subjects relevant to mental disorder. The Leverhulme Trust and the Ford Foundation have made large block grants to the Mental Health Research Fund; and the Wellcome Trust have made direct contributions to work in this field.
As "observational" research may be an integral part of clinical practice, the work of those in psychiatric practice in teaching and mental hospitals should be included in the total sum of the nation's research, but this cannot be measured in exact financial terms, nor described as a specific research programme. Certain London teaching hospitals, for example, have active neuro-psychiatric units to which research fellows, supported by endowment funds, are appointed by the hospitals themselves. Research of this kind is also supported at many other hospitals through Regional Hospital Boards. Expenditure within the National Health Service in this way is estimated at £25,000 for 1957. University psychiatric departments also make individual contributions to research in this subject.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst welcoming the statement that the present expenditure is double that of the previous year, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he is aware that it is still very much too small in relation to the need? Is he aware, for example, that the expenditure last year on research into schizophrenia was only £27,000, equal to about ½d. a year a head of the population, and that schizophrenia, in its chronic forms, claims more victims than any other disease, mental or physical? It costs £15 million a year to keep these people in hospital, although many of them are now thought to be curable. Is the noble Viscount further aware that the Report of the Medical Research Council, which he signed, indicates that, out of sixty-seven principal committees of the Council, none is concerned with mental health, and, out of sixty-three research units, only one is conducting basic research into the causes and treatment of mental illness? Is he aware that there is very serious public concern about this matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I do not think my noble and learned friend could be aware of all this at once. I think it is perhaps going a little far.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would the noble Earl observe that the Answer, which was very informative, was an immensely long Answer; and surely the noble Lord asking the Question is entitled to cover the ground given in the Answer.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if we cover all this ground at once, we shall cover no more ground to-day.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, while welcoming the noble and learned Viscount's information that there is to be a review of this subject, may I ask this question? Will the review include the possibility of the Medical Research Council making a grant to the Mental Health Research Fund, to which the noble Viscount referred, in view of the fact that the Ford Foundation grant to that organisation is now, unfortunately, running out.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must be aware that that is within the purview of the executive function of the Medical Research Council.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst apologising for asking too many questions, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount to deal with the point that there is no mental health committee among the committees of the Medical Research Council, and only one research unit, which is mentioned in the Report that he signed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is precisely the sort of question for which the Medical Research Council are responsible.

FORMOSA AND THE PESCADORES
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 seeing that (1) in their view Formosa and the Pescadores are territory the de jure sovereignty of which is uncertain and undetermined; and (2) that, in the opinion of the United States Government as expressed by the Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, on 6th January, 1950, whatever sort of China was recognised by the United States Formosa should be regarded as part of it; they will consider the advisability of suggesting to the United States joint submission of the legal aspects of the aforesaid conflicting views to the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that no useful purpose could be served in the circumstances of this case by pursuing the course suggested by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. Is he aware that five years ago in this House I said that Formosa would eventually fall into the lap of China? What odds is the noble Marquess prepared to lay me against that eventuality happening?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, when I was at school I was a bookmaker, a very lucrative profession. Since then I have given up betting.

EGYPT: HARDSHIP OF EXPELLED BRITONS
3.14 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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 (1) whether they are aware that their continuing failure to provide adequate reparation for British subjects expelled from Egypt is causing lasting ruin of many of their lives, future hopes and fortunes; and (2) whether, in the light of the significantly revealed unease of this House, they would now consider the following scales of payment as being more equitable than those announced in this House on 30th October and which would take account of the criticisms made during the debate on 12th November.

Claims

Percentage of Advance

Up to £E.1,000

80

next £E.4,000 (from £E.1,001 to £E.5,000)

75

next £E.5,000 (from £E.5,001 to £E.10,000)

70

next £E.15,000 (from £E.10,001 to £E.25,000

65

next £E.25,000 (from £E.25,001 to £E.50,000)

60

next £E.50,000 (from £E.50,001 to £E.100,000)

50

Surplus in excess of £E.100,000

Subject to discussion.]

