Lords Sitting of 15 July 1958

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

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
PENYBONT MAIN SEWERAGE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NORWICH CATTLE MARKET
2.35 p.m.
LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the serious seasonal overcrowding which obtains at Norwich cattle market and to the distress which is caused to cattle through being kept for protracted periods without water; whether it is possible for action to be taken with regard to such conditions under existing enactments relating to markets or fairs; and if not, whether steps can be taken either to amend the law in that respect or to set up a committee of inquiry to examine conditions in markets generally throughout England and Wales.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think the occasion my noble friend has in mind is June 7, when there were crowded conditions at Norwich market which were due to quite exceptional circumstances. The flow of trade had been held up for a month because the market had been closed on account of foot-and-mouth disease and, in addition, the Smithfield and dock strikes were creating a very keen demand for all kinds of home-produced meat. This combination of circumstances is unlikely to recur.
1028
I understand that there are facilities for handling nearly 2,000 cattle at this market and that, until these exceptional circumstances occurred, the facilities had proved adequate to deal with the normal seasonal trade. Nevertheless, it has been recognised for some time that the old cattle market at Norwich is in surroundings too congested for efficient working in modern conditions, and work has already begun on the site for a new market at Harford which will replace the Norwich market as soon as possible.
The Protection of Animals Act makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to animals and also specifically prescribes penalties for persons confining animals without suitable food and water. I do not consider that any special action is called for. I think that I can assure my noble friend that conditions are generally satisfactory throughout England and Wales and that the numerous market improvements and reconstructions now being carried out reflect the sense of responsibility felt by market proprietors towards animal welfare.
LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords. I thank the noble Earl for his reply. My figures do not entirely correspond with his. The market, I am told, can house about 800 beasts. My information is that there were approximately 2,500 at the sale in question. I do not quarrel about the 700, but it remains that Norwich market was overcrowded to the extent of 1,000 animals. I think steps should be taken to prevent such a happening from occurring again.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords. I can only say that the figures with which I have been supplied show that there were pens for at least 1,500 non-attested and 400 attested animals and that the excess number on that date did, unfortunately, cause congestion. But the noble Lord's figure of 700 to 800 is really an under-estimate.
LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords, I obtained my information from Norwich direct.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask to whom this market belongs and whether any proceedings were taken with regard to the event referred to in the noble Lord's Question?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not sure to whom the market belongs but it is operated by two firms of auctioneers. I understand that no proceedings were taken and that there was no specific complaint made that day by the inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

DOCTORS IN PARKING METER AREAS
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the rules governing the operation of parking meters in areas where they are installed, it is intended to make any special regulations to meet the needs of professional men, their clients or their patients.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, no special provision for professional men, their clients or patients, was proposed by the local authority or included in the only parking meter order so far made—the Parking Places (Westminster) (No. 1) Order, 1958, which is operating in North West Mayfair. Any local authority proposing such an Order to my right honourable friend may include in it such exemptions under Section 21 (4) of the Road Traffic Act. 1956, as they may wish, but I cannot anticipate the decisions of my right honourable friend on any such applications.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that in the case of people, perhaps suffering from grave injuries, who are going to see their medical advisers, some relaxation of the parking meter regulations as they stand should be incorporated in any further Order made for the same purpose?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it does not actually matter what I think. What does matter is what representations are made by the local authorities to my right honourable friend, when he has heard all the interests concerned. In the particular case to which I have referred I understand that no representations were made, and on the only other Order before my right honourable friend repre-
1030
sentations along the lines which my noble friend suggests were made. The matter, as he will appreciate, is still under consideration.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that, in common humanity, something ought to be insisted on by the Minister of Transport in any further Orders which are made on the subject?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if in common humanity my right honourable friend is asked to do so, indeed he will consider it; but in the only case so far put into practice he was riot so asked.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend mean that it is impossible for the Minister to draw the attention of the local authority to the question and ask them to consider it?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the local authority principally concerned in the matter which my noble friend Lord Howe has in mind—namely, the St. Marylebone Borough Council, in whose area Harley Streetis—did not need to have this matter drawn to their attention. They were powerfully aware of it and they have made representations to my right honourable friend. He is considering them.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, are there not a number of professional men, doctors and others, living in Westminster No. 1 area? Surely the Minister could have taken action on his own account in a case like this.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, he could have taken action, but he did not think from the facts before him that it was necessary.

PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL OF PARKING METER SCHEMES
2.43 p.m.
EARL, HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before the areas to be subjected to the parking meter scheme are extended, the approval of Parliament will be sought.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the procedure to be followed before parking meters can be introduced is laid down in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. Under Section 24 (5) of that Act, Orders authorising the use of parking meters in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London are subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Under Section 24 (4), however, an Order extending the provisions of the Act to any other part of the country is of no effect unless approved by the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.

IRAQ
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the Government have any statement to make to-day on the position in Iraq?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): Yes, my Lords. As soon as possible after half-past three, depending on when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary get up in another place, I hope to make two statements, one on the reorganisation of defence machinery and the other on the situation in the Middle East.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr. Willis, the Member for Edinburgh, East, whom I should like to congratulate on his success in getting this Bill through the other place unopposed. It is a non-contentious measure and applies to Scotland only. The matter with which the Bill deals arises from an invitation by the Lord Advocate to the Law Reform Committee for Scotland
"to consider the rules governing the date from which interest on an award of damages is or may be ordered by the court to run."
The Law Reform Committee, under the chairmanship of the honourable Lord
1032
Walker, in their Third Report (Command No. 141) recommended that
"all courts having jurisdiction in questions of damages should be empowered to award interest from the date of citation."
This Bill gives effect to that recommendation. Two considerations, among others, appear to have influenced the Law Reform Committee in arriving at their recommendations. One was that, owing to the congestion in the Scottish courts, there may be considerable delay between the bringing of an action and the ultimate decision—it is a common experience, they say, for eighteen months or two years to elapse between the bringing of an action and an ultimate decision—and, to a lesser extent, the possibility that some actions would be settled sooner if defenders knew that interest upon damages might be awarded from a date earlier than the award.
Since, as a layman, I am conscious of the pitfalls that lie ahead in attempting to deal in detail with great legal technicalities, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to refer a little more closely to the notes with which I have been supplied. Under the law of Scotland as it stands at present, interest runs automatically at 5 per cent. on damages from the date of the decree decerning for payment of the damages. This decree for payment is distinct from the fixing of the amount of the damages, which, in a jury case, may occur some time before the date of the decree. If asked, the court may back-date interest from an earlier date; but there has been no case in which interest has been so back-dated to a date earlier than the date on which the amount of the damages was fixed. It would probably be incompetent, as the law stands, to back-date further than this, because it is a general rule that interest runs only on a "liquid" debt, and damages do not become liquid until they are fixed.
Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, as read with the definitions in Clause 3 (2), provides that an interlocutor decerning for payment by any person (whether he is the defender in the action or, as may happen where there is a counterclaim by the defender, the pursuer) of a sum of money as damages may include interest on the sum or any part thereof at a specified rate from a date not earlier than the date on which the person (if he is the defender) was cited or (if he is a pursuer against

1033
whom a counterclaim has been made) the date on which the counterclaim was lodged in court; or, if the counterclaim has been made by way of adjustment to or amendment of the pleadings, the date on which the record was closed or, as the case may be, reclosed.
The date of citation "of a defender is the date on which he is" cited "or summoned to enter appearance in the action. The closing of the record in an action is the procedural point after which neither party can, without special permission, make any alteration to his written pleadings. Subsection (1) does not deal with the running of interest after the date of the interlocutor. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 does three things which are detailed in the Bill. Clause 2 provides, as respects jury cases in the sheriff court, for review of the decree of the sheriff so far as it includes an award of interest under this Bill. Clause 3 (1) contains the short title. Subsection (2) provides certain necessary definitions. Subsection (3) confines the Bill to Scotland and provides that it shall not apply to any action commenced by any person before May 1, 1958. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Greenhill.)
2.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for the clear and concise manner in which he has explained to us the purposes of this Bill. As he has said, the Bill carries out the recommendations of the Third Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland. It remedies a defect in the law which has justifiably caused grievance to those awarded damages. I need say only that the Government support the Bill, and I therefore trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is one point in the Bill about which I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite, which might possibly be provided for, if noble Lords think proper, by an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill. I see nothing in this Bill to affect the payment of interest on sums paid into court by the parties. If a man goes to
1034
court having paid into court a certain sum in respect of damages which is not accepted, I do not think that any provision of the law ought to compel him to pay interest on sums so paid into court. I hope that I have made that point clear to your Lordships, and unless my noble friend opposite can dispose of my criticism in his reply I think perhaps the point should be considered on the next Stage of the Bill.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have already hidden behind the fact that I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give the noble Lord the definite answer I should like. But as I read the report I gained the impression that this power to charge interest lies within the discretion of the judge, and therefore presumably he would take into consideration the points the noble Lord has raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Bill is designed to give to the Government powers to assist people to establish themselves in areas where there is high and persistent unemployment. The concept of a duty to give special assistance to areas of unemployment has been accepted by Parliament for a quarter of a century. It found perhaps its first legislative embodiment in the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934. That was the Act which provided for the appointment of Special Commissioners (one for England and Wales and another for Scotland) to organise" measures designed to facilitate the economic development and social improvement" of the areas under the general authority of the Ministry of Labour. We pray that never again will the country be faced with unemployment on the frightful scale suffered in the 'thirties, when the national rate rose to over 20 per cent., and when there were places such as the Rhondda and Jarrow where unemployment rose tragically to over 70 per cent.

1035
But the new approach which began with that legislation has continued.
It was before the war that the Royal Commission, under Sir Montague Barlow, was set up to report on the distribution of the industrial population. The recommendations of the Barlow Report were largely accepted by the Government in the White Paper of 1944 on Employment Policy, which is the foundation of the Distribution of Industry Acts. That White Paper declared that it would be
"the object of Government policy to secure a balanced industrial development in the areas which had in the past been unduly dependent on industries specially vulnerable to unemployment."
In the following year what I may call the parent Act to this Bill was passed—the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. The fairly loose control exercised in the 'thirties by the Special Commissioners over industrial estate companies and the financial assistance given through the semi-official Special Areas Reconstruction Association were succeeded by more closely defined powers operated under the Central Government.
The Act gave the Board of Trade powers to acquire land, to build factories and other buildings for letting to private industrial undertakings, and to Her Majesty's Government to provide transport facilities and other basic services. It also gave powers to clear derelict sites, either for amenity reasons or to provide sites for industrial development. Lastly, it authorised the Government to make grants or loans, in accordance with the recommendations of an Advisory Committee appointed by the Treasury. But the scope of all these powers was limited to the development areas from time to time scheduled to the Act. Outside those development areas there are no comparable powers to assist the relief of unemployment by the expansion of new industry. It is this gap which it is the purpose of the present Bill to fill.
The Distribution of Industry Acts have, I think your Lordships will agree, worked, very well during the thirteen years of their operation. However, over these years the pattern of unemployment in the country has undergone a change. There are some places in the development areas where, largely thanks to the use of the powers under the Act, unemployment
1036
has dropped. Indeed, the Government-financed factories in the development areas are at present providing work for nearly 200,000 people. This takes no account of the work provided by firms persuaded to go to these areas without Government assistance; nor does it take account of the indirect employment given in the distributive and other service trades. Nevertheless, there are other places, outside the development areas, where unemployment has become high and where we fear it may continue to be high. In the Government's view, it is no less important to be able to assist these places than to be able to assist the development areas.
What this Bill proposes is that the powers given to the Treasury under Section 4 of the parent Act to make grants or loans to industry in the development areas should be extended so as to be available, both inside and outside development areas, in places where the Board of Trade are satisfied that the money is required for something which would help to provide employment in a place suffering from a high rate of unemployment which would otherwise be expected to continue. In another way, also, the Bill extends the Treasury's present powers to give financial assistance. At present, grants or loans can be made only to industrial undertakings, but there may be other types of project which would provide useful employment and ought not to be ruled out—for example, offices or hotels. The Bill, therefore, will widen the scope of the parent Act by extending the powers to make grants or loans to undertakings engaged in trade or business. It will be for the Board of Trade to say whether proposals put forward for assistance under the Bill will be likely to help reduce unemployment in a place where a high rate of unemployment exists and is likely to persist. They will, of course, act in close liaison with the Ministry of Labour.
Your Lordships will observe that there is no Schedule to the Bill setting out the list of places qualifying for consideration. The reason for this is that the Government wish to make this Bill as flexible as possible, and one which can be used with speed. We are dealing here not with what may be called areas of basic unemployment but with smaller and more widespread pockets of unemployment.

1037
We need, therefore, to be able quickly to add to or delete from the list of places, and we are convinced that the usefulness of the Bill would be impaired if every change required legislative endorsement. Your Lordships will observe also that the powers to help these places of high unemployment are limited to the method of financial assistance by grant or loan. This again we regard as the most flexible method. The localities that we have in mind are widely scattered: to undertake factory building would mean that we should have to set up an uneconomic and unwieldy system of management. That would result in our adding to the Government's physical assets all over the country. We think that negotiated financial help will be the quickest and most adaptable way of encouraging the right projects in the right places while still leaving the initiative with private enterprise.
I ought perhaps to mention one other matter. Your Lordships will see that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. The parent Act also did not extend to it. That is not because we are not powerfully conscious of the very serious unemployment problem in Northern Ircland—we are in fact, as your Lordships know, doing everything we can to alleviate it. Bat the Northern Ireland Government have their own legislation to enable them to assist industry wishing to establish itself over there. It would be unnecessary and confusing to duplicate those powers with powers given by this Bill.
Compared with the high unemployment rates before the war, or even with those of many other countries at the present time, unemployment in Great Britain as a whole is not at present a serious problem, and for that we may be profoundly thankful. It might become so—even if we do not talk ourselves into it—and Her Majesty's Government are concerned and watchful. But in June, the latest month for which we have figures, the average unemployment for Great Britain was only 2 per cent. At that level we can feel that the national economy is still pretty soundly based and responding satisfactorily to the financial controls which Her Majesty's Government are operating. Our concern is still with local problems rather than with a national one.
Although the general picture is by no means unsatisfactory, there are, as I
1038
have said, places of high and persistent unemployment which are causing the Government great concern. The problems in these places result from a variety of causes, ranging from a falling off of defence work (and here Greenock springs to mind) to alterations in building fashions—and here I have in mind the problem of slates in North Wales. The difficulties of the tinplate area in South Wales are also well known, and to none better than the noble Viscount, Lord Hall; a changeover from out-of-date methods of hand production to modern continuous automatic processes is the main cause of unemployment, though a fall-off in demand has aggravated it. I need not remind your Lordships of another example which was recently discussed in this House, the problem of Dundee and its jute indutsry. It is to deal with these problems that this Bill has been framed, and I commend it to your Lordships as a useful addition to the Government's armoury for relieving unemployment. It is one which the Government intend to use with speed and decision. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, your Lordships' House must be very grateful to the noble Lord for the clearness with which he has presented this measure. We shall not offer any opposition to this Bill; as a matter of fact, we welcome it, for it is an attempt to mitigate the increasing unemployment in some parts of the country outside the development areas which are therefore excluded from benefit under the Distribution of Industry Acts. The Bill is really an alternative to fully extending those Acts by taking just one part from the Act and applying it to those areas where the unemployment is, as the noble Lord described, excessive.
Until the present time the Board of Trade have been able to assist in providing employment by building advance and other factories and in building some industrial trading estates, as well as providing industrialists with loan capital where it could not be obtained from private sources. This Bill does not go nearly so far as that, for by far the most important provision of the Distribution of Industry Acts was the building of

