Lords Sitting of 7 July 1958

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

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (SHEERNESS) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Select Committee.

FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1958
2.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bathurst I beg to move that this Order be approved. The Order amends the Furniture Industry Development Council
612
Order of 1948, which set up a Development Council for the furniture industry. The 1948 Order gave the Council authority, with the approval af the Board of Trade, to impose levies on persons manufacturing domestic furniture, provided that any such charge should be computed so as to yield as nearly as possible an equal sum in each period of twelve calendar months, but not so as to yield more than £75,000 in any period of three years. The Amending Order increases the limit on the maximum amount of the levy, which averages £25,000 a year, to £30,000 a year.
The Council require this increase in order to meet the cost of the work which they consider to be necessary and which the industry wishes to be done. Both sides of the industry have been consulted. The trade unions recommended an increase in the maximum amount of the levy to £33,000 a year; the manufacturers recommended an increase to £30,000 a year; and this figure, as the highest common factor of the advice offered to the Board of Trade, has been included in the draft Order. We further propose, that the maximum amount which may be charged shall be fixed for one year, instead of for three years, as was provided for in 1948. This change also has been approved by the trade organisations concerned and will bring the conditions governing the levy into line with those which regulate the levy imposed by the only other Development Council—namely, the Cotton Board. The Amendment only increases the maximum amount of the levy which may be approved by the Board of Trade, and the Furniture Development Council will continue to have to obtain the approval of the Board of Trade for any levy which they may wish to impose within that maximum amount.
Moved, That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, be approved.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAINAGE RATES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on Recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered these two sets of Amendments quite separately. I am suggesting that course, because, as your Lordships will no doubt have observed, the Amendments made by the Select Committee refer to the Bill as it came from another place, whereas the Amendments set down on the Marshalled List refer to the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, I propose to take first the Amendments made by the Select Committee, and the first Question is whether these should be now considered.
LORD MANCROFT: I think your Lordships would wish to agree with the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees. I will, accordingly, move that these Amendments be considered first. They are not, strictly speaking, Government Amendments, and do not stand in my name, but if any of your Lordships has questions to ask about them, I will do my best to answer them. I accordingly move that these Amendments be considered.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Select Committee be now considered.— (Lord Mancroft.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should like to ask a question for guidance. Some people have been rather concerned—I did not know this until to-day—about
614
the interference with the space in Hyde Park which is allowed for public meetings. It would be possible to put down an Amendment, but the case might be met by a declaration by the Government, and I would ask at what stage that should be asked for.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think that the best reply I can give to the noble Viscount is that, of course, it is within the Standing Orders to consider an Amendment drafted to-day; but it is, on the other hand, very unusual to do so—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is what I feel.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:—and I think it would probably be better to put down an Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: At what stage would it be in order for me to ask that the Government should simply make an official statement reaffirming the existing privileges of the public in this matter? That is all I am asking; I am not thinking of an Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It would be quite in order for the noble Viscount to do that to-day, either now on this Question or later this afternoon on the Question that some clause stand part of the Bill, because all the clauses will be considered separately to-day in the second part of these proceedings. Or he could do it on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the Motion that the House consider the Amendments made by the Select Committee, I should like to raise a point for elucidation. The Motion, of course, is not strictly true. The Amendments appearing on the List have not been made by the Select Committee. The first Amendment, to Clause 10, is the work of the Select Committee; all the others upon the List have been made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. This procedure may line up with precedent, but it is misleading to noble Lords who take a great interest in the work of your Lordships' House and who may think that all the Amendments have been considered

615
by a Select Committee appointed by your Lordships' House, whereas in fact they have not.
I have no quarrel with any of the Amendments, though I am going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, later if he would be good enough to explain points on two of them. But this is an important Bill, and what your Lordships are being asked to do is to insert in this Bill Amendments which have not received strict scrutiny either by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House or by the House sitting as a Committee. There may be no harm in that, but those of us who are rather apt to take Amendments which we are told have been made by a Select Committee as having received scrutiny, are placed in a rather invidious position. I do not think any harm is done, but I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether it would not be better, and not quite so misleading to your Lordships, if those Amendments which have been made by a Select Committee were so stated and those Amendments which have been made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills were so stated, so that then we could see the difference between the two and be able to discharge our duties in a more efficient manner. Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would answer my question.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The points touched upon by the noble Lord do raise, I think it will be agreed, some matters which are not commonly met with in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has correctly stated that the first only of the Amendments on the List which is headed "Amendments made by the Select Committee" was actually considered and discussed by the Select Committee. It is the fact that all the remainder of the Amendments were not made upstairs in the Committee Room but were made in my Committee Room before me. It is not quite correct for the noble Lord—though I do not blame him for being a little confused in this matter, if I may say so—to say that they were made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. If they had been made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills delay would have been incurred, because that would have meant the necessity of giving notice of
616
such an additional stage of the Bill. That would have caused some days' delay. The actual position is that these Amendments, other than the first, were made in my Committee Room before me, and that is the correct position. The noble Lord said that consequently these Amendments have not received the scrutiny of anybody else, but I would remind him that these Amendments are before a Committee of the Whole House this afternoon and therefore can receive the scrutiny of the Committee of the Whole House, as do all Amendments to all Bills.
As to the future, I would say only this. The procedure which has been adopted on this Bill is in accordance with precedent—of that I am quite satisfied. I understand that it has been carried out for a great number of years. That is not to say that it is the best procedure, or otherwise: I express no opinion on that at the moment. But it is not new and the same procedure has been carried out on all opposed Bills for a great number of years. The noble Lord may wish to suggest that the procedure should be reviewed, and I think that no Member of your Lordships' House would oppose any sort of review. It may be found that it is the best procedure, or it may be found otherwise.
I hope that I have explained the position. I should like to add this. The noble Lord referred, not at all surprisingly, to the fact that the List bears the heading "Amendments made by the Select Committee" and I think he wishes to suggest that that is misleading. I would only say that other noble Lords might well agree, and that some alteration might be thought out and made to this procedure. But I would again say that if the result of that review was that these Amendments had to be referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee, then delay would be caused; and that delay small though it may be, is now avoided.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to make one further comment. I am grateful to the Lord Chairman for explaining the position. My concern is this: that we in this House, quite rightly, hold Select Committees, which we appoint in the highest possible esteem, and anything that has gone before them we seldom question. It came as a shock to me that when I went to

617
the Chairman of the Select Committee who, I thought, had reviewed these Amendments and asked him whether he would explain one or two points on them, he said, "I know nothing about them; I know less than you do. They never came before my Committee." I think that to have a document placed before your Lordships which says that all these Amendments were made by the Select Committee is an unfortunate misleading of the House. Having said that, I am quite willing to allow the matter to rest in the capable hands of those authorities who have the arranging of these things, and I wish to say no more about it.
LORD SILKIN: I should not like the impression to prevail that my noble friend is a lone voice in this matter. Having seen the list headed "Amendments made by the Select Committee," I must say that I was under a similar impression to that of my noble friend—namely, that these Amendments had been made and it was not open to the House to discuss them at all. That, I now gather from the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is wrong. But that certainly is the impression conveyed to anyone who has not the facilities for making the necessary research. Certainly when I came here I thought we were not going to discuss the Amendments made by the Select Committee—that somehow they were sacrosanct—but only those on the Marshalled List. Apart altogether from any other point made by my noble friend, I hope that this matter will be carefully considered so as to avoid any similar misunderstanding in future.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I would make only one further observation on what has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and it is this. I repeat that all Amendments, by whichever Committee they are made, are subject to revision by the whole House in Committee of the Whole House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The first Amendment is the Amendment to Clause 10 at page 11, line 32. I will pause there in case any noble Lord wishes to raise any matter. The next Amendment is to Clause 15 at page 14, line 21. Then Clause 16 at
618
page 14, line 46. Then Clause 17 at page 15, line 28; page 15, line 40; and page 16, line 9. Then the new clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 17.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the Question that that clause stand part, I wish to ask a quite simple question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The first words of subsection (1) of this new clause are:
"The highway authority for the Underpass.…"
Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us which is the highway authority for the underpass?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: So that we may have the matter in order, I wonder whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, when he replies to the noble Lord's question, would move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On a point of Order, may I ask the Lord Chairman whether we shall reach a stage when he will put the Question, that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.— (Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will now pose my question again. Will the noble Lord tell me who is the highway authority mentioned in the new clause to be inserted after Clause 17?
LORD MANCROFT: As I understand the situation, the answer is this. The works in all these projects will be carried out by the London County Council. The London County Council will, at a suitable date, hand over to the Westminster City Council, as the new highway authority, everything except two items. The first is the underpass, for which the London County Council will remain the highway authority, and the second is a small portion at the north-west corner of Marble Arch, for which I think the Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council will be the highway authority. That is, the Westminster City Council will be the authority for everything except the underpass, for

619
which the London County Council will be the authority, and a small part at the north-west corner of Marble Arch.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does the noble Lord not consider that it would be far better to transfer the functions of the building, the regulation, the maintenance and the overriding function of this desirable project to one highway authority? Cannot your Lordships see the chaos there is going to be at some future date about the regulation and all the functions that fall upon a highway authority if, as the noble Lord says, at one stage the London County Council are to be the highway authority, at the next stage the Westminster City Council, and at the third stage, for some part, the Paddington Borough Council? I should have thought that in a project of this complexity—and the noble Lord will I think agree that it is complex—to have a multiplicity of authorities to regulate a highway was undesirable. Would the noble Lord tell me this? Who is going to be the highway authority for the overpass? We have an overpass and an underpass, and something that is passed over and under by them. Sometimes the authority is going to be the London County Council, sometimes it is going to be the Westminster City Council and the next time it is going to be the Paddington Borough Council. Could not the noble Lord think of something better than this? I have another question to raise, on another Amendment, which may elucidate still further the complexities of this scheme.
LORD MANCROFT: It sounds complicated, I agree, but I do not think it is quite as complicated as it sounds. If the noble Lord will have in mind Edgware Road, he will realise that the authority responsible for one side of that road is Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council, and for the other side, St. Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council. That causes no trouble. Then at Oxford Street one side comes under the St. Marylebone Borough Council and the other side under the Westminster City Council. That, too, causes no trouble, and the responsibility for this scheme will cause no trouble when it is completed. The London County Council are, quite rightly, as I think, keeping their control while the long and
620
complicated scheme is under construction. Then they will hand over in the normal way, so that the normal pattern throughout London local government is followed—with the exception, a complicated exception, of the underpass. The underpass is an unusual thing, and the London County Council, unlike the Westminster City Council or the Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council, are familiar with the maintenance of tunnels, particularly those under Thames. For this reason I think they are in the best position to look after the underpass, and it is right that this highly technical and difficult subject should stay with them. But the rest goes in the normal way to the local authorities, and that practice, so far as I know, has never caused trouble in the past. It sounds complicated but I think it will work.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but he will recall that on the passage of the last Road Traffic Act through this House I was sorely buffeted when the noble Lord kept referring me to "the paramount authority of a highway" and "a highway authority." I only wanted to find out who was the highway authority in this case. I do not want to pursue the matter any further, because perhaps experience will prove that the noble Lord is right. If he is, I shall be the first to be quite satisfied and to congratulate him.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: We come now to the Amendment to Clause 19, at page 16, line 37; then to the first new clause after Clause 20: "For protection of British Transport Commission."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord moves the clause after Clause 20, I have a short point to raise. Here is a clause with fourteen subsections that has suddenly been produced before your Lordships' House, nine months after this Bill was read a second time and passed through all its stages in another place. No word has been said about this matter until now. As I understand it, this new clause safeguards the liabilities and responsibilities of the British Transport Commission if the underpass or its workings, either during construction or subsequently, interfere in any way with the