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord amended his Question late last night by making what are in effect detailed suggestions for the expenditure of public money after I had told him that Her Majesty's Government could not consider the matter in time to give an Answer to the latter part of his Question to-day. As I explained on the November 12, Her Majesty's Government have taken a whole series of measures designed to relieve hardship and to rehabilitate all classes among those who were expelled, and I cannot accept the general implication in the noble Lord's Question that these measures have proved ungenerous or inequitable. There could in any event be no question of further revising the scales of payment while the last extensions so recently announced are being put into effect, and as was made clear in the recent debate Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage of the matter
218
to depart from the principle of advances against tangible assets. Her Majesty's Government continue to be prepared to receive details of cases of hardship or suggestions for the improvement of the scheme. I must add that I would myself consider that the form of the noble Lord's amended Question raises serious constitutional issues upon which it would be improper for me to attempt to pronounce finally at the last minute. But I must not be taken to endorse the view that the submission of detailed proposals of this kind for the expenditure of public moneys should be put forward by means of a Starred Question, or by a private Member, or in this House of Parliament.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his very learned reply. Of course, I am not qualified on the constitutional issue—I am a comparative new-comer to your Lordships' House. But I would, in the form of a question, remind the noble Viscount of what the Leader of the House said in the debate on November 12, when he moved that Lord Lloyd's Motion should be rejected, as in fact it was. He said of the Motion, if I may quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 8), col. 494]:
"We should have to reject it for the time being"—
that was the point—
"so as to think about the great principles"—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords on a point of order, I really think that the noble Lord must try to frame what he has to say in the form of a question. He has made no such attempt. He is simply presenting an argument. There must be some interrogative form in a supplementary question.
LORD KILLEARN: But I did make it in the form of a question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Then I do not know what the question is.
LORD KILLEARN: I did put it in the form of a question—"may I remind him?". Is that a question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it is well-established that that form is not an interrogative form.
LORD KILLEARN: Then may I vary it and say: Is it not the fact that the Leader of the House, in the debate on

219
November 12, used these words when he moved the rejection of Lord Lloyd's Motion:
"we should have to reject it for the time being"—
that is the point I want to emphasise—
"so as to think about the great principles which are raised."
To-day is December 11. So that was a month ago. Am I not in order, on the basis of that statement, in making certain suggestions which, one would hope, were helpful in the direction of great thoughts on this subject? Before I sit down, I should like to revert, in the form of a question, to the first part of my original Question, in which I asked whether the Government are aware that their continuing failure to provide adequate reparation, and so on, has led to the ruin of the lives and fortunes of many of the residents in Egypt. I do not think that the noble Viscount answered that point. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that that is so?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will see when he reads Hansard that I did answer that. What he is really seeking to do is to redebate the question by way of a supplementary question.
LORD KILLEARN: No, I am not.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question arising out of my noble friend's question? May I first of all ask the noble Viscount whether the Government have taken any note of the very strong expression of unease manifested in this House on the occasion of that debate? Secondly, may I ask the noble Viscount whether there is to be no future reconsideration of the scale of payments? Finally, may I ask him whether or not the Government are prepared, notwithstanding the form in which this scale has been put down, to consider the scale put forward by my noble friend?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are three supplementary questions there. On the first, I would say that of course the Government take note of everything that is said in the House, including the result of the Division. The second one was?
LORD LLOYD: The second was: How long has the existing scale to be in
220
operation before the Government realise that it is no good?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is a supplementary question of which I do not accept the implications. It does not seem to arise out of either the original Answer or the Question.
LORD LLOYD: Would the noble Viscount answer the third question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lord also remind me of the third question?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I do not know how many times I have to put it in the form of a question, but for the third time I ask the noble Viscount: will Her Majesty's Government take note of the proposals put forward by my noble friend?—although the noble Viscount suggests, for some reason which I am not at all clear about, that it was improper for my noble friend to put them forward.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord has secured by the form of his question that we have all taken note of it.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, might I ask one further supplementary question before I sit down—namely, does the noble Viscount confirm what he said in the debate on July 23 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211 (No. 98), col. 127]:
"that the Government take a very serious view of their responsibility in this as in other matters."
Does the noble Viscount confirm that they continue to take a very serious view of this matter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we certainly took a very serious view of cur responsibilities in this, as in other matters, and I see no reason to depart from that.
LORD KILLEARN: Then in fact the noble and learned Viscount confirms it.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, arising out of the first Answer of the noble and learned Viscount, one likes to get things clear. May I ask whether he does not agree that this is the constitutional position: your Lordships are entitled to express any opinion you care to, on any financial matter whatsoever, but you may be on dangerous ground if you proceed to a Resolution. The noble Lord's Question is framed in such a manner that if