1039
factories and the setting up of industrial trading estates with Government finance. There is no doubt that a large part of the new employment and production brought into these areas has been achieved by the construction of the factories. Indeed, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of the money which has been spent was to foster the building of these factories and trading estates. The figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill bore out those facts. He said that the expenditure under the Act since 1945 for factory building amounted to £70 million. These factories provide employment for some 190,000 persons. That is over a period of twelve years.
The loans made under the Act—that is, the loans paid out by D.A.T.A.C., which means the Development Area Treasury Advisory Committee—totalled £6,900,000, which is an indication that if this Bill is to be limited solely to the advancement of loans and not to assist in the building of factories very little will be done to meet the unemployment which is growing in some of these areas. The Vote for D.A.T.A.C. for this year, 1958–59, is a mere £100,000, which is almost negligible if it is to carry out even action under this Bill.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether the loans to be provided by this Bill can be applied in any way to the building of new factories including some advance ones. Also I would ask whether he can define the non-industrial undertakings which will qualify for assistance from these Government loans, and whether the Government have in mind any areas where there is very heavy unemployment, other than, say, the North Wales slate quarry area to which the noble Lord has referred, the Western Isles in Scotland where unemployment is at present 38 per cent., and Devon and Cornwall which have a considerable labour surplus except during the holiday season.
It is quite true that the average of unemployment in this country is very low, and we are all grateful and thankful that it is so. Those of us who lived in the distressed and special areas during the 1920s and 1930s trust that conditions of that kind will never be seen in this country again. But at the present time
1040
there are some areas where unemployment is fairly high, quite apart from the areas which I have mentioned. The average unemployment in Wales is almost 4 per cent. In Swansea it is 5·5 per cent., in Merthyr Tydfil it is 4 per cent. As the noble Lord rightly said, in Greenock, in Scotland, largely as a result of the defence programme cuts, it has risen to 7·8 per cent. This indicates that some of the development areas, apart from the areas which receive no benefit under the Development Act, will require further Government assistance to enable them to deal with this problem. I wish that the Government would extend the Development Act to areas where there is excessive unemployment. Let them have the full benefit instead of giving them just a sop.
When dealing with this Bill one remembers the distressed areas of the 1920s and 1930s and the excellent work done by the special area Commissioners such as Sir Wyndham (afterwards Viscount) Portal in South Wales, and Euan Wallace and others in other parts of the country. The Special Areas Act did a certain amount of good, but the war came. Afterwards, under the Distribution of Industry Acts of 1945 and 1950, South Wales, like many of the other development areas, benefited greatly. Until twenty years ago there were few factories in Wales. It was mainly an area of heavy industries—coal, steel, tinplates and so on. The suffering during that period was very great. In 1937 an estimate was given for a long-term target to deal with unemployment. That target amounted to the creation of 125,000 more jobs.
No one knows how many workers the new industries employ to-day, other than that in South Wales, in the development area alone, there are some 350 tenant firms occupying Government-financed factories on the five industrial trading estates—that is, Treforest, Bridgend, Hirwaun, Fforestfach and Wrexham—and on many other selected sites which employ large numbers of men and women. Indeed, the long-term target of 125,000 more jobs was exceeded some time ago, and this has brought a real revolution in these areas. Had it not been that advance factories or factories were built to receive industrialists who were prepared to bring industries down into these areas, I am convinced that not

1041
25 per cent. of those works would exist in South Wales; and that would only mean, as it means at the present time, that the industrial areas would be depopulated to add to the over-populated areas in England where they hardly know what to do with the people they have. The Government should be as generous to the areas where there is at present unemployment and where there will possibly be more unemployment than there is, as they have been in dealing with the unemployment of the past.
There is still an attitude of reserve among some English industrialists, whose works are situated in large over-occupied areas, towards the idea of establishing factories west of the Border to Wales or north of the Border to Scotland. I should like to remind those industrialists of a speech made only last week by Sir John Pascoe, the Chairman of British Timken and South Wales Switchgear, a man of outstanding repute in the industrial world. At the opening of the works sports ground at Blackwood, South Wales, he said that the Switchgear Company had in sixteen years increased its number of employees from 25 to 1,600 and its factory space from 10,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet. Some of this had been done with the assistance of Government-built factories. The work done by the firm is highly technical and demands the highest standard of skill and application from the workers. Sir John further said that what this Company has done can well be followed by other companies in the whole of the County of Monmouthshire and in South Wales, where they will find that a force of workers can be built up and maintained which, under proper supervision and training, will be equal to that of any in Great Britain.
These areas should be encouraged by the Government by every means, and I hope that they will think again about assisting not only by loans after a huge expenditure has been incurred for the, building of factories, but also by building factories. My Lords, as I have said, we welcome this Bill as affording some small mitigation of the problem. We trust that it will do all that its sponsors say it will, and even more. If it can continue to give to the development areas and the new areas now suffering from excessive unemployment the same aid and the same measure of economic relief as did the
1042
Acts of 1934, 1945 and 1950, it will render a great service not only to the unemployed but to the nation. I hope that this Bill, if passed, will be administered with imagination, boldness and great generosity.
3.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Bill is very short, but in some circumstances it may be most important, because it empowers the Board of Trade to give substantial financial advantages to, private industry conducted for private profit in any area which the Board of Trade judges suitable for that purpose. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has reminded your Lordships that the first Bill setting up any kind of organisation, such as the Commissioners for the special areas, was in 1934; but I think that the first Bill which gave large financial inducements to private industry to go to the special areas was the Bill which became the Act of 1937. I had to move the Second Reading of that Bill in another place in April, 1937. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, whom I am glad to see here, followed me from the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was also sitting on the Opposition Front Bench in another place. He did not make an official speech for the Opposition in that debate, but he asked some helpful questions. At that time, I think, there were only three industrial estates in Great Britain. There was the Treforest Estate, in South Wales, for which Lord Portal was responsible; there was the Teme Valley Estate, in Durham, administered by Euan Wallace; and in Scotland, where the special areas were run by Lord Selkirk, there was the Hillingdon Industrial Estate which at that time had only just been approved and which this year is celebrating its twenty-first anniversary.
When I moved the Bill in 1937, the Labour Party were extremely kind to me, and most helpful and pleasant. The only troublesome critic I had in that debate was the then Member for Stockton-on-Tees, Mr. Harold Macmillan, who complained most bitterly that he would back the chances of any camel to get through the eye of any needle in preference to the chances of his constituency, Stockton-on-Tees, qualifying for any Government help under my Bill. The annoying thing was that I should have liked to make the Bill a great deal wider

1043
than it was, but I could not do so because I was only an Under-Secretary. So Mr. Harold Macmillan voted for the official Labour Amendment against the Government. It was not an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, but one regretting that the Bill did not go a great deal further. So what I should like to know from Her Majesty's Government first is whether the present Prime Minister really approves of this Bill, for I am afraid that even under this Bill the Prime Minister's present constituency, which is a great deal grander than Stockton-on-Tees, is not very likely to qualify for any Government assistance.
I have always thought that the precise delineation of areas, whether they are called special areas, development areas or any other name, is a rather unnecessary handicap to Government policy in promoting greater diversification of industry, particularly in those areas where employment is over-concentrated on one type of work. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has already said in his opening speech that to enable new factories to be built anywhere might be uneconomical and unmanageable—which I daresay is correct. But surely the Board of Trade might be allowed to decide this question as they decide the question of loans. Could not the Board of Trade decide whether it was uneconomic or unmanageable to build such factories in one area or another, just as, under this Bill, they can decide whether it is uneconomic or undesirable to give loans to factories in one area or another? I should like to reinforce the question which has been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall: whether loans can be used for building factories.
The other question is this distinction, of which we have heard a good deal lately, between what are called "ready-made" factories and "tailor-made" factories. The Labour Government, under their administration of this Act, built a great many ready-made factories and then asked industry to occupy them. The present Government consider that in conditions where there is not such a strong sellers' market it may be better to provide "tailor-made" factories—that is to say, factories which are not designed until an industry has agreed to come to a certain site, when the industry is then
1044
asked to get an architect and to plan exactly the building it wants.
I am not arguing one way or another, for obviously there are arguments on both sides. It is like asking a man whether he would rather have a suit from Moss Bros., "off the peg", or go to a Savile Row tailor. If he is in a hurry, or cannot afford to pay for an expensive suit, he will prefer Moss Bros.; but if he can afford to wait and wants a carefully fitted suit, he may prefer to go to a Savile Row tailor. It is the same with factories under this Act. If we build "ready-made" factories that may make it easier for industrialists who are eager to come somewhere to come quickly. On the other hand, it may put off those industries which are inclined to be more "choosy" and will wait until we can give them exactly what they want. I am only asking for information, because in the debate in another place last week on Scottish industry the Secretary of State said that he might be going to reconsider this matter, and I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Mancroft may be able to give us further information on that point.
I do not see why Her Majesty's Government should not be free to do both—to build "ready-made" factories in those places where they want to get results quickly and believe industries would come; or to build "tailor-made" factories in places where it is felt that industries will not come unless they can get exactly the kind of buildings they want, designed by the architect they want. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been kind enough to mention the particular problem of Dundee. I will not go into it to-day, as we had a debate on it four weeks ago but I am grateful to him for mentioning it. I would ask him to remember that the great thing is not whether we have "ready-made" or "tailor-made" factories but whether there is planning in advance. We must plan now for the employment, or unemployment, situation that we expect in two or three years' time, and we have to go ahead now with servicing possible sites in areas where we expect heavy unemployment, giving them water, electricity and other services. If it is thought right to provide ready-made" factories I would ask my noble friend whether he can add anything to what was said on

1045
that subject last week during the debate in another place.
3.27 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I wish to support the welcome which my noble friend Lord Hall has given to this Bill in his very factual speech to-day, and what was said in the somewhat humorous, imaginative and very useful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. The kind of thing that we are doing here to-day would have caused a rare commotion in either House some years ago. We had to learn from the experience of the depressed areas, of which my noble friend Lord Hall and myself had only too much. We learned that some areas in the country were somewhat "lop-sided" in their industrial arrangements. We had not thought about that before, even in the areas affected. The iron, coal and steel areas had been used to fairly regular employment, and consequently—and because they were so remote—factories did not come into those areas at the same rate as they had come to other parts of the country.
The main purpose for which I rise today is to point out that we have learned by experience. While we always desire certain areas to have more attention, I believe that if those who saw the old depressed areas could see them in recent times—if they were to have a vision of the kind of things we knew in those days of the 1930s, and saw those areas now, with the factories, and saw the different light upon the faces of the people, the different conditions and the different atmosphere—they would know that good work has been done in those areas.
The Government, of course, are acting quickly in this case to try to rearrange the balance in certain areas by helping to build factories, or at least by giving facilities for that purpose. Those who are responsible for the administration of this Bill, and those in the country who are more directly responsible for applying it, will find in some new cases that they have much to learn; and all I hope is that the Government will treat this Bill extremely seriously as a great discovery in our industrial experience, and that those in the areas affected will seek to know what has happened in other areas, so that they also can help the Government in building up these new areas.
1046
I should like to add one further comment. I think that the Government need to watch very closely the over-building of factories in some areas, as well as the under-building. If I may say so, I feel that in this area of London shocking mistakes are being made—we learnt that during the war—and it is time that the Government, or some organisation, took a look at the situation around London, not only in the light of the effect of this kind of thing upon a vast city but also in the light of the needs of the other parts of the country.
3.32 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two, but I should like, on behalf of my friends in industry and myself, to give a really warm welcome to this small but highly important measure. I agree entirely with what was said on that account by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has told us, and indeed we all know, what admirable work has been done over the last years under the Distribution of Industry Acts—in the special areas before the war, and in the development areas since. But they have always suffered from the rigidity of the actual area and what happens inside and what happens outside.
Industry is alive and, because it is alive, some parts of it are progressing all the time and some parts of it are, of necessity, dying away as new developments come about. Therefore, in the nature of things, it is inevitable that pockets of unemployment appear from time to time in places in which there is not a general problem so that it is not necessary to apply the full development area procedure. It seems to me that this Bill is designed, and admirably designed, to deal with these pockets of unemployment. There are, of course, two methods by which help can be given, and I am glad to see that now Her Majesty's Government are applying both. One is to assist men who are thrown out of employment, especially those who have skills of one sort and another, to move by means of grants and aids of various sorts to where employment is available. That is, in certain circumstances, very valuable. Nobody, however, wishes to see parts of the country denuded of skilled men,

1047
and therefore we want something extra for these quick and sudden onslaughts of unemployment that come about from time to time in places where there may be plenty of factories, though they are not suited for new development, and where adaptation and expenditure of one sort and another may make a the difference.
I should like, in conclusion, to offer one warning. In so far as this Bill will be of general application, there will be, I am afraid, a great deal of pressure from various areas to see who can benefit most from it; and it will be largely in the hands of the Board of Trade to ensure that fair play is granted all round, and that no area suffers or benefits owing simply to the eloquence of its Member or its representative. I feel that this measure is going to stand or fall by the way it is administered. I hope, and I am sure that all of those in Industry hope, and believe, that it will be administered with the utmost fairness and generosity. I greatly welcome the Bill.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dundee I was concerned as a Minister with this topic of the distribution of industry, and in another place answered many questions and took part in many debates on this subject. My noble friend Lord Mancroft, in introducing this Bill, expressed the view held, I believe, in all quarters of the House—namely approval of the policy of the Distribution of Industry Acts, and satisfaction with the way in which, on the whole, those Acts have worked. In so far as this Bill is to remedy any omission or defect that has appeared, in the experience of the Board of Trade, in the working of those Acts the House will certainly give it a general welcome.
I have only two points on which I would seek some enlightenment from my noble friend. The first is some legal doubt about whether this Bill, though apparently an extension of the previous Acts, does not in certain respects rather go against their principle. Perhaps I can put the point most clearly by framing a question to my noble friend. How far have the Board of Trade to be satisfied that the proposed help will further the proper distribution of industry? The House will see why I feel some doubt if
1048
it will refer to paragraph (b) in Clause 1 of the Bill. There it is pointed out that the help can be given.
"whether or not that undertaking"—
in the words of paragraph (b)—
"is approved by the Board of Trade in pursuance of the said subsection (2) as complying with the requirements of the proper distribution of industry,"
If one stopped there it would look as if "the proper distribution of industry" had not to be present in the mind of the Board of Trade at all when they made a decision to help under this Act.
But if noble Lords will refer to the Explanatory Memorandum on this Bill they will find, in the final paragraph, that the Bill does not affect the operation of subsection (4) of Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, under which industrial development certificates have to be issued by the Board of Trade as a condition precedent in certain cases. I hope that my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will explain the exact relationship between these words in paragraph (b) of Clause 1, which apparently give exemption to the Board of Trade from considering these requirements of the proper distribution of industry, and the continued operation of this provision in Section 14 of the Act of 1947, under which industrial development certificates must still be issued.
The other doubt I have about the Bill arises from the undefined and very general expression in the Bill "in any locality". Nearly every noble Lord who has spoken has referred to "areas", and, of course, if there is any substantial area in which there is high unemployment which is likely to persist, there is no noble Lord who would not desire that remedial action should be taken; but if you deal not with "areas" but with "any locality"—however small—then can it be said that the mere existence of persistent unemployment is necessarily an evil which has to be remedied? Is it not necessary that in some small localities employment may have to diminish if it is to increase in many others? What I fear is the administrative problem that the Board of Trade may have to face, which was alluded to by my noble friend who spoke immediately before me. The words in the Bill as they stand are so vague and so wide that there will be scarcely any Member of another place who will not press the Board of Trade to help some constituent

1049
under the provisions of this measure. Linder the previous measures there were more or less ascertainable tests that had to be complied with. Under this measure it seems to me that there are very few.
While I welcome the Bill, as do the noble Lords who have already spoken, because it remedies one defect in the previous measures—namely, the impossibility of helping any area outside the development areas—it seems to me that we ought to have some enlightenment on what are to be the requirements regarding the proper distribution of industry and what is meant by "any locality".
3.42 pm.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the Bill specifically refers to covering an area within a development area "or elsewhere". The noble Lord who has just sat down and who speaks with such intimate knowledge of the Board of Trade has emphasised how wide are the proposals in the Bill. It is, I think, appropriate, in a Bill of this character and at this stage, to refer to something to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, will see fit to draw attention in the correct quarter. In all these cases of assistance and aid to industry the aim is to increase employment, and the underlying thought is that in increasing employment you are going to reduce the cost and therefore make the product more easy to sell. The point that I particularly want to raise is that where finance and assistance become available in this way to give additional employment and to bring lower costs, thought is often given only to the machinery which is to be used to employ the people.
The fact is that in many of our industrial areas in this country we are at a disadvantage compared with the Continent for a reason which is quite simple, namely, that on the Continent, both in France and in Germany, immense war destruction took place, as it did indeed in this country; but there the repair of buildings has been much more rapid and successful than here. I urge that thought be given to the fact that, in addition to bringing new machinery into play for the purposes aimed at in the Bill, attention should be given to the subject of specific or special assistance in the erection of new buildings. So much of our industry is in multi-storey buildings that it is
1050
impossible to compete economically with countries that have industry laid out in single-storey buildings covering a large area of ground. Until there is some supplementary aid such as is suggested in this Bill, it is difficult to see how industry will find a way of getting resources to provide buildings such as I have referred to—one-storey buildings instead of multi-storey buildings. Therein lies the double advantage of lessening the cost and bringing us into line with our industrial competitors, and of improving the amenities of the people employed in them.
3.45 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the House has important business before it, and I will therefore be as brief as I can. I want to thank the House for the very friendly way in which this Bill has been welcomed. There are two or three questions which I think have recurred in most speeches. I have been asked to define the non-industrial undertakings which the Government have in mind to give grants to and which are not included in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. That Act was limited to industrial undertakings and to development areas. This new Bill, however, as I think I explained, extends the power to grant loans to non-industrial undertakings, whether inside or outside development areas. I think that those might include banks, insurance companies, hire purchase companies, hotels and office organisations generally. The Bill deliberately does not define what is included. The object is not to debar by definition any undertaking which might contribute to reducing unemployment. That is why, also, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has pointed out, the Bill is not specific in certain other respects. I will look carefully into the technical point that he has raised, because I think that he has put his finger on what might be a difficulty.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, asked whether any grants or loans paid under this Bill can be used for building factories, advanced or otherwise. The only power to be taken by this Bill is the power, in suitable cases, to assist by loan or grant persons proposing to carry on an undertaking in a place of serious unemployment. The Government are not