621
property of the British Transport Commission—which, boiled down, really means the underground railways that run under Park Lane where this project is. I am puzzled, but I expect the noble Lord, with his usual fluency, will satisfy me as well on this point as he has on the other.
Where does the highway authority come in on this clause? It deals not only with the interim period of construction but, it appears to me, with the future, for ever more. It starts by saying that the Council shall do this and the Council shall do that, and in the Bill itself, "the Council" is the London County Council. Responsibility for all the safeguards that are offered to the British Transport Commission for any inconvenience caused by the works is taken away from the highway authority and vested in the London County Council. Would the noble Lord tell me who really will be responsible, right the way through, in the years to come, for the proper maintenance of the underpass? Because in an earlier reply to me I was given to understand that the underpass will be the responsibility of the highway authority; that is, at some time or in some respects, the Westminster City Council, the London County Council or the Paddington Borough Council. I feel that we should have some explanation on this point.
LORD MANCROFT: I will try. This new clause after Clause 20 contains certain provisions for the protection of the British Transport Commission. It is aimed particularly, of course, at protecting the Commission's railway property at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. I understand that their main concern is that the large-scale excavations required for the two tunnels of the underpass should not affect their station and railway at Hyde Park Corner, which are very close to the site. I understand that this type of clause is common to Works Bills, and is in the usual form; and the clause has been agreed with the Commission. What the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is particularly concerned with is who actually is the authority referred to. The highway authority for the London County Council's underground works, except for the underpass and all but a part of one of the pedestrian subways, after they are built, will be the Westminster City
622
Council. The pedestrian subway exception is the northern Tyburn subway, which will be built almost entirely within the area of responsibility, as I have just indicated, of the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington. The highway authority for the underpass, as I have just said, will be the London County Council themselves unless, of course—though this is not intended—they hand over to the Westminster City Council.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If that is clear to your Lordships, it is more than it is to me. I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord is technically correct in all this, but perhaps he will help me if I put just one further question to him. If, after the underpass has been built for five years and has passed the maintenance period, it is flooded and interferes with the operation of the British Transport Commission's underground railway, who will be responsible—Paddington Borough Council, Westminster City Council or London County Council?
LORD MANCROFT: If before five years are up the underpass is flooded and there is a subsidence, it will clearly be the responsibility of the London County Council. Indeed, there is a new provision earlier in the Bill for that particular point.
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask my noble friend one question? When it was decided to construct this underpass, at what date were the British Transport Commission first asked to give their views?
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I pass to the second proposed new clause, headed "For protection of certain statutory undertakers." It is the last of this batch of Amendments. The Question now is that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.5 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I now pass to the Marshalled List of Amendments to be moved in Committee on Re-commitment.
Clause 1 [Power of London County Council to carry out works]:
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask a question? I will put it very briefly. Under very old practice, I understand, it has been the custom to permit public meetings to be held in a certain section of Hyde Park by Marble Arch; and also by longstanding public practice it has been permitted to hold processions to take them into the park. At one time in my life it was the subject of disturbance: the park railings were actually burst by the crowd making its way in. The new plan, I am told, will take away the piece of land which is at present used for unrestricted public meetings and the tunnels, so I am told, will not make it easy for processions to enter the park. Therefore, what I suggest is that the Minister should either accept on Report stage a short clause saying that if these facilities are reduced they shall be replaced, or make a carefully worded declaration on behalf of the Government which will ensure the same thing.
I am not, I hope, too exacting in asking this, because Departments, if they are not operating under a law, are rather apt to make their own laws. That actually occurred in the case of Trafalgar Square, which is another place of public meetings and where previously, I am told, it was permitted to distribute literature in reference to demonstrations held in the Square. Recently, organisers of the meetings were told that they had to apply to the police for special permission for every meeting. That was a derogation of the general right. Therefore, people who are interested in these matters—and it goes far beyond any one Party—are anxious that we should have either a new clause (which I suppose I could move on Report) or a clear and considered declaration, not an obiter dictum, from the Government ensuring these public liberties. I have no Amendment to move to-day; I am merely asking a question.
LORD MANCROFT: I think I can meet the noble Lord at once in most of his difficulties. He does not need a declaration. It is already covered in the Bill, because the readjustment as illustrated by the plans which are linked to the Bill shows that there is to be no curtailment whatever of facilities or space for public speakers. There will be a
624
slight change of area, but a compensating area of exactly the same size is being made available to speakers, so that in the end the area available will be exactly the same.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was told that, but I was told that it was unsuitable because it was near the railings and nearer to the noise of traffic.
LORD MANCROFT: I think it is more suitable from the point of view of noise than it was beforehand. I speak with a great deal of experience, having done a lot of public speaking at the corner of Hyde Park. One's opponents used to come along and put noisy motor bicycles near the railings. I can say that there will be no curtailment of the area. I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question about the convenience of processions, which is hardly a matter that can be decided in the Bill. I will certainly inquire of the police authorities how they envisage this problem being met, and I will try to deal with it at a later stage. I am quite certain that there will be no curtailment of civil liberties, but I should like to look at the point about processions and ask the police how they envisage using the park.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am greatly obliged for the consideration which the noble Lord has given to my suggestion. I have been told that it is proposed that a section of the railing should be removed, in case of need, so that processions might enter. Obviously, processions cannot go through a tunnel. The real point is that Parliament should not leave this matter to the police authorities or to some subordinate authority: it is Parliament who is the right custodian of public liberties.
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Lord say exactly where in the Bill the preservation of Speakers' Corner is provided for? I cannot see it.
LORD MANCROFT: It is not specifically provided for in the Bill, but the plans, which the passing of the Bill automatically approve, contain a new area set out for public speakers. That is intended in the plans.
LORD SILKIN: Is the plan part of the statutory provision? Would it not be better to have a clause, to have it

625
quite clear, than to have this protection by some kind of oblique reference? There is no guarantee that the plan will not be altered; indeed, it is almost certain that it will be. This job is going to take some years, and almost inevitably some alteration will be made. If it is related to a plan not specifically part of the Bill, is there not some danger that this might be squeezed out? Would it not be better to have a provision?
LORD MANCROFT: Of course I will look at that suggestion carefully. The whole of the Bill is related to the plan, merely because you cannot publish a plan of this complexity in a Bill. But I see the noble Lord's point, and I will look at the matter again. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to detract in any way from the liberties enjoyed in the past.
Before we pass to Clause 2, may I make another point on the Motion that Clause 1 stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, put a point to me on Second Reading which I promised to consider. That was the fate of a particularly fine plane tree which stands about twenty yards south-east of the Byron statue, and the portion of Clause 1 to which it refers is the portion which concerns itself with the Southern Apsley link. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked me to see if this tree could be reprieved. As he said, it is one of the finest trees, if not the finest, in the park. I have gone into this matter and have had the whole of the Southern Apsley link taped out on the ground and the possible alternative which might take its place taped out. I regret to say that the tree must come down. It is a magnificent tree, and I regret very much its demise. The only possible alternative would bring down three other trees—not such fine trees, but three others—and it would seriously detract from the efficiency of the whole traffic system. It is difficult to describe the point standing here, but if your Lordships had looked at it, taped out on the ground, you would appreciate that the alternative really would not work. Therefore, I say, with very much regret, that I am afraid this tree cannot be reprieved.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Supplemental provisions as to acquisition of land
(2) At any time after serving a notice to treat in respect of any land an interest in which may be acquired compulsorily under the said section six, but not less than fourteen days after giving the owner and occupier thereof notice of their intention to exercise the powers of this subsection, the Council may enter on and take possession of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the last-mentioned notice without previous consent and without compliance with sections eighty-four to ninety of the Act of 1845 (which prohibit entry before payment of compensation or a deposit):
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "ninety" (days]. The noble Lord said: This Amendment appears upon the Marshalled list because of the most sympathetic reply I received from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when I raised this point on Second Reading. If noble Lords will look at subsection (2) of Clause 7, they will see that it provides in itself for the making of a compulsory purchase order and sidetracks the accepted procedure providing for notice of compulsory purchase, objection, the hearing of objection, public inquiry and, finally, order by the Minister. I do not object to this short-circuiting if a case has been made out for it, and I think that in this particular case it has been so made out.
The point that I really objected to, however, was that under this subsection the tenants—and there are forty to fifty tenants involved—are to receive only fourteen days' notice before the L.C.C. can step in and compulsorily acquire their property. This is what it means. Two of the properties that are to be compulsorily acquired, and can be acquired by the giving of fourteen days' notice, after this Bill becomes an Act, are Nos. 145 and 146 Piccadilly. Twenty tenants of long standing will be displaced and the majority of them—not all of them; the more wealthy have found other properties to go to—will have to be housed in an expanded and altered No. 144 Piccadilly. It was not until June 5, if my information is correct, and if my memory is also correct, that the L.C.C. said, "Well now, we do not want 144, but we shall want some of the garden; we do not know how much". When the head lessee goes to the Crown—for this is Crown property—to

627
negotiate the new lease and for permission to alter the premises to house the displaced people of Nos. 145 and 146, the Crown say, "We cannot move because the L.C.C. do not yet know the building line; they do not yet know the engineering details." So twenty tenants have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads to be dropped at any fourteen days' notice which the L.C.C. might think fit.
When we come to the other end of the construction, in Knightsbridge, we find a somewhat different problem. A number of small shopkeepers are involved. In Knightsbridge, Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 are lock-up shops. Nos. 10, 12 and 14 are lock-up shops with some kind of premises over the top. Nos. 16, 18, 20 and 22, have upper parts, flats over the top of the shops. There are fourteen tenants, and eleven shop traders. There are a sweetshop, a tobacconist's shop, an invisible mender's, a furrier's, a veterinary surgeon, a shop selling gramophone records, one selling ladies' shoes and another ladies' dresses. They are small, honest shopkeepers who have to carry on a business for as long as it pleases the L.C.C. not to invoke the powers they have, under subsection (2) of Clause 7, to turn them out in fourteen days. Is that fair?
If the proposal in my Amendment to increase the period to ninety days would lengthen the time that it will take to accomplish this admirable reconstruction of Hyde Park Corner, I do not think that I should have put the Amendment down. But the scheme is going to take four years. As recently as the beginning of June the L.C.C. wrote a letter, a copy of which I have here. The valuer of the L.C.C. wrote to the agents who are acting for some of these people in these terms:
"As you have no doubt been advised … at any time after the service of a notice to treat in respect of any land an interest in which may be acquired compulsorily the Council may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice, enter on and take possession of the land or such part as is specified in the notice without previous consent."
They go on to say that the road timetable has not yet finally been determined. I suggest that that would be impossible for these folk; it would cause them hardship. They are small shopkeepers of the type I have mentioned, carrying a stock and doing business to earn the necessary cash to pay the rent. They do not know
628
when they will have to take all their belongings out and dump them on the pavement, except that it must be within fourteen days of the L.C.C. telling them to do it.
I expect the noble Lord will tell me that the L.C.C. are not quite so harsh as that, and that they would not think of doing such a thing. My retort is: then why put it in the Bill? Why not be reasonable from the first? So many such things as this creep into Bills. I suppose it would be impossible for the L.C.C. to act in this way; but I think it is bad for such a power to go into the Bill when the L.C.C. have told the large firms of surveyors who are acting for the more wealthy tenants that they have not yet settled the times and it will be a long time before they do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows that very well. I hope your Lordships will agree with my Amendment to take out "fourteen days" and to insert "three months". I do not mind whether the noble Lord alters it to "three calendar months", but I think the ninety days is the least we can put into the Bill in order to give adequate security for favourable and fair treatment in regard to these forty to fifty people who will be affected. It will not affect the progress of this scheme by one moment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("fourteen days") and insert ("three months").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is quite right—the L.C.C. have no intention whatever of acting harshly or doing anything unfair or uncharitable in this matter; that is the last thing they want to do. I think they have gone a good distance out of their way to avoid doing it. On the practical aspect, the L.C.C. state quite firmly that it is always their aim, in exercising compulsory acquisition powers, to give those concerned as long notice as possible before entering upon their land. In this particular case more than the usual efforts have been made. Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment is designed to give a long minimum period of notice to the owners and occupiers of property before the L.C.C.—mark you, after serving notice to treat—enter upon and take possession of land which they may under the powers of the Bill acquire compulsorily.