221
Her Majesty's Government acceded to and agreed with the proposal there put forward, it would be tantamount to binding the Government to a Resolution in another place. That is what leads to difficulty and prevents an answer. But on the general constitutional position I should like the noble and learned Viscount to confirm that what is stated in the first part of my question is correct.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it was exactly that thought, which my noble friend has so well expressed, that was passing through my mind. As I told the House in my original Answer, this was brought to my attention in amended form last night, after any kind of advice was available to me, and I am bound to say that I do not think a matter raising an issue of this kind should have been put on the Order Paper of this House at such short notice.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I do not want to speak again, but in view of what my noble friend has just said, I feel that I owe the noble and learned Viscount an apology for having put up so late, I admit, a matter which has raised a constitutional issue. I can only say that it was put through the proper channels.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I hope that I did not convey the impression that I had any kind of personal resentment, but I am put in a difficult position when matters of this kind are put in at a very late stage—matters which I might be rebuked for treating in such a way as to create a precedent.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas for the purpose of giving Government Business
222
(except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE BILLS
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether it is practicable to define the extent to which a Private Bill should seek to alter the powers or duties of persons other than the Promoter; and, if it is so practicable, to define the principles on which proposed Private Bill enactments that would alter the powers or duties of such persons should be allowed or disallowed; and to report what, if any, consequential changes should be made in the Standing Orders governing the practice and procedure of the two Houses of Parliament in regard to Private Bills.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are greatly obliged to the noble Earl for at last putting on the Paper a Motion which is the result of a debate we had many months ago and which we were promised would come very shortly after the debate. I want to say at once that I fully appreciate the difficulties which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, have had, and I am not condemning the noble Earl for the lateness of this Motion, which I accept has been put on the Paper as early as it was practicable to do so. I should like to say a word about the terms of this Motion. I saw it for the first time only late last night and was not able to make any comment on it, or even to consider it until this morning.
The House will remember that this Motion arises out of the debate which we had on the Kent County Council Bill, a very interesting measure in which that County Council sought to incorporate in private legislation a large number of powers which were sought, not on their own behalf but on behalf of a number of

223
their subsidiary authorities. This was in accordance with the general practice that, for instance, a county council might seek powers on behalf of urban and rural districts, or even parish councils. I believe that most noble Lords agreed that it was convenient that that practice should be adopted, but the complaint was made that there was a growing tendency for it to be followed in an increasing form; and by the time the Kent County Council Bill came along they had produced a Bill of some hundreds of clauses which made it very difficult (I am giving the case that was put in that debate) for any Committee to give the Bill the proper and detailed examination which it ought to receive.
It was for that reason that it was eventually decided to reject most of the clauses of the Bill—certainly most of those which were seeking to obtain powers on behalf of subsidiary authorities; and it was as a result of the debate we had that, eventually, an assurance was given that an attempt would be made to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to go into the whole question. Obviously no one could make a specific promise that such a Committee would be set up, because it depended on the agreement of another place. I hope that I have put the position quite fairly.
I had thought that the Committee was to consider the general policy, the desirability, as well as the practicability, of one authority or body seeking powers on behalf of another. If we accept the view which I think was taken by most noble Lords, that it is a good thing that county councils should be able to seek powers on behalf of, say, a rural district, I agree that there is not much point in asking the Joint Committee to go into it. But I do not understand now that that is wholly accepted. If it had been accepted at the time, a large number of the clauses which were deleted from the Kent County Council Bill would not have been so deleted. They were deleted on the understanding that at present it was not desirable that one body should seek powers on behalf of another.
I want to say a short word on the merits of this matter, because I certainly take the view that it is strongly desirable that they should be able to follow this
224
practice. I should have hoped that the purpose of any Committee set up to consider this question would be to find out how far Promoters of the Bills should be allowed to go, and in what way an abuse of that principle might be prevented. There are some county councils, Yorkshire and Lancashire, for instance, which have a very large number of subsidiary authorities. Where subsidiary authorities seek certain powers it would be very undesirable—and very expensive—if each one had to promote legislation on its own. I believe that it has been regarded for many years as a reasonable thing for a county council to promote such legislation on behalf of its subsidiary authorities.
The whole thing has now been thrown into the melting pot, however, as a result of the proceedings on the Kent County Council Bill, and I feel that it is important to get a decision on whether this practice is desirable, and that the whole question should be referred to the Joint Committee for them to consider whether it is desirable to give one body powers to promote legislation on behalf of another. I do not want unduly to widen the Committee's terms of reference, because I believe there is some urgency about this matter. Before local authorities promote their legislation for next Session they will want to know what they are going to be allowed to do, and whether or not they are to be permitted to have legislation on behalf of other bodies. For these reasons, while accepting the reason for the delay, I must say that I regret it, because it means that this Joint Committee will have to work under some pressure.
A number of my noble friends (and I associate myself entirely with them) take the view that it would be desirable to consider as well the whole question of private legislation and the enormous cost to promote it. I do not want to enlarge on the matter, but it is a very costly thing to promote legislation, and, of course, if it is going to be required that no body should be allowed to obtain legislation on behalf of another, that cost will be tremendously increased. I understand that there was a Committee some two years ago (of which my noble friend Lord Latham was a member as was, I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, himself), which went into the question of expense. I believe that they came to certain conclusions; but I do not know how far those conclusions have