1051
taking powers to build factories themselves, for the reasons I gave. Local corporations or limited companies which run industrial estates could bring themselves within the strict terms of the Bill. But the object of the Bill is to reduce unemployment, and it is, therefore, the Government's intention to make loans or grants directly to the organisations which are themselves going to provide the employment, rather than to intermediaries.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, drew a searching parallel between a suit from Moss Bros. off the peg and another suit from Savile Row. I think it is just as well that he did that in a speech in your Lordships' House and not in a letter to a Minister. The noble Earl's question, if he will allow me to say so, is not quite appropriate to this Bill, under which the Government are taking powers only to make loans or grants. The Board of Trade's powers under the parent Act to put up factories, of course, continue unaffected by this Bill. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place,
"there is a great deal of evidence that the 'advance' factory is not the catch that it used to be."
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also drew our attention to a brush that he had in years gone by with the present Prime Minister, then Member for Stockton, and he asked whether I had discussed this Bill with my right honourable friend. For various technical reasons which we need not go into, I have not had the opportunity of discussing this Bill with the Prime Minister; but, if my noble friend, Lord Dundee, really insists that I should bring the point to his notice, I will do so, at the risk of finding myself not only without Portfolio but also without office.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRAQ AND THE LEBANON
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Gosford promised the House yesterday afternoon, I am about to make a statement to keep your Lordships informed of the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. The general situation in Baghdad, and in Iraq as a whole, is still obscure, but we have received to-day a message from Her Majesty's Ambassador. I regret to inform the House that it appears from this message that Colonel Graham, the Comptroller of the Household, has been killed and two other members of the Embassy staff injured. The relatives of these two members of the staff are being informed. With these exceptions, all British members of the staff of the Embassy, of the British Council of the British Loan Personnel Iraq and of the Baghdad Pact Secretariat are, as far as can be ascertained, safe and well. The Embassy buildings in Baghdad have been looted and the residence of the Ambassador burned out. The buildings are now guarded by troops with members of the British staff in occupation. There is no report of any injury to members of the British community in Baghdad.
The Iraq Petroleum Company has had news from Kirkuk that all is well and operations are proceeding as usual. Basra, too, is quiet and operations there continue. There is no change in the situation at Habbaniya. Her Majesty's Ambassador has requested assurances regarding the protection of British lives and property. Her Majesty's Government are also arranging for the authorities at present in control in Baghdad to be informed that Her Majesty's Government protest vigorously against the destruction of Her Majesty's Embassy and the treatment of its staff, and hold them responsible for the safety of British lives and property. There is still no reliable news of the whereabouts of King Feisal, the Crown Prince and Nuri Said.
I wish now to refer to the Lebanon. United States forces are landing at Beirut this afternoon, at the request of the President of the Lebanon. The Security Council is also meeting this afternoon, at the request of the United States Government, to discuss the situation. The President has issued a statement giving the reasons for the United States action.

1053
Her Majesty's Government have been in close consultation with the United States Government throughout the present crisis. They were informed in advance of the United States Government's intentions. They believe that the United States action is necessary to preserve the independence and integrity of the Lebanon in this very uncertain situation. This action has Her Majesty's Government's full support. British troops are not taking part in this operation. British forces in the area have, however, been alerted.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for giving us the information with regard to the situation in Iraq. I am sure that the House will desire to express its sympathy with the family of Colonel Graham and the families of those who have been injured. I notice that it is said that those who still remain there are protected by troops. Are these the troops who have revolted?—I gather that that is so. I take it, therefore, that the Government will continue to make urgent requests to the people concerned about the protection of British lives.
Tae statement goes on to deal with a different question, about which at the present moment I cannot know very much—and that is, the action which has been taken to-day by the United States authorities in sending troops into the Lebanon. We have no knowledge of any word of the statement which, it is said, President Eisenhower has issued explaining the reasons for this action. However, I observe that the matter is coming before the Security Council today. I think that a request will be made in another place this afternoon for a very early debate, possibly to-morrow, and although there may be views to express about the situation in the Lebanon, I do not propose to pursue the matter further this afternoon.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I ant obliged to the noble Viscount. It is true that our people are now protected by troops that have revolted. Of course, the extent of the revolution and what areas of the country the rebels now control are still uncertain. It will be for the other place to arrange its Business, but perhaps we in your Lordships' House could keep in touch through the usual channels.

DEFENCE ORGANISATION
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if there are no more questions, I have another statement to make on the organisation of defence. When the present Government was formed, the Minister of Defence was entrusted with the task of re-shaping and reorganising the Armed Forces in accordance with current strategic needs and in the light of the economic capacity of the country. For this purpose the Prime Minister redefined the Minister's functions in relation to the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply, and gave him increased authority to take decisions on matters of general defence policy affecting the size, shape, organisation and equipment of the Armed Forces. The Prime Minister announced this in another place on January 24, 1957.
These arrangements have now been in operation for eighteen months. As a result of a recent careful review, the Government have concluded that they have been justified by practical experience, and that, subject to certain minor alterations, they should now be formally confirmed. In addition, three new features are being introduced. First, the composition and operation of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet is being adjusted in order to secure greater flexibility and efficiency. Secondly, a Defence Board is being set up to assist the Minister of Defence in formulating defence policy and for dealing with inter-Service problems. Thirdly, certain adjustments are being made in the Staff organisation, including the assumption by the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the title of Chief of the Defence Staff. The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve that Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir William Dickson be appointed to this new office.
For the convenience of the House, the Prime Minister has set out in a White Paper an outline of the working of the organisation as adjusted by the changes which I have mentioned this afternoon. Copies of this White Paper are available this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, again I must thank the noble Earl for repeating in your Lordships' House the statement of the

1055
Prime Minister on Defence Policy. Of course we have not before us at the moment the contents of the White Paper, and I must say that this is one of the thinnest statements on what apparenly are to be important changes; and until we have studied the White Paper, it is impossible to make any detailed comment on it. I suggested the other day that when the White Paper was produced not only should we require to have a full debate on it but that it might turn out that the changes proposed were such that they ought to be covered by legislation.
I am aware that Section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Act, 1946, which was quoted by the Prime Minister in his statement in another place on June 24, 1957, is general and gives wide powers in regard to the formulation of policy. But I must say that prima facie one of the passages in the noble Earl's very thin and inadequate statement this afternoon requires careful study in connection with the White Paper. I refer to these words:
"In addition, three new features are being introduced. First, the composition and operation of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet is being adjusted in order to secure greater flexibility and efficiency. Secondly, a Defence Board is being set up to assist the Minister of Defence in formulating defence policy and for dealing with inter-Service problems. Thirdly, certain adjustments are being made in the Staff organisation, including the assumption by the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the title of Chief of the Defence Staff."
I do not see how we can agree with this unless we have a debate, and an early debate, the possibility of which I hope may be pursued through the usual channels.
Moreover, while Section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Act, 1946, is, as I say, quite wide in regard to the powers of the Ministry, we should never have anticipated getting that Act through another place on that date in 1946 unless we had had the very detailed structure of the defence organisation in the White Paper at the time that the Bill was presented to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will not think that at the moment I am in any way acquiescent to what he has said to your Lordships this afternoon. I, with my noble friends, will make a careful study of the White Paper and, if necessary, I might have to ask that we should consider legislation.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course I should not ask the noble Viscount to acquiese this afternoon, but I am reasonably sure that he will, and that when he has studied the Paper it will carry conviction. I think I can set his mind at rest, and I am sure he will come to the conclusion that the changes that have been made do not require legislation. That is certainly the view of the Government. We have been acting under a directive. The purpose of this is to make certain changes, not great changes, to regularise the matter and to inform Parliament and all concerned of the structure of our defence organisation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it did not appear to me from the passage that I read out that the directive which arose out of the Prime Minister's statement on January 24th, 1957, included such changes in policy as setting up a separate Defence Board in addition to the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. That is the sort of thing that I think needs consideration.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House one question. He has said that there will be a rearrangement of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. I know it is not usual to give the detailed constitution of Cabinet Committees. On the other hand, as he has referred to this matter as an essential part of these reforms, and, as I think the House will agree, it has always been regarded as vitally important, ever since Mr. Balfour established the Committee of Imperial Defence, I am sure he will not mind my asking him whether he can give us an assurance that the Prime Minister himself will remain the Chairman of the Defence Committee?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. We do not, in general, want to disclose the names of members of Cabinet Committees, but, as a matter of fact, the names of Ministers on the Defence Committee of the Cabinet have been published before, so that on this occasion my noble friend will find the Defence Committee in the White Paper; and the Prime Minister will be the Chairman.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am obliged.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.3 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 7 [Rateable value of industrial and freight transport lands and heritages]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) For the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and subsequent years the rights of salmon fishing to which this subsection applies shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be deemed for the purpose of making up any valuation roll to be agricultural lands and heritages:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any right of a district fishery board to require the assessor to value and enter such rights of salmon fishing in the valuation roll for the purposes of fishery assessments only.
(3) The last foregoing subsection—

(a) applies to rights of salmon fishing which are exercised by net or cruive and are so exercised regularly throughout the periods during which that method of fishing is allowed by law, and in respect of which no revenue is derived by the owner or occupier thereof from any other method of fishing during any part of those periods and

(b) does not apply to any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens or other corporeal lands and heritages, whether occupied or used in connection with rights of salmon fishing to which the last foregoing subsection applies or not.

(4) Any dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens or other corporeal lands and heritages occupied or used in connection with rights of salmon fishing to which subsection (2) of this section applies shall, for the purpose of making up the valuation roll for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine and any subsequent year, be treated as lands and heritages Which are neither industrial nor agricultural."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is in substance the same Amendment which I put down on the Committee stage of this Bill, which was so unfortunately defeated. I must explain, first of all, that it refers only to net fishing of salmon by means of fixed nets in estuaries and rivers and on the open coast of the sea, and has nothing whatever to do with rod fishing. I must also explain that for the purposes of rating salmon fishings of this sort are divided into two halves: first of all, the right to fish in the river; and secondly, the dry land appurtenances of fishing, such as net-
1058
drying greens and storehouses and occasionally a cottage.
At present the right to fish in the river is rated at 25 per cent. of its gross value. The dry land appurtenances are rated at 100 per cent. The effect of my Amendment is to de-rate the right to fish in the river altogether, and to put it into the same category as the fields on a farm, while at the same time, retaining 100 per cent. rating on the dry land stores, drying greens and buildings. There is at the beginning of the Amendment a proviso which has the effect that where it is necessary under the Salmon Fisheries Acts of the middle of the last century for a salmon fishery to be assessed for the purpose of district fishing boards' payments by owners, this value may be put on the valuation rolls. But it is only for the purposes of these assessments, into which I will go later.
At the same time, I must here draw attention to subsection (4) of the Amendment, which is an interim measure to provide for the period between now and 1961, because the 1956 Rating Act froze the valuation rolls until that date and it will be necessary, if my Amendment is carried, that the new valuation as under this section shall be put in the rolls instead of the one that is at present upon them. For this purpose, the rolls will have to be unfrozen. This is the same as would happen in the case of industry, and it will apply only until 1961. Salmon fisheries are at present an industry, and if the Bill goes through as it stands they will have their rates doubled; in fact, as I said on Committee stage, the effect will be that they will be trebled as compared with what they were before 1956.
The history of this matter is somewhat curious. When the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was before your Lordships' House, the father of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, moved an Amendment, which was carried on a Division, which de-rated salmon fishings to the same degree as industries. This was necessary because, while agriculture was being derated to 87½ per cent., and industries to 75 per cent., nothing was being done about salmon fishings at all; and the noble Lord at the time moved, and carried, an Amendment which made salmon fishing industry for this purpose. But I think there was a confusion which arose in that Act and which is the source of the whole trouble at this present time.

1059
In that Act there was a distinction between agriculture and industry, and the noble Lord throughout his speech pointed to the comparison between salmon fisheries and agriculture. But he finished off in moving his Amendment to make salmon fishings industry with the somewhat remarkable statement:
"This salmon fishing is purely industry and is as industrial as agriculture."
I think your Lordships would agree that this may have been a valid confusion, and it is time that this confusion was put right; and I am glad that the present noble Lord, Lord Lovat, is here to help in doing this.
I will try to put as quickly and clearly as I can the reasons why this must be done. In the first place, no one will deny that salmon fishing has great similarity to agriculture. They employ very much the same men at different times of the year, and the definition of agricultural lands and heritages adopted in the 1929 Act included a large number of rural occupations, such as poultry farming, market gardens, allotments and orchards, though, curiously, it did not include salmon fishing. I can think of no other rural occupation except salmon fishing which is not included in that definition of agricultural lands and heritages, and I think that is a good reason why it should be so included now. In addition to that, in comparison with white fisheries, salmon fisheries are in a very bad position. The white fisheries have no rights, and therefore pay no rates. They do, however, pay rates on their land premises. Salmon fisheries, however, which have a much more hazardous occupation and lead a great deal more hazardous existence—they lose their nets in gales because they are fixed, whereas the white fisheries take their nets up again at the end of each catch—are rated at present on their right in the river as well as on dry land.
It may be said that if the rates are going up they can be passed on to the consumer. But this is not the case with the salmon industry. At present, Scottish salmon is in competition in the English market both with Irish salmon, in very large quantities, and, to some degree, with Scandinavian salmon, while hanging over its head all the time is the threat of imports of salmon from other parts
1060
of the world. It is interesting to have a rough figure of the Irish imports of salmon compared with the Scottish figure. This is an unofficial figure, but it says that the Irish salmon imports in 1957 came to 8,678 boxes at Billingsgate, whereas the figure for Scottish salmon was only 8,350. It is easy to see why the price of Scottish salmon cannot be put up. In fact, the increase would have to be borne inside the industry, and that means one thing and one thing only; the closing of unprofitable stations.
In addition, salmon fishing is an export industry. There are exports which go out to a considerable number of places in the world, such as Australia, the East Coast of Africa, the Persian Gulf, Singapore and South America. In fact, it is not uncommon to send consignments of one ton of smoked salmon abroad, and if your Lordships will consider the value of such a consignment you will see that it is quite considerable. Further, when you look at the comparison between the rent that a salmon fishery pays as against the number of men it employs, you will see that there is a startling difference compared to both farms and industries. For instance, if you take a factory which employs six men, the odds are that it will pay about £50 rent per year, whereas the farm employing six men will probably pay about £150 per year in rent. But a salmon fishery will pay £1,200 a year in rent. There is a reason for this difference, and it is quite an important reason. The right to fish in the river is the raw material of the salmon fishery in exactly the same way as the fields are the raw material of agriculture. The rent of the right to fish in the river is the price that is paid for the raw material. What other industry is rated on the price which it pays for its raw material?
These salmon fisheries take place in rural and in the Highland areas of Scotland. For instance, on the coast of North Angus and Kincardineshire there are several of these stations, several of which are marginal and which may have to close down if the rates go up. This particular area is a pocket of bad unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, told us that the national level of unemployment was about 2 per cent. In the area of which I am speaking it is between 4 and 5 per cent., and the

