Lords Sitting of 17 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Mountevans—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CANALS AND THE WATER INDUSTRY
11.5 a.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: 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 if they will arrange for consultation between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation upon the possibility of the increased use of canals as pipelines, or partially as pipelines, for the water industry.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the use of canals as pipelines, or partially as pipelines, for the water industry is a matter within the terms of reference of the Bowes Committee on Inland Waterways. Her Majesty's Government will give very careful consideration to any recommendations of the Committee on this subject.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, I should like to ask the following supplementary question. Is he aware that the object of the Question is to suggest an alternative to expensive trunk main water, which for a 3-foot pipe runs at a cost of £45,000 a mile, according to the area and terrain covered?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am aware of this, and while not wishing in any way to prejudge the decisions or recommendations of the Committee, I feel that I must warn my noble friend that it is doubtful if there will be much scope for using canals as pipelines for water supply; their carrying capacity does not seem to be great enough.

WATER SUPPLIES
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: 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 if they will investigate further possibilities of encouraging the abstraction of water from the lower or pre-tidal reaches of rivers, particularly for the supply of industrial water to the growing estuarial development.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, an increasing number of schemes for abstracting water from the lower reaches of rivers have been put forward in recent years and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the water industry is well aware of the possibilities.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the advantages of this process? For instance, it would avoid the necessity for using agricultural land and expensive reservoir building; and, where a dam is practicable, it sets back salt water from flowing some miles up the valley.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am indeed aware of those facts, and so are the authorities who put forward these schemes. That is why they have done it.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, what is the Government's idea of lower reaches of a river behind tidal waters?
LORD MANCROFT: Not without notice, I am afraid.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, this is an important question. One is strongly behind the main desires of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle. We should like to have an answer to that last question, because some local people who want to maintain their oyster fishing industry, ancillary treatment of oysters and the like are interested. If we could have an answer to that question at some time, I should be obliged.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will certainly make it my business to find out. I should have made it my business to find out even before the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned oysters; but now I am doubly inspired to do so.

THE MIDDLE EAST
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it is anticipated that there will be a statement on the Middle East shortly after half-past three this afternoon. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the House should adjourn at one o'clock and reassemble at 2.15. We do not wish to interfere with any of your Lordships' private arrangements, but it may be necessary to ask the House to sit through this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. In view of the general situation, as well as the Business, I am sure that it would be advisable to do as he suggests. I am not asking a Private Notice Question this morning. We are meeting while the other House is not sitting, and there are conversations going on. I should prefer, therefore, to leave any Question about the general situation until the statement is made this afternoon.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I have given notice of a Private Notice Question, but in view of what my noble Leader has said, I am quite prepared to defer such Question until this afternoon, in the hope that some endeavour will be made to answer it then. The Question relates to an appeal which has been made by the President of the Lebanese Parliament against the American landing. If it can be said "Yes" or "No" whether that is true, then I need not ask the Question now.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House to what the noble Viscount has said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 34 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the proceedings on the Opencast Coal Bill after the other Orders of the Day.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

TRADING REPRESENTATIONS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
Clause 6 [Modifications in enactments consequential on this Part of this Act and the Local Government Act, 1958]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I regret having to trouble your Lordships at this stage with a small Amendment to this Bill. It is purely a drafting Amendment. It is an economy in the use of words; it deletes three lines of print and substitutes five words which mean exactly the same thing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert
"(the Local Government Act. 1958.")—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OMNIBUS SHELTERS AND QUEUE BARRIERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

OPENCAST COAL BILL
11.15 a.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when we dealt with this Bill in Committee last week, we were not able to take the Amendments to the Schedules, and it was agreed that they should be left until Report. The narrow proceedings of Report stage do not seem to me to be a satisfactory way of dealing with Amendments of importance and difficulty. I have, therefore, after the usual consultations, put down a Motion to recommit the Bill forthwith in respect of the Schedules, and to take the full Report stage on the whole Bill as soon as we have finished these Recommitment proceedings. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is the most practical way of dealing with the Bill. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Report of the Amendments be now received, and that the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Schedules, and that Standing Order No. 41 be dispensed with in order that the Report of all the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House be received this day.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, may I say that we agree with the suggestion made. But we hope that we shall have some regard to the lateness of the hour tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Schedules of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Schedules of the Bill.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
First Schedule:
Procedure for granting authorisations under section one
4. Before submitting to the Minister an application for the Minister's authorisation under section one of this Act, the Board shall—
(b) serve on every local planning authority in whose area any part of the relevant land is situated, and on every other local authority, being the council of a county, county borough or county district, in whose area any part of that land is situated, a notice in the prescribed form stating that the application is intended to be submitted to the Minister, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the service of the notice) within which, and the manner in which objections to the application can be made;
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN had given Notice of several Amendments to paragraph 4 to provide that notice of application for Minister's authorisation under Clause 1 should be served on river boards. The first Amendment was in paragraph (b), to omit the first "and". The noble Lord said: River boards and drainage boards attach the greatest importance to the principle underlying Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 on the Marshalled List, and I suggest that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if they are considered together.
I need not remind your Lordships that quietly, and without any of the glamour of publicity, river boards and drainage boards are doing work of vital importance to the national economy. I sometimes wonder whether it is because of the absence of publicity that from time to time river boards, or the interests of river boards and drainage boards, tend to be overlooked—I am trying to use a colourless word—by other Departments. By Clause 1 of the Bill the National Coal Board are prohibited from working by opencast operations except under an authorisation by the Minister of Power. Under the First Schedule to the Bill the National Coal Board—I will use the term "Board" in future—are required to send notice of their application for such an authorisation to all local planning authorities and to all other local authorities, other than parish councils, in whose areas any part of the land concerned is situated and to the owners, lessees and occupiers of that land, and to publish a notice in the London Gazette and the

1205
local Press. In the Bill the expression, "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which includes any drainage board. But in the First Schedule there is inserted a limitation, and the term is to apply, or is restricted to, county councils, county borough councils and county district councils.
The result of that restriction is that neither a river board nor an internal drainage board would be entitled to be served with a notice of proposed opencast coal working. It will be readily seen that, as a result, although a drainage authority may be vitally interested, its only means of knowing what is proposed to be done will be to watch the London Gazette or the local Press for any announcement of the Board's intention. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that even with the greatest vigilance such a matter could be easily overlooked; and, frankly, I cannot see any valid reason why one public authority should not in decency be ready and required to give notice to another public authority of proposals which may adversely affect the work which that other authority has done or is doing on behalf of another Ministry or on the instructions of another Ministry.
A period of twenty-eight days is to be allowed for lodging objections, and unless all objections are withdrawn the Minister must hold a public local inquiry. By the same reasoning it is submitted that where a drainage authority objects to the proposal of the Board the Minister should also be required to cause a public local inquiry to be held. Moreover, it is considered that in such a case the person holding the inquiry should be appointed jointly—I repeat, "jointly"—by the Minister of Power and the appropriate Minister concerned, it may be the Minister of Agriculture, it may be the Minister of Housing and Local Government, because obviously the work of drainage and river boards is closely associated with both those Government Departments. It is perfectly true that in another place similar Amendments were resisted on the ground that to include drainage boards would he to open the door wide for other authorities to apply to receive notice. But I say, with respect, that drainage authorities are more vitally concerned with opencast working than any other interest that I can think of. In the past,
1206
instances have occurred where drainage levels have been entirely altered by opencast coal working. I am sure that if one looks at the matter calmly and reasonably the work of one public authority ought not to damage or hamper the work of another.
In the course of the Second Reading the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Mills, stated that the National Coal Board had informed him that, in addition to these formal requirements as specified in the Bill at the moment, they—that is the National Coal Board—before applying for the Minister's authorisation for opencast coal working, would discuss their plans informally with the owners and occupiers of the land, the local authorities and other public bodies likely to be interested. The Board's aim in these informal discussions will be to work out a detailed proposal which is acceptable to all the parties concerned. I think I am quoting correctly what the noble Lord said. I will not inflict on the House today that phrase which Members of this House have heard so many times: "Put it in the Bill". But if it is intended that drainage boards are to be included among the public bodies likely to be interested, again quoting the noble Lord's words, I can say that this assurance is welcomed by the associations concerned. But in view of the very serious repercussions which opencast coal operations may have on their interests, the drainage boards and river boards are firmly of the opinion that, for the reasons I have ventured to submit to your Lordships, there is no justification for excluding them, as is done in the Schedule, from the definition of "public authority" given in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
May I, in conclusion, make it clear that these Amendments will in no way detract from the authority of the Minister of Power. They seek only to ensure that before the final decision is given all the interests vitally concerned, and all the factors in every particular instance, are fully considered by those who know the facts, and that they will place their knowledge unreservedly at the disposal of the National Coal Board to ensure that inadvertently—I repeat, "inadvertently"—damage is not done in the way which I have indicated. Therefore while I repeat that these Amendments in no way impinge on the authority, the final decision, of the Minister of Power, I

1207
hope that the Amendments will commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 46, leave out (" and ").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MILLS: I do not in any way underestimate the importance of the river boards and drainage boards, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the principle underlying this Amendment, which, as the noble Lord has said, can be conveniently considered with Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 on this Marshalled List. The granting of an authorisation for opencast coal working is essentially a planning matter. Normally, planning matters are settled by the local planning authority, and no other public authority has a legal right to be heard on a planning application. In the present Bill we have gone beyond this and have given other local authorities in whose areas a proposed opencast coal site is situated a right to have their objections heard at a public local inquiry; but I am afraid that we cannot go further and extend that right to river boards and drainage authorities. The noble Lord himself has given the answer why his Amendments are not acceptable. There is no case for treating these authorities differently from other public bodies.
LORD BURDEN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but what public authorities has the noble Lord in mind?
LORD MILLS: I will certainly explain what I have in mind. If we granted this concession we should have to give a similar right to such authorities as water undertakers, the British Transport Commission, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the dock and harbour authorities. If we once brought in these public bodies we should have to include in the First Schedule a very long list indeed, and that would inevitably greatly complicate the procedures under the Bill, involve a lot of work and delay the bringing of new opencast coal sites into production.
While I cannot accept these Amendments there are two provisions in the First Schedule which go a long way to safeguard the interests of river boards and drainage authorities and to meet the points which the noble Lord has made. The first is the provision in paragraph 4
1208
(a), which requires the Board to publish notice of their application for an authorisation in local newspapers and in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette. This provision will ensure that public bodies who are not entitled to receive an individual notice will have ample opportunity to find out that the Board are applying for an authorisation and, if they so wish, to lodge objections. The second provision is paragraph 7 (3), which empowers the Minister to hold a public local inquiry even though no objections have been received from the owners and occupiers of the land and the local authorities who are entitled to have their objections heard at such an inquiry. This provision was expressly included because we envisaged that there would be cases when substantial objections might be received from other public bodies which the Minister would wish to hear at a public local inquiry before deciding on the Board's application. I quite understand the desire to "put it in the Bill," but I also have to safeguard the scope of the Bill, to see that it is not unduly burdened. I trust that, in view of the safeguards I have mentioned, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press these Amendments.
LORD BURDEN: I am bound to thank the noble Lord for his courteous reply, but may I point out to him with respect, that the Department concerned, the Ministry of Power, are themselves responsible for the difficulties in which we find ourselves this morning. If they had retained in this Bill the definition of "public authorities" as contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, no trouble would have arisen, and the British Transport Commission, the Central Electricity Generating Board and all those ancillary bodies to which the noble Lord has made reference would have had to look after their own interests. Cannot the noble Lord see that by this limitation the Schedule specifically limits rights that were given to the river boards and drainage boards by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947? Naturally, they take exception to that limitation. I feel that it is because they are not a local body like, say, some great town council that they are somewhat brusquely put on one side and are not treated in full measure as a public or a local authority. But, of course, they are a local authority. It is true that they are

1209
one degree removed, because their members are appointed from the various councils within the area or nominated by the Minister; but the river boards are a public authority in the same sense as a local council. The members of the river boards report to their local councils. For the life of me, I cannot see why we have to bring in the Central Electricity Generating Board or the British Transport Commission. Keep the definition that is contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and no difficulty will arise.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am quite unable to follow the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has raised against my noble friend's Amendments. He says that if this proposal is accepted it would logically follow that there should be included in the Bill, as bodies entitled to notice, such authorities as the Central Electricity Generating Board or similar public undertakings—for instance, British Railways. But those bodies are entitled to express notice under the Bill as it stands, because they are owners or occupiers of property. A river board is not in that position because it is not an owner or occupier of property in the area with which it is concerned. Therefore, it will not automatically get notice, as all these other public bodies will, although they are not expressly mentioned. It is on that account that I think the Amendments are absolutely correct.
The noble Lord also, if I understood him correctly, said that an objection to this proposal was that it would give the river board a locus standi to be heard at any public inquiry, and he did not want that. But I think that he contradicted himself when he referred to a later paragraph in the Schedule which gives the Minister power to hold a local inquiry, even although it has not been asked for by an owner or occupier of property in the district; and he indicated that that would entitle a river board to ask for a local inquiry. If that is so, then his objection that this would give the river boards a locus standi, is entirely fallacious.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved. I am associated with the same central association as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and I think that we should
1210
weigh all the considerations that come into play.
LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, for their contributions to this discussion. I would point out two things. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, when the Minister of Housing and Local Government deals with a planning application only the local planning authority has a right to be heard. Here we have made a wide provision which enables the Minister to consider any appeal. I have already said there is ample notice to the river boards and drainage boards. They can easily ascertain when an authorisation is applied for, and they can make their objections known. In regard to the other bodies, I would point out that many of them do not own all the property in which they have an interest. For example, water undertakers do not normally own their water gathering grounds, so that drainage boards and river boards, important as they are, are not in a unique position. I believe there is ample provision for objections to be laid and heard and I regret that I cannot agree to this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: The noble Lord can carry this and get his own way, but I wonder whether I may ask his good offices in this way. I have not the slightest doubt that the National Coal Board want to be reasonable in this matter, but recalling what was said by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, is it possible for him to arrange for some informal discussions between representatives of the associations and the National Coal Board, with a view to seeing whether, within their own ambit, they can work out a solution to this problem? I am not going to press the matter to a Division, for I know that I should be beaten, and I do not wish to impede the progress of this Bill. With due respect, I feel that the noble Lord has not dealt with the substance of the point made by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, but I will let that pass. It will be recalled that in connection with another Bill we were able to arrange for informal discussions, led by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, and to reach a friendly and amicable understanding. I am throwing out an olive

1211
branch. Is it possible for some such informal discussions so that possibly some agreement may be reached?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I will gladly give the assurance that I will discuss the matter with the National Coal Board in the hope that they can take on a voluntary basis such measures as will be satisfactory to the river and drainage boards.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, in those circumstances the Amendment can be negatived. I do not propose to move the other Amendments.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Provisions as to compensation by way of payment of costs of works]:
11.43 a.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved to leave out the Third Schedule and insert the following new Schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS
1. In this Schedule—
'compensation' means compensation under section twenty-two of this Act;
'former use', in relation to any land, means the use for which it was used immediately before the operative date of the order in question;
'proper cost', in relation to any work, means such cost as is reasonable, having regard to the prices of materials and rates of remuneration for services current at the time when the work is carried out;
'the Tribunal' means the Lands Tribunal.
2.—(1) The Board shall not be required to pay compensation in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out any work unless—

(a) not less than the prescribed length of time before the work was begun, the person incurring the expenses gave to the Board, in the prescribed manner, notice in writing containing adequate particulars of the work, together with a statement of the time when it was proposed to carry out the work and an estimate of the cost of the work, and

(b) at all reasonable times after the service of that notice, that person afforded to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the land to which the notice related, in so far as he was in a position to afford such facilities.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule 'the applicant', in relation to a notice under this paragraph, means the person who gave that notice.
3. Where a notice has been given under the last preceding paragraph, the Board, within the prescribed time after the giving of that notice, may serve on the applicant a counter-notice, stating—

(a) that the Board object to the work specified in the applicant's notice, or to such one or more items thereof as may be specified in the counter-notice, and

(b) that they object thereto on such one or more grounds as may be specified in the counter-notice, being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the next following paragraph.

4. Subject to the next following paragraph, the said grounds, in relation to any work specified in a notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, are the following, that is to say.—

(a) that the work could not reasonably be regarded as work falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act;

(b) that the work is likely to be ineffective, or is by its nature unsuitable to the land in question, or is proposed to be carried out in an unsuitable way;

(c) that the estimated cost of the work is grossly disproportionate to any prospective increase attributable to the work in the value of the land;

(d) that the work, in a case where the former use of the land in question was agricultural, would not be appropriate to the use of that land for agriculture, or, in any other case, would not be appropriate to the use of that land for its former use;

(e) that the work would not be required but for dilapidation, deterioration or damage which has occurred since the end of the period of occupation and is attributable to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land;

(f) that the work, if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would be premature;

(g) that the work if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would not have been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation, or within a reasonable time after that opportunity arose.

5.—(1) In so far as a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule (in this paragraph referred to as 'the current notice') specifies any work (in this paragraph referred to as 'the new work') in a case where the applicant has previously given one or more notices under that paragraph specifying similar work which he proposed to carry out in respect of the same land, the last preceding paragraph shall apply in relation to the new work with the substitution, for sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph, of the following sub-paragraph (in this paragraph referred to as 'the substituted subparagraph (c)')—
'(c) that the aggregate cost of that work and of all relevant work specified in previous notices relating to the same land is grossly disproportionate to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work in the value of the land'.
(2) In the substituted sub-paragraph (c) the reference to the aggregate cost of the new work and of all other relevant work specified in previous notices relating to the same land is a reference to the aggregate of—

(a) the estimated cost of the new work, and

(b) the estimated, cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant which is still outstanding on the relevant date, and

(c) the proper cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the relevant date or is still outstanding on that date.

(3) In the substituted sub-paragraph (c) the reference to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work as is therein mentioned in the value of the land is a reference to the aggregate of—

(a) the prospective increase in that value attributable to the new work, and

(b) the prospective increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant which is still outstanding on the relevant date, and

(c) the increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the revelant date or is still outstanding on that date.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph—

(a) a previous notice specifying similar work shall be taken to be outstanding on the relevant date if—

(i) such a notice has been given before the relevant date and has not been withdrawn, and

(ii) either the Board have not before that date served a counter-notice objecting to that work, or, if they have served such a counter-notice, that objection has before that date been withdrawn or determined by the Tribunal not to be well-founded, and

(iii) no claim for compensation has before the relevant date been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work;

(b) a claim for compensation in respect of any work shall be taken to have been allowed before the relevant date if before that date

(i) a claim for compensation has been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and

(ii) it has been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses, whether the amount of compensation so agreed or determined to be payable was the amount claimed or a different amount;

1214

(c) a claim for compensation in respect of any work shall be taken to be still outstanding on the relevant date if at that date—

(i) a claim for compensation has been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and

(ii) that claim has not been withdrawn, and it has not been determined by the Tribunal that no compensation is payable in respect of those expenses, but

(iii) it has not been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses.