225
been operated, if at all, or whether the cost of promoting Bills has been materially reduced. I believe that the matter of duplicating documents instead of printing them was involved, but the cost of publishing the proceedings is not the primary item. Perhaps we could be told how far that Committee's Report and recommendations have been acted on and how far they are still matters which it is proposed to deal with in future.
However, my primary purpose in saying a word on this matter is to ask two questions. One is: does the noble Earl who has moved the Motion consider that the terms of this Motion will enable the Joint Committee to consider the question of the desirability of one body seeking legislation for another? And, secondly, can he give us an assurance that, so far as he can influence matters, this Joint Committee will report in sufficient time to affect legislation of these bodies in the forthcoming Session?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I believe that I can give a short illustration an reply to the first part of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which is very much to the point. When I was a young man I was a member of a club which served caviare for 8d., in the days when you could get good caviare. One day a new member who had discovered this ate a whole pot of caviare and then complained that he was charged 4s. (which was the cost of a pot) on the bill for his lunch, and he made a complaint to the committee. After that the other members ceased to be able to have caviare for 8d. I think that that is precisely what has happened over the Kent County Council Bill.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have heard that analogy with some interest. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and, like him, I am glad that this Joint Committee has at last been arranged. He asked me for an assurance that the terms of reference would enable the Committee to consider the desirability of a local authority legislating for other bodies. I would assure him that I was very anxious, and I think we have achieved, that the terms of reference should enable the Committee to consider just that and, indeed, other questions of that sort, such as how far a local authority should be allowed to go and (I think
226
his words were) how could abuse be prevented. I am quite certain that the terms of reference can include those questions. I think that on the further question—the whole question of expense of promotion of private Bills—if the noble Lord opposite would allow me to, I should like to enlist the help of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees to answer, because he is better informed upon it than I am.
3.35 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, if I may add a few words to what has just fallen from the noble Earl the Leader of the House I would say, with great respect to the noble Lord opposite, that I think he has himself answered some of the questions which he raised. For example, he dealt with the question of the promise that he said was made that a Joint Committee would be set up. I should like to say a word on that matter, because I think it could rightly be said that if anybody made a promise it was myself. I would point out to the noble Lord (as I think he himself said later in his speech) that, of course, any promise made by a Member of this House of action on the part of another place is really invalid and in fact could not be made. I think that the noble Earl has answered the first of the noble Lord's questions.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene to ask the noble Lord just to carry the matter a stage further. I find it difficult to understand how, if a Committee is set up to consider the practicability of the question, that also includes consideration of the desirability; or is the desirability assumed? It seems to me that they are two quite separate matters. Before one considers whether a thing is practicable one surely wants to make up one's mind whether it is desirable; and I see nothing in the terms of reference which enables the Committee to consider that. If I am assured that they are going to do so I shall not be too "sticky" about the exact wording, but it is not there.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord's fears are unfounded, but I will do my best, nevertheless, to give him an answer to his question. May I first