1061
closing of the stations will increase it. Not only so, but it will increase it in taking the jobs away from people in small villages, where the loss of a few jobs is much more important than it is in a big town.
It might be said that other methods could be used or other measures made about the salmon fisheries. Last time this matter came before your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, suggested that rents could be reduced. I do not think this is so. Most of the fisheries are let on long-term leases, as it is. But, in addition, the owner of the fishery has to pay the fisheries assessment on this fishery out of the rent which he receives, and on the Forth, for instance, this assessment is 30s. in the £ on the valuation of the fishing, and the national average throughout Scotland is 4s. 6d. And, of course, it goes up with the increasing costs, like everything else. The assessment is paid, and it is levied under statutory authority to protect salmon fishing from poaching and statutory offences, and also to care for the young fish, the hatcheries and the stocking of the river. It would not be possible to do this properly if the owners did not have sufficient rents. In addition, the owners often have to pay for the upkeep of the land establishments of the salmon fishings, the bothies, and the net drying greens and sheds.
It will also be said that my Amendment will mean a loss of rates, and I am afraid that this is to some degree true. But in this case the increase is subject to the law of diminishing returns, because an increase in rates will definitely mean the closing of stations. Therefore, it is unlikely that the local authorities will receive much more in the way of rates than they do at present. On the other hand, this measure, if it goes through un-amended, will mean an increase in unemployment in these local authority areas, and I do not think that any local authority is anxious to have that occurring.
This is a rural problem, and it applies to the Highlands and rural Scotland. I should like to conclude by reading a short paragraph from the Crofters Commission Report, 1957. It says:
"The crofting population never did live by agriculture alone. A typical crofter always had a second or third ancillary occupation. The loss of it is largely responsible for Highland depopulation."
1062
My Amendment is intended to save this second and third ancillary occupation both for the crofters and for the other inhabitants of the other coastal areas of rural Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, at end insert the said new subsections—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he give us some particulars? He is asking for our votes. Could he relate in any way the cost of these rates to the cost of the produce produced—in other words, pence per pound, or give us some idea of the cost?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, at the present moment on the open market the average price of salmon, salmon trout, grilse and trout—of course, there is a large difference in the price of these particular fish—is 4s. 10d. per pound. An increase in rates will mean that this price will go up to 5s. per pound. That is only the wholesale price, and has no or little connection with the price charged in the shops.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to speak in support, following my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross—who I think made an admirable speech which leaves little for me to say—I should like to speak on this subject for the Highlands, where salmon netting plays an important part in our rural life. The impression that has been formed on both sides of the House, by treating this matter as an industrial subject, to be rated as such, is that the salmon are almost shouldering each other out of the sea on their way up the various rivers where they are caught in large numbers commercially. That is what the new rate would imply. In the words of the North American salmon fishing station, "You catch what you can, and can what you can't." That, of course, is a wholly wrong impression.
Anybody who knows the salmon fishing industry will agree with me that the only river in Scotland which has a sufficiently narrow entrance to give the coast net fishermen the very real chance of taking heavy toll on the runs of salmon is the river Tweed, which divides our countries. On the coast, however, nets or stake nets

1063
which are fixtures have to be set in such a way as to catch the fish on the tide and on shoals and sandbars where the salmon run with no let or hindrance; and this fishing is entirely subject to weather conditions, the state of the moon and the height of the water. In the area I know best, which is the sea triangle between the Kyles of Sutherland to the north and Spey Bay to the south and east, and the River Beauly and the estuary of the river where I live to the west, there is thirty-five miles of open water in which the fish can swim in suitable conditions, where they never touch the coast until they run up their parent river; and, as your Lordships know, they always return to the river in which they are spawned. In that area 300 men are employed in various stations of different sizes.
As I have told your Lordships before, and I apologise for doing it again, in the Moray Firth Fisheries, of which I am a director, we paid out £25,000 in wages last year and showed a loss. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said, the rents we pay for these fishings are very considerable. They actually amounted to £8,300 on a wage bill of £25,000, and we lost money on the deal. I can assure your Lordships that it is not the fishermen who catch the fish who make the money; it is the fishmonger and the undertaking which provides transport at the prohibitive rate which a paternal Government charges those unfortunate enough to live in the far north of Scotland. I say that with feeling, because I have just paid £18 4s. 0d. in order to come and address your Lordships' House. The same sort of iniquitous levy applies in the problems of salmon fishermen.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was kind enough to say on two previous occasions that if we could give him further information of a concrete nature on the subject he would give it his due consideration. I should like to tell him this: I can produce a piece of paper (though the netting stations concerned, whose names are on it, do not wish to make it public) to show him that certain stations will close down anyway, while a great many more have asked for an immediate break in their leases in view of this threat hanging over them. Those stations in the
1064
Beauly Estuary, which covers a twelve-mile stretch of shore, with which I have something to do myself will have to close down; there is absolutely no alternative, so precarious is the difference between profit and loss at the present stage. The cost of raw materials and labour has been going up ever since the war. The weather, on this exposed coast, 600 miles North of London, is so severe that we lose in a single night in gear alone as much as the year's catch. Surely that can hardly be called a safe industrial undertaking.
I also have a piece of information which was held up, I think, possibly due to the celebrations now going on in British Columbia. The message comes from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in Vancouver. It is simply this—and it emphasises the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross: that the salmon fisheries should be treated as agriculture. After all, it is a crop. The fish are grown there five years before being caught, and in this country it has been found necessary to produce salmon artificially with the help of hatcheries, so severe are the losses of the fish we hope to catch when they reach maturity. A point in regard to agriculture which does not apply to salmon fisheries is that agriculture is subsidised whereas salmon fisheries have nothing.
Moreover, salmon fisheries have to contend with pollution, hydro-electric schemes, and all the dangers to which salmon are subject including poaching by vermin and human beings. Many of your Lordships have heard that there are people still living who remember salmon running up to the Broomielaw, through Glasgow and the Clyde. South of the Border the same thing applies to rivers like the Tees and Tyne. Coming North again, in my lifetime, which is not very long, we have found that in the Forth, which runs into the Firth of Forth, the Teith, which runs past Stirling, the fish suffer in large numbers from pollution. It is quite possible that before any of us is much older, the salmon will disappear altogether from the Forth. It is a falling industry, and what the Government are now proposing to do will only speed the loss of something which I think all of us, whether from the point of view of sport or profit, would regret. It would mean that a great many people who need to be employed seasonally, will

1065
suffer severely if we penalise this industry further.
The information which I should like the noble Earl, Lord Strathclyde, to have about the Pacific salmon fishings of British Columbia—and, I might add, Alaska—is that on that coast £53 million worth of salmon is caught and sold annually as opposed to £1¼ million worth of salmon in this country. The difference is vast—£53 million as opposed to £1¼ million. And yet the policy of the Federal and Provincial Governments, whose primary concern is conservation, is that the whole thing is rigidly managed on a sustained yield basis: it is treated in the same way as an agricultural crop.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I was delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his reconnaissance in force last week, forced a dead-heat, in the absence of a great many Scottish Peers who were doing their duty in Edinburgh. I am glad to see that many of our heavy tanks are here to-day, lying in a hull-down position, in the persons of the noble Earl. Lord Dundee, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield; while the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, on the cross Benches, can no doubt speak on the nutritional value of salmon. I hope that this matter will be threshed out and, if necessary, forced to a second Division.
4.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sorry that I was unavoidably prevented from being in your Lordships' House on July 1 to support the Amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. Since then I have studied carefully the arguments which were used on the debate on the Amendment, and it seems to me that the only argument against the Amendment is that in 1929 the salmon net fishing industry was glad to accept the status of an industrial undertaking. Of course it was—because until then it had been paying 100 per cent. rates. It was not offered the option between 87½ per cent. agricultural de-rating and 75 per cent. industrial de-rating. It was offered the option between 75 per cent. industrial de-rating and nothing, so naturally it preferred to be classified as an industry.
But in fact net salmon fishing is a food-producing occupation which is in every respect integrated with, and ancillary to,
1066
agriculture. It is a very precarious branch indeed of the food-producing industry. As your Lordships know, the rates have to be paid whether you make a profit or a loss. If a small salmon business is rated on an assessment of £1,000 a year, first of all it has to pay the Fisheries Board dues—sometimes 50 or 60 per cent.—and then it has to pay rates. If it makes a profit in a lucky year of £2,000 it pays income tax on £2,000 and rates on £1,000. If it makes a loss of £2,000, which it sometimes does, it escapes income tax but still pays rates on £1,000. So that its rates are a direct tax on employment; and, very largely, on the employment of a class of people whom we are particularly trying to preserve in Scotland. That is the crofters, who depend so much on seasonal employment in salmon fishing. This applies not only in the Highlands. The crofters come from the Highlands; but their employment is not all in the Highlands; in the East Lowlands, on the Tay Estuary our seasonal labour with net fishing is largely recruited from the North of Scotland and from the Western Isles, from the crofting population who depend on this seasonal employment for the continuance of their independent economic status, which is sometimes a very difficult thing for them to maintain.
I would ask your Lordships to remember that this Amendment is not put forward in the interests of the big people; it is being put forward in the interests of the little men, who depend so much on salmon fishing, either as small industrialists themselves, or as seasonal workers in this industry who must get their employment if their present way of life is going to go on. That is a thing the Government have taken so much trouble about, in such measures as the Crofters Bill, and one of the worst things the Government could do to upset the status of these crofters, and many other small people would be to refuse to accept this Amendment. I know that things are not always done at the right time. Of course this Amendment ought to have been made and accepted in 1929. But it was not. At that time the difference was one of only 12½ per cent. between 87½ per cent. agricultural de-rating in Scotland and 75 per cent. industrial derating; and the matter was not pressed. Now it is a difference between 50 per cent. and nil, which is a very different thing. I would ask the Government not

1067
to take their stand on the fact that the right thing was not done in 1929. I would ask the Government to agree to do the right thing now.
4.32 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, once more I should like to support my noble friend who has introduced this Amendment so clearly. During the Second Reading of this Bill I said that if this clause went through unamended it would mean that another depopulation nail would have been driven into the coffin of the Highlands and the remote areas of Scotland. I still hold to that view, and since then I have managed to unearth a few more facts, which I hope may strengthen this case, concerning stations closing down and others that may possibly have to close down. Recently in Scotland, three stations have closed down altogether—one in Kincardineshire, one in Morayshire and one in Ross-shire. In addition, last season there were no fewer than eleven Crown stations in Scotland, seven of them in the North of Scotland, that were un-let: no tenant could be found for them at all.
I should also like to give an example of why it is quite possible that in the future other stations may be forced to close down for financial reasons. There is a small Crown station in Kincardineshire, employing at present twelve men. Last year its profit was £179—this after paying rates of £96. On the basis that the rates are doubled it would mean that this station would have shown a profit of only £83. Surely that cannot be considered a sound financial proposition. There is also the danger of aggravating the unemployment situation that already exists in some of these areas. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has also
referred—
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble Lord happen to know what the rent was in that particular case?
LORD FORBES: Perhaps I could give the noble Lord an answer later.
LORD HAWKE: And the output?
LORD FORBES: Perhaps I could also answer the noble Lord later.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to know the exact amount. What I was wonder-
1068
ing was the sort of figure, in comparison with the amounts we are talking about.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have the figures for this. I am not sure that I want to give them exactly, but I will give them approximately. The rent paid was in the nature of £470, and the rates, as my noble friend said, were £96. The wages were £3,500, and the total produce came to something in the nature of £6,000.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: And the assessment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The assessment is on the rent, so that the assessment was £450-odd. In addition to that, £1,500 of gear was lost on that station last year.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, as I was saying, there is the danger that the already existing unemployment situation in certain parts of Scotland may be aggravated. I should like to give an instance in South Kincardineshire, where there are five small villages which at present provide sixty men for salmon net fishing. If any of those stations is closed down, those men from the little villages will become unemployed. Already the unemployment figure there is 4·1 per cent. I am sure your Lordships will all agree that to add to that figure would be nothing less than deplorable.
I should also like to make it quite clear that the majority of these men who take part in salmon net fishing do so only in the summer-time or during the season; for the rest of the time they are crofters. If the salmon net fishing closes down, their crofts will not provide a living for them, so they will have to go towards the towns and cities to seek employment; and once they get to the towns they will not return to the rural areas. I think I can safely say, at least in your Lordships' House, that the clansmen from the Highlands and from the remote areas of Scotland are peaceful, law-abiding people, and it would be a grave mistake to do anything that might encourage them to go towards the cities and towns where crime and vice is to be found.
If Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment, not only will it delight all those who take part in this fishing but also those who have an

1069
interest in it. Nearly everyone in Scotland will be overjoyed if the Government accept this Amendment, as it will mean that the Government have at last realised that this slow but steady depopulation of the remote parts of Scotland must be halted. Once it is halted, then perhaps we may get some people interested in returning to the rural areas. At present, the population is slowly but steadily drifting away from these remote areas.
4.40 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this discussion reminds one of the controversies which raged some thirty years ago when de-rating was introduced at the instance of Sir Winston Churchill and carried through by the late Neville Chamberlain. It was then argued very strenuously that industries were being handicapped by rates and that if they were not de-rated this country would be in a terrible condition. But, of course, all the evidence of experience is that those arguments were entirely fallacious: de-rating made little difference to industry, and it has made little difference to agriculture.
The noble Lord who has just spoken has talked of the depopulation of the Highlands. Agriculture has been de-rated in Scotland to the extent of 87½ per cent. for the last thirty years or more, and the depopulation of the Highlands has continued. It is quite futile to hope to find a solution of the problem upon the lines of the Amendment which has been, moved by the noble Viscount. It rests upon an economic fallacy.
Mention has been made of salmon fisheries which, it is said, are marginal. If they are marginal they ought not to be paying any rent at all, and their annual value would be nil; and in that case they would not be paying any rates, either. But we have just been given an illustration of a case in which the rent is some £450, although this is alleged to be a marginal salmon fishery. If the owner of the fishery wants to continue to receive any rent at all for it, and if it is true that the occupier is in the delicate financial position which has been suggested, the remedy is quite clear: the owner should reduce the rent sufficiently to enable the occupier to continue. If that is not done, despite any change in de-
1070
rating, the occupier will give up the fishery and the owner will not get any rent.
In any event, that does not apply in every case. We have been told of cases in which the rent for the fishery is £1,200 a year. If this Amendment is carried, then in those cases in which the rent is very substantial and the fishery is far from being marginal, there will be a total exemption from rates. The owner will be able to require, and obtain, a higher rent for the fishery and the local authority will lose the rates they have been getting.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, may I point out that that is true only so far as that part of the river is concerned. They will still pay 100 per cent. on the premises on dry land.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Yes, that is the Amendment. Had it been framed in the opposite way, for the purpose of exempting the people who are working the fishery from rates upon the capital expenditure which they make in carrying on the fishery, I should have had a great deal more sympathy with it. But the Amendment does exactly the opposite. It proposes that all the capital expenditure in providing accessories for carrying on the fishery shall be rated 100 per cent. but it is proposed that the opportunity—the river itself—is to be de-rated completely.
It has been said this afternoon that everybody in Scotland is in favour of this proposal. That is certainly not quite the case. I understand that the Associa-of County Councils in Scotland are entirely opposed to this proposal, and I am not surprised that they should be. Why should they be required to lose the rates on extremely valuable properties? As to the marginal ones, if they are really marginal the assessments will be small and so will the rates; and if they are reduced somewhat further I do not suppose the local authority will worry about it. But why should they be deprived of rates in respect of properties which are well able to pay? That is no solution at all of this problem. It is not going to help the marginal fishery in the least. It is merely going to help the owner of the fishery which is far from being marginal.
4.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross, in his most able presentation of the position, ably supported by others of my noble friends, I must, as is rightly the custom in your Lordships' House, make clear my own interest. I am myself an owner of a salmon net fishing and at the same time I actually work a net myself, although those are far above the high water mark and therefore do not come under the heading of fixed engines mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross. But I am not this afternoon going to talk about the interests of the netters in the river.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in a supreme example of mixed thinking, appears to imagine that the only solution necessary is a reduction in the rent. Well, that might have some effect in the rivers, but it is not going to have any effect whatsoever so far as the sea fishings are concerned. If this proposed legislation is going to sting like a midge those who net in the rivers, it is going to sting like a hornet those who work nets in the sea. The landlord of all these small people who work the sea nets is almost without exception the Crown; and we have just heard how a large number of Crown fisheries are even now not occupied simply because those who would like to occupy them feel that they cannot make a reasonable living out of them.
The position on the sea is very different from that on the rivers inland, and I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, that the Tay as well as the Tweed has a considerable net industry in its estuary. We simply do not fish in these rivers when they come down in spate. We have very rare losses of nets—at worst usually a couple of pairs. The position on the coast is far otherwise. The people who take fishings there are usually, though not always, small men—one man employing a few others or a little group working cooperatively. They are men of very little capital and very humble background. As a rule they have to pay a considerable lent to the Crown and to provide very expensive gear, whether in the form of stake nets or bag nets; and although I have not and have never had any financial interest in any coast fishery I may say that I am very familiar with the workings of both kinds. I have often taken part in
1072
the recovery of salmon from bag nets and still more often from stake nets in Solway, and I am very familiar with all the apparatus and operations.
Whereas we in rivers suffer little damage from storm and spate, those on the coast are liable, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said earlier, to have destruction to the amount of thousands of pounds wreaked among their nets as a result of storm damage or drifting wreckage along the coast. It is virtually impossible to insure against such damage except at prohibitive rates, if they can be got at all. The result is that it has been truly said that they work on an extremely marginal basis. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, does not appear to understand what "marginal" means. It means, in agriculture or in fishing, that someone is just getting along with his head above water and making a very small living. That living can disappear in any one year as the result of an unexpected storm or of the fish failing to rise. Salmon are very peculiar creatures. There is no accounting for their behaviour; and even with the same, or apparently same, conditions of weather, in one season they may behave entirely differently from the way that they behaved in another season. I have had my own small net in the Tay for five weeks without catching a single fish, when everything was apparently in favour of my doing so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, said in his speech on the Committee stage, everyone would pay considerable attention if 600 people became unemployed out of 10,000, whereas nobody pays much attention if it is 6 out of 100; but those 6 unemployed out of 100 may have a much greater social and moral effect on the economy of a considerable area of Scotland than would 600 out of 10,000 elsewhere. The east and north-east coast of Scotland is a very inhospitable land, though by no means devoid of beauty. Those who earn or seek to earn their living on it, whether on land or sea, have to face rigorous and arduous conditions which can be compared in few other places in the British Isles. As the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has truly said, if these men lose their livelihood now, they will have to go to industry, and if in many cases these nets close down it is unlikely that they will ever be opened up again. That is to say, if the Government