(5) In this paragraph. 'similar work,' in relation to the new work, means work directed to the same aspect of restoration as the new work; 'previous notice,' in relation to the current notice, means a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule before the date on which the current notice was given; and 'the relevant date,' in relation to the current notice, means the date on which the Board serve a counter-notice objecting to the new work, or the date on which the time for serving such a counter-notice expires, whichever is the earlier.
(6) In the following provisions of this Schedule (except where the contrary is expressly provided) any reference to sub-paragraph (c) of the last preceding paragraph, in relation to work to which that paragraph applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, shall be construed as a reference to the substituted sub-paragraph (c), and any reference in this Schedule to the grounds mentioned in the last preceding paragraph shall be construed accordingly.
6. For the purpose of determining whether an objection on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule is well-founded, the estimated cost of any work shall be taken to be such amount as may be agreed, or determined by the Tribunal, to be a fair estimate of the cost of the work, whether that amount is equal to, or greater or less than, the estimated cost of the work as stated in the applicant's notice specifying that work.
7.—(1) In sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the reference to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In relation to agricultural land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to fulfil his responsibilities to farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.

(3) In relation to any other land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to deal with the land in a proper and due course of management and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the

1215
land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to maintain and use the land in a reasonable manner.

(4) Sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947 (which prescribe tests for determining good estate management and good husbandry) shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.

(5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for the reference to sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947, there shall be substituted a reference to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.

8. Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the applicant has incurred expenses in carrying out any of the work specified in that notice, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses,—

(a) if the Board have not served a counter-notice under paragraph 3 of this Schedule in respect of that notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule;

(b) if the Board have served such a counter-notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule, except in so far as the claim relates to items which were specified in the counter-notice and the objection is on grounds which were so specified in relation to those items.

9.—(1) Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice objecting to the work specified in the notice, or to one or more items thereof, the applicant, before beginning to carry out any item to which such an objection relates, may require the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal.

(2) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is not well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates and claims compensation in respect of those expenses, then (in addition to any grounds on which the Board are precluded by the last preceding paragraph from objecting to that claim) the Board shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds which were the grounds of that objection.

(3) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses,—

(a) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those expenses;

(b) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) of the said paragraph 4, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those expenses by virtue of the notice referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, but without prejudice to
1216
the service of a further notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule in respect of the work in question;

(c) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (g) of the said paragraph 4, the expenses shall be disallowed by virtue of this sub-paragraph in so far as (but no further than) they were greater than they would have been if the work to which the objection related had been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation.

10.—(1) If, in a case where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice Objecting to the work specified in the notice, or to one or more items thereof,—

(a) the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out work to which the objection relates without having required the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses;

(b) on a reference to the Tribunal with respect to that claim the Board maintain the objection; and

(c) on that reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is well-founded,

the provisions of heads (a) to (c) of subparagraph (3) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply (subject to the following provisions of this paragraph) as they apply in the circumstances mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(2) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule (otherwise than in a case falling within paragraph 5 of this Schedule) so much of the preceding sub-paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said sub-paragraph (c), the reference to the estimated cost of the work were a reference to the proper cost of the work.
(3) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in the substituted sub-paragraph (c), within the meaning of paragraph 5 of this Schedule, so much of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said paragraph 5, any reference to the relevant date were a reference to the date on which the question whether compensation is payable in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out the new work (within the meaning of that paragraph) falls to be determined by the Tribunal, and the objection had been formulated accordingly.
11.—(1) Subject to the next following subparagraph, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be treated as having been reasonably incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act, if the work was begun more than fifteen years after the end of the period of occupation.
(2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply to any work required for making good damage caused by the settlement of soil replaced in the course of restoring the land or

1217
any other damage to the land caused by subsidence which is attributable to anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in question.
12. Where it is shown that the expenses incurred in carrying out any work exceeding the proper cost of the work, any claim for compensation in respect of those expenses shall (without prejudice to any other grounds on which the claim may be liable Ito be disallowed, wholly or in part) be disallowed to the extent of the excess.
13.—(1) Except in so far as objection is made to any work on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to any such objection, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be disallowed (wholly or in part) on the grounds that the proper cost of that work (or of that work together with any other work) is greater than any increase attributable thereto in the value of the land.
(2) Subject to the preceding sub-paragraph, nothing in the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as precluding the Board from maintaining any objection to a claim for compensation, in so far as the objection is on any grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to have to introduce this long and complicated Schedule, but it deals with an important matter and gives effect to three undertakings given on the Report stage in another place. The most important change made by this new Schedule is the provision in paragraph 11 that the Board's liability to pay cost of works compensation shall be limited to work carried out within fifteen years of the end of their occupation of land comprised in a compulsory rights order. This period should be long enough to permit completion of all the main restoration work, including the application of extra fertilisers to restore the fertility of the soil. The fifteen-year limitation will, however, relieve the Board of the administrative burden of paying for very small items of restoration work which may continue more or less indefinitely. The fact that the Board will not have to pay for these small items of work will, of course, be taken into account when the diminution of value compensation is assessed, so there will be no injustice to the landowners.
Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 provides that there will be an exception to the fifteen-year limit for the repair of damage caused by settlement of the land which is due to opencast coal working. Settlement may occur and cause damage long after the Board have given up an
1218
opencast coal site. If that damage was caused by deep-mine subsidence the Board would have to pay for its repair, irrespective of when the coal was extracted. I think we ought to apply the same principle when a person's land is taken compulsorily for opencast coal working and that is done in this subparagraph.
The second undertaking fulfilled in this new Schedule is that we should make it possible for disputes about the reasonableness of a proposed work of restoration to be settled in advance of the start of the work. We give effect to this undertaking in paragraphs 2, 3, 8 and 9. They provide that on receiving a notice of work the Board must, if they want to object to that work on the grounds that it is unreasonable, serve a counter-notice within a time limit which I shall lay down in regulations and which will be such as to ensure that the person concerned knows the Board's views in good time before he is due to start the work. The Board's counter-notice must specify the grounds on which they are objecting to the work, and they cannot subsequently object on grounds not mentioned in the notice. When the person proposing to carry out the work receives the counter-notice he can either refer the dispute to the Lands Tribunal or go ahead with the work at his own risk.
The third undertaking given in another place was that we would check the drafting of the old Third Schedule to make sure there were no loopholes which would enable a person to obtain from the Board the cost of obviously unreasonable works. As a result of this check, we have included three new provisions in paragraphs 4 and 5. First, we have included a new provision in sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 4 to the effect that the Board can object to the carrying out of the work on the grounds that it is premature. A landowner might, for example, propose to instal a drainage system at a time when the Board knew that it was likely to be wrecked by further settlement. There is no reason why the Board should pay for the installation of that drainage system and subsequently for its repair, and this provision safeguards them. The landowner, on the other hand, is protected by paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (3) (b), which makes it clear that even if the Lands Tribunal hold that the work is premature, he can

1219
serve a further notice of his intention to carry out the work later on, when it is no longer premature.
Secondly, we have made it clear all along the line that the Board's liability to pay costs-of-works compensation should not be limited to work which costs no more than it adds to the value of the land. That provision is retained in paragraph 13. However, no one wants the Board to have to pay for wildly uneconomic work. We have therefore included a new provision in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4, which says that work can be held to be unreasonable if its estimated cost is "grossly disproportionate" to the estimated addition it will make to the value of the land. It will be up to the Lands Tribunal to say what is "grossly disproportionate" in practice, but I think the use of these words makes it clear that we do not want work to be disallowed just because it costs a little more than it adds to the value of the land, but only if it costs a lot more.
Finally, there is the new paragraph 5. I must confess that I had considerable misgivings about this long paragraph and it was only with great reluctance that I agreed to it. It is, however, designed to meet a very simple point. It is possible that the Board will admit items of work each of which appears to be reasonable in itself but which in practice adds very little to the value of the land. For example, a man might try one type of fertiliser that did little or no good, then another type, then yet a third type. We do not think the Board should have to go on pumping good money after bad in a case of this sort: they must be able, after two or three tries, to call a halt. Paragraph 5 therefore provides that when a person is carrying out a whole series of works on the same aspect of restoration, and the Board think that the cost is becoming grossly disproportionate to the increase in the value of the land, the parties to the dispute and the Tribunal will look not at each individual item of work but at all the items together.
The reason the paragraph is so long and complicated is that, to give effect to this idea, we have had to add together three different things. The first is the actual cost of works already carried out; the second is the estimated cost of work
1220
which has been agreed to be reasonable but which has not yet been carried out; the third is the estimated cost of the new items of work under consideration. We have had to spell out in detail how this sum is added up. Paragraph 5 applies only to work directed to the same aspect of restoration. The Board cannot, for example, seek to disallow expenditure on restoring a stone wall on the ground that a lot of money has been spent uselessly on fertilisers. I think that that would be too harsh on the claimant, but it is reasonable to look at all the money spent on the same aspect of restoration.
There are a few other technical provisions; some of them, such as paragraph 7, are repeated from the present version of the Third Schedule. I think that I have covered the main points. In general, the new Schedule seems to me to be a reasonable way of meeting the misgivings about cost-of-works compensation, which were expressed earlier in our discussion, and I hope it will prove acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Third Schedule and insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Mills.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: On the Paper there is an Amendment to this Amendment, and I must call that Amendment first. It will then no doubt be for the convenience of the Committee to debate Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, in paragraph 11, sub-paragraph (2), line 1, after "to" insert:
"work done in draining the land or in associated operations, or".
The noble Viscount said: As has been suggested by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, it would seem better to say what one has to say on both these Amendments simultaneously. This Schedule is a very difficult one. I am glad that the House did not continue with the Committee stage on these Amendments on the previous occasion, because this long Schedule had appeared only the day before and it was extremely difficult to sum it up. So perhaps it is not unfortunate that it has been recommitted to-day. On the general purpose of this Schedule, I should say that, if it is really desired to tie up everything in detail, the

1221
Schedule no doubt does it. But I would refer back, only briefly, to the debates which we had in Committee on Clauses 22 and 23. It seemed to me then—and this was the main difficulty, I felt—that it would be impossible to determine what the compensation under Clause 23 would be unless something was done to define what the compensation under Clause 22 (concerning cost of works) would be. This Schedule makes some attempt to do that. I should say that it would have been far better to adopt something of the nature of what I suggested under Clause 22.
As to the details of this Schedule, there are some points which I think will lead to difficulty. There are one or two points which, even with the careful explanation that the noble Lord has given us, are still a little difficult to follow. Perhaps I might refer first to my Amendment to the Amendment. That concerns a limitation of fifteen years. In the Schedule as it is before us the costs of works are to be paid for and carried out only up to a period of fifteen years from the termination of the order, whereas any work connected with making good damage due to subsidence goes on afterwards. I entirely agree with that, but I have put down this Amendment about drainage for a quite simple reason: that for certain types of land there is at present no knowledge as to the date on which the land ought to be drained after it has been worked.
The beginnings of opencast coal working in this country occurred about 1942, and it was then thought that land ought not to be drained for quite a long period. I believe that it is only within the last two or three years that any of the land has, in fact, been drained. Those concerned are now beginning to think that it has been done too soon. Of course, everyone who has land which has been damaged wishes to have it drained as soon as possible, because certain types of land are practically useless until they are drained; but it is a poor satisfaction to an owner or occupier to have the land drained and then to find the drains are moving and useless. There is the practical point that modern drainage operations are not carried out by hand; they are done by machine, and there is considerable disruption to the surface of the land and to the crop, involving loss of grazing and so on. So if it is at all possible, even from the owner's and the
1222
occupier's point of view, it is better that drainage, once done, should be left alone. Moreover, I think it would be said from the point of view of the Coal Board that they would not want the expense of doing the work twice.
The Amendment to the Amendment, therefore, is simply for the purpose of making it possible to do the drainage later if, in fact, at some later date—a few years' time—it becomes generally agreed that the drainage ought to be done later. I am not at the moment prepared to say that that is the general opinion, but it might become so, in which case it should be provided for. I realise that after the actual working of the land it remains in the Board's occupation for some four or five years more, and that on top of this there is the fifteen-year period. It may be suggested that that is too long a period altogether. What I am suggesting is simply a precaution in case it is found subsequently that the general consensus of opinion of those interested in the land and those trying to get it restored is that the drainage ought to be done later.
Having explained what I am trying to do in my Amendment, I should like to ask the noble Lord if he could help us a little more on paragraph 13 of his Third Schedule. He has told us there that to a limited extent expenditure would not be disallowed if it was found to be more than the resultant benefit which would accrue to the land. I am worried, however, as to what will be the effect when it comes to drainage because I maintain that the one vital thing is to drain this land. That, to my mind, is the thing which really matters, because it affects the future of the land.
I am still a little puzzled here. The noble Lord was good enough to explain this matter to me, but I wonder whether he could go a little further. Drainage at the present time is a very expensive item—it costs up to £70 or more an acre—and after drainage the land has to be back-filled, re-planted and re-seeded. The whole of that is quite an expensive operation and it may well be that it would involve a good deal more cost than the resultant benefit to the land. Nevertheless, it is a thing which has to be done, because in certain types of land—and I think probably most—it is no good attempting to restore the land until it has been drained. I should like to be a little clearer as to what the situation

1223
would be under paragraph 13 if the costs of the work I have referred to are substantially more than the benefit which might be estimated to accrue to the land. I think that the intention behind this Bill is that the land should be drained, and I want to be satisfied that paragraph 13 will not, by accident, interfere with that intention. Having said that, I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Paragraph 11, sub-paragraph (2), line 1, after (" to ") insert (" work done in draining the land or in associated operations, or ").—(Viscount Ridley.)
12.3 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I preface my remarks by saying that I was rather reluctant last Thursday to ask that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, should agree to adjourn the proceedings, but that I did so in the main because of this very Amendment, along with a few other Amendments to the Schedules. This is, to us, a very important Amendment. It was not that we disagreed with it, but that we were anxious to have time to consult with our colleagues in another place. They had made certain representations, and we were not quite certain how far those representations had been accepted in this new Schedule. I therefore suggested that we should adjourn so that we could consult with them, and I promised that in doing so we would facilitate the progress of this Bill. That is our intention. We on this side of the House will do everything we can to facilitate the progress of this Bill, but I also have in mind its progress in another place. The more we improve the Bill in this place the better is its chance in another place, because most of these Amendments will be discussed again there.
I am not going to refer to the Amendment to the Amendment: I will leave that to the Minister and to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. This new Schedule deals with one of the grievances that was ventilated in another place—namely, that there was no way of dealing in advance with any dispute between the Board and the applicants about their rights to compensation if further costs were incurred. The new paragraph 9 does it—and does it well, if I might say so—but there are one or two comments
1224
that I should like to make on other paragraphs in the Schedule.
For instance, the Schedule does not provide for the most vital disagreement, in our view, which is what is to happen if the applicant's estimate of the cost of work under paragraph 2(1)(b) exceeds what the Board consider to be the estimated cost of work as defined in paragraph 6. Here I would ask: why has the Minister omitted from paragraph 4 those particular grounds? He himself said that he was most reluctant to agree that paragraph 5 should go in the Schedule. My colleagues in another place and myself are just as reluctant as he is, and we should like to see it out. We think it is an unnecessary complication, and we do not see any reason why further costs of work should not be judged on their own in the same way as the original costs of work. I am asked to put to the Minister whether he would consider deleting paragraph 5 from the Schedule. If so, it would make the Schedule more acceptable to my colleagues and myself.
There is just one question with regard to paragraph 11. Why fifteen years? Why not some lesser figure? My colleagues and I feel that there is no need for fifteen years; indeed, they suggest as an Amendment five years. I should like the noble Lord's comments on those small points. I notice that there are ninety Amendments on this Committee stage and thirty-one on the Report stage. We shall need to make very rapid progress in the early part of our discussions if we are to get through all those today. We welcome this new Schedule. We think it is an effort to meet—and that it does meet part way, if not the whole way—representations made by my colleagues in another place.
12.8 p.m.
LORD MILLS: Perhaps I might first deal with the noble Viscount's Amendment to the Amendment. This Amendment deals with a point which was raised by the noble Viscount during our discussion on Committee stage on cost-of-works compensation. Since then I have looked into very carefully and I have obtained the views of the Government's agricultural advisers. When an opencast coal site has been back-filled after working, it is given, as the noble Viscount has mentioned, five years' agricultural treatment

1225
before the Board give up possession of the land. The time limit of fifteen years on cost-of-works compensation begins to run from the end of the Board's occupation, so there is a total of 20 years after the back-filling of the site during which permanent drains can be installed. In many cases the drains are installed during the five years' agricultural treatment, but that is not always possible. I am advised, however, that it should always be possible to instal them within a few years after the end of the agricultural treatment, and that fifteen years is ample time to allow for their installation.
Of course, there is always the risk that drains will be damaged by settlement, but if we waited until all risk of settlement had passed, the land would remain undrained almost indefinitely. To guard against this risk, however, we have provided in paragraph 11 (2) of this Schedule that the fifteen years' limitation shall not apply to the repair of damage caused by settlement. This will ensure that the Board will have to pay for the repair of any new drainage system which may happen to be damaged in this way. The noble Viscount asked me whether paragraph 13 stands in the way of the proper drainage of the land. I am quite sure that it does not stand in the way. The Board appreciate that the land has to be properly drained and will see that it is properly drained. I hope that this removes the noble Viscount's misgivings about this provision.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. I quite understand his reason for suggesting last time that we should adjourn; I think it was a very proper reason. I am glad we are going to have his support in doing what we can to get this Bill through. I explained that I did not particularly like this complicated paragraph 5 in the Schedule, but it deals with a very real point, and I think that if it were omitted the Board would be put in considerable difficulty. I am therefore going to ask the noble Lord to agree to its inclusion. The noble Lord asked me: "Why fifteen years? Why not some other period?" The only reason I can give is that it was recommended by our advisers on this matter and that it was the wish of another place, where the matter was fully debated. In fact, the re-writing of the Schedule was necessary to give effect to undertakings given in another place.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This question of leaving open the drainage date is not one which I think of the greatest importance or one on which a lot of time should be spent, and I am happy not to press the Amendment to the Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that paragraph 5 is difficult; I do not think I like it a bit. As to the rest of the Schedule, it is probably better than the Third Schedule as it was before, but I do not believe that it takes the right view of Clause 22 and we can only hope that it will work as it is intended to do. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Short-term improvements and related matters for which compensation is payable]:
12.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 8, after "harvested crops" to insert "including timber". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment attempts to deal with forestry. It leads on to an Amendment which I have on paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule and is connected with one of the Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, so possibly it would not be wrong to refer to matters connected with those Amendments while discussing this one. The idea that lies behind this Amendment is simple. In the same way as an occupier of land who is farming is paid for his crops, cultivation and tenant right at the time when an order begins and the Board go in, so an occupier who has a crop of forest trees should be paid for his trees at the time the Board go in. We shall be interested to see what is the intention of the noble Lord in his Amendment. It may cover what we are hoping for.
I think the reason why the Bill as it stands does not provide for the payment for a crop until the end of the order is because it is directed at dealing with ornamental timber rather than commercial forests. While I agree that the case is not so strong on the face of it, I think it becomes stronger in practice. The Bill, as it stands, provides that when a final valuation is made it will include the timber which was on the land when it was taken, and it will compare the land when bearing the timber with the land without it, increment which would