629
The noble Lord has, I think, indicated—or he indicated last time—that some people who find themselves affected have already brought their objections to the shortness of the period of fourteen days to the notice of the L.C.C. Fourteen days was chosen because of the need expressed by all parties concerned for the road works to begin with the least possible delay. Owners and occupiers whose land was affected were served with the usual notices in accordance with standing orders. Most of those were served in November and the rest in January. So by the time the Bill becomes law all the interests concerned, all the folk whose shops are involved, will have had at least six months' warning already while negotiations for their land are proceeding.
I rather gather from the L.C.C. that they have received no representations on this matter, but if the noble Lord feels strongly about it I can give him an Amendment which will not go the whole way but which will at least concede the validity of his point and act as a token and an earnest of the desire of the L.C.C. to act fairly. I am going to suggest that the noble Lord accepts as a substitute one month. This is the period contained in the model Clause 4 which is generally agreed and has been decided by the Committee who determine these matters as being the right model clause to put into a Bill such as this. It is not as much as the noble Lord wants, I know, but I think it is in accordance with precedent and it cannot possibly be considered to act unfairly against those to whom it may apply. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that, while not going the whole way to meet him, this Amendment does conform to the pattern of the model Clause 4 and that it cannot possibly be considered unfair to those concerned.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the noble Lord has met the substance of my noble friend's complaint. It is quite true that, broadly speaking, the shopkeepers know that one day—they do not know when—they are going to be interfered with. The Bill is not yet through, and until it is they cannot be certain even that it is going through. In the meantime, they have to carry and to buy stocks, and they do not know when they have to go out—in one year, two years, or three years; they just do not know
630
and I do not suppose anybody can tell them. I am sure that the L.C.C. could not give them an answer—not even an approximate one. So their position is this: that they stay on and at any moment they receive a notice to treat. Then, having received this notice to treat, within fourteen days as the Bill stands, within one month as the noble Lord is prepared to concede, they are liable to be evicted. That cannot be right. The only practical notice they will have is the fourteen days or one month in which to go out.
It is true that the London County Council would not do it, but it is a very strong bargaining point. These people have had notice to treat and they are asked to agree upon the amount of compensation they are to receive. Hanging over their heads is this threat that if they do not accept what the London County Council thinks it right to offer them, within fourteen days they have to go. It is not right, and I do not think that anybody would suffer by giving these people reasonable notice to dispose of their stocks. Having had the notice to treat they should be given time to dispose of their stocks, pay their rent, and negotiate fairly, on equal terms, on the amount of compensation they should receive. I feel that this is a matter which we should press, for one month is not enough; I consider that three months is not too long.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord said that this is not right. He has been a pillar of the L.C.C. himself and there must have been hundreds of thousands of such negotiations, involving hundreds and thousands of little shopkeepers, furriers, ladies' dressmakers, tobacconists and so on. I wonder why though it has been right in the past, this model clause should not be right at this time. The principle is the same. Is it merely the size of the scheme that is worrying us, not the number of people or their personal interests? The period of one month which I am suggesting has been the accepted procedure for a long time over a large field, and while the noble Lord was himself a member of the L.C.C. I wonder why the principle suddenly has gone wrong and why a sense of injustice suddenly arises.
LORD SILKIN: It never was right, but my attention was never drawn to this model clause. This is the first time that

631
I have come across it; but now it is in the Bill. So far as I know, it was never before in any Bill, and, in any case, I was not a legislator. In those days, when I was in charge, I had no responsibility for passing the laws, but now I have; and I believe this is wrong.
LORD HAWKE: If there is in existence any model clause providing for one month, perhaps Her Majesty's Government may be persuaded to give one month in this case.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is sympathetic, but actually he is not quite right. The difference between this case and any other is that if the L.C.C. want to acquire these properties compulsorily and go through the process of the existing law as laid down in the 1947 Act, they will have to give notice and hear objections and might have to hold a public inquiry; and the Minister might take six months to make up his mind on whether to allow the L.C.C. compulsorily to acquire these properties. All that is short-circuited by this clause in the Bill, which is in itself a compulsory purchase order. That is one difference.
The next difference is that the L.C.C. have said that they do not want the property for demolition until the end of next October. I will read from a document between the L.C.C. and the head leaseholder of the Piccadilly property:
"With reference to the meeting with you and Mr.—on 14th May, I confirm that the present road-programming envisages that possession of the above-named properties will be required for demolition in October. 1958."
So they envisage three months. On the subject of compensation, the L.C.C. cannot treat on this matter until this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. That is laid down. So within fourteen days of giving notice to treat the shopkeepers may be turned out. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, now advocates to your Lordships that we should revert to legislation by warning. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government had had one lesson in trying to get away with that dodge. One cannot legislate by warning, because we know what warnings are—and these folk have to get out in fourteen days from the day on which this Bill receives the Royal Assent, if the
632
L.C.C. so desire. They will not desire, for they have said October. I am prepared to accept the end of October.
In a letter written subsequent to that which I have just read out they say that the building, design and engineering data are not yet settled; so, if experience is any guide, it may well be October, 1959, rather than October, 1958. So I press the noble Lord to accept the fact that thirty days is not enough. Model clauses are all right for model conditions, but this is an exceptional condition. If my memory serves me correctly, there are only two precedents—one the South Bank Festival of Britain Bill and the other something similar to that. This is an exceptional Bill, and as the noble Lord admitted on Second Reading that it was not quite fair to provide only fourteen days, I beg him to accept this Amendment. If he does not, I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to express your opinion, in fairness and equity to those who are affected, and over something which will not for one minute delay the construction of this very desirable project.
LORD MANCROFT: Your Lordships will appreciate that I am in a slight personal difficulty because I am appearing as unwilling spokesman for the L.C.C. on the L.C.C.'s requirements. I would ask the noble Lord whether he will allow me to consult the L.C.C. over this matter. I cannot possibly accept ninety days, but we do not want to have a fight over a few days either way if we can reach a solution agreeable to everybody. We may not be able to, but I should like to try.
Before I ask your Lordships to give a decision one way or the other, may I remind your Lordships of two things which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said? Owners of properties required for road schemes throughout the country get one month or fourteen days' notice before entry, according to the Acts applying to them. I suppose a public inquiry will have settled whether in fact they are to be taken over; and this Bill does that here. What your Lordships are being asked to agree to is to go back; although I thought the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was a little naïve in his sudden discovery, late in life, of the evils that the L.C.C. have been perpetrating without his noticing at all, under this old-established system and precedent for

633
one month. The size of the underpass and the magnitude of the scheme do not affect the principle at all. It is the damage to the small shopkeepers with which we are concerned, whether we are dealing with ten yards or ten miles of road.
LORD SILKIN: I would not deny that I may be a little naïve, but it is most unusual for a compulsory purchase to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. In all my experience, which was of housing over many years, there was always a compulsory purchase order, and then, as my noble friend has pointed out, there was an opportunity to resist it—a public inquiry, a Minister's order and then the notice to treat. The owner had all that time. He knew that it was coming, once the compulsory purchase order was made. But here the Act ipso facto is the compulsory purchase order, and that is rather different.
LORD MANCROFT: It is indeed different, but it means that full publicity has been given and that everybody knows, and has known for some considerable time, what is intended. Before the noble Lord took the firm line he has taken I was going to suggest that if he would withdraw his Amendment I would put down an Amendment on the Report stage providing for a period of one month. If he will allow me to reconsider this matter and discuss with the L.C.C. and others concerned what has been said to-day I will certainly put down an Amendment at that stage to raise the period. I hope I may raise the period sufficiently to meet the noble Lord. If I am unable to do so he must then take the decision of the House. But I should prefer that he would be good enough to take that decision then, rather than now, because I cannot possibly go as far as ninety days and I should like to put down one month. I cannot make a further decision until I have had a chance to discuss this matter with the L.C.C., for it is they, not Her Majesty's Government, who have to make the decision; and I feel it would be wrong for me to accept an Amendment without first consulting them. I hope the noble Lord, if he sees fit, will postpone the ultimate decision on the matter until I have a chance of doing so.
3.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's reputation in your Lordships' House is one of always desiring to help the House and the Opposition; but he is now, if I may use a colloquialism, putting the ball into my court. I do not accept the argument that the noble Lord stands there as the spokesman of the L.C.C.; he is the spokesman of Her Majesty's Government. This Bill is a Government Bill; I do not recognise the L.C.C. as regards this Bill. It is the Government who want to put in the Bill a period of fourteen days; if the L.C.C. act as their agents that is another matter. I do not want the noble Lord to take this as a threat, because I do not like threats, but I can assure him that thirty days will not be enough. I want ninety days, and I think that if he will consult his right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government he will find that he feels the same as your Lordships' House does. I want to give the noble Lord all the chances I can, and therefore I will, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw this Amendment at the present time. But I give him warning now that I shall return to the matter on the Report stage by putting down an Amendment. I would impress this upon him.
If the noble Lord wants to bring up the L.C.C. as his excuse, let me say that the L.C.C., in a letter addressed to the head lessee of Nos. 144-45-46 Piccadilly, on May 19, 1958, said this:
"I confirm that the present road-programming envisages that possession of the above-named properties will be required for demolition in October, 1958."
So the L.C.C. are willing to wait for ninety days before they want it, and I would suspect that the same is true of the Knightsbridge properties. Why then fourteen days? Why thirty days? If I have permission, I intend to withdraw, but I shall return to the subject on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Temporary interference with streets and subways]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to take this opportunity to raise a question regarding temporary interference with streets and subways, and to ask whether it is the intention that work will be completed on the roadways on either side of the approaches to the underpass—that is, the Piccadilly approach and the Knightsbridge approach—and the traffic lanes on either side, before work is started on the approaches to the underpass. Otherwise, I think the traffic conditions will be chaotic there.
LORD MANCROFT: I have not seen the final timed programme for this complicated work, but I know that the engineers, in conjunction with the police, London Transport and the local authority, are working it out most carefully to make sure that the minimum amount of inconvenience and delay is occasioned. That there will be a certain minor degree of chaos is, I am afraid, inevitable.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Certain land to become part of Hyde Park
" .—(1) At such time as, by virtue of section fifteen of this Act, the Apsley carriageway becomes a highway, any land situate to the west thereof, being land comprised in the Piccadilly lands shall, if all interests therein are then vested in the Crown, become part of Hyde Park and accordingly be thereafter under the management of the Minister of Works.
(2) In this section "the Piccadilly lands" has the same meaning as in section six of this Act."
The noble Lord said: Nos. 145 to 148, Piccadilly are Crown property, subject to certain lessees' interests, and are to be acquired under the Bill, by agreement, to enable the Apsley carriageway to be built. Only about half of No. 148 will be needed for the new road, and, as the remaining part between the road and Apsley House is contiguous at its northern end with the boundary of Hyde Park, the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Ministry of Works have agreed that the best use to which it could be put is to add it to the park. I hope that that will please my noble friend Lord Conesford. The L.C.C. are agreeable to the proposal, and the new clause is designed to enable it to be carried out.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power of Minister of Works to erect stands]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want the help of the noble Lord on this matter. In some previous questions, I put to him some points upon the Amendments, which were alleged to have been put into the Bill by a Select Committee; but I want to know who is the authority in various circumstances. Clause 19 gives power to the Minister of Works to erect stands, as I take it, along the East Carriageway for ceremonial processions. Subsection (1) reads:
" … the Minister of Works shall have power to erect stands on any street island formed by the carrying out of the works specified in section one of this Act and on the western footway of the Hyde Park carriageway, and to do anything necessary or expedient in connection therewith, for the purpose of providing for the viewing of any public procession or other event."
The clause then goes on to say, in subsection (2):
"As soon as may be after the occurrence of the event for which a stand has been erected under this section the said Minister shall remove the stand and restore the site thereof as nearly as may be practicable to its former condition."
A great deal has been said in your Lordships' House about the destruction of amenities through these works. I understood from the noble Lord, and I understood also from the excellent models on view, that the verge between the east and west carriageways was to be of such a picturesque character as would make up for all the loss of amenity that was going to take place through the destruction of the garden behind Apsley House and otherwise. If past experience is any guide, stands of tubular scaffolding will be erected; they will be left there for days and weeks, and when they are taken away all that will remain is a devastated area of rough grass.
I understood, and I think your Lordships understood, that this was to be one of the show places of London, and that