1073
are not prepared to yield a little on this matter, they are going to be a contributing factor to additional unemployment in an area where it is already high above the national average in unemployment—the national average for Scotland as well as that for Britain. It is for that reason that I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, even now, to reconsider his decision; and if lie will not do so, then I appeal to your Lordships, irrespective of Party, to vote with those of us who are determined to try to do as much as we can to keep this small but by no means unimportant industry in existence.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I have a piece of the North Sea, no river at all. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, questioned the right of people to charge a rent for fishing. That piece of the North Sea was bought and paid for, or the right to fish in it was bought and paid for, by my great grandfather. My grandfather paid death duties on it, my father paid death duties on it and I paid death duties on it; and not only that, but I also pay the levy to the Dee fisheries. The rent is £35 a year, and it is let on a long lease, which I think is something that might be taken into account when we are considering this matter. We have spoken about rates. The amount of money that a local authority gets depends on the poundage they levy on the assessment; it does not depend on the assessment at all. If they want more money, instead of your paying a rate of 16s. in the £, you pay a rate of 17s. Therefore, the small loss in actual rateable value that might arise from this Amendment could quiet easily be put right by any authority adding less than a farthing, probably, to the poundage rate they levy. So that argument does not stand.
The other point which I want to stress is this. We have been speaking about unemployment. Unemployment is not a dull mathematical symbol. I started work in 1929 in a bridge-yard in Middlesbrough, and I know a little about the matter. I know nothing compared to what noble Lords on the other side know, but I have a very vivid impression of unemployment in terms of human suffering, human courage and, I am afraid, if the proper things are not done, of human degradation. Therefore, I can do nothing but, with the greatest of
1074
pleasure, support my noble friend in this Amendment.
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE AND HOLLAND: My Lords, I feel it my duty to present another aspect of this question: that is, that there are a great number of people who make a living out of catching salmon in the rivers up which nature intended them to go. I own a very small amount of salmon fishing. It is a quite negligible amount, and I am not speaking now with any interest in that. But there are many hotels that live on river fishing and many crofters who take out tourists, and from their point of view I think it is only fair to say that we dislike netting salmon. When the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that his nets had not got anything in them for five weeks, we at the other end were extremely glad to hear it.
4.57 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his opening speech, explained to your Lordships the effect of the Amendments standing in his name; that is, to treat salmon net fishing as agricultural lands and heritages for rating purposes. He also pointed out that acceptance of the Amendments does not mean that after 1961, they will, like agricultural lands, be completely de-rated, since his Amendments provide that dwelling-houses, bothies, net stores, drying greens and any other lands occupied shall be rated on their full value. In speaking to these Amendments, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and other noble Lords who have taken part, again supported the cause which many of them so ably advocated during the course of the Committee stage. At that stage, as your Lordships have been reminded, and earlier during the Second Reading debate, I promised to consider any further information or arguments which might be put forward on behalf of the salmon net fisheries.
I have studied with some care what was said on both of these occasions, and I have listened attentively, I hope, to the further details which have been presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and other noble Lords during the course of our discussion this afternoon. I have explained on previous occasions that the Government are most

1075
anxious not to impair the general principle that industry as a whole should be re-rated to 50 per cent. As your Lordships know, salmon net fisheries were classed as industrial rather than agricultural subjects in 1929, and have remained in that category ever since; though, as the noble Viscount said this afternoon, at that time it was argued that they were comparable with agriculture, since both of them were food-producing industries—a point stressed by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee they were dependent on nature and liable to the effect of weather. A further point which has been much stressed is that they also provided an important source of employment in the Highlands and in other sparsely populated areas. All of these arguments, which were put forward in 1929, have again been stressed forcibly during our debate this afternoon.
I think one can reasonably argue that salmon net fisheries should be classed either as industry or as agriculture, and the question which we have to decide this afternoon is which description is the right one in the circumstances of re-rating. That, I might suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is really the answer to the point of view which he put forward. From the studies which I have made on the basis of the information which has been provided in our recent discussions, together with the additional information which has been given this afternoon, I have no doubt in my own mind that the burden of rating in relation to turnover is several times greater on salmon net fisheries than on industry as a whole. In fact, I have been provided with information which shows that while the rates paid by industry are, on average, less than 1 per cent. of turnover, in the case of salmon net fisheries the average is 6½ per cent., and I am sure that your Lordships would agree that that is a very substantial burden.
I am also influenced by the fact—which again was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—that additional on-cost arising from re-rating could not be recouped by the operators increasing their selling price, since, as has been said, the market price concerned is, broadly speaking, ruled by imports from other countries. I would assure your Lordships that the Government are
1076
anxious that justice should be done, and in view of the considerations that noble Lords have placed before the House this afternoon, and of others which I have briefly described. I am prepared to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. In doing so I should like to congratulate him on the masterly contribution which he has made to our debate.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and to say that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has throughout said that he has the interests of the Highlands and the rural areas at heart and that Her Majesty's Government wish to do everything that they can to prevent depopulation. I think that Scotland may now believe even more than they did before that this is so, and I thank the noble Lord very much indeed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, after ("shall") insert (" subject to the provisions of this section ").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("change") and insert ("changes").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("provisions of this section").(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("change") and insert ("changes").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is only an interim Amendment. I should like to ask your Lordships' permission to change the word "assessment" in line 4 of this Amendment to the word "valuation". With that alteration the effect of the Amendment will be to make certain measures possible to put right problems which have arisen from a misunderstanding of

1077
Section 46 (2) of the 1929 Act. Under that Act some local valuation officers have counted the salmon rights in the river as being separate from the dry land appurtenances, and others have not. In the cases where these two have been assessed together my Amendment makes it possible until 1961—and only until 1961—for the whole fishery, both the parts on dry land and the parts in the water, to be assessed together as an agricultural land heritage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
("(6) Where any such corporeal lands and heritages as are specified in subsection (4) of this section being lands and heritages occupied or used as so specified, are in any valuation roll in force at the commencement of this Act included in the valuation of the rights of salmon fishing in connection with which they are occupied or used, they shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, be so included in the valuation rolls for the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May nineteen hundred and fifty-nine and the next following year, and subsection (2) of this section shall for the purposes of those years have effect in relation to them as if they were rights of salmon fishing to which that subsection applies.").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Inspection of minutes of certain authorities]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it might be convenient for the House to take Amendments No. 7, 8 and 9 together. The effect of these Amendments is to give local government electors a right of access to the minutes of any joint committee or joint board for two or more local authorities who are performing their functions regarding health, planning or welfare. The Amendments are designed to make sure that provisions which your Lordships passed when you approved Clause 15 of the Bill, which provided for access to minutes of committees, shall, so far as dealing with those functions, extend also to joint committees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("and").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, at end insert (" and
(c) the proceedings of any joint committee or joint board established for the purpose of performing all or any of the functions of
1078
two or more local authorities under any of the Acts mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph,").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 25, leave out ("authority") and insert (" local authority, or, in the case of a joint committee or joint board, the area of my of the local authorities represented on the joint committee or joint, board,").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Local government administration]:
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL moved, after paragraph 7, to insert:
"8. In section twenty-one of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 (which, relates to the making of proposals by local health authorities for the provision of certain services) the words ' provided that any new proposals submitted by a local health authority under this subsection may be general in character and detailed particulars relative thereto shall not be required but the authority shall if the Secretary of State so requires furnish him with such further particulars as he may specify ' shall be inserted at the end of subsection (4) thereof."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on July 1, when this matter was being debated on the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he could not accept the draft Amendment which the Corporation of Glasgow had handed to him for the reasons which he gave in the course of the debate on that day and which I do not think I need repeat. Glasgow has since reconsidered the Amendment then submitted, and very reasonably has now brought forward the present Amendment, which is a very mild Amendment, as can be seen from its wording. It asks not for the repeal of the whole of Section 21 but merely to give local authorities the power to state in general terms the proposals that they are under obligation to submit under Section 21 of the National Health Act, I947.
At that time I was unable to say that any city other than Glasgow was in favour of that proposal, mild as it was, but I have since learned that only last Friday, at a meeting of the Association of Counties of Cities the four cities agreed to support this particular Amendment on the ground that it would save a good deal of unnecessary detail which at the moment they have to provide. I hope, in the circumstances, that the noble Lord,

1079
Lord Strathclyde, receptive as he has shown himself this afternoon, will raise no objection to this moderate and very mild Amendment. In the course of the discussion which took place at the Association of Counties of Cities meeting last Friday, it appeared that several authorities had been in the habit of giving their proposals to the Secretary of State in general terms and that the Secretary of State had apparently accepted these general statements instead of the details, whereas Glasgow, as one would expect, being very meticulous in its observance of any section which it is bound to observe, had gone into great detail. All we are asking is that since the Secretary of State no longer has any financial interest in the cost of these services, he will permit this very moderate and mild Amendment to be included in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After paragraph 7 insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Greenhill.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, what this Amendment seeks to ensure is that new proposals by local health authorities for carrying out their duties may be in general terms. I would remind the House that Section 21 of the National Health (Scotland) Act, 1947, requires local health authorities to submit proposals for carrying out their duties. There is nothing in the Act which sets out the amount of detail in which these proposals must be submitted. If I remember aright, what was objected to on the previous occasion was the amount of notice which had to be given to voluntary organisations and other bodies. Of course, that does not appear now in the noble Lord's Amendment.
I should tell your Lordships that it has been the practice of the Secretary of State under the existing statutory provisions to require no more detail than is necessary for his purpose, and I can assure the House that this practice will be continued. I think the noble Lord realises that there is no question of the abandonment by the Secretary of State of his power to ensure that local health authorities carry out their statutory functions. That has been done in the past and will be done in the future in partnership. The question is whether the existing provisions provide the best arrangements
1080
under which this partnership can operate. We think that they do.
So far as I can see, after studying the Amendment, it might well have the opposite effect from that which is intended. It might suggest to local health authorities that their proposals need be in the most general terms. Of course, there is a limit beyond which the Secretary of State could not possibly go. He must have a clear idea of what authorities intend to do; and if the proposals were over-generalised he would have to ask for further submissions in more detail. Obviously, that would lead to duplication; and for that reason I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment. While saying that, I wish to make abundantly clear that the Department of Health for Scotland are always anxious to consider any proposals which simplify procedure or make the operation more streamlined than it is.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for the partial concession that he has made, I should like to think that nothing will be placed in the way of the giving by local authorities of general details rather than the particular and special details which apparently Glasgow has had to give. At the same time, I accept what the noble Lord has said as an assurance that the meticulous details which it has been the practice of Glasgow to provide will no longer be demanded and that a reasonable attitude will be adopted towards a fairly general statement of the proposals which local authorities have to make. While I should prefer that the whole of Clause 21, with the exception of subsection (5), to which my noble friend Lord Silkin so adequately referred on the previous occasion, should be omitted, I am prepared to accept this modified concession that the noble Lord has made. I hope that in future local authorities will be able to provide this information without undue detail.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I would say to him once more that I think the complaint is not really against the detail, as he calls it, which the Secretary of State requires but against other procedures, as he indicated on the previous occasion. I assure him that there is a great relaxation in the information called for at the present time.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sixth Schedule [Repeals]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 24, at end insert

("19 & 20 Geo. 5. c. 25.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.

In section forty-six, in subsection (2), paragraph (a).")

—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
5.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restriction upon recovery of possession, etc., of certain decontrolled dwelling-houses.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, this Act applies to any dwelling-house to which the Rent Acts ceased to apply by virtue of subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, being a dwelling-house in the case of which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a) that notice has been served on the tenant by the landlord, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, under stub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to that Act (which paragraph enables tenants under certain tenancies subsisting, immediately before the commencement of that Act to retain possession until a date, not earlier than the sixth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, specified in a notice served by the landlord); and

(b) that until the date specified in the notice, possession of the dwelling-house is retained by a person entitled to retain such possession by virtue of the said paragraph 2;

and "the occupier", in relation to a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, means the person by whom possession of the dwelling-
1082
house is retained as aforesaid or, in the event of the death of that person, any person who, by virtue of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920, would have been qualified to retain possession of the dwelling-house if the Rent Acts had not ceased to apply to it.
(3) If the occupier of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies—
(b) retains possession of the dwelling-house or any part of the dwelling-house as tenant under a tenancy (whether granted before or after the application of this Act to the dwelling-house) not expiring, or terminable by notice to quit given by the landlord, earlier than three years from its commencement,
this Act shall cease to apply to the dwelling-house or to that part of the dwelling-house, as the case may be; and without prejudice to the foregoing provision, this Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house or any part of a dwelling-house during any period during which the occupier is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house or of that part of the dwelling-house as tenant under any tenancy granted by the owner.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (2), after "in the case of which" to insert "either of". The noble Lord said: The Committee will be relieved to hear that Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 stand or fall together. I hope that they stand together in the conciliatory atmosphere which seems to have prevailed this afternoon, and I hope that they can stand without the number of speeches made on the previous occasion. The series of Amendments which I have put down are identical in terms with the Amendments which were put down in another place on the Report stage of the Bill. On that occasion they were put down at very short notice, and there was some complaint by the Minister in charge that he had inadequate notice to study their terms and implications and that there was some doubt about whether the effect of the Amendments was fully appreciated. The noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill in your Lordships House will have had ample opportunity of considering this series of Amendments, and I hope he will agree that they are reasonable and should be accepted.
The purpose of the Amendments is to provide for the case of the tenant who is in possession under a lease or agreement which expires after the extended day on which the Rent Act comes into operation and whose premises would have been controlled but for the operation of