1227
have existed if the timber had still been there being assumed. It also provides for annual compensation for thinnings and other products which would have been taken from the land during the period of the order. On the other hand, any timber which is mature and ready to fell at the beginning of the order, and which in the ordinary way would probably have been felled before the end of the order, cannot be taken to show any increment or, therefore, any increase of value when the final reckoning comes to be made, because the trees will have already reached their mature value at the beginning of the order.
The effect of this provision would be that the owner of the timber would be paid the value of the timber at the end of the order but it would be no more than its value was at the beginning—unless, of course, inflationary tendencies had to be allowed for—so that the owner would have lent to the Coal Board for perhaps ten years the value of that timber, without anything being paid about it. In many cases of what is known as amenity timber, the trees will have reached their full age—indeed, they will mostly be older than they ought to be from the point of view of good forestry principles, and should have been replaced—so that this question affects amenity timber as well as commercial forests, whether on dedicated land or not.
I think it would be much simpler if the valuation were made under the Sixth Schedule, and I attempt in a very amateurish way to say how the valuation of timber should be made. The owner could be paid for the timber and he could invest that money either in another crop somewhere else or in another part of his property on improvements to farm buildings, or whatever it may be; and when the time comes for the land to be replaced a decision could be made about whether the land is worth planting again or cultivating. The owner must then find the resources with which to plant his land. I do not suggest that after paying to the owner the value of the land, the Coal Board should be expected, when they go in, to pay also for the planting at the end of the period.
That seems to me to be the simplest way to look at the matter. I do not know whether it would be right to say
1228
that under the unfortunate process of requisitioning which now goes on, by which land is taken for opencast coal, that is in fact what is done. In practice, there is no difficulty in achieving a valuation which suits both parties; the timber is paid for and cut down, the owner gets his money, and when the working comes to an end he replants as he thinks best, or as is best fitted to the land. That is the purpose behind these Amendments. I hope the noble Lord by his Amendment to Clause 14 and the Sixth Schedule will be able to meet what we need, and I am interested to hear how he intends that that should work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 9, after second (" crops ") insert (" including timber ").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: The Government have given much thought to the problem of compensation on woodlands taken for opencast coal working. It is a very difficult technical problem and it has been clear to us for some time that the main compensation provisions of the Bill do not quite fit the case of woodlands. I think it would be wrong to burden this already lengthy Bill with further complicated technical provisions, and I shall, therefore, be moving Amendments to the Sixth Schedule which will provide for this problem to be dealt with in regulations.
I cannot promise that these regulations will provide, as the noble Viscount suggests, that compensation for timber should be payable when the Board take over the land comprised in a compulsory rights order, for we see considerable difficulties about such a course; we think it might lead to a substantial double payment in the frequent cases when, in the interest of amenity, we shall impose conditions on the Board requiring them to replant trees which are destroyed during opencast operations. I can promise the noble Viscount, however, that in preparing these regulations I will consider very carefully what he has said and that my Department will consult the agricultural organisations, the local authority associations and others interested. In addition, it will, of course, be possible for any noble Lord who wishes to debate the regulations. I am advised that the noble Viscount's Amendments are, in any case, technically

1229
defective—I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that—and I hope that, with the assurance I have just given, he will agree to withdraw them and leave this complicated problem to be dealt with in the regulations.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I must accept that my Amendments are technically wrong, but I think what I mean is clear. The regulations are probably the best way to deal with this matter, but I am a little worried that the Minister should refer again to amenity timber as if that were the biggest part of the problem. I think the biggest part of the problem is the forestry question. However, the noble Lord has encouraged me, because he did not say that the problem could not be dealt with under the measures I suggested. It may be that his regulations will provide for a combination of two systems. I can appreciate the point which he made: that this proposal is perhaps too long and too elaborate to put into an already complicated Bill. I welcome the suggestion of the Amendment which he is going to move, and on that I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This is entirely a drafting Amendment designed to bring the wording of the Fourth Schedule to the Bill into line with that of the Fourth Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as amended by the Agricultural Holdings Act (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order, 1951. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 22, leave out (" sheep on high ground ") and insert (" hill sheep on hill land ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Compensation in respect of minerals
(2) In this Schedule "the mineral operator"—
(a) in relation to land which, immediately before the operative date of the order in question, is subject to a mining lease as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (1), means the person for the time being entitled to the benefit of that mining lease, and
and, in relation to any land to which this Schedule applies, "the relevant undertaking'
1230
means the mineral undertaking of the mineral operator.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in paragraph 1 (2) (a), after "subject" to insert "directly or indirectly". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment concerns the treatment of owners or operators of mineral leases and their compensation. It is perhaps a little difficult, because there are two Amendments of this kind to the clauses which I am afraid I did not manage to put down on the Committee stage and I have ventured to put them down on Report. The principle, however, is exactly the same here, so possibly the matter may be settled during the discussion now. The intention here is that there should be a fair degree of wideness in the definition of who, in fact, owns these mineral rights or mineral leases. In the Town and Country Planning Act there is quite a wide definition of various classes of people who, under certain conditions, can receive compensation for their interest in minerals, whether they be mineral operators who are mining, or whether they are holders of the minerals in anticipation of their being worked. There is a large number of types of ownership by one person on behalf of an operating company or a mining company, and one would not attempt to define all of them in an Amendment of this kind. What one wants to be sure of, however, is that the words cover the ownership of mineral rights not actually in the names of those who are beneficiaries of them. It is really an Amendment to try to get an explanation as to who is and who is not covered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 3, after (" subject ") insert ("directly or indirectly.").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: This Amendment, which can conveniently be considered with Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, deals with a complicated subject. It might be as well if I deal separately with the two points which lie behind these Amendments. The first object is to make sure that compensation is paid in accordance with the Fifth Schedule on mineral-bearing lands which are not held directly for the benefit of a mineral undertaking but which in fact are indirectly available for the purposes of that undertaking. We have examined various cases in which that might arise, and I am

1231
advised that they are adequately covered by the Bill as drafted. The Fifth Schedule is applied by Clause 33, and that clause says that compensation will be paid in accordance with the Fifth Schedule on land in which the benefit of a mining lease or the landowner's interest is held "for the purposes of a mineral undertaking". I am advised that this covers the case in which the benefit of the mining lease or the interest of the landowner are held indirectly for those purposes.
The second and more difficult point underlying the Amendment is the definition of the mineral undertaking, and, as I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that a group of associated companies are treated as a single undertaking. Under the Bill as drafted, the "undertaking" is not precisely defined and is left to be decided on the merits of each case. I think that that is probably the best course, and that we should run into very considerable difficulties if we tried to find a precise definition of "undertaking". If we adopted the definition in these Amendments we might well find that in some cases we had to look at the profit and loss accounts of a nation-wide or even world-wide concern, while in other cases the definition was too restrictive.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 refer to Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. That section was included in the 1954 Act to ensure that a company would not be prejudiced because it had transferred land to another company at an artificially low book-keeping price. There is no danger that a company will be prejudiced in this way under the provisions of the Fifth Schedule, for the loss of profits compensation is going to be calculated by reference to notional market profits and not by reference to book-keeping profits. I hope that, in view of these explanations of the difficulties in the way of these Amendments, the noble Viscount will not press this point.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: With regard to my Amendment No. 12, the noble Lord has explained it far better than I could. He has assured me that it is in fact covered, so I am perfectly happy. I apologise for wasting time on it, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: Your Lordships will remember that I explained on the last occasion that there would be a string of Amendments relating to the fact that it was necessary to bring a man who enjoyed mineral working rights under a court order for the purposes of the Bill into the same position as a mineral lessee. A number of those Amendments were accepted, and this and the next are two more Amendments in that series. There is a similar position with regard to timber felling contracts. There are a large number of redundant references throughout the Bill which have now been dealt with by an Amendment your Lordships were good enough to accept to Clause 51. It covers the entire position, and from time to time there will be others to which, for your Lordships' convenience, I will give the short title of "mineral working rights" or "timber felling contracts". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 3, at end insert (" or order conferring working rights ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 6, after (" lease ") insert (" or order ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has really answered this Amendment before I have moved it; he answered it together with Amendment No. 12. I should like him to be good enough to clarify the point a little more. What this Amendment intends to do is to bring in a group of companies as defined in the Companies Act, because the Town and Country Planning Act referred back to that. The noble Lord implied that such a group would be impossible to define. I do not quite follow that, because it seems to me that any company concerned as an owner of minerals, or having rights in minerals, would naturally come under the group of companies as defined in the Companies Act, and that its finance and taxation, and its liabilities and assets, including its rights in minerals, would all be treated in the same way. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether I am wrong. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 6, after (" lease ") insert ("including in the case of a company any company

1233
associated therewith within the meaning contained in section forty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954,")—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: What I tried to explain to the noble Viscount was that a company would not be prejudiced because it had transferred minerals to another company at an artificially low book-keeping price. I pointed out that the loss of profits compensation is going to be calculated by reference to notional market profits, and not by reference to book-keeping profits.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think that meets my point. I did not quite follow it the first time, because I was thinking of Amendment No. 12, and listening to the explanation on Amendment No. 15. With that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment fulfils an undertaking given in another place that the Government would make quite sure that the definition of, "the relevant rights and facilities" in paragraph 1 (3) of the Fifth Schedule covered the processing of minerals. The words chosen to give effect to this undertaking are those used in Section 1 (2) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 17, after (" using ") insert (" treating, converting ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment deals with mineral working rights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 25, at end insert—
("(5) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to an order conferring working rights as they have effect in relation to a mining lease.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a technical Amendment designed to eliminate the possibility of a double payment of compensation which might arise under the Fifth Schedule as drafted. Paragraph 13 of that Schedule provides for the payment of terminal compensation to people other than mineral operators who have an interest in land which is used for mineral
1234
working and which has been comprised in a compulsory rights order. The purpose of the present Amendment is to make sure that these people do not obtain terminal compensation for the same damage under the main compensation provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs. (4) and (5) and insert—
("(4) If the entirety of the holding consists of land to which this Schedule applies, no compensation under section twenty-three of this Act shall be payable in respect of the holding.
(5) If only part of the holding consists of land to which this Schedule applies.—

(a) section twenty-three of this Act shall have effect in relation to the holding, but

(b) subsections (2) and (4) of that section shall apply as if that land did not form part of the holding, and any reference in that section to values computed in accordance with any of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) thereof shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule:
Application of compensation provisions to special cases
8. Where a person is entitled to compensation for any year in respect of a holding by virtue of section seventeen of this Act, then in so far as it is shown that—

(a) reasonable opportunities were open to, him (apart from the occupation and use of any part of the holding not comprised in the order) to mitigate any loss of profit from the holding by augmenting his income for that year in other ways, and

(b) those opportunities would not have been open to him if he had continued to be in occupation of the entirety of the holding,

the amount of any profit assessed for that year under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act shall be reduced by the amount by which he has augmented his income for that year by availing himself of those opportunities, or by which he might reasonably have been expected to augment his income for that year if he had availed himself of those opportunities, as the case may be.
9.—(1) Where a person is entitled to compensation for any year in respect of a holding by virtue of section seventeen of this Act, and he has received any compensation

(a) by virtue of section twenty-six of this Act, in respect of any land comprised in that holding, or

(b) by virtue of section twenty-seven of this Act, in respect of a forced sale of any property kept on or used for the purposes

1235
of that holding, or removed from that holding, as the case may be,

the amount of any profit assessed for that year under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act shall be reduced by the amount of the income from that compensation which is attributable to that year.
Terminal compensation in respect of holding comprising woodlands
14.—(1) Where any part of a holding to which section twenty-one of this Act applies consists of land which, immediately before the date of entry, was used as woodlands, section twenty-three of this Act shall apply in relation to the holding as if, for the value mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of that section, there were substituted the value mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph.
(2) The said value is the value which, at the end of the period of occupation, a freehold interest in the holding would have if—

(a) the part of the holding referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph were in the state in which, at the end of the period of occupation, it might reasonably have been expected to be if the compulsory rights order had not been made, and the woodlands had continued to subsist, and had been managed according to the rules or practice of good forestry, and

(b) the remainder of the holding were in the state in which it was immediately before the date of entry.

(3) Subsection (4) of section twenty-two of this Act shall apply for the purpose of computing value as mentioned in the last preceding sub-paragraph as it applies for the purpose of computing the values referred to in that subsection.
LORD MILLS: I think it would be convenient if I dealt with this Amendment and the following Amendment No. 22, together. Paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule is designed to provide that the annual loss of profits compensation under Clause 19 will not be payable to a person who becomes entitled to occupy the holding in question after the date of operation of a compulsory rights order, unless he becomes so entitled through inheritance. Compensation under Clause 19 is designed to compensate the occupiers of land taken for opencast coal production for the personal loss which they suffer. We felt that a person who takes over the occupation of such land after the date of operation of a compulsory rights order does so with his eyes open and that he has not suffered any personal loss for which he ought to be compensated. These two Amendments correct some technical defects in the present wording. They also provide that
1236
the loss of profits compensation will be payable to someone who becomes entitled to occupy the land after the date of operation of a compulsory rights order but under an agreement made before that date. This seems to us fair as the person in question could not know in advance whether the compulsory rights order would be confirmed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 18, leave out from (" compensation ") to end of line 24 and insert ("is not the person who was entitled to occupy the holding on the operative date (in this paragraph referred to as 'the original occupier') and is not a person who has become entitled to the relevant interest in the holding—

(a) on or after the death of the original occupier, in accordance with the disposition of the original occupier's estate effected by his will, or the law relating to intestacy, or, the combination of his will and that law, or

(b) under an agreement which was made for valuable consideration by the person entitled to the compensation and was in force immediately before the operative date, or under a disposition creating or transferring the relevant interest in the holding in pursuance of such an agreement,").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 27, at end insert—
("(2) In this paragraph ' the relevant interest ', in relation to a person entitled to compensation for any year in respect of a holding, means the interest in or right over the holding by virtue of which he is entitled to that compensation; ' will ' includes a codicil; and ' disposition ', where the reference is to a disposition creating or transferring an interest, does not include any provision contained in a will, but, with that exception, includes any conveyance, assignment, lease or other assurance.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in the last line of paragraph 8, after "opportunities" to insert "other than by way of change of occupation". The noble Viscount said: I wish to move this Amendment to replace No. 23 which I did not move. This concerns the reduction of compensation for loss of profit under Clause 19 which is to be made in certain circumstances. As the occupier has already under an earlier clause received an annual sum by way of rent, there remains for him the loss of profit annual sum which comes under Clause 19, and paragraph 8 of this Schedule says that although his

1237
loss of profit may have been calculated accurately and carefully, under the provisions of the Bill it is to be reduced on the notion that he should have been able to earn some money in other ways. Whether that principle exists in law I do not know; I believe it is a new one. But the practical way to consider it, I think, is that one should try to relate it to what happens in other ways.
In the case of a civil contract, an employee of a firm may be under a contract of employment. If his contract is terminated a calculation is made of what is due to him, and there it is. After that calculation is made I do not think it is the usual practice to mitigate it by considering what in fact he might earn elsewhere. However, there is an exception that I think one should consider which would make this case different from the sort of case I have quoted, and that is this. If an occupier of land is dispossessed of his land, he has at his disposal his stock, implements and equipment which, unless he can get another farm, he cannot use, and it is reasonable to suppose that, that being his capital, he would sell his stock and probably most of his implements. There is, of course, provision for the loss due to forced sale. Having done that, he has a capital sum in his hands; his capital is no longer invested in farm stock. It is not unreasonable to say, as I think paragraph 8 does say, that account should be taken of the fact that this money is invested and the interest which accrues to him should be used to reduce his compensation for loss of profit accordingly. That seems to me to be a proposition which one could not argue against, and I think that is the intention of the first part of this part of the Schedule.
On the other hand, there is one matter upon which I feel very strongly, and that is that paragraph 8 would seem to imply that a farmer who has had his land taken from him might be expected to go and earn his living in some other capacity. That is all right, perhaps, for a young and active man who does not mind getting a job on a neighbouring farm, if he can. It is all right for a farmer who can get another farm, but they are not easy to get; there are not often farms to let and available, and if there are there is no reason to be sure the farmer would necessarily be accepted
1238
as a tenant. It is all right for a man who has already got another occupation. He may be considered to have more time to spare to work up his business and earn something. The same applies to a man who may have a farm rather as a sideline and whose occupation may be something else. Those are cases in which one must accept the force of the argument of the paragraph. But the case which I have in mind is a typical one and the one which will happen most; that is the case of the small farmer who has no other occupation, who has been farming all his life, who may be getting old and who knows no other occupation at all. It would appear from this paragraph that he is expected either to go and get himself a job in some other trade or occupation nearby or to suffer a loss of income.
I do not think that that is fair, and I think this will fall particularly on the smaller farmers, for two reasons: first, because it is more likely, by the very nature of things, that the whole of a small farm will more often be taken than the whole of a large one—I think that is geographically inevitable; secondly, because the larger farmer has more capital and more resources and is not put in the position of the small farmer who has nothing to fall back upon. I have known of one or two cases where opencast coal working was under consideration and the farmer objected and asked what his living was to be, and he was told that he could perfectly well get a job driving his tractor on civil engineering on the opencast coal working. It is not fair to force that on a man. He has been a farmer all his life; his family have probably been farmers for a very long time. I think it is very much cheese-paring to try to reduce his compensation in this way.
Again, I must readily admit that the wording of my Amendment is probably wrong, but I think the noble Lord will see what I mean. I do not want to delete the whole paragraph. I had put down Amendment No. 23 in the way I had worded it, to leave out paragraph 8, because I thought it might be easier to have a general discussion on this paragraph on the Committee stage and then get a precise Amendment on the Report stage; but as the two stages have run together I have accordingly put down the detailed Amendment No. 24 which I