227
say, so far as it concerns me, that I apologise for the shortness of the time allowed in putting down this Motion, but we have been most anxious to finish the matter before the Recess. If the noble Lord looks at the Motion he will see that it is divided into two parts and that it poses two questions: first, is it practicable; and, second, if it is practicable, then how far should it be allowed. I should like to draw particular attention to the word "should" in the third line from the end of the Motion. So the Committee, as I understand it, after hearing evidence, will first of all decide whether the method of procedure which the noble Lord so strongly advocates is indeed practicable. May I say here, without anticipating too much, that it is by no means certain that it is practicable to the extent envisaged. But assuming that the Committee have first decided that it is practicable, then they are enjoined by the terms of reference,
"to define the principles upon which proposed Private Bill enactments that would alter the powers or duties of such persons should be allowed or disallowed."
I contend that the words "should be allowed or disallowed" give the Committee full power and full scope to report to the House as to whether it is desirable to do this. If they do not, I would certainly try again; but I really believe they do; and I again emphasise the importance of the word "should".
As to the time in which the Committee can report, it is, as the noble Lord will appreciate, extremely difficult to foresee how long this work is going to take. I think that the number of witnesses will probably not be very great; but, on the other hand, I have no doubt that there will be some very important bodies that will wish to give evidence, and as we all know from previous experience, it takes a good deal of time to prepare statements of evidence on the part of bodies which represent branches or divisions all over England and Wales. So we shall have to be patient. I appreciate the noble Lord's anxiety that the Report of this Committee should be available in time for the drafting of next year's Private Bills, which are to be deposited in November, 1959, to feel the impact of the Report. Having got into a little trouble over one promise, I should hesitate very much to give any further
228
promise, and I am bound to say I am not at all sure that they will be able to report in time. I am sure that the House would rather have a full complete and weighty Report than a hurried one which lacked those qualities.
In conclusion, I would say a word about the Joint Committee on Private Bills which, as has been mentioned already, sat about two years ago, and of which I was a member. The Report of that Committee is available. The noble Lord asked what has been done to carry out the recommendations of that Report with regard to the cost of Private Bill legislation. Something has been done. I am not prepared to say that a great deal has been done. The Committee's recommendations on expenses, if they had been fully carried out, would not have resulted in a great diminution of the figure, but I know from experience that something has been done, particularly about the cost of printing Bills, about the question of whether they should be printed or typed and whether Acts of Parliament should be printed on vellum or otherwise. A Committee of your Lordships' House have sat on the latter question and reported upon it.
3.42 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, whilst of course accepting without reservation the honesty and belief of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, that he thinks the Motion on the Order Paper discharges the undertaking, which on two occasions he gave your Lordships' House—that there should be an inquiry, in the words of the noble Lord "into the principle relating to County Council Bills" (not the practicality: I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of July 29, col. 385)—the noble Lord will recall that he had earlier put down a Motion, which was carried in your Lordships' House, in the following terms:
"In the opinion of this House, the principle that a County Council Bill should not confer on local authorities or on any other authority or persons functions in which the county council has no interest should, pending any further inquiry …"
and so on. I take it that the Committee which it is intended to set up with the terms of reference as given on the Order Paper is the intended "further inquiry".
It really is difficult to understand how the governing consideration, which is

229
whether a practice that has been in operation for something like thirty-seven years and has been operated, as is admitted by all sides, I think, without abuse, fairly and reasonably and to the great profit, both financial and otherwise, of local government in this country, should be summarily altered, as indeed it was, in the earlier part of this year. To invite the Committee to consider whether it is practicable, before they have considered and made up their mind on whether the practice is desirable, seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.
Clearly it is practicable. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees showed it to be practicable this summer. He cut out, or had cut out, of the Kent County Council Bill, the Surrey Bill and I think also the Essex Bill, a large number of clauses which were intended to confer powers upon subsidiary authorities in the three respective counties. It seems to me, with great respect, that there was no great difficulty in finding ways of doing what the noble Lord decided ought to be done earlier this summer. The real problem which is posed, and which was posed in the two debates we had on the subject, is: Is there a case for altering a practice which has been satisfactorily operated to the great advantage of local government for over thirty-seven years?
With great respect—and I have a great respect for the brilliant ability and the urbanity with which the noble Earl leads the House—I would say that the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper in his name really do not discharge the undertaking given by the Lord Chairman of Committees, to which I have referred and the terms of which I have quoted, and I hope that the Motion will be taken back for further consideration so that the dominating question of desirability or otherwise can first be considered.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I can speak a second time only by leave of the House, but if I have that leave, I should like to try to allay the fears of noble Lords opposite. May I begin by saying that on the question of time, if it so happens that the Report of the Committee is not available in time for the drafting of Private Bills for next November, then, I apprehend, they will be drafted in the same manner as they have been drafted during the last few years—that is, with the knowledge that some
230
clauses which affect persons or authorities other than the promoters will probably be allowed. It should be borne in mind that there is no hard and fast rule about this in writing and that some clauses have been allowed. I am in a position to say here that in the Kent Bill some clauses that fall into that category were allowed. Your Lordships will remember that in the Motion which I moved last summer, the words "in general" appeared, and I held that they covered the possibility of allowing some of these clauses. The difficulty was that in the Kent County Council Bill the number of such clauses was so much greater than had ever before appeared in a Private Bill. I should say that if this Report is not available, the promoters of Bills will draft them in the manner in which they have been accustomed to draft them during the last few years.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him if he agrees with the view that some of the clauses were allowed and others disallowed, proving that there was a practical way of dealing with this matter?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, that leads me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. He asks: Is there a case for altering the practice? I simply must remind your Lordships of what took place in the debate last summer. The crux of the whole debate, as I put it myself, was: which is the rule and which is the exception? I said that a certain practice was the rule, and that what I called "the Middlesex clauses" were the exception. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, took exactly the opposite view. He said that what I called the exception was the rule, and that what I called the rule was the exception. The argument was not resolved, except in a Division, and I can only say to-day that it would not be profitable to have the same argument on that point all over again. We must leave it at that.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that that is precisely the point which the Committee should consider and report upon? Thai is the kernel of the whole issue.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I entirely agree with that last point. I contend that