637
we were to have magnificent flowerbeds that would divide the east and the west carriageways. What steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that these beds are kept in a picturesque condition? Who will be responsible for keeping them in that way? Will it be the L.C.C., the Westminster City Council, the Paddington Borough Council, or the Ministry of Works? Will the Ministry of Works be responsible for planting these flower beds? We seem to be getting into the state where there are so many cooks dealing with this broth that the end of it all will be that the place is a shambles, and (if I may use such a vulgarism in your Lordships' House) the "buck will be passed" from one to the other.
The noble Lord—and I think he has amenity at heart as much as I have—will recollect that the Minister of Works will erect these stands, and "as soon as may be" he must take them down. In the past, "as soon as may be" has meant weeks. Can the noble Lord give some assurance that ceremonial stands will not be erected upon the verge between the east and west carriageways; that they will be erected upon the west side of the carriageway, and that the area between the two, where I assume the path and the seats will be for the pleasure of the citizens of London, which will be accessible only by the subways, will not have stands at all, as they have to-day—and will not be ruined, as they are to-day? Let it be said truly that the verges between Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive are no credit to the London County Council, or to the Westminster City Council or the Paddington Borough Council, whichever is responsible. They are simply rough meadow grass. Would the noble Lord give some assurance on this point to prevent further amendment to the Bill on Third Reading?
LORD MANCROFT: After the reconstruction of the carriageway in Park Lane, the responsibility for the central reservation treatment, to which the noble Lord has referred, including amenities, will be transferred to the Westminster City Council. Before they take it over the London County Council, under Clause 3 (2) of the Bill, have power to provide a surface for the islands comprising the reservation and to plant it out with trees and flowers. I understand from the L.C.C. that they mean to do this before the transfer takes place.
638
As to stands, no power is given under the Bill to erect stands, for any purpose, on the reservations in the new layout, except as provided for in Clause 19, which gives the Minister of Works power to erect stands on any street island and on the Western footway of the new Hyde Park Carriageway, which will follow the course of the East Carriage Drive. There is no specific control over the erection of stands on roads, footpaths and islands in the new layout outside the Park. This is not necessary since all these will be highways and, with the exception in favour of the Ministry of Works already mentioned, the erection of stands on them by any other person or authority would constitute an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Previously, two sorts of stands have gone up in London. There are the stands which have gone up regularly for events like the Trooping the Colour on Horse Guards Parade, which go up and come down afterwards. There are the rare occasions when stands have been erected specially, as was recently done in the East Carriage Drive, for such events as the Territorial Army Jubilee March Past. I think that in future these events will be rarer still in the area we are discussing because it will no longer be inside the Park, but outside; and what previously has been a fairly quiet processional way will now become the Queen's highway. If the noble Lord casts his mind back, he will remember that the number of occasions on which stands have been erected there is rare.
The noble Lord also envisages a certain amount of confusion between various authorities about the responsibility for keeping the layout in order and the flowers looking handsome and well-kept. If the noble Lords go round London today, they will not only see that the public amenities do us great credit but that it is difficult to know which local authorities are responsible. The London County Council, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, the Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council, or, better still, the St. Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council, work together pretty well. I do not think that the noble Lord is being quite accurate when he gives the impression that chaos reigns all over the place when stands are erected. I have not examined very carefully those left during

639
the last week or two, but after the Coronation the stands were taken down and order was restored in a remarkably short space of time, and very little damage was done. I assure the noble Lord that all the authorities concerned are well aware of this problem and take it very conscientiously. They are very amenity-minded, and I am certain that the same standard of relations between the three bodies concerned—the L.C.C., the Westminster City Council and my right honourable friend—is the same as it always has been. That is the intention, and so far as it is possible to do so, we have written that intention into the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. What worried me was the expression in Clause 19 (1), which says that the Minister of Works
"shall have power to erect stands on any street island …"
I was wondering whether the verge between the east and west carriageways, as it will be in future, is a street island. If it is to be planted out with flowers, are stands to be erected on them, as in the past, devastating the flowers? The point having been raised, the authorities will know what is in the minds of many noble Lords in this House and perhaps take heed. I assure the noble Lord that the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will be nothing to the criticism he will receive when this project is finished and we see tubular scaffolding devastating those delightful flower beds which he has promised us.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Short Title]:
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I raise a point of Order? Whilst taunts and attacks, and even insults, are proper material for debate, they are not proper material for an Act of Parliament; and I should imagine that it is out of Order to introduce into an Amendment, or put in the form of an Amendment, something that does not represent intended legislation but is an attack upon the general character of the Bill. That may be appropriate in debate, but I submit, as a matter of Order that such Amendments are not acceptable.
LORD CONESFORD: Further to that point of Order, I hope to satisfy the Committee, in developing my argument on this Amendment, that it is not moved in irony or by way of insult, but that in every respect what the Amendment proposes is a more suitable Title than the Title already in the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to leave out "Park Lane Improvement" and insert "Royal Parks Diminution". The noble Lord said: On June 17 in the present year, on a Division, the House approved the Second Reading of this Bill. Strongly as I dislike the Bill and convinced, as I am, that its passage into law will be contrary to the public interest, I fully accept the decision of the House reached on June 17 last and I am not seeking this afternoon either to challenge the principle of the Bill or to affect the operation of any of its provisions. The sole purpose of my Amendment is to improve the language of the Bill by giving it a more accurate and suitable Short Title.
In case it is not known to any Member of the Committee, perhaps the Committee will accept from me that an Amendment of the Short Title cannot affect the scope or the effect of the Bill in any way. Should any noble Lord require authority on this point, he will find it in a short passage in the speech of Lord Moulton in a leading case reported in [1913] Appeal Cases at page 128. The purpose of a Short Title is simply facility of reference. It is, in Lord Moulton's words, "a statutory nickname." Our task, therefore—and I hope to satisfy the noble Viscount who raised a preliminary point of order on the propriety of the Title which I wish to give to the Bill—is simply to find the most suitable Short Title for this Bill.
The first question that arises is this: is the present Short Title suitable? I can deal with that point quite shortly, because not only do I and those who, as I do, take an adverse view of the Bill object to it, but the Title is equally violently attacked by those who favour the measure. In another place, no one attacked the Title with more energy or better reason than Mr. Herbert Morrison, who poured ridicule on it. If I might mention the alternative he suggested, it was the "Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch Bill". That would at least give

641
some indication of the sort of subject matter that the Bill sought to deal with. The present Title is, quite simply, ridiculous. Let me put this point to the Committee. When within a few months after the passage of this Bill into law contractors proceed to cut down the most beautiful trees in Green Park facing Piccadilly, there are many Londoners who will then discover for the first time what is proposed and what is being done. Those Londoners will say, perhaps, to some of the contractors: "What are you doing, cutting down these beautiful trees in Green Park?". "Oh", the reply will be, "we are improving Park Lane." Does that not in itself indicate how wholly inadequate to describe what is contained in this measure the words "Park Lane Improvement" are? I will not, therefore, trouble the Committee further on the proposition that the present Title is unsuitable.
Is my suggested Title more suitable? At least it is factual and accurate; and, contrary to what was supposed by the noble Viscount who raised a preliminary point of objection, I have carefully excluded all words of passion or of ridicule. I have not, for instance, said, "Royal Parks Spoliation" or "Royal Parks Encroachment"; I have simply said what is completely accurate, "Royal Parks Diminution." In considering the appropriateness of those words, I would beg the Committee in all seriousness to consider two points. The first is this. On the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, speaking on the Second Reading in another place, the fact that this Bill takes acres from the Royal Parks is the sole raison d'être of this measure. That is why there has to be a Bill; that is why an Act of Parliament is needed. I shall not weary the Committee with that—I think the same was said in this House by the Minister in introducing the Bill—but it is admitted that this Bill is necessary because land is taken from the Royal Parks.
Not only is land taken from the Royal Parks, but the amount that is taken is important. I am very sorry indeed that any Minister should have given any publicity to the quite false statement that only some four acres are involved. That is not the case. The amount taken from the Royal Parks is twenty-one acres;
642
that is the amount of the diminution. I take that figure from the words of the Minister of Transport himself in introducing the measure in another place. I want to be perfectly fair with the Committee. The Minister then sought to modify the seriousness of that figure of twenty-one acres by carrying out two deductions. The first deduction was of eleven acres which are at present, he said, in a carriageway and will remain in a carriageway. He then proceeded to this further deduction. He deducted a further six acres on a different ground, and I beg the Committee to mark the ground on which he made that further reduction. He deducted them because those six acres, though they will be taken from the Park, will once more be green, or part of them at any rate will be green. But is it really comparing like with like to compare those six acres as they now exist in the Park as a quiet and lovely part of the gardens and to consider them as of comparable value when they are the centre of busy traffic roundabouts?
My Lords, let Parliament, if it thinks fit, take twenty-one acres from the Royal Parks; but at least let it be clear what it is that it is doing, and let it not minimise the destruction by talking nonsense and giving such a figure as four acres. The present Title is indefensible and, so far, has not been defended; the Title which I propose is simple, honest and accurate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 44, leave out ("Park Lane Improvement") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD MANCROFT: The mental process of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford is a frequent source of comfort and gratification to Her Majesty's Government; but not to-day. He is perfectly right when he says that changes in the Short Titles of Bills at a Committee stage are in order. The usual reason is to give the Bill, as he says, a more apt Title, either because the Title does not convey the scope of the Bill as precisely as it might, or because the Bill has been changed during its passage and the Title no longer fits it. Your Lordships will probably recall the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, and the National Art Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1954, both of which changed their names in the course of their progress