1239
am now moving. I hope the Minister will be able to do something in this direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 31, after (" opportunities ") insert (" other than by way of change of occupation ").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment. While we have felt that we must maintain the principle of mitigation, nevertheless it is our wish, and I think it is also your Lordships' wish, that we should avoid hardship and that the mitigation provision should not operate in such a way as to face a man with the choice of taking an unsuitable job or losing his compensation.
I have been giving a lot of thought to the best way of tackling this point. I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment as it stands, but if he will now withdraw it I will propose an Amendment on Third Reading which will have the effect that a man's compensation will not be mitigated on account of an opportunity of mitigation which he did not take and which would have involved his engaging in a substantially different occupation from those in which he was engaged during a period, which will normally be four years, before the date of operation of the compulsory rights order. I hope the suggestion will commend itself to the noble Viscount and to the Committee as a fair solution of this difficult problem.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord. I am quite sure that everybody who is concerned with this Bill will be grateful to him for it and will see that it is fair. I am only too glad, on the noble Lord's assurance, to withdraw my Amendment as quickly as I can.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This Amendment is moved really by way of a correction. Here again the Bill says that compensation paid for loss of profits—in effect, what we call, tenant-right—when paid to the occupier on the Board's coming in, is a capital sum to be invested, and therefore the income from it should
1240
be used in mitigation. My contention is that although tenant-right—described in this Bill for some reason that I cannot fathom as "short-term improvements"—is shown as a capital sum, in fact it is an income sum. It is part of the annual income and outgoing of the farmer occupier, and therefore to treat it as capable of being invested and to use the income in mitigation would seem to me to be a mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 35, after first (" of ") insert (" paragraph (a) of subsection (2) ").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising a useful point. I am glad to say that I can accept his Amendment in principle. I am sure, however, that he will not be surprised to hear that we are not happy about the drafting of it, and if he will now withdraw it I will move Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 on the Marshalled List.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should never expect anybody to be happy about the words that I use in an Amendment, but as the noble Lord has been good enough to agree with me on the principle, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILLS: The next three Amendments, Nos. 26, 27 and 28 can be conveniently considered together. These Amendments are designed to deal with the point raised by Lord Ridley's Amendment No. 25. This was that investment income on tenant-right compensation (which compensation is treated as annual income for income tax purposes) should not be deducted in assessing the loss of profits compensation under Clause 19. These Government Amendments give effect to the principle raised by the noble Viscount, with suitable drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 36, after (" any ") insert (" improvements carried out on ")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 36, after (" holding ") insert (" being improvements of a description specified in Part I or Part VI of the Fourth Schedule to this Act,")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 6, at end insert—
("(3) In this paragraph any reference to Part I or Part VI of the Fourth Schedule to this Act includes a reference to that Part as varied by any order made under section twenty-six or section twenty-eight of this Act. ")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment and Amendment No. 30 on the Marshalled List can conveniently be considered together. The annual value compensation under Clause 18 is normally based on the rent at which the land comprised in a compulsory rights order would let from year to year. This, however, would work out harshly in the case of land such as building land which is not let from year to year, for the rent on a year-to-year basis would be negligible. We are providing in paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule for the Minister to make regulations to overcome this difficulty.
There are many ways of making these regulations. The first is to remove Clause 18 completely and replace it by a completely new provision which would be contained in the regulations. The second method is to retain the structure of Clause 18, but to provide in regulations for a notional method of calculating annual value on these special types of land in a way which would prove fair to the people being compensated. Paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule is at present drafted on the first basis. We have, however, now started work on the regulations, and it has become clear that they will be very much simplified if they can be drafted on the second basis. These two Amendments enable that to be done. The regulations under this provision will be debatable in your Lordships' House and we will discuss them in draft with the agricultural organisations, local authority associations and other interested bodies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 32, leave out from beginning to (" in ") in line 33 and insert (" subsections (2) to (4) of section eighteen of this Act shall not apply, and for the purposes of that section, and for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act and (where applicable) for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section nineteen, the annual value of the land for any year shall be determined.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 36, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment is consequential on No. 29. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 16, leave out (" section seventeen or section eighteen ") and insert (" any of the provisions of sections seventeen to nineteen.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 17, leave out (" section ") and insert (" provision ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at one o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past two.]
LORD MILLS: This Amendment, which is similar in purpose to Amendment No. 29 which I moved, is consequential on the introduction during the Report stage in another place of Clause 32, Compensation for depreciation of other land in the same ownership. It provides that the annual value for the purpose of that land shall, in the case of land which is used for a purpose for which land is not normally let from year to year, be assessed in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. It is on all fours with paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule which contains similar provisions about the assessment of annual value for the purposes of Clauses 18 and 19. I beg Ito move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 18, at end insert—
("13.—(1) Where any land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies in relation to a compulsory rights order is—

(a) land which, immediately before the operative date of the order, was used for a purpose for which land would not normally be let from year to year, or

(b) land in respect of which, immediately before the operative date, there was in force permission granted under Part III of the Act of 1947 for the land to be used for such a purpose,

subsection (3) of that section shall not apply, and for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section annual value shall be determined in accordance with regulations mule by the Minister under this paragraph.

1243
(2) Sub-paragraph (4) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is the Amendment which I mentioned in replying to Lord Ridley's Amendment regarding timber. It provides that the whole question of compensation on woodlands shall be dealt with in regulations. I think that that is the sensible way of dealing with this complicated technical problem, and I hope the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 85 and insert—
("Woodlands
14. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders in their application to land which, immediately before the operative date of such an order, or the date of entry thereunder, was used as woodlands, or as woodlands of a particular description specified in the regulations.")—(Lord Mills.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: As I have indicated before, I welcome this Amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Mills, for approaching the matter in this way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after paragraph 18 to insert:
"Restricted lettings, and easements and similar rights
19. This paragraph applies to the following rights, that is to say,—

(a) any right conferred by a letting of land, or a licence to occupy land, in pursuance of an agreement made (whether the agreement expressly so provides or not) in contemplation of the use of the land only for grazing or mowing during some specified period of the year;

(b) any easement or similar right over land.

20. For the purposes of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say. Subections (2) and (3) of section seventeen, subsection (2) of section twenty-one, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, and the provisions of subsection (3) of section seventeen as applied by subsection (2) of section twenty-nine, any right to which the last preceding paragraph applies shall be disregarded; and, in relation to any land which is subject to any such right, those provisions shall apply as if that right had not been conferred, reserved or otherwise acquired, as the case may be.
21.—(1) Where in accordance with the provisions of section seventeen of this Act (as modified by the last preceding paragraph) any land constitutes a holding to which that section applies, and, during any year for which compensation is payable in respect of that holding by virtue of that section, any land comprised in the holding is subject to any right to which paragraph 19 of this Schedule applies, the provisions of the next following sub-paragraph shall have effect as to the assessment under section nineteen of this Act of profit or loss for that year in respect of that holding.
(2) Any profit or loss required to be so assessed under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, and (if the remainder of the holding referred to in subsection (3) of that section includes any of the land which is subject to the right in question) any profit or loss required to be so assessed for that year under subsection (3) of that section, shall be assessed on the basis of an occupation of the holding, or of the remainder of the holding, as the case may be,—

(a) subject to that right, in so far as it would (if the compulsory rights order had not been made) have been exercisable during the year in question in relation to land comprised in the holding, or in the remainder of the holding, as the case may be, but

(b) with the benefit of any rent which (if the order had not been made) would have been payable for that year in respect of the exercise of that right in relation to any such land, and

(c) in all other respects, on the terms and in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of that section, as the case may be.

(3) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-paragraph it shall be assumed that the manner and extent of the exercise of the right in question, during the year for which the profit or loss is required to be assessed, is such as it might reasonably have been expected to be during that year if the compulsory rights order had not been made.
(4) Where the preceding provisions of this paragraph have effect in relation to the assessment of compensation for any year in accordance with section nineteen of this Act, and in respect of the right in question, in so far as it relates to land comprised in the holding, any rent is payable for that year (notwithstanding the compulsory rights order) to the person entitled to that compensation, the amount of that compensation (calculated apart from this sub-paragraph) shall be reduced by the amount of that rent.
(5) In the preceding provisions of this paragraph any reference to section seventeen of this Act includes a reference to section twenty-nine of this Act, and any reference to section nineteen of this Act includes a reference to the provisions of that section as applied by section twenty-nine of this Act.
(6) In this paragraph "rent" includes any sums payable in respect of the exercise of a right to which paragraph 19 of this Schedule applies.
22. Where the whole or part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order is subject

1245
to any such right as is mentioned in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 19 of this Schedule, and in any year in which that right subsists, being any such year as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act, the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order, the said subsection (2) shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies.
23. Any agreement for the letting of land or the grant of a licence in respect of land, where, before the agreement was entered into, the letting or grant was approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the effect of certain lettings and licences to occupy agricultural land, but excepts lettings and licences approved by the said Minister from the operation of the section) shall be treated for the purposes of section seventeen of this Act as conferring a right to occupy the land to which the agreement relates, if apart from this paragraph it would not be treated as conferring such a right.
24. Where the whole or part of a holding to which section seventeen of this Act applies consists of land occupied under a letting or licence approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948, and—

(a)by the agreement under which the land was let or the licence granted a right to use the land for the specified purposes was reserved to the person letting the land or granting the licence, as the case may be;

(b) the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the compulsory rights order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order: and

(c) that right does not constitute an easement or similar right,

subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies."
The noble Lord said: I feel that I should apologise to your Lordships for moving such an enormous Amendment. It is a long and complicated one, but it really deals with three fairly simple points, and I am happy to think that my explanation can be much shorter and simpler than the Amendment itself. In the first place, it eliminates a double payment of compensation which might arise under the Bill as drafted. The occupier of a holding is entitled under Clauses 18 and 19 to annual compensation which is worked out on the assumption that the holding is free from incumbrances. However, if some other person is entitled to an easement or other right over that part of the holding which is comprised in the compulsory rights order, that person gets annual compensa-
1246
tion under Clause 31 for the loss which he suffers because the exercise of his easement or right has been interfered with by the Board's operations. There may sometimes be overlapping between these two provisions and paragraph 21 of this Amendment ensures that it will not lead to a double payment of compensation.
Secondly, the Amendment deals with the position when part of a holding is let out for part of a year under a mowing or grazing licence. Under the Bill as drafted the whole of the annual compensation goes to the occupier and the licensee gets nothing. We do not think that that is quite fair, so we have provided in paragraph 22 that the licensee is to be compensated in the same way as the holder of an easement—that is to say, he will get compensation for the loss which he suffers. The annual compensation of the main occupier will be correspondingly reduced under the provisions I have just mentioned.
Finally we deal in paragraphs 23 and 24 with the case where land is held under certain special short-term tenancy agreements approved by the Ministry of Agriculture. In some of these cases the owner may retain certain rights to use the land. We think it is proper that the main annual compensation should go to the tenant because he is the main occupier, but the owner's right to use the land is also to be treated as pan easement or similar right and compensated for on that basis. All three cases are unusual but they do sometimes arise, and, with the last two cases, there is a chance that art individual might suffer considerable hardship if our compensation provisions do not cover them adequately. That is my reason for moving this Amendment. I am sure it is one with which your Lordships will agree. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 27, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Chesham,)
VISCOUNT HALL: We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his explanation of this Amendment. The only good thing I can say on this Amendment as compared with the Sixth Schedule in the original list of Amendments is that it is shorter than the other was. It will be very helpful and I believe that it is an improvement upon the provisions which it is replacing. May I say here, for my

1247
colleagues, that we on this side of the House are very anxious to get this Bill though as quickly as possible. That is why we are in general agreement with all the Amendments. We hope that our attitude in sitting as we are and allowing them to pass through in this way is not misunderstood. It is simply for the reason that we are in complete agreement with almost all the Amendments which are down on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I, too, think that this Amendment is a good one. However, there is a point which might arise under paragraph 23. That is, what would be the effect of this Amendment on annual lettings, as approved by the Ministry of Agriculture for the purpose, under Section 2—often known as "364-day tenancies". Those are often continued from year to year to the same tenant. One would like to think that he would not be deprived of getting compensation the next year if, had not the order intervened, he would have continued as a tenant.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think there is any risk such as the noble Viscount fears in that respect. I see no reason why we should interfere with the continuance of the man's tenancy. The Amendment really deals with the question of making certain that both he and the occupier in certain circumstances are adequately compensated. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for his kind words as regards both this Amendment and the Bill in general; we appreciate his attitude on the whole matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.24 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the Opposition on Report stage in another place. Annual compensation on land comprised in a compulsory rights order starts to run from the operative date of the order; because the Board have to give at least a 56-days' notice of entry this is earlier than the date on which they actually enter the land. The reason for paying compensation during this period is that the occupier will be preparing to vacate the land and so will not be able to earn the profits he normally earns from using it in the normal way. The point raised by the Opposition was that if the two-months' notice of entry period
1248
covered the harvest period the occupier might be able both to gather his harvest and to obtain loss of profits compensation from the Board for the lost harvest. This Amendment overcomes the difficulty by making it quite clear that the occupier's annual compensation for this period will be a proportionate part of the compensation for a year and will not be increased, for example, because it is the period during which the harvest might be gathered. This is also quite fair to the occupier because should he in fact lose his crops, he will receive lump sum compensation for them under Clause 26. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 29, leave out from (" to ") to (" year ") in line 30 and insert (" so much of the annual value for that year, or of the amount in question assessed by reference to that year, as (on a rateable apportionment of that value or amount as between different parts of that year) is properly attributable to that part of that ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of Clause 32 on Report stage in another place. It deals with the case in which annual compensation under that clause is payable for only part of a year. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 36, at end insert—
("21.—(1) Where in the case of land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies in relation to a compulsory rights order, a person is the owner of that land for part, but not the whole, of a year, subsection (2) of that section shall apply as if any reference to a year included a reference to that part of a year.
(2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall have effect without prejudice to the operation of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 19 of this Schedule where the said sub-paragraph (3) is applicable; and sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph shall have effect in relation to the preceding sub-paragraph as it has effect in relation to sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) of that paragraph.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This new paragraph empowers the Minister to make regulations adapting the compensation provisions in cases where a holding is affected by more than one compulsory rights order. I should like to make it clear that we are not concerned here with the making of successive compulsory rights orders on the same land,

1249
which is, of course, forbidden under Clause 9. What we are concerned with is the case where one part of a holding, probably a farm, is comprised in one compulsory rights order and another part of it in another. It has begun to seem clear that, although the problem could be dealt with in the Bill, and although it would be nice to accede to the plea that it should be dealt with in the Bill, it would mean that there would have to be long and complicated technical provisions of a kind that are better left to regulations. Outside organisations will be consulted about the drafting of these regulations, and when they are made it will, of course, be possible for them to be debated either in your Lordships' House or in another place, or in both places. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 36, at end insert—
("Concurrent compulsory rights orders
21. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders in their application to land which—

(a) constitutes or forms part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order, or, in relation to a compulsory rights order, forms part of a holding to which section seventeen or section twenty-nine of this Act applies, or is land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies, and

(b) at any time after the operative date of that order, and before the end of the period of occupation thereunder, constitutes or forms part of the land comprised in another compulsory rights order, or, in relation to another such order, forms part of a holding to which section seventeen or section twenty-nine of this Act applies, or is land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies."—(Lord Chesham.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This matter rather alarms me. Although, as the noble Lord has said, it is not possible for a compulsory rights order to come twice in respect of the same land, it is awful to think of a holding with two separate orders, perhaps at the same time, or one following the other. It is going to create the most appallingly difficult position for the occupiers. It will require a long and complicated set of regulations or Schedules to deal with this problem. I should have thought it might be possible to connect this Amendment in some way with Clause 9, to ensure that at least the smallest of the holdings cannot have compulsory orders on two parts at the same time or at different times, and I wonder
1250
whether that point ought not to be considered.
LORD CHESHAM: I believe that the case which has sprung to the mind of the noble Viscount is an extreme one. What I can more easily visualise is a certain holding with adjoining land for which there might be orders in operation, and there might be an overlap in respect of that land in two different places. Whilst it is right to consider the possibility that a small holding might be wiped out by two orders, it is also right to consider the case of a much larger farm which might have a two-acre overlap at each end. The problem is, when assessing the compensation, to take account of what is going on on the rest of the holding and if what is going on on the rest of the holding is partly affected by another order, the situation becomes so complicated that I do not think it can be dealt with in the Bill. For that reason, I think that it is necessary to deal with this matter by regulations.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: From the point of view of compensation, I quite appreciate that; but perhaps, if I may be allowed to say so, that is a little off the point. This raises the question, which has not come up before on this Bill, of subsequent orders being made on the same holding. I must admit that the point had not occurred to me, but there are practical cases of this. I have recollection of one where the intention was to take the whole of the holding, but fortunately we were able to persuade the then Minister of Fuel and Power, I think it was, to leave the occupier with at least part of it. One would not like to think that it would be policy—I am not saying this should be put in the Bill—to go back and take the rest from him at another date. I hope that, so far as possible the noble Lord will adopt a policy of not going back again to the same holding, particularly if it is a small one, and where the margin is perhaps rather low.
LORD MILLS: I can fully sympathise with the noble Viscount's view on this question of two orders on one farm or on one holding, but that is not really the problem here. This Amendment does not suggest that that will necessarily happen: all the Amendment says is that if for any reason it does happen, the question of compensation will be dealt with properly by treating the land affected as

1251
one holding. I do not think the noble Viscount need have any fears that we are giving any power here. It is only there to deal with the situation if it should arise.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I quite appreciate that, but it did raise in my mind this question which has not yet been discussed. It is an administrative point only.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment and the next four—that is, Nos. 42 to 45 inclusive—all deal with the rights to work minerals and with timber felling contracts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 2, after (" lease ") insert (" or order conferring working rights ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 3, after the second (" the ") insert (" compulsory rights ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 3, leave out from (" thereof ") to (" the ") in line 5.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 9, leave out (" timber felling contract ") and insert (" order conferring working rights ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 9, after (" the ") insert (" compulsory rights ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 15, after ("Scotland") insert (" for references to Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act there shall be substituted references to Part IV of that Schedule, excluding paragraph 21 thereof, and ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment contains the Scottish adaptation of the new Amendment No. 37 to which your Lordships have just agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 17, at end insert (" and for references to an agreement for the letting of land, to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and to section two of the Act of 1948, there shall be substituted respectively references to a lease, to the Secretary of State, and to section two of the Scottish Act of 1949 ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as Amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Adjustments between landlords and tenants and in respect of mortgages and mining leases]:
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (3) to insert:
"(4) In determining what variations (if any) should be made in the terms and conditions of the tenancy as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph the arbitrator shall have regard to the payments made or to be made by the Board to the landlord and to the tenant under sections twenty-two and twenty-three of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a point of some difficulty, I think. It is in connection with terminal compensation payable under Clauses 22 and 23, and to some extent, I think, the Third Schedule, which we discussed earlier. The point is that under this Seventh Schedule either the owner or the occupier of the land, if it is let, has the right to compulsory arbitration on rent and other matters as provided for under the Agriculture Act. That would seem to me to be only reasonable, and if the owner has been paid his terminal compensation for diminution in value he can well reduce his rent and the matter is straightforward. But owing to the way that Clauses 22 and 23 work together, I have some doubt as to what will actually happen.
The arbitrator to whom this matter would be referred would be an agricultural valuer. As things are, he will value the land at what it would let for, and he will be conditioned by the Agriculture Bill now going through Parliament (assuming, of course, that it becomes an Act, as it probably will), which tells him the matters which he must take into