231
without doubt the terms of reference not only enable the Committee to deal with that point but, indeed, invite them to do so.
3.50 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I too can say a few words only with the consent of the House. Assuming, like the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that I have it, I would merely say that it looks as if we are in agreement as to what we want this Committee to do. We on this side of the House feel uneasy about the wording of the Motion, and we still feel that it does not carry out what we all have in mind. If it were merely a matter between the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and myself, I should be content to take his word for it and let it go. But I think it is as well that we have the terms of reference right and acceptable. After all, this was an assurance given to the whole House, and I think that the whole House should feel that the terms of reference carry out what we all have in mind. Is there any urgency about this matter until Tuesday? I would suggest that we leave it on the Paper and do not settle it to-day. The noble Earl the Leader of the House might then again look at the terms of reference, in the light of our talks, and we will do that, too. I do not want to put down an Amendment and have a debate on it; that would be most undesirable. Possibly there might be discussion on Tuesday, but it need not be lengthy. In that way perhaps we can get a Motion on which we can all agree.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should not have allowed the Motion on the Paper to be down in my name unless I had satisfied myself, with my colleagues in another place, as well as those here, that it covered the kind of questions which the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Latham, have asked should be covered. I personally am quite satisfied that it does. However. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that in an important matter like this we should all feel that that is so; and, therefore, if it is proper and practicable, we can leave it on the Paper. I will have further consultations with my colleagues to make absolutely certain that the points are covered, and we can return to the matter on Tuesday and pass the Motion then.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, could the noble Earl give me some in-
232
formation? Am I right in thinking that a dissident minority of this Committee would not be in order in producing and submitting a Minority Report?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like Notice of that question, and perhaps the noble Lord will ask it again on Tuesday. My noble friend Lord Merthyr says that it would be in order, but perhaps that can be confirmed when the Motion is confirmed on Tuesday. If it is convenient to the House, I think the best thing will be for the Motion to be withdrawn and to have it put down again on Tuesday.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
NORTH OF SCOTLAND ELECTRI CITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
SOCIETY IN SCOTLAND FOR PROPAGATING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER, 1958
3.54 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dundee, I beg to move that this Order be approved. This modest Order continues the state of affairs that has existed since 1949, whereby a levy is raised upon the members of the lace industry in order to provide a fund for industrial and scientific research. This 1958 Order increases the amount of the levy from some £10,000 to £16,350, and it also slightly modifies the method in which the levy should be collected from the six branches of the industry. This Order has the approval