643
through the House; and, indeed, the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill has changed its name during its present course through your Lordships' House. All of those measures started off with different Titles, and the Short Titles were amended for the reasons I have just given. They were not, of course, amended for purposes of manifestation, demonstration or frolic. I am glad to hear my noble and learned friend say that nothing could be further from his mind than manifestation, demonstration or frolic. I hope he has convinced your Lordships; he has not wholly, I am afraid, convinced me.
I agree that the Title of this Bill is not wholly accurate. I should have been perfectly prepared to accept the suggestion, of an improvement if it had been both more accurate and less possibly susceptible of the thought that there was some naughtiness in my noble and learned friend's heart when he put the Amendment down. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, does not like the Bill. Therefore, when I saw this Amendment I thought the noble Lord was trying, so to speak, to have another crack at the Government, of which one or two of your Lordships may realise he is believed to be a supporter, though I suspect this news would come as a surprise to casual readers of Hansard. Surely, we cannot allow—even though we know the noble Lord is wholly innocent—Short Titles of Bills to be changed so that there might be the suspicion that they reflect the mover's prejudices or partial affections. It would provide an excellent source for competitions in the Spectator or the New Statesman. Even if we allowed someone quite as innocent and frank as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to do it, it would create, I think, a dangerous precedent if we allowed amendments to Titles such as this which even gained the suspicion of not being serious.
Another fearful thought occurs to me. If we pass this Amendment, the Title, "Park Lane Improvement" will be going free. Therefore, if we ever come to discuss legislation arising out of the Wolfenden Report, I am willing to bet
644
that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will probably try to change the title of the Wolfenden Report to the Park Lane Improvement Bill. I am afraid I must confess that I think the noble Lord's Amendment is thoroughly bad. It is also without precedent. It is without precedent, although I must confess to the House that I have been conducting some research into this matter and there has been an attempt to do it before. One noble Lord did try to put down an Amendment in 1948 to change the title of the Representation of the People Bill to the Misrepresentation of the People Bill. When the news of this got about, the noble Lord in question was sent for by the Clerk of the Parliaments of the day, our old and much missed friend Lord Badeley. The noble Lord in question was crisply but courteously told what Lord Badeley thought of the proposal—so crisply, in fact, that the noble Lord did not dare to put his nose inside the House for another three weeks. It would be a breach of confidence for me to reveal exactly what Lord Badeley said but I could do so, if required, with great accuracy, for I was the noble Lord in question. In short, I refuse to allow my noble, learned and Puckish friend, Lord Conesford, to get away to-day with something I failed to get away with ten years ago. I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: Clearly the Amendment sought to be moved by my noble friend on that occasion was both frivolous and hostile. My Amendment is both serious and friendly. If I wished to attack the Bill by saying what I really thought of it in the Short Title, I should have used quite different words. I attempted to give, in the Short Title I proposed, words quite free from any passion or inaccuracy, but stating what was the raison d'être of the Bill on the admission of Ministers themselves. I am sorry indeed that my noble friend should have suspected me of wit on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Report of Amendments to be received.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received, I should like to ask the indulgence of the House to make a statement on one point which I think caused concern to several noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage. That was in regard to the procedure for collecting estimates from the local authorities for their expenditure for the years 1959–60 and 1960–61 on the services covered by the general grants. My noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Hylton raised this point. I think there was a feeling that the time allowed for the return of these estimates—wanted by the middle of August—is rather short, and the fear was expressed that there was a risk of error creeping in because of the haste with which the figures would have to be compiled. I have looked into this point very carefully, and I have consulted my right honourable friend to see if there is any way in which we can help to meet the difficulty. I hope that what I say will go some way towards reassuring noble Lords who feel concerned about this matter.
The final object of the procedure started by the sending in of estimates by the local authorities is the fixing of the global aggregate of general grants for the first two years. The estimates, of course, form an important part of the evidence that will be needed for this purpose, but they are by no means the only information that will be available to the Government in deciding in consultation with the local authority associations at what level to fix the general grant. The Government Departments concerned with these services have a great deal of information about trends in local expenditure and about the main factors affecting expenditure. For example, the Ministry of Education have probably more reliable information about the overall supply of teachers than is available to individual authorities, and over the years the Department have their means of forecasting the likely expenditure on its services which have been tested and proved reliable. It will therefore be possible to apply tests to the aggregate of the estimates produced by the authorities
646
to arrive at some global figures for fixing the aggregate general grant.
I mention that point because it is not only important in providing another test, but important in regard to the timetable. I am afraid that it would not be possible to defer the return of the estimates beyond the middle of August, because when they are received by the Government Departments it will be necessary to aggregate, analyse and test the totals in the way I have indicated. After that there will be discussions with the local authority associations about the figures before the Minister is in a position to present to Parliament the general grant order containing these proposals. All this will take time, and noble Lords will appreciate that we must aim at presenting the general grant orders to Parliament in December, if the local authorities themselves are to be told in good time for making up their budgets for the next financial year what their general grant entitlement will be.
In these circumstances, I want to make one thing clear—and I hope that this will meet the difficulty of the noble Lords. The final decision will not be taken for some months after the estimates have been sent in; and, as I say, I want to make it clear, on behalf of the Government, that if an authority were to find, even after it had submitted its return, that it had made a serious mistake in its calculation, it would certainly he open to it to explain the circumstances to the Department concerned, and any necessary correction would then be made to the material which was before the Minister and the local authority associations. As I said in Committee, I hope and I believe that the errors will not be of such magnitude as to affect the settlement of the total grant or, if any did occur, that they would not escape detection. I hope that what I have said will make it clear that although we must keep to the deadline of August 15, that does not mean that there will be no opportunity to correct any mistakes that might arise from hastily producing the figures. I hope that assurance will go some way to satisfy my noble friends. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has said. It certainly goes

647
some way to meet the points I tried to make. I think that one or two points arise from what he said today and what he said on Committee stage, but perhaps it would be more appropriate if I made reference to those on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I am grateful for what he has said.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the help he has given. I think there were grave fears that this provision might be too rigid in the initial stage, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for helping us over this matter. It would appear that the months of August and September will be two very busy months in Whitehall.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would only thank my noble friends. I do not know what verb I should use, whether I fear or rejoice, that my noble friend Lord Hylton is probably very accurate in his forecast.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to reduce general grant in case of default]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
"the amount recoverable being apportioned among the rating authorities of the areas or parts of areas so comprised in proportion to the aggregates of the rateable values shown in the valuation lists respectively in force for those areas or parts of areas on the first day of the year for which the general grant is payable.".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment which it falls to me to move deals with Clause 3 (2), which is concerned with the case of default by a joint board administering a general grant service in the whole or part of a county. The county council's general grant may, in the case of such a default, be reduced. Where only part of a county is concerned, the Bill provides, in subsection (2) (b) of Clause 32, for recovery of the penalty by the county council from the rating authorities in the part of the county concerned. This small Amendment lays down a method of apportioning the penalty between the rating areas. It provides that the basis of apportionment is to be the rateable value of each rating area, or the part of each rating area concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, at end insert the said words.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Limitation of Rate-deficiency Grant to normal expenditure
(7) For the purposes of this section expenditure for police purposes shall be left out of account, and the Minister may leave out of account any other expenditure of a local authority in so far as it appears to him that by reason of any special circumstances it ought to be excluded.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "by reason of any special circumstances". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that I raised this same point on the Committee stage of this Bill, and very briefly I will remind your Lordships what the point was. If a local authority exceeds its normal expenditure in a way calculated under Clause 6 it may have that part which exceeds the average disallowed for the purpose of deficiency grant. At the same time, under subsection (7) of Clause 6 the Minister has power to come to the rescue in what is described as "special circumstances". My anxiety was that there might well be cases where a local authority which was following a perfectly sound programme of expenditure—financially sound and not extravagant or negligent—might have a good case to put to the Minister, but that it might not be a "special" case and that the wording in subsection (7) would not be wide enough to allow the Minister to take the action he might possibly wish to take.
The object of this Amendment is to have it made clear that the Minister would be free to act whenever he thought fit in such cases, as and when they arose. It is a very wide Amendment, but I would rather have the Minister given ample latitude in a good cause than restrict him by the legal wording of the Bill from doing something he thought right. However, my noble and learned friend undertook on the Committee stage to have the wording of subsection (7) looked at again, and it may well be that to-day we shall hear the result of these inquiries. If it turns out that my fears are groundless, and that subsection (7)

649
as it stands gives the Minister the power, if he so wishes, to do what I have described, all well and good. No doubt my noble and learned friend will be able to give us some guidance on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("by reason of any special circumstances").—(Viscount
Bridgeman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has put down this Amendment again, because it gives me the opportunity of giving the results of my consideration; and if I state them at a little length I hope the House will forgive me; I think it will be useful to local authorities who are considering this point. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend on the Committee stage, in saying that the words were too narrow, said this of the phrase we are now discussing [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210 (No. 80), col. 60]:
"It seems to me to be far too narrow to be certain of including the circumstances which are likely to arise in the normal working of a county's affairs, on the assumption that their financial policy is a sound one and that there is no extravagance. I should have thought myself, in the absence of any other explanation, that the 'special circumstances' could be held to refer much more to something which could not have been foreseen."
I hope that my noble friend's fears were groundless in that regard. I should just like to say this with regard to my right honourable friend the Minister: his desire is that he should be able, by the discretion given to him under this subsection, to deal equitably with cases where the possibility of limitation under the clause arises. He certainly does not want the clause to operate in any arbitrary or mechanical way, and that is why the power to deal with special circumstances is taken.
May I proceed from the particular to the general, because I think it would be helpful if I gave one or two examples. One can imagine circumstances in which there is a drive for slum clearance. Clearly, this may impose particularly heavy burdens on authorities which have many slums—heavier burdens, that is, than on other authorities of the same kind with fewer slums. This is the sort of case with which the Minister would want to be able to deal under the subsection. Or, to take another example,
650
an authority might be faced with particularly heavy expenditure in regard to sewerage because the configuration of its area made sewering particularly expensive. This, too, the Minister would be able to deal with.
I have considered the point very carefully, and I have had the advantage of the departmental advice which the Minister also had, and we have all come to the conclusion that the Bill as drafted is wide enough to enable the Minister to ignore expenditure in such cases as those I have quoted. It will be observed that the words are "any"—I repeat "any"—"special circumstances" which the Minister may take into account. We all believe, and all our legal advice and my own view is to the effect, that a circumstance may be special either if it is associated with a particular authority or a number of authorities, as opposed to the generality (I think that was the point that I mentioned on the last occasion), or, secondly, if it is associated with a particular item of expenditure but not with the generality of items of local authority expenditure. Those are the examples that I quoted to-day. There is no reason to suppose that the words "special circumstances" could be construed so narrowly as to connote only what may have been unforeseen.
It seems to my right honourable friend, therefore, that this provision will enable him to deal satisfactorily with any case where it would be inequitable to allow a limitation of expenditure to operate. On the other hand, if the Amendment were adopted, the Bill would contain no indication at all of the circumstances in which expenditure was to be disregarded, and that, I think, would give rise to an invidious position, making the administration of the clause impossibly difficult.
If I may sum up, an authority which has undertaken expenditure prudently and responsibly has no reason to fear that it will suffer from this clause; for it has to be remembered that no case for the exercise of a Minister's discretion under this subsection can arise unless an authority's expenditure and the acceleration in its rate of spending have both exceeded that of other similar authorities. It does not seem unreasonable that in such circumstances an authority