1253
consideration in fixing the rent; that is to say, the rent payable by a willing tenant and a willing landlord. Since part of his duty is defined in those words, it means that he cannot take any account of other considerations. It seems to me that it would be wise to put in here a provision that he must take into account not only the matters referred to in the Agriculture Bill but also the appropriate matters which arise under this Bill.
Let me put it this way. If the landlord has received diminution-in-value compensation he should reduce his rent, and there it is. The tenant, having to pay that reduced rent, could therefore afford more fertilisers, and so on. If, on the other hand, cost-of-works payments (under Clause 22), and diminution-invalue compensation (under Clause 23) are such that they do not make available to the landlord any compensation, or adequate compensation, then the situation will be the opposite, because, as I understand it, the Clause 22 compensation payable for such matters as cultivation, fertilisers, and so on, would go to the tenant. What I am seeking to do here is to see that the arbitrator takes those two matters into consideration, and can decide upon what is fair as between the one party and the other. If the noble Lord could tell me that, as the Bill stands, the arbitrator can take those matters into consideration, I should be perfectly happy; but it has been suggested to me that there is some doubt whether that is so.
I should just like to add this point. If it is suggested that the valuer who arbitrates on the rent cannot decide what the amount of the cost-of-works payments is likely to be, because they have not yet been decided, I think the answer is that, as the Bill stands, the Lands Tribunal, who give the ultimate decision on the valuations for the cost-of-works and the diminution-in-value payments, will be in the same position because they are bound by this Bill to settle the diminution-in-value payments having regard to the benefit of the works done. So there must be some idea that at that stage it will be possible to estimate what the works will be. It seems to me consistent that if that matter is taken into consideration when assessing the cost of works compensation it should also be taken into consideration when settling
1254
the revised rents for the land after the working period has finished.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 17, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: I understand that the thought underlying this Amendment is that under the new Agriculture Bill, combined with paragraph 4 of the Seventh Schedule, the tenant, in addition to benefiting from cost of works compensation under Clause 22, would be able to secure an undue reduction in rent. This would be unfair to the landlord who, because cost-of-works compensation was likely to be substantial, might only get a small lump sum diminution-in-value payment under Clause 23. The new definition of the rent properly payable for an agricultural holding is contained in Clause 2 of the Agriculture Bill. It is, broadly speaking, the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. This "open market" rent would certainly be calculated after taking into account all the relevant factors, including the fact that works of restoration were due to be carried out on the land at the expense of the Board. I suggest that the noble Viscount's Amendment would add nothing to the Bill, and I hope that, in view of the explanation I have given, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: If I am told that my point is already covered, I am perfectly happy. The noble Lord said that among other relevant considerations to be taken into account was the amount expected to be paid for costs of works. Would he say also that consideration would be given in valuation to the other method of terminal compensation—that is, diminution in value?
LORD MILLS: I have no hesitation in saying that that will be the effect.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved to leave out from beginning of paragraph 5 to "date", where that word occurs a second time, and insert—
("(1) Where the land comprised in a compulsory rights order consists of or includes

1255
the whole or part of an agricultural holding, section thirteen of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the removal of fixtures and buildings) shall have effect in relation to the holding subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In relation to the service of a notice by the tenant on or after the operative date of the order, in respect of a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section (under which the tenant is required to give at least one month's notice of his intention to remove a fixture or building) shall apply with the substitution, for the words ' one month ', of the words ' fourteen days '.
(3) Where the tenant has given to the landlord notice under the said subsection (2) (or under that subsection as modified by the last preceding sub-paragraph) of his intention to remove a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order and that notice is given on or after the operative date of the order, or, if given before that date expires on or after that ").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. Under Section 13 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, a tenant is entitled to remove certain fixtures from his holding. He is required to give his landlord one month's notice of his intention to remove the fixtures and the landlord is entitled to serve a counter-notice, the effect of which is that the tenant is no longer entitled to remove the fixtures, but the landlord has to pay him compensation representing the fair value of the fixtures to an incoming tenant. The Bill as drafted deprives the landlord of the right to serve this counter-notice when the tenant's notice expires on or after the operative date of a compulsory rights order. We do not believe that any landlord will want to pay the tenant compensation for fixtures when the Board are due to enter the land and destroy those fixtures. We are retaining the requirement that the tenant must serve a notice on his landlord because, apart from serving a counter-notice, the landlord may want to challenge the tenant's right to remove the fixtures. The present Amendment, however, reduces the period of notice to the landlord to fourteen days. I think that should be long enough to enable the landlord to decide whether to challenge the tenant's right to remove the fixtures; and, if there is no such challenge, it gives the tenant a benefit in that he has more time to remove his fixtures before the Board's entry on to the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 1, leave out from beginning to "date" in line 7 and insert the said new sub-paragraphs.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 11, after "The" insert "last".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 11, after "effect" insert "in relation to a notice served before the operative date of the order".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 13, at end insert—
"(3) In this paragraph any reference to section thirteen of the Act of 1948 includes a reference to the provisions of that section as extended by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section sixty-seven of that Act (which relates to market gardens)".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment and the Amendments up to No. 57 inclusive all deal with mineral working rights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 35, after "lease" insert "or order conferring working rights".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 38, after "lease" insert "or order".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 41, after "lease" insert "or order".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 43, after "lease" insert "or order".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I be to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 45, after second "the" insert "compulsory rights".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment and No. 59 are both consequential on Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 5, after "seventeen" insert "sixty-seven".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 7, at end insert "sixty-five".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Tenancies of allotment gardens and other allotments]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is a technical Amendment, designed to bring within the scope of the Eighth Schedule allotments which are occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of agriculture carried on by way of trade or business. This is to the advantage of the allotment tenants as it ensures that they receive the compensation for improvements which they would have received under the Allotments Acts if their tenancies had terminated in the ordinary way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 36, leave out from "garden" to end of line 39.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment, designed to make it quite clear that the compensation under the Eighth Schedule is payable by the Board to the allotment tenant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 12, after "Board" insert "to the tenant".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: Paragraph 5 of the Eighth Schedule entitled an allotment tenant to compensation for
1258
losses on the forced sale of fixtures removed under Section 4 of the Allotments Act, 1922, from an allotment garden. This Amendment extends that provision to cover fixtures removed under Section 5 of that Act from an allotment which is not an allotment garden. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 47, after "four" insert "or section five".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This and the next Amendment are consequential on the Amendment to Clause 35 which was made during the original Committee stage in your Lordships' House and provided that compensation for losses on forced sales should become payable when the transfer of the property took place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert "in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 24, at end insert "and ' effective date ' in this paragraph has the same meaning as in that section ".—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments designed to ensure that cost of works terminal compensation under Clause 22 as well as diminution in value terminal compensation under Clause 23, is related to the condition of the land without the allotment improvements for which the Board will have paid compensation under the Eighth Schedule at the time of their entry. The Amendments bring this paragraph into line with paragraph 15 of the Sixth Schedule, which deals similarly with short-term agricultural improvements for which the Board pay contribution on entry under Clause 26. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 4, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections twenty-two and")—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT HALL: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on this Amendment. Do gardens got the same privilege or assistance as allotments? I should have thought that it might be "allotments or gardens" or "gardens or allotments".
LORD CHESHAM: As I understand the position, that would not be necessary, because they are catered for elsewhere in the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to pick up the point about allotment holders who might have been hardly treated as a result of a small loophole in the Bill. I think I may have created some confusion by referring to an allotment, which is not an allotment garden. That is entirely a technical definition under the Allotments Act.
LORD LAWSON: May I ask whether it is within the powers of those doing the opencast work to drive right into the allotments? Are they the judges of how far they leave the allotment to the owner?
LORD CHESHAM: That depends entirely on the authorisations. I should like to stress again that the point in the Amendment under discussion is to make certain that where allotments have to be taken, the holders have to be properly and fairly treated for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD LAWSON: That assumes that a man's allotment can be taken from him for opencast purposes.
LORD MILLS: In answer to the noble Lord, I would say that it can be if it is so authorised. But I think he would be a very bold Minister who would attempt to authorise it unless there were some special circumstances for such authorisation.
LORD LAWSON: I know of cases where people doing the opencast work have driven right up to the edge of small allotments. I was wondering whether it is left to the gentle disposition of the opencasters to destroy the allotment altogether, if they want to, and go right up to the doors of the house, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said they do in some cases.
LORD MILLS: I can only repeat that it depends on the authorisation. There is plenty of opportunity, as your Lordships are aware, for the holder of an allotment and for the Allotments Associa-
1260
tion to protest and have the case heard if such a proposal were made. I think the noble Lord need have no fear, because we are providing here for proper compensation to be made if it does happen.
LORD LAWSON: I ask that only for clarification. Your Lordships may understand the paragraphs that we have passed in this Bill, but I do not. I have heard the most amazing things put through, which I have tried to understand, but I cannot. You cannot expect a poor fellow who is doing a day's work and running an allotment to understand paragraphs of this description. I think that steps should be taken to make it much more clear to him than it will be as a result of this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) The said section twenty-two shall apply in relation to the holding as if any reference in that section to the condition in which land was immediately before the date of entry were a reference to the condition in which the land in question would have been, immediately before the date of entry, if the matters qualifying for compensation had not existed.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 13, leave out ("the last preceding sub-paragraph") and insert (" this paragraph ")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential on No. 62. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 40, after (" four ") insert (" or section five ")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 43, after (" two ") insert (" or section four ")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Ninth Schedule agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
2.53 p.m.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the existing compensation arrangements referred to at various points in the Tenth Schedule cover the arrangements under which compensation is paid by or on behalf of the Minister, whether under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, or various extra-statutory arrangements approved by the Treasury, but do not cover certain ex gratia payments made by the Board which are on an ad hoc basis. The Board do make certain ex gratia payments in cases when special hardship has been caused by the requisitioning of land for opencast coal production. It will normally be to the advantage of the recipients of these payments to have their compensation re-assessed on the basis set out in the Bill, but the Board have told me that they will continue with the ex gratia payments if the recipients choose to continue receiving compensation on the present basis. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 40, after (" payable ") insert (" by or on behalf of the Minister ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it quite clear that references to advance payments on account of terminal compensation include references to sums paid in return for a waiver of terminal compensation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 50, at end insert—
("(2) Any reference in any provision of this Schedule to a sum paid on account of a prospective right to compensation of a description specified in that provision includes a reference to a sum paid in consideration of a waiver (whether total or partial) of a prospective claim to compensation of that description.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment and Amendment No. 76 are drafting Amendments designed to attract the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, which deals with the method of serving notices and other documents, to the service of the certificates about compensation which the
1262
Minister is required to issue under paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Tenth Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 41, leave out (" to ") and insert {" and serve on ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are drafting Amendments. It is intended that the compensation certificates issued under paragraph 14 shall show both the statutory and extra-statutory annual compensation which the occupiers of land requisitioned for opencast coal production now receive. It might be argued, however, that the use of the word "entitled", in line 42, on page 108, limits the certificates to the statutory compensation to which the occupiers are legally entitled. These three Amendments remove this doubt. This is a protection for the occupiers, as the compensation which the Board will pay until the occupiers elect to have the amount reassessed on the basis set out in the Bill will be the amount shown in the certificate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 42, leave out from ("is") to "a") in line 43 and insert ("a person to whom in accordance with the existing arrangements any periodical payments are payable").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 44, leave out (" he is entitled to those payments ") and insert (" those payments are payable to him ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 46, leave out (" to which he is entitled ") and insert (" which are payable ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment associated with Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 14, leave out (" to ") and insert (" and serve it on ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment to correct a misprint. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 28, leave out (" 25 ") and insert (" 26 ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment designed to ensure that a tenant of land now under requisition for opencast coal production and derequisitioned after the commencement of the Act will be entitled to compensation from his landlord under Clauses 24 and 30 for any of his improvements which have been destroyed by the Board's operations. The landlord will receive terminal compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, and there is no reason why the tenant should not receive his share in the same way as if the land had been comprised in a compulsory rights order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 34, at end insert—
("29. In relation to any land failing within paragraph 24 of this Schedule, the provisions of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, where applicable, shall have effect subject to the modification specified in paragraph 27 of this Schedule").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of Clause 32 on Report stage in another place. Its object is to ensure that the compensation for injurious affection on land owned by the owner of land comprised in a compulsory rights order is, from the date of operation of the Bill, paid also on land which is adversely affected by opencast coal operations under requisition. To give effect to this object requires very complicated technical provisions, and we thought it would be best to leave these to regulations rather than burden the Bill with them. We will consult interested outside bodies about the drafting of these regulations and, if your Lordships wish, there can be an opportunity to debate them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 47, at end insert—
("Depreciation of other land in same ownership
31.—(1) The Minister may by regulations make provision for the payment of compensation in respect of land which, at such time as
1264
may be prescribed by the regulations, is land wherein the interest of the owner is held by a person who is also the owner of land requisitioned for opencast operations.
(2) Any such provision made by regulations under this paragraph shall be such as the Minister may consider appropriate for securing that compensation is payable thereunder, in respect of land to which the regulations apply, in cases, and according to principles, corresponding as nearly as may be with the cases in which, and the principles according to which, compensation is payable under section thirty-two of this Act in respect of land to which that section applies.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment and No. 81 on the Marshalled List are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 15, afer (" apply ") insert (" in relation to any time after the commencement of this Act and before the terminal date ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 19, at end insert ("in relation to any such time").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 23, after (" land ") insert—
("(a) no sum shall be payable in respect of that land by virtue of paragraph (6) of the said Regulation fifty-one A, but
(b)")
—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, after paragraph 34 to insert:
"35.—(1) Where at the commencement of this Act—

(a) any land already requisitioned for opencast operations is land which, if it were comprised in a compulsory rights order which became operative immediately after the commencement of this Act, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be land to which that Schedule applies, and

(b) in respect of that land any sum has been paid (whether by the Minister or by the Board) on account of any prospective right to compensation under the said Regulation fifty-one A,

the Minister shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, issue a certificate specifying the amount and date of payment of that sum and the person to whom it was paid.

1265
(2) Any certificate required to be issued in respect of any land in accordance with the preceding subparagraph shall be served on any person who, at the date of issue of the certificate, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be the mineral operator in relation to that land if the land were comprised in such a compulsory rights order as is mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph.
(3) The Minister shall serve on the Board a copy of any certificate issued under this paragraph.
36.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to any sum specified in a certificate issued under the last preceding paragraph.
(2) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of compensation which (apart from paragraph 32 of this Schedule) would have accrued due after the commencement of this Act under paragraph (4) or paragraph (5) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation becoming payable, in respect of any of the land to which the certificate relates, under paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(3) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of a prospective right to compensation under paragraph (6) or paragraph (7) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation which may become payable by virtue of the operation, in relation to any of the land to which the certificate relates, of any provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act in accordance with paragraph 33 or paragraph 34 of this Schedule.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby cleaned that subsection (3) of section forty of this Act applies to any dispute about what proportion of any sum specified in such a certificate was paid as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to eliminate the possibility of a double payment of compensation which might arise under the Bill as drafted. Compensation to mineral operators whose land is taken for opencast coal production is at present payable under Defence Regulation 51A. When the Bill comes into operation compensation will no longer be payable under Defence Regulation 51A but will be payable in accordance with the Fifth Schedule to the Bill. The National Coal Board, who settle these claims as agents for the Minister, have recently told us that in some cases they have made lump sum payments in settlement of prospective rights to both annual and terminal compensation under Defence Regulation 51A. To avoid over-payment of compensation it is necessary that these lump sum payments, in so far as they have been made in respect of compensation which becomes payable after the date of com-
1266
mencement of the Act, should be set off against claims for compensation arising under the Fifth Schedule. This Amendment enables this to be done. It is long and complicated because the agreements which the Board have made with the mineral operators have not always been very precise as to the items in respect of which the lump sum payments will be made; it is therefore necessary to provide for disputes on this point to be settled by agreement or, if necessary, by reference to the Lands Tribunal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113 line 42, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.8 p.m.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment provides that the Eighth Schedule, which deals with allotment tenancies, shall not apply to land under requisition when the Bill comes into operation. Broadly speaking, the Eighth Schedule provides that allotment tenancies on land comprised in a compulsory rights order will be terminated on the date of the Board's entry, and the tenant will receive compensation for disturbance and the loss of his improvements. We understand that a few allotment tenants ore at present hanging on to their tenancies of requisitioned land and receiving annual compensation during the Board's occupation. We think it would be wrong to dispossess them at this stage, so this Amendment provides that the Eighth Schedule will not apply in such cases. As a result, the tenants will be entitled to continue to receive annual compensation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 7, at end insert—
("36. The provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall not have effect in relation to any land which, at the commencement of this Act, is land already requisitioned for opencast operations, whether that land is subsequently comprised in a compulsory rights order or not.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 40, which deals with the problem of two or more compulsory rights orders on the same holding. The present Amendment empowers the Minister to make regulations adapting the compensation

1267
provisions in cases when two or more parcels of land comprised in a holding are, when the Bill comes into operation, under requisition for opencast coal operations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 7, at end insert—
("Concurrent requisitions
36. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation (including any such provisions contained in this Schedule) in their application to any land in circumstances corresponding (by reason that two or more parcels of land are at the same time land requisitioned for opencast-operations) to the circumstances for which, in relation to compulsory rights orders, provision can be made by regulations under paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is consequential on Amendment No. 79. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 33, at end insert—
("Depreciation of other land in same ownership
40. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 31 of this Schedule, the reference to land requisitioned for opencast operations shall include a reference to land requisitioned as an opencast storage site; and the power to make regulations under that paragraph shall be exercisable accordingly.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This is consequential on Amendment No. 85 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 33, at end insert—
("Concurrent requisitions
40. In paragraph 36 of this Schedule, the reference to two or more parcels of land which are at the same time land requisitioned for opencast operations shall include references—

(a) to two or more parcels of land of which one or more are land requisitioned for opencast operations and the other or others are at the same time land requisitioned as opencast storage sites, and

(b)to two or more parcels of land both or all of which are at the same time land requisitioned as opencast storage sites;

and the power to make regulations under that paragraph shall be exercisable accordingly.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 35, which provides for the problem of com-
1268
pensation on woodlands to be dealt with in regulations. The present Amendment makes a similar provision in relation to the transitional provisions for compensation on woodlands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 13, at end insert—
("PART V
PROVISIONS AS TO WOODLANDS
42. Without prejudice to any exercise of the power conferred on the Minister by paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act, the Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation (including any such provisions contained in this Schedule) in their application to land which—

(a) at such time as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph (either generally, or in relation to any particular provision of this Act, or in relation to land of any description specified in the regulations) is or was land requisitioned for opencast operations or land requisitioned as an opencast storage site, and

(b) at such time as may be so prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, is or was land used as woodlands, or as woodlands of a particular description specified in the regulations.")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
LORD CHESHAM: Game to the last, I am pursuing right into the Title the interests of those working mineral rights under an order. These are the last two Amendments of this sort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 7, leave out (" and ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 7, after (" leases ") insert (" and orders conferring working rights, ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as Amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALL: Before the House resumes, it is left to me just to say how pleased we ought to be with this big "knock," not 100 but 90 Amendments, which we have taken since the House sat at eleven o'clock this morning. I should like to congratulate the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and also the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees. This has been an enormous task. The Bill started off with about fifty-three pages