233
of all the interested sections of the industry, and I commend it for your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION REGULATIONS, 1958
3.55p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved. At first sight, these regulations, as with all regulations, may seem to be formidable, but I can assure your Lordships that this is not so. In another place on Tuesday last my right honourable friend's detailed and clear explanation was received with favour on both sides of the House. Many noble Lords will be experienced in local government affairs and will know that the conditions in many areas of the country are by no means satisfactory for effective and convenient local government to be carried on. The problem of county boundaries, borough boundaries and special areas has long been recognised, and in 1945 a permanent Boundary Commission was set up in an effort to resolve these difficulties. They were to have reported direct to Parliament, but this proved to be not practicable.
The 1958 Act sets up two separate Commissions, one for England and one for Wales—that is, for England excluding the Greater London Area, which is the subject of a separate Commission. The two Commissions will examine and consider the special review areas which have been laid down in the 1958 Act, and will consider the ordinary review areas which they themselves will designate, as they see fit. The findings and recommendations for each review area will be reported by the Commissions to the Minister. Full local discussion and consultation will have taken place in those areas before the Commission's Report reaches the Minister. Before the Minister makes his decision and his order, the Commission's Report will have been publicly circulated in the review area, and objections can be raised before a public inquiry. The Minister will then make his order giving effect to the Com-
234
mission's proposals, with or without any amendments, and they must be presented with the Report to both Houses of Parliament. Any order becomes effective only after the assent of both Houses.
The Commission for England has already been appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Hancock. By the end of this month the Commission hope to be able to announce their programme for the review of one of the special review areas (which are, of course, the five conurbations in England). If any of your Lordships is able to supply me with a better word than "conurbation", I make the solemn promise that I will never use that word in your Lordships' House again. They also have to divide the rest of England into ordinary review areas, which will be approximately the size of two or more geographical counties, as they see fit.
The Commission's problems, your Lordships will realise, are not light ones: in fact, I think they are rather similar to those facing a serious racegoer who has been commissioned by a sporting relative to select a winner in a particular race. The Commissions will have to assess the chances of a great many runners, and out of a big field they will know that only one horse will win the race. As on all racecourses, a great deal of free advice no doubt will be readily given, and it may be that that advice will not necessarily emanate from the stables. It is an unwise punter who pays no attention to the form book. It is for those reasons that my right honourable friend has provided these regulations: that they should be a guide and a yardstick to the Commissions in their deliberations. The Commissions would be rash to pay no attention to these regulations, but nevertheless good local stable information, should the Commissions gain it, may well turn up the result for them for the day.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Regulation No. 7, which states the nine factors which are generally agreed to be the criteria for reviewing effective and efficient local government. I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to Regulation No. 11, which warns the Commission to have due regard to the development plan and to the availability of a planning consent, which may or may not

235
exist when they are dealing with the controversial problem of incorporation of part of a county area within a possible new county borough boundary.
These regulations have the broad agreement, in principle, of the local authority associations, and were approved on both sides when my right honourable friend brought them to the notice of another place. Objections are safeguarded by the new arrangement for public inquiries. The resulting orders for each review area must receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament before they can take effect. I commend these regulations to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Local Government Commission Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
4.3 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl has submitted these regulations in an attractive form and with some happy, if not quite correct, allusions to the disposition of the Minister of Housing and Local Government towards the racecourse, gambling and bookmaking. I must say that my rather long association with the Minister of Housing and Local Government never led me to believe that he possessed those attractive inclinations.
As the noble Earl has said, these are regulations made under the Local Government Act of this year. Your Lordships will recall that we on this side opposed that Bill. We took the view that it was misconceived, and that in any case it was inadequate in its structure and in its proposals to deal in a proper and necessary way with the reorganisation in some fundamental respects of local government. However, the Bill became an Act. The Government, as it were, abdicated their functions of resolving this long outstanding and difficult problem by passing it on to Commissions, of which there are to be three—a Royal Commission, which is already sitting and in action concerning Greater London; one for England, which has been appointed, and one for Wales, which I believe is likely shortly to be appointed.
These regulations, notwithstanding what the noble Earl has said, are formiblable. They are fairly detailed and
236
fairly comprehensive. In short, they are a kind of instruction to the Commissions on how to do their job, and the application of some of the desiderata will, I am quite sure from my own experience of local government, lead to quite a number of "headaches" for the members of the Commissions. Indeed, it seems to me that moving about intellectually amidst this maze of factors and considerations may well become a hazardous occupation for the Commission.
The noble Earl referred to Regulation No. 7, with its nine factors, some of them contradictory, some of them conflicting, some related, and others unrelated. I can imagine the kind of meeting and proceedings at the meeting which will go on when the Commission is seeking to determine what are the wishes of the inhabitants in any particular local government area, or what the views of the Commission may be when those responsible for the administration of a local authority district take the view that its administration is excellent, first-class—"no changes needed here, plenty of changes needed elsewhere, but not with us." Local government is a complicated matter, as members of the Commissions will no doubt realise very shortly.
There is, however, one point that I should like to raise which is of importance. The noble Earl made reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission which was appointed in 1945. That Commission had terms of reference not dissimilar from some of the references contained in the Local Government Act. It, too, was the recipient of directives or regulations, although not quite so comprehensive and detailed as those on the Paper this afternoon. But the Boundary Commission had the right—and, indeed, was required—to present its Report to Parliament, whereas the Commissions appointed, or intended to be appointed, under the Act of 1958 are required to submit their Reports to the Minister; and the Minister, when he makes an order is required to submit the Report to Parliament. But, so far as I can see (if there is any provision I should be glad if the noble Earl would indicate where it is to be found), there is no provision in the Act of 1958, whether in Section 23 or elsewhere, which requires the Minister to make an order; and if the Minister does not make an order then the Report of the Commission is not