1083
the Rent Act. As an example, it would deal with the case of a dwelling-house in London of a rateable value of, say, £80 a year, the tenant of which has been in possession under a three-years agreement which expires on November 1. On that day the Rent Act as it stands comes into operation, and his tenure comes to an end, although but for the operation of the Rent Act the house would have continued to be controlled. The Rent Act decontrols it and he no longer has the right of possession. The purpose of my Amendments is to give such a tenant the same opportunities of being relieved of hardship, of being able to come before a county court and make a case that he has not been able to find any other accommodation, as is provided for a similar person whose tenancy comes to an end before October 7, which is the material date.
The point seems to me so reasonable that it hardly needs any advocacy. On the spur of the moment the Minister in another place made the point that this would be an extension of the Rent Act. I suppose it would. But the Bill which is now before the House is an extension of the Rent Act. The Rent Act contemplated that controlled tenancies would come to an end at the expiration of the notice to quit, which could be given to expire in October, but this Bill provides a tenant with a possibility of continuing the tenancy for two years or more. So it is an extension of the Rent Act. If one is to treat one tenant in no more favourable way than another, I submit that there is no reason why a person whose tenancy expires on October 7 should be treated in a worse way than a person occupying a similar dwelling whose tenancy expired by notice to quit expiring on October 5. For these reasons, I feel that this is an omission in the present Bill which ought to be remedied with a view to treating all tenants alike. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1 after ("which") insert "either of".—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of two things: first, that the point has now had very careful consideration; and secondly, that no argument in favour of it was neglected in his speech. I want to put
1084
before him why my right honourable friend and I feel that we cannot accept this Amendment. As the noble Lord said, the object of these four Amendments is to give the protection of the Bill to a tenant under a contractual tenancy expiring after October 6, 1958, when that tenancy comes to an end. Let me remind your Lordships of what is necessary for a dwelling to come within the provisions of this Bill. First of all, a notice to quit must have been served on the tenant under paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Rent Act, 1957; and secondly, the tenant must have retained possession by virtue of that paragraph until the date specified in the notice to quit. Paragraph 2 applies, however, only to decontrolled tenants who either were holding over as statutory tenants when the Rent Act came into force on July 6, 1957, or had contractual tenancies which would come to an end during the period of fifteen months between July 6, 1957, and October 6, 1958. Paragraph 2 does not apply, and therefore the Bill as drafted does not apply, where there is a contractual tenancy which cannot expire until after October 6, 1958.
There are two main reasons for limiting the class of tenants protected by the Bill to statutory tenants or contractual tenants whose tenancies came to an end during the fifteen months period—that is, before October 6. The first is that this is a transitional Bill to deal with the difficulties that might arise if a concentration of notices to quit all took effect on or about the same day, October 6, 1958. The great majority of notices have, in all probability, been dated to take effect on the earliest possible date, which is October 6; and although the total number involved is not likely to be very large, difficulty might well arise from their concentration about that time, which would mean that all the tenants concerned would be trying to find at the same time other accommodation into which to move. The Bill, by providing for the suspension of orders for possession in cases of hardship, will break up this concentration, while allowing more time to those tenants who genuinely need it. The application for orders for possession will not all be made or heard at once, and the periods of suspension will vary.
That is the position as to the tenancies which I have described and which we have put in the Bill. However, those

1085
dealt with in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that is, contractual tenancies expiring after October 6—will not be concentrated; they will not all end on the same day but will be spread naturally, according to the date at which they were entered into and the length of the tenancy. Therefore, the problem of concentration does not exist. That means—and I put it quite generally—that the tenants of these tenancies will not be subject to the same co-existing pressures to find houses as are the tenants in the Bill.
The second point why we say that we do not require a special provision is this. The tenant under such a tenancy knows when taking it on that it runs for a term of years at the end of which he may or may not be able to renew. The Bill does not alter that situation. It might be argued that on this ground contractual tenancies expiring between July 6, 1957, and October 6,1958, should be excluded, but they will have merged with the statutory tenancies before the standstill period ends, because in both kinds of case the tenant's right to retain possession ends on October 6, 1958. All Parties in the State have been saying that something should be done about the Rent Acts, whether or not they agree with the method that we have adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with that skilful and moderate advocacy of which he is a master, then passed to the hard case that is up against the line. He said that a tenant would be all right when the tenancy expired on October 5, but all wrong if it expired on October 7. That is an argument which is not entirely unknown in legislative assemblies. It is one of the difficulties of drafting a Statute that one has to draw a line somewhere, and that up against that line there is bound to be a hard case But I think, apart from that general fact, October 6, 1958, is the most obvious choice for the line, because it is the date which paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the 1957 Act uses to distinguish between those contractual tenancies which expire (or may be made to expire) before it, and are therefore included in the standstill, and those which are not. I want to assure the noble Lord that we did consider this point carefully.
He dealt with the point about the re-imposition of control. I should like to emphasise—I do not want to repeat it
1086
over and over again—that I made it clear on Second Reading that the object of this Bill is to deal with certain hardships. We do not think it is a very large number. For the reason I have given, which I described as the concentration, there are bound to be a number of hard cases because of the difficulty of these people in finding accommodation at that particular time. These are the cases with which the Bill is proposing to deal and, as I emphasised, it does not mean a reimposition of control.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows. I never take a technical objection to an Amendment. He may take it from me that there is a technical objection here, in that he would omit paragraph (b), and it is rather difficult without that paragraph to follow on in the words of the clause. Of course, I am not taking a point of that sort, and if the House decided that the noble Lord's Amendment was right in principle, I should take steps to put it right. But, for those reasons, I am sorry that my right honourable friend and I have not been able to agree to this Amendment, and I must ask the Committee to reject it.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I should say a word in reply before your Lord ships decide. First of all, I am not surprised to find that the wording is defective—indeed, I should have been very surprised if it had been a perfectly worded Amendment. But the noble and learned Viscount has been very generous about it, and therefore I need say no more. I was under the impression that one of the reasons for this Bill was the hardship which will arise to the people who suddenly have to find accommodation. I would suggest that the same hardship exists in the case of a person who has a contractual tenancy which expires after October 6. He is now in competition with a great many other people, all looking for accommodation of which there is a short supply. He would have been a controlled tenant but for the Rent Act. He would have had the same security as the people who are being catered for under this Bill. It does not ease matters for the other tenants that he now becomes a competitor for the accommodation; indeed, it makes matters much worse for them.
I do not think there is much more I can say, except to repeat some of the arguments I have already made. The

1087
noble and learned Viscount has made up his mind, and I am very sorry about it. This is not a matter of principle at all; this is just a matter of adding a few more people to those for whom provision is made. As the noble and learned Viscount said that the number of people affected is relatively small, then the number of people who would be affected by my Amendment would be minute, and it could not possibly create any difficulties if the Amendment were accepted. I hope, therefore, that he will, even at this late hour, give some thought to it between now and the next stage. I do not ask him for any assurance, but I promise him that he may see this Amendment again, perhaps in an improved form, at a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always ready to give consideration to any Amendment which the noble Lord proposes, but according to my custom I always try to distinguish between telling your Lordships those in which I can hold out some hope and those in which I cannot. I cannot hold out much hope here, but I will consider and report to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said. I think that that is the fairest way of putting it to the noble Lord to-day.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Obligations and rights of persons holding over]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Clause 2(5) is the application of this clause to Scotland, and it lays down the rent payable by an occupier in Scotland for a period between the expiry of a notice to quit and a decision of the court on an application by the landlord for possession of the house. It also lays down the responsibility of the owner and the occupier for repairs to the house during the application of the Bill. This Amendment follows a similar Amendment relating to England and Wales which was inserted at the Report stage in another place to make it abundantly clear that the liability for repairs set out in the clause does not affect the responsibility for the repair of damage or dilapidations occurring before the Bill takes effect. Responsibility for the repair of such damage and dilapidation will continue to rest on the parties
1088
in accordance with their previous agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, after "and" insert ("(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Suspension of execution of order for possession
(2) In relation to any period for which the execution of an order for possession of a dwelling-house is suspended under this section, subsection (2) of section two of this Act (except so far as that subsection relates to responsibility for repairs) shall not apply, but the rent to be paid by the occupier in respect of any rental period or part of a rental period falling within the period of suspension shall be at such rate as may be specified in the order, being the rate demanded by the owner or, if the court is satisfied that a rent at the rate so demanded would be beyond the means of the occupier, such lower rate as appears to the court to be within his means, not being less than the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the beginning of the period of suspension:
5.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), after the fourth "be" [beyond the means] to insert "unreasonably high or". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next two stand together. The purpose of this Amendment is to modify to a reasonable extent the possibility that a landlord may demand a rent from a tenant as a condition of being able to hold the tenancy over after October 6—a rent which is exorbitant and wholly unreasonable. As Clause 3 (2) stands, if a tenant applies to the court for an extension, the landlord can demand any rent he likes, however unreasonable or however high. The wording of this clause says
"… at such rate as may be specified in the order, being the rate demanded by the owner…"
So long as the tenant cannot prove that he cannot pay this rent, however unreasonable, then the court has no power but to require the tenant to pay that unreasonable rent as a condition of his being able to stay on.
In another context there has been some kind of decision as to what is regarded as a reasonable rent. In this Bill itself it is twice the annual value, together

1089
with the cost of services. Some landlords are demanding three times the annual value as the condition of granting a new tenancy. But, at any rate, there is some kind of yardstick as to what is a reasonable rent, whereas in this provision there is no yardstick at all. The landlord can demand anything he likes, and therefore the protection which is being given to the tenant is quite illusory. The mere fact that the tenant has the means to pay the rent is no justification for a landlord demanding that rent. The tenant may have large savings and he could pay the rent out of his savings, but it is grossly unfair and takes away with one hand the privilege which is being granted under this subsection with the other. My Amendment would insert the words "unreasonably high", so that it would read:
"… being the rate demanded by the owner or, if the court is satisfied that a rent at the rate so demanded would be unreasonably high or beyond the means of the occupier …"
I think it is an Amendment which ought to be accepted unless the Government are determined that whatever a rapacious landlord may ask is justifiable and, indeed, that this so-called concession is not intended to be a concession at all in a great; many cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, after ("be") insert ("un-reasonably high or").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MESTON: May I point out in a few words that the present Bill deals with decontrolled property. We are not in a position under the present Bill to dictate to landlords what rent they should demand. That is the existing provision under the Bill as it stands. But I do not think there is any necessity for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to take a pessimistic view of this matter at all. Under the Bill as it stands, if a landlord demands a ridiculous rent the tenant merely has to prove that he has not the means to pay it. We all know a good deal about the operation of the county courts. Does the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, really suggest that a tenant would have to pay out the whole of his capital, if he possesses any, in order to meet a year's rent? I do not think for a moment that that is the way the Bill is expected to work or will in fact be worked by the courts. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is taking a very pessimistic view of the matter, and I hope your Lordships will agree with my view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has shown that there is on this Amendment a serious matter of principle. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said with regard to the last Amendment. Certainly the first of my objections is the point of principle which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just adumbrated. These are decontrolled dwellings, and the appropriate rent for a decontrolled dwelling is what it will fetch in the open market. The difference between a decontrolled dwelling and a controlled dwelling is that the landlord is entitled to ask for what he wants. However attractive it may seem to provide for the determination of reasonable rents by the court, that is in fact a reimposition of control. That is the first principle.
But this Bill is one, as I said, to avert genuine hardship and not to interfere with the principle of decontrol. Because it is a Bill to avert hardship there has to be a provision for reducing the rent if the occupier cannot afford what the owner asks. That is in the Bill and that will operate, and I am sure operate fairly and well. Such a provision would be open to serious objection in a permanent Bill, but it can be accepted in a temporary measure like the present where, without it, the whole purpose of the Bill might be frustrated. If the owner is asking a high rent but the occupier can afford to pay that high rent, there is no reason why the rent should be fixed at a lower figure, since if the occupier can afford the rent there can be no hardship. If the owner is asking more than the reasonable market rent for the premises the occupier who could afford to pay the rent which the owner is asking is likely to be able to go elsewhere and get better value for his money.
I think the noble Lord on reflection would agree that he took rather extreme figures when we had a rather spirited discussion on this matter on Second Reading. The idea of somebody asking for £2,000 a year for a house that ex hypothesi had been let for under £100 in London in 1939 is not a very likely figure. I will take Lord Silkin's figures for convenience. Assume the rent is, in round figures, £100, and the owner is asking for £200 or £300. I still suggest (I do not want to elaborate it) that my point is good, that if that person can afford to pay £300 a year he can probably afford to get other premises.

1091
But if he is asked, as is the case under this Amendment, not for £200 or £300, because they are within the range of reasonability, but for £500, and can afford to pay £500, I find it very difficult to imagine he will not be able to get other premises.
The people who are in real difficulty and for whom your Lordships must provide are the people who are asked a figure—I do not mind whether it is £200, £300 or £500—and cannot afford to pay it. They must not be debarred from the rights given them under this Bill because they cannot afford to pay; and that is what the Bill provides. That is why the Government, recognising this, has provided that there must be some power for the court to reduce the rent which the owner asks if the occupier genuinely cannot afford to pay it.
The second objection is based on a practical consideration. It may well be that in the absence of any guidance, as this is not a Bill to reduce rents the court would consider a rent unreasonably high only if it were significantly in excess of what the property could fetch on the open market. Such an interpretation would be capable of consistent application, for the rent which the property can fetch in the open market is something you can determine. But as soon as you get into that question you are bound to have professional evidence on either side as to what is the rent in the open market, and attempts to qualify numbers and classes of property in that way. I put this point seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, having regard to his great experience of litigation: I believe that that would be a bad thing in a Bill to remove hardship. I am now speaking entirely apart from the different angles from which we approach this question. If you are going to get a series of cases trying to arrive at a stratified reasonable rent, fought out with professional evidence in that way, you are going to spoil what I want this Bill to do—namely, provide means by which the person who is in hardship, who is sick or is short of money and unable to pay what the landlord asks, will be able to get that hardship catered for. If you turn it into a matter in which you have continual, most interesting discussions on what is a reasonable rent according to your professional standard, I think you
1092
will not really, at the end of the day, help the Bill. I have tried to put the point. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships.
May I just put this final point—after all, this is a transitional Bill; it is in operation for a relatively short period. I gave it great thought because I was most anxious to deal with the practical point about these people who, round about October 6, would be in great difficulty in finding other accommodation and, as I say, might have been prevented from doing so by their health or their age, and also those who were in financial difficulty in meeting the rents. I think we have provided for that and I do not want to argue any controversial points. I have put my arguments as quietly as I can. I know that there is a difference of feeling in this matter, but, apart from whether or not the noble Lord divides the Committee to-day, I should like him to consider my second point for the sake of his own comfort of mind—because it is some comfort of mind to me that we shall not be involving people in expensive, protracted litigation, with leading cases built up and taken up to guide them. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I was unable to be present on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, and therefore I am without the advantage of having heard the arguments that took place on this point. I must confess—I say this with every respect for the noble and learned Viscount—that I am moved to the view that his arguments in opposition to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin, and the arguments which he advanced in support of the Amendment, are decidedly exiguous. The noble and learned Viscount said that the acceptance of the Amendment would amount to a re-imposition of control. So do many of the provisions of this Bill. The requirement that the rent asked for shall be within the means of the tenant (who has now, under this Bill become "occupier"), is an imposition—partial, I agree—of control for the duration of the operation of this Bill. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to tell me whether in fact, as the Bill is now drafted, the court is estopped from considering how high, how excessive is the rent which is demanded. The only thing that the courts can go into is

1093
the question of whether the rent demanded is within the means of the occupier or of the statutory tenant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is right.
LORD LATHAM: How is that to be ascertained? Is the court to apply a means test to the occupier? What kind of procedure is to be followed by the court in ascertaining whether the rent demanded is within the means of the occupier or of the tenant, whatever he is called? It seems to me to be a little unusual and somewhat unsatisfactory to ask the court (I assume the county court), as it were to apply a test as to whether the rent asked is reasonably and properly within the means of the statutory tenant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say this, if it would help—I hope the noble Lord does not mind my interrupting. The county court at every sitting has to determine the means of litigants, because part of a county court judge's work at every sitting is that of dealing with judgment summonses and at what rah; people should pay debts. Therefore he has to find out their means. But there is another point that I emphasised on Second Reading, because I think this is most important from the aspect of humanity. Many people do not like their means being inquired into in public, and that was why I emphasised that the judge will be able to hold the hearing in camera if he wishes, and if the occupier so desires. But on the practical point, those of us who have spent many years in county court litigation know that a county court judge is probably the most expert person in the world at determining means and ability to pay. I am sorry if I have interrupted other than to advantage.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged for what the noble and learned Viscount has said. Neither I nor my noble friend Lord Silkin is without experience of applying means tests—not personally, of course, but when public assistance was a matter for county councils; and I do not think that either be or I are unacquainted with what is the procedure in the county courts as regards judgment summonses and the like. But I cannot feel that that is any justification for putting the determination of the rent to be demanded under this Bill on the basis of a means test. I am still a little disturbed as to
1094
how the means test will be applied, and whether it will not be the case that there will be varying standards of means in the various county court areas by reason of the differences of view and of outlook as between the respective county court judges.
It seems to me that it is much easier, much more practical, and I think much more decent, to rest the matter upon whether the rent demanded appears in the circumstances, having regard to the property, its condition, its accommodation, its size and the like, to be a reasonable rent, and not on whether, on one basis of calculation, it is a rent which is beyond the occupier's means, whereas, on another basis of calculation, it may be regarded as a rent within the means of the occupier. I hope that in the light of what has been said by my noble friend, and perhaps by myself, the noble and learned Viscount may feel disposed to reconsider the matter and deal with it at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry not to respond to that appeal. This is a matter which, I assure noble Lords, we have considered most carefully, from both points of view and, much as I should like to, I should be misleading them if I held out any hope on this occasion. I am sorry to adopt a non possumus attitude: I do not like it but I must on this occasion.
LORD LATHAM: I would say only that I share the sorrow.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.59 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (6) (a), after "mother" to insert:
"and that having regard to all the circumstances of the case greater hardship would be caused by making an order granting suspension of the order for possession than by making an order for possession without suspension,".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This deals with the case where a contract for sale has been entered into before April 2, 1958. Clause 3 (5) (b) provides that in such a case, if the purchaser requires the accommodation for his own occupation or for the occupation of a member of his family, then, whatever the respective