1269
and then went up to 113 pages. It was fourteen days in Standing Committee and there were 100 Amendments on Report stage in another place. I think that by the time it is complete we shall have dealt with 200 Amendments. I do not know whether the draftsmen should be congratulated, but the Minister certainly should receive our congratulations for the way he has handled it.
LORD MILLS: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
Loan MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the Amendments be now received.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1:
Authorisation of opencast working of coal
1.—(1) The National Coal Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board") shall not work any coal by opencast operations, or cause or permit any coal to be worked by such operations, except in pursuance of an authorisation granted in that behalf by the Minister of Power (in this Act referred to as "the Minister"):
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Power" and insert "Housing and Local Government". The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I should like to apologise for the fact that owing to a misunderstanding about the time of meeting on that day I was not in my place on the Committee stage when this Amendment was reached. This is a matter of some importance, and I felt that it should have the advantage of discussion in your Lordships' House; therefore I put this Amendment down again at this stage. I felt a certain reluctance in doing so because I suppose it might possibly be taken to cast some sort of reflection on the noble Lord, the Minister of Power, but that of course is not in my mind at all. He will possibly remember that in moving another Amendment—which he would not accept any more, I am afraid, than he will accept this one—I paid a tribute to what he has done for the amenity societies.
It is not only a question of the interests of the amenity societies which is at stake
1270
here. I think a fundamental principle of the whole of the concept of planning is involved, and therefore I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me and will understand why I feel it necessary to pursue this matter this afternoon. As your Lordships are aware, Clause 1 of the Bill is in a sense the central one, the basic one, of the whole Bill. It entrusts the decision as to whether there is to be opencast coal working in any particular area to the Minister of Power. Clause 3 contains supplementary provisions of almost equal importance. It is my submission that decisions of this kind are in essence planning decisions, and indeed I think that has been accepted by the Government in the discussions in another place. They are decisions of a planning character in the widest sense of the term, and it is my submission to your Lordships, and indeed to Her Majesty's Government, that they ought therefore to be entrusted to the Minister who is in charge of planning; that is, of course, the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is for that reason that I am proposing that we should substitute in the clause the words "Housing and Local Government" for the word "Power".
I think that this essential character of the Bill really appears from Clause 2 of the Bill itself, which links the whole process under this particular Bill with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The decision as to whether there should be opencast mining in a particular area is obviously one of substantial importance in the great majority of cases, and I suggest to your Lordships that it depends on the consideration of all kinds of factors, many of which are really not concerned at all with the problem of power, which is the noble Lord's province of work in the Government, involving matters which are at any rate of equivalent importance to the question of power, and which are really outside the expertise of the Ministry over which the noble Lord presides.
In the first place, there are other sorts of minerals and earths which may be involved, in addition to coal. There are limestones; there are chalks involved in cement workings there are clays used for various very important industrial purposes; there are ironstones; there is gypsum and there are gravels, just to mention a few of the minerals and metals

1271
which may be involved in connection with the decision which has to be taken. These are obviously of great industrial value and it is important that the problem should be looked at from a rather wider angle than that which is provided by the particular scope of authority which has been entrusted to the Minister of Power and his officials. Apart from these matters there are agricultural values of outstanding importance. There are also the amenity values which have been particularly mentioned in this connection from time to time, and in which, as Honorary Secretary of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, I take great interest. There are housing problems which have been referred to by, I think, my noble friend Lord Lawson on more than one occasion, and which are also of great interest and importance from the national point of view.
I do not think there is any need to discuss these matters in great detail: they really leap to the eye and speak for themselves. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which absorbed the Ministry of Town and Country Planning which was set up immediately after the war and worked for some years under my noble friend Lord Silkin, under the important Act of 1948 is, I suggest, the Ministry which is primarily concerned with the problem of balancing against each other all the interests of the kind to which I have just referred. I suggest that the whole problem of planning is one of balancing interests the one against the other. Over the past ten years it has been specifically the function of, first, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and then of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to pay particular attention to this matter. Indeed, for some twenty-five or thirty years before that these matters were already receiving consideration and expert attention in the equivalent Department of those days.
Obviously, in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government valuable experience and techniques of essential importance to the whole question of planning in this country have been acquired. In particular, that Ministry has, over all this period, been particularly concerned with the question of the correct use of the land in this country.
1272
It has been repeated time after time—almost ad nauseam—that this is a small country with a large population, and the question of the correct and most economic use of the land is one of the most fundamental questions with which Parliament has to deal. Its essential importance has not perhaps always been realised, but I do not think that one has to think about it much to appreciate how fundamental is this whole matter.
I submit that the Government themselves acknowledged this when they agreed during the passage of this Bill through another place to add a clause which provides that any inquiries which have to be held into the question of whether an order should be made for opencast in any particular district shall be held by the inspectors not of the Ministry of Power but of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Surely that accepts the principle of this Amendment. We are grateful for this concession so far as it goes; but I suggest that the logical sequence is to transfer the decision itself. Surely if the inquiry is to be made and the report is to be drawn up, and the recommendations are to be put before the Minister by the inspectors of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, it is only logical that the final stage in that process, that is the decision, should be taken by the Minister of that Department himself.
It is most interesting to notice that in the winding up speech of, I think it was, the Paymaster General who conducted this matter in another place for Her Majesty's Government, he more or less gave this point away, saying that "In the last resort the conditions imposed by the Minister will in fact be planning conditions; they will be enforceable by the local planning authorities, and, if they fail, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have full powers to enforce the conditions themselves." What more powerful argument could there be for the Amendment which I am suggesting we should put into this Bill to-day?
There is another reason which, to my mind, is a secondary one, because I put this planning principle first, but which with some people carries I think even more weight than the considerations which I have been suggesting this afternoon—namely, that in entrusting these decisions to the Minister of Power this

1273
Bill is an infraction of the principles enunciated by the Franks Committee. This point was powerfully put in speeches in another place. I would remind your Lordships that the Franks Report has been accepted by the Government and that one of the basic considerations which the Franks Committee emphasise is the essential importance of impartiality in regard to these matters. I suggest that the Minister of Power, who is concerned with the provision of power, is not really the person who can bring an objective and impartial mind to bear upon matters of this sort. Probably the noble Lord is better able to do so than many other Ministers, but Ministers come and go. But even if he could, I suggest that to the people as a whole it will not appear to be an impartial decision.
We had most appositely quoted to us the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in connection with the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, a famous dictum of the late Lord Hewart, that justice should not only be done but that it must be clearly and manifestly be seen to be done. Surely it is just the same in regard to reaching an impartial decision of the kind which the Franks Committee emphasised was so important. Not only must there be impartiality, but it must be clear and obvious and must stand out to everybody that impartiality has been observed in connection with reaching decisions of this particular kind. If the Government could give way, as they did on the Park Lane Improvement Scheme because they felt that there was an infraction involved in the scheme which they had originally brought forward, surely all the more should they be prepared to do so this afternoon.
I should like to say a word or two about the two answers that were given to this proposal when it was discussed in another place by the Minister who was in charge of the Bill there. I do not myself feel that the noble Lord the Minister of Power could adopt arguments of such a completely ineffectual character as those which were put forward in another place. Possibly the Members of another place are more gullible than Members of your Lordships' House. But as I have the opportunity of addressing your Lordships only
1274
once this afternoon, I think I ought perhaps to deal with the two arguments which were brought up by the Minister there.
First of all, he said that he could not accept an Amendment of this kind because the problem was a national and not a local one. I find it extremely difficult to see the relevance of that to this question. Is it suggested that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is a Minister who is not capable of handling problems which are national in character? Of course he is. He is handling them all the time, and while no doubt a number of the inquiries which are conducted by this Minister are of a local character a very large number are of the most basic national importance. The planning Minister's job is essentially to plan in the interests of the nation and having regard to the very small resources, at any rate from the point of view of land, which this nation has at its disposal. He has to take a wide view, and I suggest that in fact he has been taking a wide view in regard to many matters of equivalent national importance to these questions of opencast mining during the past ten years while the present Town and Country Planning Act has been in operation. One could take the cement decisions which obviously were very important from the point of view of the industry of the country, from the point of view of amenities and of local agriculture and in many other ways. Through the offices of his Department the Minister has conducted a number of national surveys of the mineral and earth resources of this country which have been made on the very basis of the need for wide surveys and national planning of the use of our resources. So I suggest here that the Minister is just as qualified and that it is just as much his duty to look at these smatters from a national point of view as is the Minister of Power himself.
A second reason given by the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government in another place was I believe even more absurd than the first. He said that the Minister of Power ought to be in charge of this particular matter because he alone understands the steps which have to be taken for the restoration of the land afterwards. The answer to that is, first, that it is just not true that the Minister

1275
of Power is the only person capable of looking after this side of the matter. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has very great experience in dealing with the minimising of damage and the restoration of the position after the extraction of all kinds of ores and earths, and it is his duty to do so, for example, under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, in respect of ironstone restoration. He also has very wide experience of restoration work in connection with the extraction of sand and gravel. I suggest that this Ministry is at least as adequately staffed for handling problems of this kind as is the Ministry of Power. Secondly, I suggest that it is obvious that the decision whether or not opencast mining should be permitted in a particular area has logically nothing whatever to do with the enforcement of restoration afterwards. There is no logical connection at all between those two matters.
Finally, I should like to assure the Minister that I am not moving this Amendment simply because of its importance as an amenity Amendment. There is a very considerable feeling that a mistake is being made here in entrusting this decision to the Ministry of Power. That feeling exists not only among those of us who work in the amenities movement but among professional planning bodies—the Town and Country Planning Association, who have authorised me to associate them with this particular matter, and also the body which, I submit, is best qualified to speak in the interests of British industry, the Federation of British Industries, which also takes the view that this matter ought to be handled in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because of the essential importance of getting a wide conspectus and a decision which takes into account the interests of all the different kinds of people involved when these decisions are reached. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out (" Power ") and insert (" Housing and Local Government ")—(Lord Chorley.)
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
3.36 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I well understand the reasons which have actuated the noble Lord in putting down this Amendment, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words on this subject, because it is a matter to which Her Majesty's Government have given much thought.
Let me emphasise, first of all, that the decisions in question will be the decisions of the Government as a whole, and will be taken only after full consultation between all the Departments concerned. I realise, however, that it is not self-evident in a matter of this kind which Minister should be chosen to take the ultimate responsibility on behalf of the Government. The interests of agriculture, of amenity and of conflicting land uses will, I have no doubt, be adequately represented by the Departments concerned and taken fully into account. These are, as it were, the constant elements in the problem, because the general policies of the Government on agriculture and planning within the relevant Statutes, are not likely to be affected fundamentally by considerations of opencast coal mining. The fluctuating element in the problem is the national coal situation, for which the Minister of Power takes general responsibility. We cannot foresee with certainty how this will develop over the period covered by the Bill, but it will clearly be for the Minister of Power to justify from time to time to Parliament the authorisation of opencast coal mining in the light of the known objections to it. For this reason the Government have thought it right that the decisions should be taken by the Minister of Power.
There are, however, two secondary arguments which point in the same direction. Under the Opencast Coal Bill the grant of an authorisation is closely linked with the confirmation of a compulsory rights order. In all legislation giving powers of compulsory purchase to subordinate authorities, responsibility for confirming a compulsory purchase order rests with the parent Minister for the authority concerned; this is natural as he is the Minister best qualified to say whether the order is necessary to enable the authority to carry out its duties and functions. The same is true of compulsory rights orders under this Bill. I think that responsibility for confirming them must rest with the Minister of

1277
Power, and I note that the noble Lord does not challenge that view. It would, however, be extremely inconvenient, to say the least, for one Minister to grant an authorisation and for another to confirm a compulsory rights order.
Lastly, it is not without precedent for a Minister other than the Minister of Housing and Local Government to be responsible for decisions which involve questions of land use. For example, I already grant consents for the construction of electricity generating stations, and I authorise the placing of electric lines above ground—sometimes much to the annoyance of your Lordships—and these consents and authorisations can, if I so direct, carry a deemed planning permission. We thus came to the conclusion that it would be best that formal responsibility for decisions on the granting of authorisations should rest with the Minister of Power. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the force of these arguments and will not press his Amendment, which I am afraid the Government could not advise your Lordships to accept.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 [General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders]:
LORD MILLS: This Amendment fulfils my undertaking to Lord MacDonald of Gwaenysgor in Committee to introduce Amendments which would ensure that the Board cannot override, by means of a compulsory rights order, certain provisions of the Water Act, 1945, and bylaws made under it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, at end insert—
("(b) any rights of any statutory water undertakers under any public general Act relating to the supply of water, or under any byelaw made by virtue of such an Act, or under any local enactment, in so far as (apart from this Act) the Act, byelaw or enactment restricts, or enables the undertakers to restrict, the working of coal or other minerals, or the doing off any other act on land comprised in the order; ").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord. He has covered the point I raised.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment and the next deals with a similar point to Amendment No. 2. They ensure
1278
that the Board cannot override by means of a compulsory rights order certain provisions of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, and of various local Acts for the protection of transport undertakings.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, after (" include ") insert (" the following:—
(a)").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, at end insert—
("(b) any rights of the body carrying on a railway, canal, inland navigation, harbour or dock undertaking (not being rights falling within the last preceding subsection) under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act) in so far as (apart from this Act) the enactment would operate so as—

(i) to restrict, or enable that body to restrict, the working of coal or other minerals on land comprised in the order which is adjacent to a railway, waterway, harbour, dock or other works situated on land not comprised in the order, being works vested in that body or works which they have any right or duty to maintain, or

(ii) to require, or enable that body to require, coal or other minerals on land comprised in the order to be left unworked for the protection or support of such a railway, waterway, harbour, dock or other works.")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the Marshalled List are consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 110, at end insert—
("(8) In this section 'statutory water undertakers' and 'local enactment' have the same meanings as in the Water Act, 1945.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("the reference") and insert ("references to statutory water undertakers, to the Water Act, 1945, and").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave out (" a reference ") and insert ("respectively references to a local water authority, to the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, and ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Property exempt from inclusion in compulsory rights orders]:
3.43 p.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved to add to the clause:
"(4) An opencast site order, as confirmed by the Minister, shall not comprise any land of which possession—

(a) has previously been taken in the exercise of emergency powers, and

(b) has at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) been retained in the exercise of those powers for the purpose of working coal on that land, or on land contiguous therewith, by opencast operations, and

(c) has before the confirmation of the order ceased to be retained in the exercise of those powers,

unless, at the time of confirming the order, the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances existing at that time, or special circumstances relating to the land in question, which justify its inclusion in an opencast site order notwithstanding that possession thereof has previously been so taken and retained."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment to give effect to my undertaking on Committee stage to try to find a form of words which would give expression to the general wish of your Lordships' House that a compulsory rights order on land which has been previously requisitioned for opencast coal operations should be made only in special circumstances. I think that this Amendment does put into statutory form the undertakings which have already been given, and I hope it will meet the general views of the House. It makes it quite clear that the Minister can confirm compulsory rights orders on land previously requisitioned only if there are special circumstances existing at that time or in relation to the particular piece of land which is under consideration.
There are two points on the Amendment which I should mention. The first is that it applies only to opencast coal site orders. Storage site orders are, by definition, restricted to land now under requisition, but under Clause 4 (3) they can be made only on land which was
1280
under requisition and used as an opencast coal disposal point or stocking ground on December 18, 1957. The second point I should mention is that the new subsection applies only to land which has been requisitioned and given up. We shall have to make some compulsory rights orders in accordance with the Tenth Schedule on land which is under requisition when the Bill comes into operation. Finally, I should like to say that, although this subsection will not become law until the Bill comes into operation, I have given instructions that the principles contained in it should be followed in considering certain current proposals from the National Coal Board to requisition for a second time land which has previously been requisitioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) to insert:
"(c) any reference to the provision of a suitable alternative right of way shall be construed as a reference to the making of a suitable alternative way available for use by the public during the period for which the order under that section remains in force; ".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be convenient to your Lordships if I dealt with all the Government Amendments to Clause 15 together—that is, Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 inclusive—because they are designed to meet a very simple point. Clause 15 applies the provisions of Section 3 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, which deals with the closure of public rights of way, to the suspension of rights of way which cross opencast coal sites. Section 3 of the 1946 Act requires the provision of an alternative public right of way in place of the one which is closed. This is obviously sensible when the right of way is being closed for good but it does not quite work when the right of way is being only suspended temporarily, because the creation of a new right of way entails dedication in perpetuity. As a result, when the suspension order is revoked there will be two rights of way in place of the original one. To get over this difficulty these Amendments require that the Board, during the period in which the right of way is suspended, shall make

1281
available for public use an alternative way. It will not be necessary to dedicate the alternative way in perpetuity, and no problem will arise when the old right of way is reopened and the suspension order is revoked. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, at end insert—
("(c) any reference to the provision of a suitable alternative right of way shall be construed as a reference to the making of a suitable alternative way available for use by the public during the period for which the order under that section remains in force; ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 26, leave out from ("alternative") to end of line 28 and insert (" way will be made available by the Board (whether on land comprised in the authorisation or on other land) for use by the public during the period for which the order remains in force ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, leave out (" the provision of that alternative right of way ") and insert ("making that alternative way so available, or in permitting it to be used by the public,").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 43, leave out from (" then ") to end of line 3 on page 19 and insert (" in the application to that order of subsection (5) of section five of this Act, the authorised purposes shall be taken to include the purpose of making an alternative way available for use by the public on land comprised in the order, and the right exercisable in accordance with that subsection, as against all persons directly concerned, shall include the right to permit the public to use any way so made available ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 4, leave out from (" land ") to (" is ") in line 5 and insert (" on which the alternative way is to be made available ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compensation in respect of forced sales]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is moved at the request of the National Coal Board. Under Clause 27 the Board have to pay compensation for losses on the forced sale of equipment, and so on, that is used on land comprised in a compulsory rights order, provided that they are given five days advance notice of the sale. The purpose of the advance notice is, of course, to give the Board an opportunity to inspect the property before it is sold. The short period was chosen because a longer period of notice involves a greater risk that a good opportunity for a sale will be missed and that the Board will have to pay increased compensation for the losses suffered. On thinking the matter over, however, the Board have come to the conclusion that five days is rather too short a time for them to inspect the property to be sold and that, on balance, it would be better to increase the period to ten days. This will not in any way prejudice the person making the sale, for if he loses a good opportunity of making a sale the Board will have to pay increased compensation. The only people affected by the Amendment are the Board, and the Government think it right to meet their wishes in this mattes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 3, leave out (" five ") and insert (" ten ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move that further proceedings on this Bill be adjourned until later to-day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE: THE MIDDLE EAST
3.52 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with the permission of the House I will make a statement on the situation in Jordan, and make it in the words of the Prime Minister, who is making a similar statement in another place.
" Within a matter of minutes after the end of the debate yesterday I was given a telegram from Her Majesty's representative in Jordan. This contained the first news that we had had that King Hussein and the Prime Minister of Jordan had made a request for the immediate despatch of British forces to Jordan.
" In making this request, the King and the Prime Minister said that Jordan was faced with an imminent attempt by the United Arab Republic to create internal disorder and to overthrow the present régime, on the pattern of recent events in Iraq. They went on to say that Jordan's territorial integrity was threatened by the move of Syrian forces towards her northern frontier and by the infiltration of arms across it. They had information that a coup organised by the United Arab Republic would be attempted to-day "—the 17th July.
" I asked the Cabinet to meet late last night to consider this request. From our own sources we had received up-to-date intelligence which clearly showed that the apprehensions of the Jordan Government were well-founded and that an attempt was indeed being organised for to-day. The Government accordingly decided to accede to the request, and British forces are in fact being sent by air to Jordan from Cyprus.
" The purpose of this military assistance is to stabilise the situation in Jordan by helping the Jordanian Government to resist aggression and threats to the integrity and independence of their country. We have made it clear that it is not our intention that these forces should operate outside the frontiers of Jordan. Our troops will be under the orders of the local British commander, who will act with the agreement of the King and Government of Jordan.
1284
" The Jordan Government have made a similar request for help to the United States Government, who are considering it urgently in the light of their other commitments in the area. Her Majesty's Government's decision was taken after full consultation with the United States Government, and our action has the full support and approval of the United States Government.
" The decision of Her Majesty's Government is being reported to the United Nations, and we are making it clear to the United Nations that if arrangements can be made by the Security Council to protect the lawful Government of Jordan from the external threat and so maintain international peace and security, the action which we have taken will be brought to an end.
" We have informed the other Commonwealth countries and also the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council of the action we have taken and the reasons which have led to the Government's decision. I have deliberately limited my statement to an objective account of the facts. I appreciated that there would be a desire for a debate, and arrangements have been made through the usual channels."
Those were the words of the Prime Minister speaking in another place, but I would say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that I should, of course, be willing to accede to any suggestion that he has to make in the Parliamentary situation which we have to-day. That, my Lords, is the statement that the Prime Minister has made in another place.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have listened to a very important statement indeed, which follows upon the statement which was made just recently with regard to intervention in the Lebanon, a matter which was debated in another place yesterday. I feel that it would be unwise for us not to debate the matter now, and that if we had a long series of questions upon the statement it would probably leave most of us without any real satisfaction because of the difficulties of the situation. It would be far better, if the House agrees, that I should move the adjournment now, so that anything which I may have to say on the matter will not