651
should be asked to show that there is something peculiar to its own circumstances, or to those of a number of other authorities similarly placed; or, as I have said to-day, that there is some special feature of particular items of its own expenditure, which accounts for these circumstances. What is equally clear is that it will not have to show—and therefore will not have to carry the burden—that the expenditure is unforeseen. I hope that my explanation may help not only my noble friend but the authorities who may have to consider this problem.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for the care that he and his right honourable friend have taken in considering this point, which was far from clear when the Bill was last before the House. I think it will be most useful to many people outside this House to have conveyed to them the words that he has spoken, because they go a long way to making clear the situation which, to me at any rate, was far from clear as the Bill stood on the Committee stage. In regard to this Bill, many of us are in the difficulty that we are having to deal with cases which will come to be dealt with by regulations under this Bill, but which have not yet arisen. That being so, it is not possible to say with absolute certainty that the reply which my noble and learned friend has given will, in fact, meet every good case of this sort that is likely to arise. I would certainly say that I think my noble and learned friend's reply will probably meet any reasonable case that is likely to be put forward by a local authority to the Minister under this clause. I thank my noble and learned friend and his right honourable friend, and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I do not think I need detain your Lordships by going further into it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, leave out from ("section") to ("for") in line 22 and insert ("in like manner as").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power of Minister to give effect to proposals]:
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (2) to leave out "unless" and insert—
"Provided that, except where the objection is one made by a local authority to a proposal that the area of the authority should cease to be a separate area of local government, or should become a county district, the Minister may dispense with an inquiry if".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with Clause 23 (2), which provides that where a Local Government Commission's proposals for any area have been objected to by one of the local councils, or by a police authority, the Minister must hold a local inquiry, unless he is satisfied that he is "sufficiently informed" as to the matters to which the objections relate. Throughout, the Government have made it quite clear that this discretion to do without an inquiry is intended solely to cover the odd case where the only objection is on some minor and quite clear issue which has already been gone into fully and dealt with in the Commission's published report, and on which a formal inquiry would be a waste of everyone's time. An objection on a matter of substance or principle is bound to involve an inquiry, on grounds both of common sense and of natural justice, to say nothing of the practical fact that a Minister, accountable to Parliament as he is for every order that he makes under the Bill, would find himself in an indefensible position in Parliament if he did not order an inquiry.
The debates in both Houses have shown that the need for some such discretion is generally accepted but also that there is a desire to limit it. The Government understand and respect this anxiety, and have been cautious of amendment only because of their reluctance to see the clause altered in such a way as might imply that, outside a narrowly specified field, the Minister's discretion could and should be used freely. In an Amendment moved on the Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford pointed the way to solving the worst part of this difficulty—by taking away the Minister's discretion in cases where the objection was to abolition or amalgamation, thus disposing of the main anxieties which have been expressed. The House

653
will remember that I accepted the Amendment in principle and the present Amendment is the result. It goes rather further than my noble friend's Amendment—it guarantees an opportunity of inquiry to any local authority, be it of a county, a county borough, a non-county borough, or an urban or rural district, which is threatened with loss of its separate identity or its status.
I think that this Amendment will be welcomed generally by those who have queried the present wording of the clause, in that it meets in full the substance of their anxieties. I am told that it has been well received by the local authority associations. But even at the danger of being plus royaliste que le roi in this matter, want to return to my other point and to emphasise again that the Amendment is not intended to imply that, outside the cases where the elimination of an existing local authority is involved, the power to do without an inquiry into objections should or will be used freely. That is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government nor is it in the mind of my right honourable friend. On the contrary, it is still for use only in exceptional cases: that is, where the issue raised by the objection is small and so clear that the Minister can feel quite satisfied that an inquiry would add nothing to the available information. Having made that point clear again I should say how glad I am to be able to meet my noble and learned friend, Lord Conesford, and I believe the general wish, as this Amendment does. I beg to move.
Page 19, line 44, leave out ("unless") and insert—
("Provided that, except where the objection is one made by a local authority to a proposal that the area of the authority should cease to be a separate area of local government, or should become a county district, the Minister may dispense with an inquiry if").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CONESFORD: The Amendment of my noble and learned friend admirably meets the point which I made at the Committee stage and meets it in more felicitous language than that which I then put forward. I thank my noble and learned friend for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Schemes for exercise of health and welfare functions by councils of county districts]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I moved this Amendment on the Commit-
654
tee stage and I believe it had some support from your Lordships as its object was to save money and more especially specialist manpower. I withdrew it on an undertaking from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord President of the Council. I now move it formally and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can add a little to what was said by Her Majesty's Government on the last occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 40, and page 33, line 2, transfer paragraphs (b) and (d) to follow paragraphs (f) and (g) at end of line 17, page 33.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have given full consideration, with my right honourable friends, to this Amendment the effect of which would be that functions relating to welfare arrangements for disabled persons (under Sections 29 and 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948), and functions relating to the care of the mentally ill and mentally defective (under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890–1930 and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913–1938), would not be included in delegation schemes unless the Minister of Health had consented to their being so included, because of the existence of exceptional circumstances.
As my noble friend, Lord Gage, has said, when a similar Amendment was proposed in Committee it received a sub-stantial amount of support and my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council undertook to consider the matter again. That has been done. In the first place, I wish to make clear that Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate that, in supporting the Amendment, noble Lords were concerned, first, with securing the maximum efficiency in the administration of the services in question, and secondly, with the avoidance of duplication and extravagance. This aspect of the matter has been carefully considered and my right honourable friends have satisfied themselves that the process of delegation need not entail any of the consequences which have been feared.
I would point out that the administrative requirements of delegation will be these—and I consider this is very important: in order to achieve the Minister's approval delegation schemes and schemes for the administration of the service will have to make provision, first, for control

655
of general policy and of finance by the county council, and for co-operation between the county council and the district council. My noble and learned friend explained that in detail, and the House will remember that he quoted the advice in this sense given by both the Guillebaud and the Piercy Committees. It is abundantly clear that the weight of informed opinion on this subject, and the experience of the Ministry of Health in the administration of the services during the past ten years, point to the vital necessity for the closest possible integration of the domiciliary health and welfare services.
Very similar considerations dictate the retention of the domiciliary mental health services under the same administrative control as the other domiciliary health services, and the general tenor of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Mental Laws is wholly in favour of their close integration. It is indeed contrary to modern ideas to single out the mentally handicapped as a special class to be regarded as essentially different from those suffering from physical illness or disability. I need not go into that matter because your Lordships will have very much in mind the most striking speech made by my noble friend, Lord Feversham, followed by another striking speech by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the debate which we had a month ago on mental welfare.
The local authority services reflect this new outlook by providing in many cases for the same home visitors to visit both the physically and the mentally handicapped. In the light of these considerations Her Majesty's Government could not advise the House to accept an Amendment which would strike at the root of a principle which, in their view, is vital to the whole conception of delegation, and indeed to the efficient administration of the health and welfare services for which local authorities are responsible. My noble and learned friend, the Lord President of the Council, explained the reasons for these exceptional treatments of the residential services and I do not want to repeat what he said, but I believe I have gone further to help my noble friend, Lord Gage, in that I have shown that there is not only the policy point as to the services but
656
also the very strong and high administrative standards on which the Minister will insist. I think that that should mean what we recognise a very genuine and strongly-held feeling towards economy. In view of my statement, I hope that my noble friend will feel it possible not to persist in pressing his Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT GAGE: If I understand my noble and learned friend correctly, the Government are proposing to deal with this case administratively; and I understand that the Minister, in approving or withholding consent, is going to ensure that in suitable cases the services of the specialists are going to be properly divided between the county and borough or district. If that understanding is correct, I shall be perfectly prepared to withdraw this Amendment, as well as to express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for going, into this matter so carefully and meeting us in this way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we are entirely ad idem on that point. I should just like to make quite clear what I said and what is the basis. Delegation schemes and schemes for the administration of the services, in order to obtain my right honourable friend's approval, will have to make provision, first for the control of the general policy and finance by the county council, and, secondly, for the co-operation between the county council and the district council in regard to such matters as the joint use, where necessary, of staff or specialised services and workshops. I think that that meets fully my noble friend's point. I just want to be quite sure that I have made the position clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON: I do not know whether it is convenient for me to speak on the next Amendment after the adjournment, or whether I should move it formally now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be convenient, if I may make the suggestion, for my noble friend to develop his argument after the Royal Commission if that suits him.
LORD ADDINGTON: Whatever is the convenience of the House.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act, 1948 (Amendment),

Solicitors (Scotland),

Marriage Acts Amendment,

Land Powers (Defence),

First Offenders,

Opticians,

Disabled Persons (Employment),

Litter,

Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance),

Physical Training and Recreation,

Drainage Rates,

Defence Contracts,

Maintenance Orders,

Matrimonial Proceedings (Children),

Pier and Harbour Order (Margate) Confirmation,

Holy Trinity Hounslow,

Seaham Harbour Dock.