237
brought before Parliament. It may be for the very reason that the Minister does not propose to make an order that the Report which, presumably, he declines to adopt should be made available to Parliament, and Parliament should have some knowledge of its contents.
In my submission, this deficiency is the more significant if one refers to the last regulation on the Paper—namely, Regulation 22, which says:
"Before submitting their report on their review of any area in relation to which the Minister has not given any direction under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section 22 of the Act requiring observations, or a separate report, on any specified matter, the Commission shall inquire whether the Minister proposes to give any such direction, and the Minister shall give any direction he desires to give within four weeks of such inquiry."
I should like to ask the noble Earl: Are the required observations of the Minister to be available to Parliament? Is the separate report which the Minister can call for under Regulation 22 to be available to Parliament? Is Parliament to know of the directions which the Minister, under this regulation, issues to the Commissioners in connection with any particular review area? The whole thing is rather disturbing; Parliament may be denied the information which it should have upon the reorganisation and tidying-up of local government as the result of the surveys of these Commissions. As the noble Earl will know, the Minister can vary the Report of a Commission. The Minister can modify the directions and [he regulations; and all that can be done without Parliament being informed at all—unless the Minister makes an order. If the Minister does not make an order, as I see it, there is no obligation on him to submit the Reports of the Commissioners to Parliament.
Moreover, whilst one is encouraged to know, as indeed one expected, that the Minister has discussed these regulations with the local authority associations—and. I believe, by and large, has got their acceptance of them—there is no indication that in regard to any further directions which the Minister may issue under Regulation 22 he will consult with the local authorities. I agree that it may well be that some of the directives which he issues relate to particular single individual
238
local authorities; and in such cases there would be no point in discussing the matter with the local authority associations. Nevertheless, I should think that most of the directions issued, under Regulation 22 or otherwise, will be of a general character, and it would be reassuring to know. if that be the case, that with the proceedings of these Commissioners, the Minister will do what he has done before he settled and finally submitted the regulations which are now before your Lordships' House, namely, consult the local authorities.
Apart from those one or two rather general observations, I would merely add this comment. I am sure that whatever view we may take as to the proposals in the Act, we should all like to wish the Commissioners the best of luck in what will prove, as they will find, a pretty arduous task. It is an unhappy circumstance that in 1958 we should not have proposals which would have achieved a thoroughgoing, properly balanced reorganisation of local government, and the most that we can hope for from the work of the Commissioners, however devoted it may be, is, I suppose, that there will be some reasonable tidying-up of local government in this country. We on these Benches shall not, of course, oppose the passage of the regulations.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord opposite for his kind remarks with regard to these regulations, knowing full well how the noble Lord feels with regard to the 1958 Act. I want to thank him for his kind remarks especially with regard to the two Commissions which will shortly be sitting and, of course, the Royal Commission which is already sitting. With regard to the question which he raised about the possibility of debating in Parliament the Report and the order, I would say that if the Minister makes an order then of course a Report must have been made, and that Report is bound to come before Parliament. If, however, for one reason or another, the Minister decides not to make an order, then the conditions in that particular review area will stay exactly as they are and there will be no change.
LORD LATHAM: And nobody will know why.
EARL BATHURST: There will have been public inquiries over the objections which will have made it impossible, presumably, for an order to be made, and therefore all reasons will no doubt be clearly known. There is, therefore, no reason why a Report should necessarily be brought before Parliament if no order is made. There is again no reason why a question with regard to the Report should not be asked in the normal way in either House. I think that that has really answered the two points that the noble Lord brought forward, and again I know your Lordships will join me in wishing good luck and Godspeed to these Commissions in the most difficult task they have before them. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1958
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, has been unavoidably detained by urgent and important business elsewhere, and I understand that he has arranged through the usual channels that the moving of this Order should be postponed until Monday. He has asked me to say on his behalf how sincerely he regrets it if he has caused any noble Lord, wherever he sits in the House, any inconvenience; but it was unavoidable.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past four o'clock.