1285
be said in circumstances which will prevent anyone in another part of the House who wishes to comment on it from being able to do so at once and freely. If, therefore, it is the wish of the House, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
THE EARL OF HOME: I believe that the noble Viscount's proposal would be agreeable to the House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But I must still make the Motion.
My Lords, in our international relationships we have reached a stage which think is regarded by members of all political Parties in this country as of the most vital importance, and we have reached it in such conditions as will, I am sure, persuade all of us in our hearts that what we have to say should be said with calmness and steadiness and, so far as we see it in our views, with the greatest sense of responsibility. No one can view the events of this week, for example, without having recollections of individuals involved. Whatever we may have to say about the events in Iraq, I must say that I have felt great personal grief at the shocking assassination of the Crown Prince and General Nuri es-Said—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: —with both of whom not only myself and my noble friend, Lord Attlee, but other Members of your Lordships' House have had both personal and official relationships and negotiations. The general situation seems to me to be one of considerable difficulty, requiring a great deal of heart-searching as to what is the real view of our country, of the United States, and of other freedom-loving countries as to the operation of the United Nations Organisation, and in what manner we should proceed having regard not only to the statements made in the Security Council in the last two days, but also to those made in the course of the debate yesterday. I should like to make it clear at once to your Lordships that my noble friends, so far as I have been able to consult them, take strongly the same view upon these matters as was stated, I think with great reserve and calmness (and it was so recognised by the Prime Minister himself), by the
1286
Leader of the Opposition in another place yesterday.
All our experience in the past, whenever dealing with grave national and international issues, has been that, unless it cannot be avoided, we ought to do nothing which would divide the nation. We had our experiences of that in 1935–36 and in 1938 especially. When questions come up which involve human rights and international justice and there is connected with them the possibility of great dangers arising to our own security and that of our comrades in the Empire and Commonwealth, we have to be full of concern that nothing we say from our point of view might wrongly divide the view of the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, when it comes to a question of dealing with the rightness and wrongness of policy antecedent to any possible future conflict, we should be lacking in conscious presentation of our minds if we did not speak reasonably freely. I have recollections, particularly of the years preceding the last Great War, through which we unfortunately had to go, of speeches made by Sir Winston Churchill and others who did not belong to our Party which made an enormous impression upon the country and had a great influence on the world at large. I do not think we can depart from that practice to-day.
I think that we have reached the state when we must clearly say that the statement just read by the noble Earl the Leader of the House confirms the grave doubts and fears which members of my Party have been collecting in their minds during the earlier part of the week. We have come to a very grave issue among the nations at large. I am aware that the Government in this case and the United States in the case of the Lebanon at once informed the Security Council of the United Nations of the action taken, but there must be a very strong view in many parts of the country, in spite of the emphasis placed yesterday by the Foreign Secretary on the need for speed in these matters, that it would be much more advisable to act through the United Nations first before any such interventions were made unless we were able to prove to the nation that the action so taken was not only inevitable but in the end likely to secure results, not merely for our prestige but also for the

1287
future stability of the Governments of the other countries concerned and the freedom of the people in those countries.
One of the most urgent questions we have to consider is exactly what the Government hope to achieve here by the intervention of the United States with our support or by our intervention with United States support in Jordan. It seems to me to be necessary to examine—and I will do it as briefly as I possibly can—what actually has happened. There has been a long-drawn-out dispute in the small but independent State of Lebanon which has been anxiously watched by people in all countries and in all Parties. No doubt there has been propaganda, but when it was thought that there was going to be real danger, the United Nations was invoked and they took action, of a sort which was indicated by our Foreign Secretary yesterday, when he quoted the resolution of the Security Council on what ought to be obtained by United Nations intervention, by observers in the first place, in the Lebanon. Unfortunately, we have had various accounts of what the position has been since.
It is true that the first report of the observers showed that only about 18 kilometres of the 270 kilometres of frontier was adequately covered at the time the report was written, but yesterday in another place the Foreign Secretary indicated that the Government had evidence—and the Prime Minister stated last night in the other place that he could assure the House because he had the evidence—that infiltration had been going on which amounted to aggression. Surely if evidence of that kind were available to the Government, that evidence should have been laid before Parliament and the public. If one looks at the situation in regard to the Security Council, first of all, there was the report of the Secretary of the United Nations Organisation based apparently not only on the first report but also on a subsequent visit to that area and also later information, to the effect that he considered that the work of the United Nations Observer Corps was adequate for the task of meeting the requirements that were laid upon it and reaching the objective of so far as possible stopping infiltration over the frontiers.
1288
Moreover, there is considerable dubiety on another point—that is, that the request to the United States, and perhaps to other friendly countries, from the Lebanon for intervention seems not to have been made with the will of the Parliament of the Lebanon. If Press reports are to be accepted, there seems to have been a communication from the Lebanese Parliament to the effect that they did not wish for intervention and that they wished the troops to be withdrawn. Could we know some more details about that? What are the facts about that situation? Look at the reasons, which I certainly am not going through in detail, given by Mr. Eisenhower in his statement earlier in the week.
One cannot hide from one's mind the fact that one of the reasons which the Foreign Secretary gave for the intervention was that the new state of affairs in Iraq was a factor in their deciding to intervene, not in Iraq, but in the Lebanon. It seemed, therefore, to many people—and if this is not so, exactly what the facts are ought to be explained to the House—that this was only the beginning of a much wider venture in the Middle East than merely to enter into the Lebanon for the purpose, as was suggested, of the maintenance of the sovereignty of that country. These are all very mixed reports that we have to deal with, and I think that Parliament and the public at large ought to be informed as to what are the facts. So, on that particular point, let us have an answer to the question: who really asked for the United States intervention in the Lebanon?
I would say, before I come to speak of Jordan, that I am wondering what it is that the Government—who, I am sure, from the reports in the papers, have given long and anxious thought to these problems as they come before them—hope to achieve in the Middle East by a separate intervention in these or indeed any other countries? In the face of the situation as the world at large has come to know and understand it, nothing can hide from our minds the fact that this is certainly a part of a great resurgence of Arab nationalist feelings; and however much people may have suspicions and make insinuations here and there, I agree with my honourable friend who spoke in another place last night that no

1289
factual evidence has yet been placed before the public that this trouble has been initiated or inspired by the Soviet Union—although, as my honourable friend said, they might perhaps want to make use of it. This is much more likely to be just a part of what has become a wide resurgence of Arab feeling, thought, desires and objectives.
I entirely agree with what was said by the Ministers in another place last night, that this country of ours, that we all love so much, has, of course, no need to be ashamed of its record in the past: of how it has sought to bring recognition, where it was necessary, of nationalist uprising feeling, and to meet those feelings by speeding independence, thereby securing the maintenance within those territories, not only of a permanent and lasting friendship for this country, but also what we all most desire in a changing world, the certain promise that their Governments will be democratic and representative of their peoples at large, the only possible way, in the long run, of securing freedom for all their individual citizens. I recognise that all Parties in the House have had some share in bringing about that state of affairs whereby countries within our control in the past have been given future hope and have been given self-government.
But when we come to consider the position in the Middle East to-day, what is our objective now? What do you hope to achieve by military intervention in these separate countries? That is the great difficulty that I see. I cannot, for the life of me, believe—and I am not without experience in discussing strategic and military matters, as the House knows—that in the present state of Arab feeling in the world you are going to be able to maintain a pocket here and there of Arab independence from all the rest of the Arab nationalist feeling, or that you will be able to stay there yourself for any reasonable length of time unless you can obtain control, certainly as a minimum, of all the bases you formerly occupied. What is the result then? You may set up and you may maintain now temporarily a Government which is friendly to you, and keep it so by armed force; but when you are bound to withdraw, for one reason or another, then the people concerned soon fall to the general wave of nationalism which is around them. There is no permanence in such an arrangement
1290
as that. It is certainly necessary, however much some of your Lordships may disagree with us, that we should state our views on the points I have made in that connection.
Now I turn to the statement which has just been delivered to us by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I do not want to excite passions or create any excitement at all in anybody else by dealing at any length with legal or moral issues; I think we should be better confined, at this stage, at any rate, of what may afterwards prove to be only the preliminary to many repeated debates on these matters, to what is wise and what is prudent. The Prime Minister himself, although he dealt with some legal questions last night, was not averse from making those points which he felt he had to answer. Nevertheless, in the case of Jordan I think it is proper to observe at the start that we in the old days had very high moral and legal obligations to the State of Jordan. We were under treaty with them. We had a considerable expenditure of our taxpayers' money here to maintain them, to build up their reasonable minimum military defences and to help their economic salvation, so far as we could. That relationship does not now exist; but it was no action of the British Government that brought it to an end. There is no obligation, legal or moral, on the basis of those questions at any rate, that remains to be used as a justification for our military intervention at the present time.
Looking at the situation, therefore, from that point of view, want to ask the same question as I asked in the case of the Lebanon: what is it you think you are going to achieve? I am glad to see that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House in his statement to-day has, in mentioning the reference of this matter, after we have taken action, to the United Nations, expressed the hope that we shall be able to withdraw our troops if the United Nations make arrangements which are satisfactory—though satisfactory to whom I am not sure: whether it has to be satisfactory to the United Nations Security Council, as a whole, or whether it has to be regarded as satisfactory only by the United States and ourselves. Well, that is certainly a reasonable objective. But I must draw attention to what is likely to be one of the most important world debates that has ever yet taken

1291
place: the debate must come, first in the Security Council, and then, if the result apparently is not satisfactory there to either the United States or ourselves, in the General Assembly of the United Nations. There must be a great debate as to whose writ runs in circumstances where there is considered to be a danger to peace. Is it the writ of the one who says, "I will go in and help A or B", or is it the writ to which we have all promised to adhere; that is, support of the general Covenant of the United Nations and the administration of that body in accordance with that Covenant?
My Lords, that is the position as I see it. Upon that debate, and upon what the result may be, will depend to a large extent whether our country, our dependencies, our free nation relationships in the Commonwealth, our businesses, our homes, our families, our children and our grandchildren can look to the future with any real hope at all. There have been occasions when, no doubt, we were filled with a sense of devoted patriotism, and when we have been faced with an immediate challenge in those matters. Often the Government and Opposition have been divided. But yesterday in another place my right honourable friend who leads the Opposition, speaking, as I have said, quite calmly, but with a sense of great responsibility, referred to certain matters, including this last démarche in Jordan. He gave what I thought to be a very mild but considered warning, that if in fact there is to be a division in the nation on these matters it will be no division of our making but a division which will be caused by a revulsion of feeling against the action of the Government, as the responsible Government, and against the attitude of those who believe that it is only by these actions that either the immediate danger of war or the possible wider extension of a conflagration of the character of a world war can be prevented.
I could say a great deal more, but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time. I beg the Government to consider not only the matters that I have put before them, but also what is going to be the future relationships of this country with the various countries, independent or federated, in the Arab world. What will be the outcome of the conflicts which have now actually commenced?
1292
We shall have great difficulty in persuading many of our fellow-countrymen that we are justified in going into much wider military operations for the sake of the preservation of oil in this limited sphere of the world, although, of course, it is a vastly important subject if considered only in the terms of oil. We have to consider what are the results generally of our actions upon our economic status in the world. It is not only a question of whether we may not have to suffer much higher costs for fuel; we shall have to consider what becomes of the other end of our market. What happens to the supplies from these areas for our aircraft engineering, civil engineering, and all the other matters in which we have been so vitally interested—and not without profit to ourselves? Therefore, is it a wise and prudent decision which has been arrived at?
I hope that I have not spoken without responsibility, and that I have not talked in any excited and specially partisan way. I think that of all the things I love most in the world I would put my own country first. I have been round the world two or three times, and there is no place in which I like to be so much as this country. There are no people whom I like to meet like people that I know in my own country. But I am bound to say this: that if one had to fight in any case for the literal defence of one's own country, one would like to think that we were defending ourselves because we were right to defend ourselves, and because we had some hope of reaching a future which would be to the benefit of our homes, our families and our children, and not contrary to the general human rights of man. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
4.25 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, the question that this House do now adjourn has come to your Lordships rather unexpectedly and left some of us rather at a loss. But in view of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in another place last night, which I think was welcomed by most of us as a moderate and helpful speech, I am a little taken aback, though very pleased that the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition here is not taking a

1293
more severe and antagonistic attitude than the simple Motion, That the House do now adjourn. That Motion, I feel, we on these Benches should support, although not in any sense of criticism of the Government, because we do not for a moment consider that this very grave situation to-day is in any way parallel to the Suez situation of which we did disapprove.
I am not prepared at this point to make any criticism of the Government's action up to now. But we should all like to have further information as soon as it is available, and in saying that I should like to assure the noble Earl the Leader of the House that some of us are conscious of the great difficulties under which the Government are working now, and which are not always realised—particularly, I think, in the matter of intelligence, which comes through what one might call unconventional channels. To ask for those channels to be disclosed, and for its source to be disclosed, would be a fatal thing to do. It is quite obvious that if you are going to destroy the sources of your information you will find yourself at a great loss.
There is one other point—possibly a more trivial one—and that is that we must bear in mind the awkwardness of the difference in time between this country and the United States. I have very great sympathy, if I may say so, with the noble Earl and his colleagues, who are finding messages arriving at ten or eleven o'clock at night which require to be de-coded and then have to be talked about and debated, and on which action has to be taken immediately. There are some things, some trivial and some important, which make the Government's position rather difficult, and I am not prepared to criticise at this moment, when it has only just been disclosed to us that our troops have gone into Jordan. I prefer to await developments before making up a final opinion. Naturally, we all hope that this matter will be dealt with through the United Nations and N.A.T.O., partly because we have pledged ourselves always to act in that way, and partly because the people of this country are more likely to be welded together into one opinion, and not divided—which, as the noble Viscount has said, would be a tragedy—into two opinions or more, as they will be if we do not work with our
1294
friends and Allies throughout the whole of this unfortunate business.
4.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am going to say only a very few words, partly because, like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who has just addressed your Lordships, I had no notice that this debate was to take place; moreover, I do not want to anticipate what will have to be said in the fuller debate which I hope and think must occur within the next few days.
I feel that there are one or two things that must be said from this side of the House. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, rightly pointed out, we have come to a situation of the greatest gravity, and it behoves us all to speak with all responsibility. I entirely agree. And, if I may say so, I should like to welcome very warmly the temperate and restrained speech which the noble Viscount has just delivered to us. I should like to say a word about the latest events in Jordan, and in particular to congratulate Her Majesty's Government most warmly on the courage and resolution with which they have faced an entirely unforeseen crisis in that country.
Of course we all appreciate what was said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition about the possible implications of the present position. But what was the situation with which, I imagine, Her Majesty's Government were confronted last night? It was the immediate subversion of the legitimate Government of Jordan—and I think there is no doubt that it is the legitimate Government of Jordan—the entire collapse of the whole Western position in the Middle East, and with it the upset of that balance of power on which world peace rests. In those circumstances, could it really be argued that any responsible Government should refrain from taking such steps as are possible to avert so great an evil as that?
Membership of the United Nations Organisation—and we are members of the Organisation—surely should not inhibit such action in anticipation of reference to that body. If it did inhibit it, that would, I believe, be a fatal weakness in the Charter, because it is not credible—and we must all know it in our

1295
hearts—that the United Nations could have acted soon enough to prevent the immediate catastrophe of which King Hussein warned us. Hours, and possibly days, must inevitably have passed before any definite action could be taken; and during that period the whole position might have crumbled away.
Moreover (and now I refer both to Lebanon and to Jordan), that unity of view between us and the United States of America, which is so essential if the balance of world power to which I have referred is to continue, on this particular occasion, though it has not always done so in the past, happily exists. What folly it would have been if at this time it had been we who had hung back! It might well have destroyed for ever the whole basis of Western unity. I feel that there was just as great need this time of immediate Anglo-American action as at the time—it is years ago—of the Berlin airlift, when, if I remember aright, the Labour Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, acted so swiftly, and also, I believe, without prior reference to the United Nations. That saved the situation in Europe and stabilised it, and that stability has remained up to the present day. I do not want to say any more this afternoon, but I should like again to welcome warmly the courageous action of the Government which I believe history, when the history of our time comes to be written, will commend.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, everybody should speak with a sense of responsibility, but it is necessary to be responsible to one's own conscience. I should consider myself a guilty man if I left this debate to-day without saying what is honestly in my mind. This is a turning point in world history. We had the United Nations. It was understood that disputes must be referred there and discussed there and action taken unitedly, and here are two matters, Lebanon and Jordan, which are decided by us and the United States; then we call in the United Nations to do their part. When they do their part, when they send an observer to the Lebanon and when he makes a report which says that this is an internal affair, then the Minister elsewhere makes a speech decrying the report, saying there is not
1296
much in the report, and then the Government take an action which overrides and destroys the whole policy of the United Nations by sending these troops to Jordan.
I wish that this was the end, but it is not the end. I am pretty old. I was very small when we bombarded Alexandria; we were told time and time again it was only for a short time and we should be out of Egypt. Mr. Gladstone gave that assurance to Mr. Bright. Since that time our whole Middle Eastern policy has been wrong, based on the idea that by force, by arms, you can hold the position. You may say that that is a bold thing for a Back-Bencher to say in your Lordships' House. But what is the history? Millions and hundreds of millions have been spent in Egypt. The noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, will remember when he was at the Air Ministry the last effort, and the result of it was that we touched off the Egyptian revolution, and it is the policy of the British Government of force which created Nasser.
If you ask what, in a vague and foggy way, is behind the mind of the Government and others, it seems to me that what is in their mind is that this man Nasser has got to be brought down somehow. Then we had the ghastly failure of the Suez policy. And now Nasser is supposed to be the foreign power that is creating all this trouble. In point of fact, I think a study of it—I have been in and out of the place for many years—will show that what is at the root of it is Arab pride, not Jordanian pride or Iraqi pride, but Arab pride, and Nasser has secured leadership of the pride of the Arab. So long as he has that, nothing we can do will be effective.
This is done with the New Theory. That is another reason why this is a turning point in our history. The New Theory is this: if a Government of which we approve asks us to send troops, it is legitimate that we should send troops, and therefore we say it is right to send troops to the Lebanon and Amman. But the Question which I tried to put this morning to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, is: is the Government of the Lebanon in favour of this movement? The situation in the Lebanon is as follows. President Chamoun was elected for six years. Those