Blackpool Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

Clergy Orphan Corporation,

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,

Essex County Council,

All Hallows the Great Churchyard,

All Hallows the Less Churchyard,

London County Council (Money).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
5.15 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
First Schedule:
General Grants
Part V.—Adjustments of General Grants for pooling, etc., arrangements:
(4) This paragraph applies to expenditure incurred—
(c) in the provision, or in assisting the provision, of such facilities for further education of an advanced character as may be specified by or under regulations under this paragraph.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved in Part IV, paragraph 1 (4), to leave out sub-paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment on
658
the Committee stage, but I did not move it because discussions were then going on between the Ministry of Education and the County Councils' Association representing one side of the local government authorities concerned. So far as I understand it, those discussions are still going on, so that the points are, so to speak, sub judice. If there are any words that can be inserted on the Third Reading so as to embody the results of those discussions, I shall be glad to help in any way I can, and, if it were preferred, to put down certain words to be so inserted.
The main objection to the pooling provisions of the Bill is, as I understand it, that they would upset the arrangements agreed to as recently as July, 1956, between Sir David Eccles, a former Minister of Education, and the County Councils' Association which were designed to promote what is called "free trade" in regard to attendance at further education courses provided by one local authority with students living in the area of another such authority. Under pooling arrangements, counties, and especially the rural counties with no rateable values, would apparently have to pay more, and in some cases much more, and in the large centres of population they would pay less. I would suggest that in this House we should regard fully the interests of the rural areas where the product of a penny rate is comparatively small. No detailed figures have been produced to show on what basis pooling would be actually carried out.
I suggest, further, that local authorities which do not provide such courses would have to contribute to expenditure over which they would have no control; and if the expenditure was pooled, those authorities that do provide them would be less likely to see that they were run economically. I understand also that there is no great difficulty in continuing the payments on the present basis, which is on a user basis. I do not propose at this stage to put the points forward at all fully, or to weary your Lordships with such figures as have been suggested. I am only anxious that a fair and reasonable basis should be worked out for these courses and that the expenditure should be provided equitably. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 23, leave out the said subparagraph.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend, because there is a principle behind this Amendment and the Government's present proposals. The object of the Bill, as a whole, is to increase the responsibility and power of local governments for dealing themselves, without undue pressure from ministerial Departments, with money raised from the rates and with the new general grant. If that is so, then it would appear to be a departure from this principle to insert in this Bill these pooling proposals for this particular form of education. On the one hand you give the local authorities more power to deal with monies, rates and so on, which they raise themselves, and on the other hand you withdraw these powers—powers they already have. I think that is a point which should be mentioned. The local authorities already have the power of paying for this particular form of education on what my noble friend has described as a user basis. That power, so far as I can make out, is being taken away by this Bill, and instead we are to have a pooling system.
Unless a special case can be made for those proposals, they cannot really be identified with the main principle of this Bill, which is to give local authorities more local responsibility. Pooling already exists for teachers, but the pooling of teachers is quite a different subject from technical and other sorts of education. I am bound to say that there is a case—I believe a strong case—to be made for looking into this matter, or for continuing these conversations between the interested parties, at any rate for a little time.
There is one proposal I would submit to your Lordships as a practical one, because this is merely an administrative affair and there are no politics in it. It might be worth while considering whether the Minister of Education should hold his hand during the first year or two while these new arrangements were running-in, and not use his powers of pooling the resources of all the local authorities at the beginning. That would give time for everybody to have another look round to see which side of the argument is right. I am no educational authority, but I have a sheaf of papers from education authorities who are in considerable anxiety about this point. I do not wish to speak any longer than my noble friend has spoken, but I believe that these points should be put before your Lordships' House. I hope
660
the noble and learned Viscount will at least give us a grain of hope.
5.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that no one in the House, and least of all myself, grudges either of my noble friends the time they have spent on this Amendment. It would, of course, have the effect, as they told us, of moving from the Bill the provision for pooling expenditure on such facilities for further education as the Minister may by regulation specify—I should emphasise that: it is only by regulations subject to annulment that this can be done.
I want to put the difficulties which my right honourable friend finds in this matter as it has been adumbrated before your Lordships. Your Lordships will see that the Bill proposes that expenditure on advanced further education should be pooled, so that each local education authority will contribute towards the total expenditure of all authorities a share based on an objective formula, and will recover from the pool its own actual expenditure. Although I see the differences which my noble friend attempted to draw, it is, of course, accurate, as he said, that it has been applied to expenditure on teacher training and on pupils who do not belong to any authority. The definition of advanced further education, and the formula to be used (which would differ from that used for the two existing pools), will be laid down in regulations, and the local authorities will be consulted before these regulations are made.
I think I can fairly sum up the objections which have been made to the Government's proposal under three heads. First, that pooling of advanced further education is wrong in principle, because it trenches on the responsibility and independence of the individual authority. My noble friend Lord Hylton repeated that a few moment ago. Secondly, that it will operate inequitably in the redistribution of the financial burden in this part of the education service; and, thirdly, that it is unnecessary because the present system, which includes inter-authority payments on behalf of extra-district students, is working satisfactorily. I should like to deal with these points because my right honourable friend is anxious to show that he is giving them full consideration.

661
On the first argument, that the independence of the authorities would be prejudiced, I think it is necessary to look at the nature of the service in question. Advanced further education is of university or near-university standard. It necessarily involves large establishments, with expensive buildings and equipment and highly trained staff. Efficiency and economy alike demand that these facilities should be sited in accordance with regional plans, in centres which are accessible to large numbers of students. To help this kind of planning, regional advisory councils for further education have for long been established. All local education authorities in the region are represented on them, and all proposals to start new advanced courses have to be considered by the regional advisory council concerned before they can be approved by the Minister of Education. In other words, I think it is fair to say that in this field the authorities are interdependent, rather than independent, and the only way in which this Bill will lessen their present degree of independence is by depriving of their main weapon those authorities who are restraining the free movement of students across local authority boundaries.
Now may I turn for a moment to the fear that the new arrangements will bring about an unfair shift in the financial burden? Of course, details of the effect on individual authorities involved are not yet available, because the proposed formula for distributing the expenditure has still to be discussed with the local authority associations, and it may be (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will consider this) that when the formula has been settled some of our critics will find that their fears are not so great as they at first thought. There is a further point which I should like my noble friends to consider also. Have they taken full account of the effect of the change from the percentage to the general grant? At present, as we have heard so often in an earlier stage of the Bill, that grant is directly related to the expenditure of each authority; and an authority which spends little gets little grant. As I said on Second Reading, and again in Committee, the general grant works quite differently as each authority gets a share of the grant based on the formula in the Bill, irrespective of what it spends. This would
662
be manifestly unfair to the authorities who spend a great deal on advanced further education, unless it were accompanied by the redistribution of expenditure which the pool is intended to bring about. It is true that there are other classes of educational expenditure which vary between authorities, but there is no substantial element of the educational service on which direct expenditure varies, and must always vary, so widely between different authorities.
I admit that under present arrangements authorities which provide facilities for the use of others do not have to carry the whole burden themselves, because they make a charge to the other authorities for the students who use the facilities. I take the point which the objectors make: why should these arrangements not continue under the general grant? There would be certain technical and accounting difficulties, but though I think they are perfectly genuine I do not want to enter into that aspect or to rest my case on it. The more important point is that the recoupment system depends on the home authority giving its consent to the admission of students to another authority's college. Two years ago, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington said, the then Minister of Education reached an agreement with the local authority associations which was designed to secure virtually complete "free trade" between authorities in that respect. The agreement resulted in some improvement; but, taking the counties as an example, by no means all are yet prepared to give automatic consent to suitably qualified students to attend colleges of advanced technology, and the majority have important reservations, seriously incompatible with the agreement, about giving automatic consent to the attendance of students at advanced technical courses at other colleges. This situation was a major factor in the Government's decision to propose pooling, which removes the need for consent so far as inter-authority payments are concerned.
These are the difficulties, and we are very sorry that this element in our proposals should have caused so much concern in the County Councils Association. We hope and believe, however, that a number of their fears are misconceived. It is the convinced view of the Government that the pooling of expenditure on advanced further education gives the best

663
assurance for carrying out the essential development, within a local authority framework, of a service which is of peculiar importance for the efficiency and survival of this country. I need not emphasise that aspect, for we are all at one on it—that unless we can make advances, especially in scientific and technological education, the whole future of the country is jeopardised. The Government feel as I say, that no inequity need be involved for any group of authorities, but they will, in any event, be prepared to review the matter, in consultation with the local authority associations, for the second general grant period. For the first, they feel that the system of pooling must be introduced.
I think it is convenient that I should have set out these reasons. If they show any gaps in the argument or that the basis is faulty, I think that the County Councils Association will point out the flaws in my argument to my right honourable friend the Minister of Education. But, although I have considered this point with great sympathy, I have not been able to find out the flaws, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am in the same position as my noble friend in front of me; that is, I am by no means perfect in my knowledge of the details of education as administered by local authorities. But we are here in a good deal of difficulty, largely because the practical application of this clause, if it remains in its present form, will have to be decided by regulations not yet made. I think our friends in the local authority associations, worried as they are about many things, are more worried over this point than anything else; they feel they are being taken into the unknown. There are two or three points which seem to stand out. One is that local authorities want to get as many places as they need for boys and girls in the local authority area who want education of the kind dealt with in paragraph (c). The second is that, though they want to pay what is right for them, they do not want to pay for other people. Fair shares, as has been said in another place, are not always equal shares. Thirdly, the whole matter is complicated by the previous discussion which has taken
664
place between the Minister of Education and local authorities, to which my noble and learned friend referred just now, over the question of what is called "free trade".
It looks now as if the position is this. First of all, my noble and learned friend has said that the Minister of Education will be prepared to review the matter in the second period. Secondly, he said, I think, that the local authority associations were going to be called into discussion before the framing of the regulations So far so good. As for any financial or accounting difficulties, I am not sure what they are, but I should have thought it would not be beyond the wit of the Ministry to solve them, with the assistance of the various local authorities' treasurers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I just want to assure my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that the regulations will be made after consultation, and what the local authority associations say will be given every weight in the making of the regulations. That is the modern legislative practice; and one of the advantages of subsidiary legislation is that you can have these discussions and perhaps improve it in the making. I am sorry that I have not been able to go further in this matter. I will give my noble friends complete freedom and licence to point out the grosser errors in my argument to my right honourable friend the Minister, and I shall not be in the least offended if they find those errors are gross, although I have not seen them myself. I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend Lord Addington's Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, lest it be thought that this side of the House is not interested in the matter, I would point out that this is certainly the penultimate stage of this legislation. I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, and also read with the greatest care the dossier which I understand was unanimously approved by the County Councils Association. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that the point will be looked at again, but to-day he is taking the power to do the thing which all the associations think bad. Whilst apparently it is quite impossible to move

665
the noble and learned Viscount from his present position, I think it should be made quite clear what the situation is—nothing at all.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the support of noble Lords who have spoken. The only point I would add is that some rural counties do not find there is any need whatsoever to send somebody who is working in agriculture to one of these highly technical courses for specialists; and therefore it seems unfair that they should, as presumably they will, have to pay quite a large sum to the pool because of their general population. Although the extent to which certain local authorities use these courses varies very considerably, the practice may not follow a general pattern. I think that, so far as authorities are concerned, the only people who really speak for them are the executive bodies of their associations, or, as regards a county council, its council as a whole. I know from my own experience that a finance committee of the council can override and alter even the estimates put up by the education and other committees; and a number of the education authorities have a certain number of co-opted specialists who have no responsibility whatever for the raising of a rate. But as the noble and learned Viscount has held out some chance of consultation, and some prospect that there may be some review at an early date, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
5.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out sub-paragraph (1) and to insert instead:
"(1) Where contributions under section eighty-six of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, in respect of a child or young person committed to, or received into the care of a local authority are payable, by the person liable to make the contributions, to an authority other than the authority responsible for maintenance, the authority receiving the contributions from the said person shall pay them over to the authority responsible for maintenance, subject however to such deductions in respect of services rendered by the authority paying the contributions over as may be agreed beween the two authorities or as
666
in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State
(2) In the foregoing sub-paragraph references to the authority responsible for maintenance—

(a) in relation to a child or young person committed to the care of a local authority, are references to that authority;

(b) in relation to a child received into the care of a local authority, are references to the local authority into whose care the child has been received, except that where the authority to whom the contributions are payable by the person liable to make them has been notified that under subsection (4) of section one of the Children Act, 1948 expenses are being recovered from another authority, the said references shall be construed as references to that other authority.