1095
hardships may be, he is to be entitled to possession. The purpose of my Amendment is to put such a purchaser in exactly the same position as the landlord who sold the property would have been. In his case if the tenant can show that there would be greater hardship to him if an order for possession were made under Clause 3 (1) (d), then an order for possession will not be made. I feel that the fair thing would be to put a person who has contracted to buy the property in the same position as the vendor who sold it. I admit at once that there will be cases where a person has bought a property specifically for his own occupation or for the occupation of a member of his family; and he might have been looking forward to possession in October. Unless the occupier—the tenant—can prove that his hardship through being turned out would be greater, such a purchaser would be able to get possession.
I would ask, however, that the hardship of a tenant, to whom the noble and learned Viscount has earlier referred as a person who will be thrown on to the market with large numbers of other tenants on October 5, should be taken into account. The hardship of being turned out of accommodation is, generally speaking, much greater than the hardship to a person looking forward to going into a house. If, however, the person who has contracted to buy can really show that his hardship is greater, then of course he will get possession, even under the terms of my Amendment. So I am asking that there should be incorporated in this Bill this test of hardship as regards a person who has bought a property but who is not in occupation, in the same way as hardship is assessed in relation to a landlord who is seeking possession and has not sold the property. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not regard this as a matter of principle but will be able to see his way to meeting this particular—I should imagine very limited—class of case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, after ("mother") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to say a word on this Amendment as a result of personal experience.
1096
I know that lawyers and those who go by the letter of the law are of opinion that when a landlord seeks to obtain possession by the statement that a property is wanted for one of his own relatives there is in fact no likelihood that that statement will be a mere ruse; but a landlord obtaining possession on that account is committing a contempt of court if, having made, in a court, a statement to that effect, he then puts a relative into the property for about a week and subsequently sells it. But as a matter of fact there is no machinery by which that contempt of court will be brought to action. I know a case of a tenant who was turned out of premises in which she was living by a landlord who claimed that the property was wanted for a son. The son was put into possession for about a fortnight. He then gave up possession and the property was sold. That was really the reason for which the landlord wanted the house. I put that forward to-day in order that I may support the argument which has been made by my noble friend that at any rate the tenant's needs should be considered and that the landlord's claim to the use of the premises for some relative should not aways prevail.
LORD MESTON: I do not quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has taken that point, because that matter was discussed in another place and it was made perfectly clear that the owner had genuinely to sign some agreement, memorandum or note of the transaction that was about to take place. It was not enough to say that such a transaction had been made; there had to be visible evidence of it. Surely the position is that if this matter came before the court under this Bill and it was proved to the satisfaction of the judge (and, after all, we are not giving the judge very much credit under this Bill) that the landlord had entered into some purely bogus arrangement in order to avoid having to give an extension of time to his existing tenant, the court would, I am quite satisfied, set aside any such bogus arrangement as has been envisaged by the noble Lord who had just spoken.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I adopt the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in so far as it relies upon the experience and knowledge of human

1097
nature of the county court judge. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, put forward the further argument that it was difficult to enforce such a sanction here because, as I understood his argument, although it might look very queer if people should go into the house for only a fortnight and it were then sold, and although it might appear that perjury had been committed, it might be difficult to prove that they had committed any breach, as people had actually gone into the property. Looking back to the days when I had to advise on prosecutions, I must say that I should myself have been prepared to take quite a tough line in advising a prosecution in such circumstances, and I believe that in a great many cases there would be some further extrinsic information which would show that the arrangement was bogus. But I appreciate the point.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The point I was making was that no doubt if action were taken it might be possible to prove that; but who was to take action? The tenant had been turned out and had had to find other quarters and there was no one whose business it was to set the action in motion, with the result that the landlord "got away with it."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The tenant could go to the police; and if I were advising the police I should take a tough line, for I can imagine no more despicable offence than getting someone out of a house by perjury and trying to cover it up. It is an offence of which I myself take a very poor view. On the other hand, county court judges have had so much experience of this problem that they have a very good "nose" for duplicity in these circumstances.
On the general aspect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made a very disarming point when he asked: "Why are you putting the contractor in a better position than the landlord?" I would ask him to follow me—I am sorry to be taking some time—so that I may show him what the difference is. If he will look at Clause 3 (6) (a) he will see it provides that the suspension of an order for possession cannot be granted beyond the date on which the owner is obliged to give vacant possession to a purchaser or tenant, if the court is satisfied, first, that the premises are required for his own
1098
occupation or for that of his parent or child. That is the first point: it is limited to himself, his parent or child.
The second point is that the agreement under which such succession has to be granted was made or evidenced in writing before April 2, 1958. That is the point I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, to consider. April 2, 1958, is the date on which this Bill was announced. Therefore, the agreement must have been made and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, must have been evidenced in writing before there was any question of this provision being announced. I think that means that the chances of a fraudulent application are diminished, because unless those concerned are prepared to go as far as to commit forgery, as well as perjury, by producing a falsely dated document it is not likely that the transaction will be fraudulent. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will agree that many people who do not worry too much about a little perjury do, in fact, worry when it comes to producing a forged document and publishing it. These are the requirements, and if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would prevent the suspension only where it could be shown that, in addition, greater hardship would be caused by granting suspension than refusing it.
The reason for the provision in the Bill is that before April 2, 1958, a person might reasonably have contracted to buy or rent a house for his own or his family's occupation, and he would expect to get possession on or after October 6, 1958; and, of course, he would probably have taken steps to give up the accommodation he was occupying and would on that account be in a serious position. I do not think one can argue that an incoming purchaser or tenant who was prepared to see the sitting tenant displaced in his favour deserves no sympathy on that account. One must take into consideration the whole atmosphere which existed in March of this year. I think that everyone would agree that some provision ought to be made, and the question is: Ought we to have adopted the provision suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin?
Here, if one tries to consider the extent of the provision, the class of person who can invoke this must be very limited

1099
indeed, because only those purchasers or would-be tenants who have a really strong case for consideration can come under the two requirements: that they have made the agreement before April 2, 1958, and that they want the tenancy for themselves, or for a parent or child. I have given the necessities which the prospective purchaser must prove. The provision excludes a purchaser who wanted to sell or let at a profit to someone else—I think one must take that from these two requirements. If he has made an agreement before he knew of this Bill to take it for himself or for a member of his immediate family, one cannot really put it against him that he has taken it with the intention of selling at a profit. That is the answer I make to the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence.
To the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would say this: that the test is stricter than it is for an ordinary owner under Clause 3 (1) (d), because one could prevent a suspension on the grounds of greater hardship, which is not limited to possession for one's own occupation. The case of greater hardship, though it is likely to exist more in the case where one wants possession, is not so limited, and so we are taking a stricter case here. I think there are two arguments which one has to face. It can be argued that the Amendment puts the purchaser or would-be tenant in the same position as regards preventing a suspension as the owner of a controlled house who wants to regain possession for his own occupation—the ordinary Rent Act case. If the parallel with the 1933 Act is raised, it can fairly be argued that that is not comparing like with like. In the one case you are taking a controlled house where the tenant is entitled to security of tenure; in the other, under the present Bill, you are dealing with a decontrolled house.
I have thought that a more damaging comparison would be with the position under the Bill of the owner who wants to regain possession for his own occupation. I think that the answer, if that comparison is to be drawn, is this. One gets the position, which noble Lords opposite have not been ready to recognise; that if the Bill errs it errs in not being more generous to owners requiring a property for their own occupation. It
1100
can be pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted, the purchaser who has yet to complete would be, as I said, in a substantially worse position than an owner seeking to retain possession. The owner will succeed if he can defeat the occupier under Clause 3 (1) (d) by establishing that the greater hardship would be on his side. He does not have to show, in addition, that he requires the premises for himself, his child or his parent. Possession may be required for the occupation by someone outside this narrow group, such as his brother or sister or wife's parents—these are all ordinary examples—and he can show it in that way. Therefore, I think it is fair to say (I am sorry to have spoken for so long), that we have taken a narrower case; indeed, it demonstrates that we have not been too ready to let the owner into occupation, but we have tried in this limited way to deal with the person who has made a contract and now finds himself in a difficulty.
May I say just one final word? I think it is unfortunate that the three Amendments which I have had to resist have all come together. I should like to raise some joy on the faces of the noble Lords opposite by saying that the next Amendment which I have down is in answer to a point raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I have done my best to meet him there, so I hope that he will forgive me for resisting this point.
LORD SILKIN: I fully agree with the noble and learned Viscount that I have had a very bad afternoon, as all my Amendments have been rejected, but I should like to say one final word on this one. The noble and learned Viscount pointed to the case of a person who had entered into a contract before April 2 because he had every reason to anticipate that he could get possession, say, in October. He wanted the premises for his son who was about to get married, or for himself, and in expectation of his being able to get possession he had deprived himself of his own dwelling, or his son of his. I should have said that that case was fully covered by the Amendment, because in those circumstances his hardship would have been greater than the hardship of the sitting tenant. In his case he has had to find a sum of money—possibly getting into debt with a mortgage—and

1101
in good faith has given up his own dwelling-house. He would have no difficulty in convincing any judge in this country that his hardship was the greater. Therefore I do not really follow why the noble and learned Viscount need fear accepting this Amendment because of that kind of case.
I fully accept the fact that the test here is more favourable to the tenant than it is to the landlord who is not sitting, and it may involve some modification of the Bill to put that right. I should be happy to discuss with the noble and learned Viscount an appropriate modification which would put both parties on the same footing. That was the intention. The noble and learned Viscount has pointed out a defect, but it is only a defect in wording, and one can get over it if we accept the principle that it is the tenant's hardship that we are trying to alleviate—a hardship caused by sudden decontrol. By this Bill we are trying to alleviate the hardship caused to the tenant if his hardship is greater than the hardship to the person who has bought the premises. He has possibly bought the premises as an investment—it does not follow that he has not. If a person has bought premises as an investment, there would be no hardship for him to have to wait a little before getting possession. I feel that this again is an Amendment that might be considered, and while not asking the noble and learned Viscount to give assurances I hope that it will be considered. I do not think that this is a question of principle upon which the Government cannot possibly give way; and in that hope I give notice that I will come back to it at a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again only on principle, I say that I feel this difficulty. The noble Lord has put the point very attractively again, but, to take his own example, suppose someone, in January, 1958, six months after the Act is passed, buys, for his son to live in, premises that he believes are going to be decontrolled on October 6th, 1958. Then, in April, he is caught out by the Act. The tenant says: "Well, I am here. These are the premises. I have been in them all my life. I have tried, but I have not been able to find new premises." I think that that is exactly the sort of hardship which will be balanced. I feel that the additional point that the contractor has is that his contract has been caught out
1102
by a much later Act, when the old position has been changed. That is the difficulty I feel, and again I tell the noble Lord how my mind is working. I do not want to raise any false hopes, but, of course, once again anything that he says will be considered.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary Provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) In proceedings for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house in which a suspension of execution is granted or refused under section three of this Act (including any application under that section arising out of the grant of such suspension) the court shall not have power to make an order for costs except—

(a) where a suspension of execution is refused or revoked in pursuance of paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of that section; or

(b) where it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively in and in connection with the proceedings, that there are special reasons for the making of such an order."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment which I have put forward to meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised on Second Reading and which I promised that I would consider. The effect of the Amendment is that, subject to two exceptions, the court will have no power to make an order as to the costs of any proceedings for the recovery of possession of a decontrolled dwelling in which the grant of a suspension under the Bill is in issue, or of any proceedings resulting from an application by the occupier for an extension of the period of suspension under Clause 3 (4) (a), or by either party for a change in the specified rent under Clause 3 (4) (b). The exceptions are, first, where the court uses the discretion given to it by Clause 3 (6) (b) to refuse or revoke a suspension of execution on any ground on which possession of a controlled house can be given under the Rent Acts; and, secondly, where it appears to the court that there are special reasons for making an order in the light of the conduct of the parties in, and in connection with, the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be perfectly familiar with that. That is merely preserving the right of the court to use costs to penalise someone who has committed something in the

1103
nature of an abuse of its process. I put it quite generally, but the noble Lord is very familiar with that.
I think this meets the point which the noble Lord had in mind and which a number of honourable Members in another place bad in mind, namely, that the fact that a house was decontrolled meant that the landlord could therefore get an order for possession or there could be one for suspension, and it might be thought that the costs should follow the event of that part of the case and that he should get at any rate the costs of that issue of possession. Then one might be in difficulties in saying how much of the costs should be attributed to the issue of possession and how much to the issue of suspension. I have tried to meet that by the provision that the court will not make an order for costs except in the circumstances which I have already detailed.
We could have an interesting discussion, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, could argue with complete success that on the principle on which costs are awarded, as in the cases of Richards v. Godfrey and Campbell v. Pollock, with which we used to be so familiar, this provision is really unnecessary, because in following this procedure the courts may well arrive at this result. But that is not sufficient: we must make sure that in a Bill which we all desire should prevent hardship no one should be frightened out of the remedy for that hardship through fear of costs. That is why I have met the noble Lord, and I hope that he is reasonably satisfied. No one can be entirely satisfied with someone else's rhetoric, but I have tried to meet him and to deal with the problem. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: Of course, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the consideration he has given to the point I made, for reading a note I sent to him on the subject and for going so far as he has done in putting down this Amendment. I think that it fully meets one part of my case. I think that he can meet the other part by administration, and, if he will not mind, I should like to put it to him. The big landlords are able to employ skilled professional
1104
assistance—counsel, solicitors and so on—and tenants may feel that unless they are equally represented by counsel they do not stand a chance. I made the point on Second Reading, that most people coming before a court—indeed, most people who have to stand up and make a speech, unless they are experienced—are incoherent and inarticulate; and they feel that if their case comes before a county court judge, they must employ professional assistance.
The suggestion I made to the noble and learned Viscount was that these cases should be dealt with by a registrar in Chambers, where there will be informality and people can say what they feel without requiring to be assisted by counsel. For reasons which I need not go into, but which the noble and learned Viscount was good enough to put to me and which on the whole I accept, that course is not desirable as a general rule. But it could be done, and I suggest that it might be done, where both parties agreed to their case being dealt with by the registrar. That would save both parties costs. But, in the other cases, could the noble and learned Viscount not devise some way by which it could be understood and recognised that parties should be encouraged to attend personally, if they so desire, without feeling that they must have skilled professional assistance? I may say, from the lawyers' point of view, that they would be delighted not to have to represent people in these matters. There is no money in it. The fees they normally expect are far higher than these cases would justify, and nobody would be disadvantaged if it could be made clear that no party would suffer by attending personally. If that were possible, I think the whole of my case would have been met. While I do not expect the noble and learned Viscount to be ready with an answer at once, I think that it is something that could be dealt with administratively—perhaps by some kind of circular to the county court judges. Subject to that, I welcome this Amendment and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for putting it down.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord has said, all he expects from me is serious consideration of this point. The answer does not immediately leap to the mind, but I promise him consideration. I am grateful for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: In the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble and learned friend and which has been accepted by the House, appear the words "to make an order for costs." In Scotland, we do not use the word "costs" but the word "expenses", and the purpose of this Amendment is merely to insert in the subsection which applies the clause to Scotland the words "'costs' means expenses". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, after "Scotland" insert "'costs' means expenses".—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD LATHAM: Another injustice to England!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OMNIBUS SHELTERS AND QUEUE BARRIERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.38 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT, 1839 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SECURITY MEASURES IN CYPRUS
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the murder of two British soldiers, who were shot in the back when they were buying groceries for their unit in Hermes Street, Famagusta, on July 8 after a public declaration two days earlier by the Eoka terrorist, Dighenis Grivas, that he would carry out reprisals for the casualties caused to two Greek Cypriots during a clash with British troops in Avgorov: and to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will take immediate steps to tighten up military protection and security measures, so that British soldiers shall not be unduly exposed to danger in going about their business in small units, on duty or otherwise, without armed protection from the rear, particularly as two British military policemen were also shot in the back in Famagusta, on May 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for raising this matter so soon after the debate on Cyprus which took place in your Lordships' House a week ago. But this sad incident only happened on that morning, and although reference was made to it by some noble Lords who took part in that debate, the details had not then been published; and no reference was made in that debate to what seems to me a most important question: that of the fullest protection for our troops in Cyprus, for whom we have a great responsibility, which I do not feel satisfied is adequate at present.
These two boys, aged twenty, fresh from school, and nearly completing their term of military service, were part of a unit involved in a tragic incident at Avgorov ten days ago. It was, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, told us, an isolated incident. He assured us that great forbearance was shown by our troops involved, with casualties to themselves, and two fatal casualties to Greek Cypriots. We pray that such incidents, which are so harmful to good will in the island, will become more and more isolated. As long as they last they are a breeding ground of bitterness on all sides and consequently a strong barrier to a peaceful settlement. But, as the noble

