HL Deb 07 July 1958 vol 210 cc613-44

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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; 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 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 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.