(3) In subsection (3) of section eighty-six of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 after the word 'and' where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words 'in the case of a child or young person ordered to be sent to an approved school.' "
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a formidable looking Amendment but I can assure your Lordships that it deals with only a small administrative point. I am happy to say that it has the support of all the authorities directly concerned—the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the London County Council, and, I hope, Her Majesty's Government. But as it is a new point, although a small one, perhaps I should explain its object if only for record purposes.
Section 86 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which is being amended, provides that it is the duty of certain persons to make contributions for the maintenance of a child who has been committed to the care of a fit person or sent to an approved school. This section has been applied to children in the care of a local authority by the Children Act, 1948. Subsection (3) of Section 86 states to whom the contributions should be paid: they are to be paid to the local authority of the area where the person making the contribution (usually the father) resides—for convenience I will call that authority local authority A. Local authority A deducts expenses for collection and sends the balance to the Home Office. The Home Office act as a clearing house, and pass the contributions (less 50 per cent., being the amount of the Exchequer grant for the children service) to the authority responsible for the maintenance of the child, which I will call local authority B. The purpose of paragraph 2 of the Eighth Schedule is to

667
remove from the Home Office the task of acting as a clearing house, and instead to require local authority A to pay the contributions direct to local authority B.
This administrative change, which is consequential on the abolition of the 50 per cent. Exchequer grant and the introduction of the general grant, is satisfactory to the local authorities, with one exception with which I will now deal. There may be a further complication in the case of a child in the care of a local authority. A child who is ordinarily resident in the area of local authority B may be received into care by a local authority of some other area, which I shall call local authority C. In that event, local authority C is entitled to claim the cost of maintenance from local authority B. The question arises whether the contributions collected by local authority A should be paid over to local authority B or local authority C. Under the terms of the Bill, contributions collected by local authority A would be paid to local authority C, with the intention that local authority C would deduct the amounts before rendering accounts to local authority B. Under the terms of my Amendment, the contributions collected would be paid to local authority B. That authority would not have to earmark each contribution towards a particular child's maintenance, but would accept it as income; on the other hand, local authority B would pay the accounts rendered by local authority C. This would save detailed financial records and unnecessary work. I hope that that indication has made the matter clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert the said new sub-paragraphs.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for putting down this useful Amendment which modifies the arrangements in regard to parental contributions towards the cost of maintenance of children in the care of local authorities. The Bill provides for a method of direct adjustment between the authorities responsible respectively for collecting the contributions and for care of the child to which they relate. That was in substitution for the existing method of adjust-
668
ment undertaken by the Secretary of State and tied in with the specific grant now absorbed in the general grant. The Amendment of my noble friend improves the method provided for in the Bill, by securing that the contributions shall go direct to the authority ultimately financially responsible where this authority is a different one from the collecting and the "care" authority. This will save some double accounting for money and, as I have said, should be useful to all the authorities concerned. I hope your Lordships will accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 8 is an Amendment of my own and it is linked with the Amendment at page 72, line 1. They are drafting improvements to those provisions in the Eighth Schedule which relate to the charters of boroughs constituted by amalgamations embracing existing boroughs under the 1933 Act. Their effect is that the Minister will be enabled to continue in force, as part of the new borough's charter, any of the provisions of any of the charters of the boroughs from which it is formed. I think that this is a liberal and useful improvement, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 31, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 34 and insert ("for the charter of the new borough, by applying thereto, with any necessary exceptions or modifications, the charter of any borough comprised in the union, provisions of charters of two or more boroughs comprised in the union, or the charter of one and provisions of the charters of one or more of the others.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are both consequential to previous Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 1, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 4 and insert ("for the charter of the new borough, by applying thereto, with any necessary exceptions or modifications, the charter of any amalgamated borough, or, in the case of an amalgamation including two or more boroughs, by applying as aforesaid to the new borough provisions of charters of two or more amalgamated

669
boroughs or the charter of one and provisions of the charters of one or more of the others.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 7, column 3, leave out ("'or by the London County Council' and") and insert ("from 'consolidated' to the next 'or in' and the words").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COSTS OF LEASES BILL
5.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, this Bill has to do with the liability for solicitor's costs as between the lessor and lessee in regard to the drawing and the preparation of a lease. As your Lordships will be aware, there is a general custom throughout most of the country whereby the solicitor to a lessor is entitled to prepare the lease and the counterpart and to charge the lessee with his charges and expenses for so doing, together with the stamp duty on the documents. This Bill, which was introduced in another place by Mr. Granville West, the honourable Member for Pontypool, proposes to do away with that general custom, and, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, requires each party to pay his or her own costs and stamp duty.
The reasons for this proposal are very simple. The existing custom, although it has been in force for a long time—indeed, so long "that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary"—appears to have no logical basis in these days and is frequently the cause of great hardship and irritation to a lessee who may be quite unaware of the custom and who, the lease having been prepared and executed by both parties and the document having been stamped, finds himself faced with the burden of two sets of solicitors' costs. This Bill also assimilates the practice or position as between lessor and lessee to that of a vendor and a purchaser, where, as your Lordships know, each party normally pays his own legal costs and expenses. The Bill has the support of the Law Society and I
670
hope that its objects will commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Milner of Leeds, in introducing this Bill, referred to the practice of a lessee having to pay the lessor's costs by custom as an anomaly and a hardship, and of course it is. As he explained, in the purchase of the freehold of a house each party pays his own costs. If one takes an assignment of a lease or of a long term, again each party pays his own costs. But if one takes a fresh lease, then the lessee is expected to pay the costs of the lessor. My quarrel with the Bill is that it does not remove the anomaly or the hardship; it merely regularises it, because as soon as this Bill becomes law every lessor will put into his contract a provision that the lessee must pay the costs; and that becomes perfectly lawful.
Having accepted the fact that something has to be done and that this anomaly has to be removed (I hope he will not mind my saying this), my noble friend at once sets about putting the anomaly right by ensuring that it will become a matter of course that every lessor will put in writing, as one of the conditions, that the lessee should pay his costs. It is, of course, a bad thing that a person should pay somebody else's costs for something with which he is not concerned. A man pays his own solicitor for approving the lease, going through it and negotiating, but why he should pay the lessor's costs, I do not know—and my noble friend does not know either. He agrees that it is an anomaly; but this Bill does not remove that anomaly. I believe the Bill is susceptible to amendment and I propose to have a try at amending it in Committee. It is because of that, and because it can be amended, that I shall not object to the Second Reading; but if it were to remain as it is I should strongly object to this Bill going forward.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to offer a little support for the Bill as it is drawn. It would he unprofitable now to go into the history

671
of this matter and explain how the custom has arisen. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Silkin, that if this Bill passes into law it will still be possible for a lessor to stipulate as a matter of contract that the lessee shall pay his costs. At the moment it is perfectly possible for a vendor of property to make a similar stipulation, and sometimes that is attempted. The objection to the law as it stands at present is that the general public do not understand that this custom exists and therefore they enter into negotiations on their own without obtaining prior legal advice and then are faced in the end with having to pay the costs of the lessor, which they never expected to have to do.
I know it is a maxim that every citizen of this country is supposed to know the law of this country, but it is still nevertheless the case that they do not; and the sooner this anomaly is removed, the better, because then things will happen as people expect them to happen and not in a way which they do not expect.
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should not have detained your Lordships for more than a moment, which would have been used in giving short but sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, on this Bill, were it not for the troubles which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has found. I should like to say a little more, for I feel that the matter deserves some attention. I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, for in all the years that we have known each other I think this is the first Public Bill that I have ever heard him introduce, though I have heard him introduce Private Bills as Chairman in another place. In any case, I want to congratulate the noble Lord on the persuasive language in which he put the Bill before your Lordships.
In another place there was no opportunity for the views of Her Majesty's Government to be given, and therefore I gladly take this opportunity of saying that we welcome the Bill as a useful amendment to the law and custom relating to leases. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, put the real difficulty of this problem: that tenants, knowing nothing of the custom that exists, get extraordinarily annoyed
672
when they find themselves subjected to it. From time to time I have myself received letters from members of the public expressing their surprise and irritation at finding themselves, without warning, under an obligation to pay the costs of both sides of a lease or tenancy agreement into which they have just entered as tenants. I should think numbers of your Lordships, and not only those, like all of us who have spoken on this Bill to-day, who are engaged in the legal profession, have received similar expressions of annoyance; and I must say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who receives more protests than I do, has sympathy, as I have, with the complainants.
A custom should become part of the law only when it is generally accepted, and when it complies with the essential condition that it should be notorious and known to everyone concerned; and undoubtedly this is not known. I should have thought that it was more natural and right that the parties should be left to reach agreement and to arrange how it is to fall. I am surprised and worried, as I always am when I find that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, takes a different view on the matter. I am sure that Lord Milner of Leeds will consider anything further that there is to say, but I should have thought that, on any basis at all, this Bill is a help and an advance. I am grateful not only to the noble Lord but also to the honourable Member who put it forward in another place, and to the Law Society for having suggested this improvement. And, most of all, I should like to congratulate Lord Milner of Leeds on the way he put it before us to-day.
6.1 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He and I have known each other for a great many years, and he has always shown the same kindness and courtesy. I greatly appreciate the expression of congratulation to which he gave voice. I do not desire to detain your Lordships for any length of time on this matter, but I think I must say just a word or two in reply to my noble friend Lord Silkin. If he will forgive my saying so, I am a little surprised that, not for the first time, he does not appear wholeheartedly to approve the course adopted

673
or the proposals submitted by his own professional Society. Again, if he will forgive my saying so, I do not think he takes any part in the proceedings of that Society. If he did, his views might be put forward before any proposals came to this House.
However that may be, I cannot for a moment accept the view which he puts forward, that this Bill does nothing to remove the present hardship and injustice. So far as I am aware, there never has been a proposal to alter the normal position in regard to the costs of a conveyance whereby the vendor and purchaser each pays his own share. It is very rarely the case, though it does sometimes happen, that the vendor makes it a condition that the purchaser shall pay the vendor's costs. That is, as I say, very rarely the case, and I do not understand why in the future, as soon as the general position becomes known, lessors will necessarily insert in leases the proposal or the condition that the lessee shall pay the lessor's costs.
674
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch for their support. This is a step, at any rate, as the Lord Chancellor said, in the right direction. It still preserves freedom of contract, which I gather my noble friend Lord Silkin, in this instance would like to take away. In my view, the terms of the Bill, if passed by this House, will make the position fair as between the lessor and the lessee, and thus do away with a good deal of hardship and irritation. Therefore I hope your Lordships will approve the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

VARIATION OF TRUSTS BILL
6.4 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes after six o'clock.