1107
Earl the Leader of the House told us last week, there is still a hard core of murderers in Cyprus, and against these terrorists we must protect our troops to the utmost degree. That is a definite responsibility, and it is one which, I submit, should not be left to local commanders on the spot but should be laid down in routine measures by the Director of Operations in Cyprus.
In this particular case, the terrorist Dighenis Grivas according to Press reports swore vengeance publicly at the funeral of the two Greek casualties on July 6. It would have seemed clear that he would seek his reprisals from the unit that took part in the Avgorov incident. It would seem to me to be only common sense, in any case, particularly in view of this warning, that strong protective measures should have been imposed by the military authorities. Yet these two boys, two days after this threat, were allowed to go completely unprotected, so far as I know, to buy groceries, in Famagusta, and were murderously shot in the back. One assumes that if they had been properly protected from the rear by armed comrades at the entrance to the shop this tragedy might not have happened. Two military policemen were also shot in the back in the same town in May. There must be something wrong and military protection cannot be 100 per cent. adequate. I hope that the noble Lord who is to answer this question will be able to assure us that steps will at once be taken by the Secretary of State for War, in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief or the Director of Operations in Cyprus, to make it as watertight as possible.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House, referring last week to our gallant forces in Cyprus, said that they have the confidence of Parliament that they will be fair and loyal and will carry out their necessary, though distasteful, duties in the way we expect of the British soldier. That is all very well, my Lords; but in return they must be protected from these murderous attacks, particularly as a great many of them are mere boys on the threshold of life and lacking the experience and cunning of an old soldier. I remember when I was a young soldier serving in my regiment during the troublous times in Ireland. After one or two such incidents military protection
1108
was tightened up rigorously and was laid down as a routine by the Commanderin-Chief. We were not allowed to go about unarmed, or in parties of less than six. It was the duty of one or two comrades always to watch the rear, for no man has eyes in the back of his head. I remember that we were trained even to march backwards when going through danger spots, so that those in the front could not be attacked from the rear without warning.
My Lords, I ask this Question on a matter of principle, and not on private grounds, but it so happens that one of these boys was a native of Birmingham, a city with which I have many associations, and the other was the only surviving grandson of a man very much respected in your Lordships' House, who has been a Member of it for more than fifty-five years, the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. His age prevents him from attending here often now, but I feel sure that your Lordships' sympathies will go out to him and his family in full measure.
6.45 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it will be to the wish of the House that I should confine my remarks strictly to the subject of my noble friend Lord Dudley's Question. I do not therefore propose to traverse again the ground we covered during our recent full-dress debate on Cyprus; nor do I propose to refer to the tragic deterioration in the last few days, save to condemn whole-heartedly the senseless and vicious murders to which my noble friend Lord Dudley has drawn attention. Irresponsible acts of revenge are deplorable at any time. They are all the more deplorable at a moment when every effort is being made to put an end to the strain and grief which three years of terrorism have caused and are increasingly causing in Cyprus.
My noble friend Lord Dudley has suggested that more should be done to protect individual soldiers and small parties out of camp in Cyprus. He has put forward some constructive and practical suggestions, based on experience, but he, as much as anyone, will I think appreciate this point. Security measures are essentially a question for the military authorities on the spot. They are an operational matter, dictated by local conditions. of which our forces in Cyprus

1109
have had all too much arduous experience. They are not a matter in which I intervention from afar would be helpful. The command in Cyprus must be relied upon to enforce the most effective possible counter-measures for the security of soldiers and civilians in the Island.
It would be wrong to draw from these two incidents the conclusion that our security precautions in general are not adequate. There are, as we all know, large numbers of troops in Cyprus, in the towns and countryside, on and off duty. The security rules are strictly observed, and the great majority of our forces go unharmed. The deterrent effect of our precautions cannot be measured, but the number of successful armed attacks has been small. As long as troops have to move among the population, it is not easy to see what absolute protection there can be against a determined man, choosing his own time, firing from ambush, and escaping among a terrified or a sympathetic crowd.
There are three points about the current regulations for the security of troops in Cyprus which I would bring to your Lordships' attention, and they are more stringent now than at any time during the emergency. They were reintroduced on April 29 last after a period of several months comparative calm. They have been developed with experience, the latest revision being on June 7.
The regulations which are relevant to the Famagusta murders are these. All Service personnel must be armed when they are away from their camps, unless they are in a large party under armed escort—for instance, a swimming party. All ranks are continually reminded of the need to watch for attacks. All movement is subject to the principle of mutual cover by men in pairs. Off duty, men must move in fours, divided into two pairs covering each other. Officers and N.C.Os. may, at their discretion, move in pairs, provided that the principle of mutual guard is observed. Let me relate these regulations briefly to what happened in the case of the murder of the officer and trooper of the Royal Horse Guards. At 9.25 in the morning on July 8 these two men were shot in the back in a shop in Famagusta. They were on duty. Which way they were facing when they were shot or from which quarter the bullets came we do
1110
not know, although we made particular inquiries about this. The murderers have not been caught. The officer and trooper were armed, in accordance with the standing orders. The trooper's body was found just inside the door of the shop. This is consistent with his having been in a covering position. Furthermore, his Sten gun had its magazine clipped on. The officer had drawn his pistol but had not been able to fire it. In the opinion of the Governor, these murders were to avenge the deaths of the two Greek Cypriots who died as the result of the incident at Avgorou.
I do not express any opinion as to whether these measures for military protection and security should be tightened up. I repeat that this matter must, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be left to those in command on the spot—namely, the Governor and his military advisers. May I also remind the House that on July 9 the Governor stated publicly, in the most forthright terms, that it was entirely unwarranted to suggest that there was any lack of co-operation, understanding and agreement between himself and the security forces at all levels. Her Majesty's Government can have no doubt that the Governor and his senior military commanders are no less conscious than your Lordships' House of the need to provide all possible protection to the public and to members of the security forces against the ever-increasing number of terrorist murders.
Nor will your Lordships forget the heavy measure of responsibility which the Cypriot public themselves bear for not helping to end this dreadful state of affairs. It is true that they have been intimidated and are under severe pressure from the terrorists, but in any society it requires more than efficient police work to ensure that law and order are preserved. The co-operation of responsible members of the public is essential for this purpose. Unhappily, at this time terrorist murders can be committed in broad daylight in a crowded thoroughfare, and not a single member of the local community present will come forward to give any information. My Lords, the security forces of the Crown are doing a magnificent job in rotten conditions. They receive no backing whatever from the community

1111
they do so much to protect—indeed, they receive nothing but abuse. I am happy to believe they receive nothing but support and encouragement from your Lordships' House.
6.55 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, will allow me to say how deeply I sympathise with the feelings which have prompted him to put this Question on the Order Paper. I am afraid that, with such a state of affairs as prevails, unhappily, in Cyprus to-day, it is inevitable that some of these deplorable incidents must take place. I noticed that in the speech by the Governor, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has referred, Sir Hugh Foot expressed in the strongest possible terms—and the Governor is also, of course, Commander-in-Chief in Cyprus—his intention to take every possible means in his power to afford adequate protection and security to our men. I think there is no reason at all to think that everything possible is not being done.
The only exception I would take to what the noble Earl said is that, underlying his remarks, there seemed to be a feeling that everything possible is not being done; that there is negligence in this matter. From that I would demur, though I prefer to say nothing about it because I hope that the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, may have something to say on this subject—and who is more fitted than he to do so? The only point I wish to make is this. I should regret it very greatly if, as an outcome of this Question, any feeling were created amongst the relatives of our Forces in Cyprus that everything possible is not being done for their security and protection. It would be most unfortunate if any idea of that sort got abroad. Therefore, unless very strong evidence is brought to prove the point, I demur from the suggestion that there is any negligence; that what could be done is not being done.
6.57 p.m.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, may I first of all associate myself with the expression of deep and sincere sympathy to the relatives of these men who have been so brutally murdered.
1112
The young officer and the trooper both served under my command. I happened to know the young officer well, and his parents are personal friends of mine, so that I feel very deeply in this matter of their assassination. I should like to express my own personal, deep and sincere sympathy to all the relatives of both those men who have lost their lives and, indeed, of all other men who have lost their lives in Cyprus.
As the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has clearly pointed out, it is, of course, axiomatic that the first duty of any commander is to ensure, in so far as physical means make it possible, the security and lives of his own troops. I know well the present officer commanding the troops in Cyprus. He is also of course director of operations. I should like to assure your Lordships that I have complete confidence in him as a commander who thoroughly understands the situation with which he is dealing, and I am satisfied that the rules he has made for the protection of his own troops, be they soldiers or policemen, are as good as can be devised in the circumstances that, unhappily, exist in Cyprus to-day. I am fully satisfied that the troops are given all possible training in these methods of protection, avoiding ambush or murder of this kind—the training that is needed for their own safety. But, of course, it takes time to make that training effective and I know from personal experience that it is a matter to which all commanders in Cyprus give the closest personal attention. On the other hand, no rules, no amount of training and no purely defensive action, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, can provide absolute security for any soldier or policeman going about his duty or, indeed, when he is off duty, under conditions such as now exist in Cyprus. Every soldier and every policeman in that island is exposed to the danger of attack at all times, and there is no possibility of absolute security until terrorism has ceased.
As I see it, there are two aspects of this problem. First, there are the security measures to be taken by the troops for their own protection; and, as I have said, I believe that that aspect of the problem is being very carefully studied. The past experience is being used to the utmost, and I am satisfied that the rules which exist to-day are the best that can be

1113
devised for the purpose under the conditions that exist. Then there are the offensive measures—that is to say, the counter-measures that are taken against the terrorists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we must leave it to the officer commanding the troops, that is to the Director of Operations, to decide whether any changes are needed in the existing security rules, and, if so, what those changes should be. That matter, in my opinion, is one that can be dealt with only by the officer commanding on the spot, who has the responsibility, who has the knowledge of the conditions, and who can vary his orders and instructions from moment to moment as need be. Equally, I am convinced that we must leave it to the Governor, in consultation with Her Majesty's Ministers, to decide whether any changes of policy are needed in regard to counter-measures against the terrorists; and that decision must, of course, be made in the light of the general political and strategic situation that exists at the moment.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to associate myself entirely with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Winster; that it would be disastrous, and quite wrong, if the parents, relatives and friends of soldiers or policemen now serving in Cyprus got the opinion that the security, the protection and the well-being in all respects of their menfolk are not very much and always in the minds of the Governor and of the military commanders on the spot.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Earl for asking this question this afternoon, if only because we have had the opportunity of having a reassuring statement from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the first-hand knowledge of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton. I should like to be very much associated with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in his plea that we do not create any greater fear among the relatives of those soldiers who are serving in Cyprus to-day. I am speaking this evening because I have had some personal experience of the type of campaign that is being fought in Cyprus to-day; it was not in Cyprus but it was in Singapore and Malaya. I believe that there is considerable similarity between
1114
Cyprus now and Singapore and Malaya in the years 1948 to 1950. I can well appreciate the anxiety of the military commanders in trying to protect their troops from vicious attacks by gunmen and assassins, but it is not easy to do so. You are dealing with a clever and unscrupulous enemy, and there is no hard and fast regulation that can be laid down. I would, however, ask the Government whether they can give us some information as to what training our Servicemen receive when they go to Cyprus. I believe the regiment to which those two soldiers belong had only recently gone to Cyprus. I should like to know what sort of training and what sort of instructors are available for that type of work.
If I may, with your Lordships' permission, I will broaden this question to deal with a point which I should have liked to raise in the Cyprus debate last week, but I honestly felt that if I raised it I might not be doing a true service to the House on that subject. I wish to try to put before your Lordships the similarity of the campaign of murder and intimidation in Singapore and Malaya with what is going on in Cyprus to-day. In Malaya our troops were always open to attack, but the brunt of murder and intimidation was borne by the civilian—a civilian who was unarmed, a civilian who had to live in his town and village, never knowing who might be his friend and who might be his enemy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his speech this afternoon deplored the fact that information was not being given when a murder was committed in broad daylight. I appreciate that one cannot possibly condone the withholding of that sort of information. But these civilians are in a most difficult position. I well recall a tapper in Malaya who was being questioned why he did not give information on a murder on the estate when the police well knew that he was present. He said, "Well, if I do not give you information and you finally prosecute me for doing that, I could get five years. But if I give you the information not only might I get a knife in my back but my wife and my children might also." This intimidation is a terrible thing. Many of the recruits who went into the jungle in support of the Communists went there to protect their own families. If they did not go their brother or their sister

1115
would be assassinated. This is not an exaggeration; this is fact.
What is the answer? I personally do not believe that you will get security in the towns and villages by the use of the military, the use of the soldier. Our experience in Malaya was that whilst the Army could strike at the Communists in the jungle they could not bring that feeling of security and confidence in the villages and towns. That spirit of confidence could come only when they had built up in that town and that village a police force that was semi-permanent, a police force in which the local inhabitants could have confidence. The military are always on the move; they are being posted from one part of Cyprus to another. They may be withdrawn from Cyprus and sent to Kenya. So the local population can never have the opportunity to build up confidence in the security force. As an example, in Malaya you might have had a young police officer posted to a village, but he could not speak the language, and that may well be the case with the troops in Cyprus. The local inhabitants were reluctant to give information to that officer because they had to give it through an interpreter, and they had no trust in the interpreter although they had trust in the officer. It was only when there was an officer who could speak the language that the people had confidence to go and give information. Once there is this confidence, then will come the information to strike at the enemy and then will come the co-operation that is so essential.
I would ask the Government seriously to consider this suggestion. I would ask them to consider the building up of a large police force so that gradually the military may be taken out of the operations whether the Government's policy is accepted by those to whom it is addressed or whether it is not. For many years to come a strong security force will be needed, and I believe that that security force should be basically the civil power—the civil police force. I should not like it to be thought that what I have said is in any way a criticism of the Army. I believe that our Army
1116
has behaved magnificently against the greatest provocation. Surely there is no greater provocation than the shooting of a comrade in the back. In spite of this provocation, our troops have done their duty, and I am sure that we are all grateful.
7.11 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, we all have great sympathy with the noble Earl who raised this question to-day, and I hope that he will feel, as I do, that the fact that he has raised it will have served a most useful purpose, in that it will go, I think, some way to comfort those who have fears that the safety of the troops has not been properly taken care of. We have heard from the noble and gallant Field Marshal what in fact is done in that respect—how the safety of the men is the first anxiety of the commanding generals, and there is nothing more for me to say on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked a specific question as to what training the units have in security before they go out to take care of themselves. The answer is that all units have a special security training and have their own security schools. So far as the Royal Horse Guards are concerned, they have not just gone out to Cyprus; they have been there for two years. On the other remarks of the noble Lord, about the police force and the importance, in the long run, of that rather than of soldiers, I can only say that we all appreciate the point. As he will have seen—it was announced only yesterday—some 300 more police are being recruited over here, not on a permanent basis for them but in order to build up the police force in Cyprus. That, of course, will continue to be our policy.
I think there is nothing more that I need say. I believe we shall all agree that this discussion should be kept strictly to the military context in which we have been talking—and, we have heard from several noble Lords, in particular from the noble and gallant Field Marshal—on what is right and what is being done.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for what he has just said, and also the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his full and most courteous answer. I am sure that it will do a great deal to help.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past seven o'clock.