1297
six years expire next week. There is only one Chamber in the Lebanon. On Thursday of next week the Lebanon Chamber is to elect his successor, and we are told that the day before yesterday the President of the Chamber, the Speaker, sent a telegram protesting against the landing of the troops. That is what we are told, and I have repeatedly tried, and my noble friend, Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough, has tried, to get an answer to the question: did the Government know that that telegram had been sent, and, if so, why was it not mentioned in the debates? We talk about free Parliaments, political freedom, and we then act against the views that are put forward. It was broadcast last night and it was in The Times this morning, and on that I hope the noble Earl, Lord Home, will give us a definite answer.
There are many points. This must be the first of many debates as this disaster goes step by step deeper into the morass. What about other countries? Have you noticed that Greece will not give air transport to American machines? There is some difficulty there. Have you noticed that Austria has protested to the United Nations against the abuse of her air space by these vast fleets of Globe-masters flying over in connection with this operation? Does it mean nothing, that we should permit, that we should be a partner—because we are a partner in all this now—in all these policies?
We had the great honour in the war of introducing the atomic weapon into Asia; it was exploded in Hiroshima. I should like to ask the Government this question: are these troops, particularly the American troops, armed with tactical atomic weapons? We ought to know. I have every reason to think that that is so. I do not know enough about the technical side, but I read about the different bombs and the different machines, and I believe that it is so.
Again, we are always asking the noble Earl who is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, "What does the Commonwealth think about this?"; and he always says, "I am constantly in touch." The Prime Minister said in his speech "Look at the Sudan." The immediate result was that in the Press this morning there was a repudiation by the Prime Minister of the Sudan of the inferences drawn from what had been said. Let me ask this most important question,
1298
because the whole of the moral and ideological structure of the Commonwealth is at stake. Will the noble Earl really stand up and say that the Indian Government has anything but disapproval of this proposal? India has 30 million Moslems. I do not know what Pakistan thinks. They are in the Baghdad Pact. But is it not a most serious thing that, by your policies, not only are you excluding India from your Asian defence system, S.E.A.T.O., but now you do this thing which must incense every Moslem in India and which has already been criticised in harsh terms by Mr. Nehru? Are these considerations not worth the attention of this House?
Here are people who are old and have experience, people who have a responsibility. But it is not a responsibility to support a Tory Administration that has brought this country into disaster many times; it is a responsibility to tell the truth in the light of the experience that we have. My Lords, that sounds sufficiently violent. There are many other things to come from time to time. But I would ask your Lordships not to say, "This man is just an extremist; he stands always for opposing the Government." I believe that you cannot have a foreign policy unless it is based on justice, and you cannot have justice if you are going to impose the will of a foreigner by force. These are the feet of clay in the whole of our policy in the Middle East.
I share in full the sense of responsibility of my noble Leader, but I would ask for answers to just two questions. First of all, is the noble Earl going to tell us exactly what is the source of the appeal from Jordan, and supported by what facts? I do not at all agree with Lord Rea that because some "policeman" has said something it behoves us all to ask no further questions. We are being asked to send troops to Jordan, and we are being asked to send them on the strength of some secret information which must not be examined. That is the first question. The other is this: is it a fact that any communication was received or published from the President of the Lebanon Parliament—which is in the key position, because that same Lebanon Parliament next Thursday has to elect a new President of the Lebanon? If there are any answers available, I think they will help us along. But there

1299
will be many debates, and I hope that the sincere feelings and the wide experience of many noble Lords here will do something to put the brake on this disastrous rush.
4.43 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I must say that I entirely disagree with the views of the noble Viscount opposite on the Middle East, and I should like to add my support to Her Majesty's Government on the action that they have taken. I would say that those who disagree with the Government must really have their heads in the sand. I would say, too, that this is the last chance to preserve freedom in the Middle East, and that the present troubles might well never have happened had we received the support that we should have received during the Suez crisis. I suggest that events in Iraq are one more example of that feeble, fatal policy of "peace at any price" which is always put forward by our pacifists in this country, and I am delighted that Her Majesty's Government have taken the courageous action which they are taking now. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information about loyalist troop movements outside Baghdad. I think that would be important information for the House to have.
We have heard a great deal about Arab nationalism. It is true that it is a great and growing force. But I would say that to recognise it does not mean that we must excuse its excesses and condone its crimes. Surely if Arab nationalism damages our interests, steals our property and murders our people, it is our duty to act to preserve order and save lives. I think there is little doubt that the sinister hand of Russia is behind all this insurrection, and in my view we must do all we can to break this web of Communism, and accept the grave risks we run by our intervention in Jordan. I am sure that all your Lordships are delighted at the full support we are receiving from our Allies, the United States.
4.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure that the strong views of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, are based on an honest assessment of the situation, and on long experience; but, of course, not everybody is bound to assess
1300
the situation in quite the same way. When your Lordships debated the Middle East last year I ventured to submit that the assassination of Nuri Said and the overthrow by force of the Iraq Government was a possible event which might happen at any moment. Now that this tragedy has occurred, I should like to say what a grievous loss the Arab world has suffered by the death of this wise statesman, whose great services to his country have now been ended by his murder.
I also ventured to submit to your Lordships a point that will not be so universally agreed with, and certainly not by the noble Viscount; that if the Americans had not stopped the Suez operation, or if it had been able to continue for another forty-eight hours, then this tragic drama which is now coming to a head in the Middle East would never have developed. Finally, I suggested to your Lordships that the Americans, who were so largely responsible for the grave deterioration of the position in the Middle East, were sometimes a little quicker to learn from their mistakes than were many people in this country.
I think the Americans have learned something in the last eighteen months. I think they have learned that the Arab Nationalist movement is not a liberal, progressive movement like the Italian Nationalist movement under Garibaldi, or the Hungarian Nationalist movement under Kossuth. The Arab Nationalist movement is militaristic; it is reactionary, it is murderous; it is tyrannical; it is undemocratic; and in many respects it is like the National Socialist movement under Hitler—its excesses are encouraged and not mitigated by appeasement, and moderate elements who are threatened by this movement may easily be encouraged by firm, decisive action from outside. This crisis which has now come to a head may be a thing on which the survival of freedom in the world will depend—I think it is as important as that. And whilst we all deeply regret that it should have happened in this tragic way, I am at least glad that at last Her Majesty's Government have achieved some unity of foreign policy with the United States of America.
4.49 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition did well in moving the

1301
adjournment of the House in order that we should have this short debate. I should not have intervened were it not for my profound disagreement with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I think I am the first lawyer to intervene in this debate. I should like to say at the outset what nonsense it appears to me to be to suggest that it is never right, proper or legal for a Government to take action in an emergency without consulting the United Nations. After all, the purpose of this debate is to consider whether Her Majesty's Government were right in responding, as they have responded, to the appeal that was made by Jordan.
Let me put to the House this simple test. What would any noble Lord in any quarter of the House have wished to happen had a similar appeal been made by the late King of Iraq, if he had discovered in time the plot by which apparently he and that great man, Nuri, have been murdered? Tributes have been paid to Nuri from many quarters. It would be improper for me to say much, for I only once had the pleasure, many years ago, of spending an evening in his company; but I join with what has been said by noble Lords in all quarters about the magnitude of the loss the world has suffered by his death.
What would have been the response had an appeal come from Iraq in time? Would not every noble Lord have wished that such an appeal should have been met, as the appeal from Jordan has now been met? And would not the world be, in a very much happier and much less dangerous position? Of course nobody disputes that there are grave dangers—there are always grave dangers in action. But are there less grave dangers in inaction? Should we be in a safer position if the whole Middle East were yielded to Nasser's murderers?
A lot of nonsense has been talked about Arab nationalism. Of course Arab nationalism is a great force and, as was made clear by my right honourable and learned friend, the Foreign Secretary, in another place, we are not opposed to nationalism as such. But that does not mean that we have to pretend that murder and subversion are respectable. The Foreign Secretary yesterday gave a formidable list of plots some of which had been discovered just in time. There was a remarkable unity of
1302
source and inspiration for these various plots. In Iraq the plot succeeded—or has succeeded so far—to the great loss of the world and of the cause of freedom, and I believe of peoples everywhere, including the Middle East.
This appeal came to Her Majesty's Government last night. It is true that we do not know what will be the result of the help that has been given, but can we have any doubt at all about the disastrous result if help had been refused, and if the information of the plot given to us by the Government of Jordan last night proved as accurate as similar warnings would have proved in the case of Iraq, had we received them? The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I believe, asked: what would be thought of the action of Her Majesty's Government in many other countries of Asia and of the Middle East? The answer to that question will be better known to Her Majesty's Government than it is to me, but my guess is that the action of Her Majesty's Government will bring great comfort to many countries.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, read the speech of Mr. Nehru, which was printed in The Times this morning?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I was not surprised at the reaction of Mr. Nehru: I very seldom am. But the countries of which I was thinking were Pakistan, Persia and many others immediately threatened; and I shall be surprised if in those and many other quarters the action of Her Majesty's Government is not welcomed.
I did not intend to detain the House for so long. I would only say this, in conclusion. If there is anybody who thinks that the cause of world peace, or the cause of international law, will be served by always refusing action until it can be taken in obedience to the United Nations, when everybody knows that over a great sphere of policy there is very little chance of the United Nations acting at all, or anyhow of their acting in time, I believe he is profoundly mistaken. I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for giving us the opportunity of this short debate, and I should like to say that on the evidence available, whatever may be the dangers of the course on which Her Majesty's Government have started, they took the right decision last night, and the dangers

1303
of any other course would have been much greater.
4.56 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I cannot help wishing that some of the views we are hearing to-day had also been voiced on that side in the years before the war, when a legitimate, elected Government in Spain was overturned by military men who are still in charge. The other side acquiesced, and that ruler is still in charge to-day. This matter is an extremely difficult one, as everyone must know. I cannot help remembering that we had an Alliance with Jordan, that we gave Jordan great assistance, and that Jordan rejected our help, broke up our Alliance and sent General Glubb about his business. Apparently they did not want our help then. Now things have turned round.
I believe that we have to take very great caution in the matter of supporting what is regarded as a legitimate Government in places where democracy has not taken any very serious root, because we are then liable to be supporting someone against the will of the people concerned. We have seen a good deal of that in this world, and it is very dangerous. We have seen more or less puppet people put up, and they are always powerless against national sentiment. Very often there is the idea, "Let us get in some respectable people," but respectable people are generally powerless against a nationalist movement.
No one deplores more than I do the murders of Nuri Pasha and the Crown Prince, whom I knew well, and who, I believe, according to their lights, did better service in Iraq for their people than has been done in any other Arab State. So far as one can see, the trouble is that they failed to get the support of the people. It is extremely doubtful whether, in a country where a Government cannot control their own people by their own troops, troops should be poured in from outside, and that we should agree to go.
Admittedly it is very difficult to know what are the real springs at the back of all these moves. In America they rather tend to assume that it is always the Soviet Government. Here, more up to date, it is assumed that it is Nasser. But looking over the world as a whole, I believe that it is a false deduction to
1304
think that over this wide expanse of the world these nationalist movements which are coming up are due to the intrigues of someone outside. I think that all the evidence goes to show that this Asiatic feeling, Pan-Asiatic feeling, Pan-Arab feeling or whatever it may be, this rising which can so easily be represented as being inspired from Soviet Russia, has its existence in the demand for the equality of these people. I do not think that necessarily you are going to get anything better just because, say, some Generals take over in Iraq from Nuri Pasha. I do not think you will necessarily get a democratic régime.
What I do think is this: that wherever you step in from outside and try to force rulers, you merely foment the nationalist movement and the anti-colonial movement. And that is the danger of the step we are taking. We do not know, if things go against us, that the Americans are really welcomed by the mass of the people in Lebanon. A remarkable speech was made in another place yesterday by Colonel Banks, who knew the Lebanese well, and he explained the problem, as he saw it, of the population of Lebanon. It appears that in Lebanon there was a President, and that—as Presidents so often do; they tend to dislike the time when it comes for them to drop power—he was unconstitutionally trying to continue his power, with the result that there was naturally a revolt against it.
It is difficult to know what the position is exactly in Iraq. The danger, as I see it, is that if we interfere, so far from getting the support of the people, the fact that we are an outside Power supporting a régime makes that régime unpopular and lessens our support in the whole of that region. I think we have to make terms with Arab nationalism sooner or later. The less we intervene in their internal squabbles in these times, the better. It is difficult to find out what the facts are. It does not look as if our intentions have been frightfully good in these matters. We seem always to be taken by surprise by these events, and I think it is far better that we should keep out of them. I know that the sentimental appeal can be made: "After all, these people were our friends." In principle, they were. But the fact is that Jordan repudiated our Alliance and

1305
went to Arab nationalism; and now that they are getting into trouble we are supposed to go in and put it right. We should be wiser to stay outside.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House very long, but I thought, in view of the fact that for most of last year I was engaged on trying to write the life of Nuri Pasha, that perhaps some word from me about his work towards what has been referred to as "Arab nationalism" might not be out of place. A t the same time, I should like to take the opportunity to put the question of Arab unity—as the noble Earl referred to it, "a great Arab nationalistic resurgence "—in some perspective.
As I see it, from 1917 onwards Nuri Pasha, more than any man else in the world, was working towards real Arab unity. If I raise the question of Israel, it is in no sense of controversy, but merely in an objective sense, to say that the defeat and frustration of his life's work came with the creation of the State of Israel. Compare that with the attitude of Nasser, who is regarded to-day as the focus of this alleged unity. Nasser regarded the State of Israel as his shortcut to that leadership. It was not anything to do with his life's work. And in so far as he has used that position to establish himself in leadership, and in so far as he is the focus of an alleged unity, that unity to-day, as I see it, is not quite so substantial as but rather more flimsy than we have been led to believe. There was a time when it was reality. I believe that time has gone. For example, Nasser has frequently spoken of an Empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. The other day the leader of the Algerian Resistance Movement, Ferhat Abbas, had to admit at the Tangier Conference that he could not talk Arabic. I think we are apt to over-estimate the reality of this Arab unity. Arab nationalism perhaps is another matter.
In so far as the Lebanon is concerned, I want to make only one criticism which seems to have rather escaped notice, and that is that when the United Nations observers arrived, surely the first thing that any sensible leader would have done would have been to instruct his agents not to be caught out. I imagine that the
1306
very first instruction that was given from Cairo would be, "For Heaven's sake, do not be caught!" But that is not to say that there was not a great deal of infiltration before those observers arrived. I think that that aspect is somewhat overlooked.
The Opposition yesterday in another place, as I see it, laid great store by the argument that they would not support British entry into Jordan if that position was used perhaps to restore the situation in Iraq through Jordan. It is, of course, overlooked that, in fact, the King of Jordan is also King of the Federation of Jordan and Iraq. I would not go so far as to say that if the King of Jordan could prove that he was still acceptable to the people of Iraq we should deny him further assistance to the Federation; in other words, the King would be justified in asking for assistance for the Federation just as he has asked for assistance to his own Kingdom of Jordan.
I suggest that we should be wise not to commit ourselves in any way in regard to the future of Iraq. The whole history of Iraq is to the effect that this kind of thing has happened before. In 1936, General Jaffer Pasha was lured outside Baghdad and assassinated in exactly the same way as has happened to-day, and there was a counter-march on the capital such as might well happen again to-day. The whole position in Iraq is surely open and we should be ill-advised to commit ourselves. But I would say this: there should be every prospect of that young King appealing to the people of Iraq—I am thinking more of the countryside than of Baghdad itself—bearing in mind that wonderful tradition dating from King Feisal I, a tradition of wisdom and leadership and responsibility from that great man. There is no reason whatever, as I see it, why his descendant should not capture the imagination once again of the people of Iraq.
I would add only one word—and I am surprised that this aspect of the situation has not yet been referred to—and that is about the prospect of Soviet intervention. Your Lordships will remember that the threat when the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was in trouble was that if we took action in Southern Persia, the Soviet might enter Northern Persia. It might well have happened. But I pointed out

1307
at the time that if that happened we should not have been fighting about oil at all, but about an entirely different issue. I think on all sides it is admitted that the Soviet do not want a third world war; but I would suggest that if there was an extension or threat of extension of war through the present situation, we might well again say to ourselves, "It is Soviet responsibility for extending the war", and that therefore, once again, we should not be fighting about an issue in Baghdad or an issue in Amman; we should be fighting against an issue which sooner or later we should have to face.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has obviously raised a very important point—that of possible Soviet intervention. I should have thought that the action of the United States and Her Majesty's Government during the last days was exactly calculated to cause Soviet intervention if anything was. And it seems to be quite typical of the confused and illogical thinking which seems to be dominating the speeches of noble Lords opposite that after we have landed troops in Jordan to-day and the Americans have landed troops in the Lebanon the day before yesterday it should now be suggested that it really somehow gives us a cause of complaint against the Soviets all the time. I have never heard a more illogical argument, and it seems to me to be typical of the arguments which have been addressed to us during this short debate. I should have liked to put the whole of this problem into the conspectus of foreign affairs generally, in the debate which we are to have very shortly, but it seemed to me, after so many speeches had been made from the Benches opposite—particularly those attacking my noble friend Lord Stansgate—that I, at any rate, who entirely agree with him, ought to signify that I do so. I simply cannot understand the point of view of Lord Conesford when he suggests that whenever you are in a difficulty you should take action, whatever the action may be.
LORD CONESFORD: Would the noble Lord allow me to point out that I said nothing of the kind?
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord was advocating that one should always take action. Surely that is what got us
1308
into the dreadful difficulties in connection with the Suez adventure: that we took action on the spur of the moment without reflecting about the position properly, and then we had to withdraw. If we had not taken action so precipitately the whole situation would quite clearly have been different.
LORD CONESFORD: But—
LORD CHORLEY: If the noble Lord will allow me to continue my observations, I should like to suggest that the real reason why events are always going against us in the Middle East in the way that they have been over these years is that we have from the start been backing the wrong horse, if I may use an expression of a famous Prime Minister of the Party opposite. At the end of the First World War we broke up the region which had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks for a very long period of years into a number of stupid little States, putting several little Kinglets in Jordan and Iraq and these other places, and ever since then we have been backing feudalism and autocracy against the people in those parts and against the rise of the more enlightened outlook on the part of those people who did not want to have a régime of that sort fettered round their necks in the way it has been fettered round their necks by the Western Powers. That has been our mistake from the beginning, and we are now trying to swim against the tide as a result of it.
It is no doubt true that Nuri es-Said was a great man who did his best according to his lights, and in his time he no doubt rendered valuable services to Iraq; but as The Times—which, after all, is not a particularly Left-wing paper—pointed out in its leading article on Monday, he was behind the times. My Lords, that was an unconscious pun, but nevertheless very true. He was unable to adjust himself to the requirements of the present situation. It was because of that, I am sure, that he met his death and that the régime which he supported so ably for many years in Iraq has now fallen.
Surely we have to recognise that there is going to be a build-up of a large Arab State in this part of the world. In fact, it would, I suggest, be in the long-term interest of humanity itself that this should be brought about. It could, in my view, have been brought about in agreement

1309
with the U.S.S.R., as I have suggested in several speeches made in foreign affairs debates in your Lordships' House during the last two or three years. But in spite of invitations from Mr. Khrushchev and from other leaders in the U.S.S.R. to enter into discussions with them in regard to the difficulties in the Middle East, we have always rebuffed those suggestions, and the result is that we are now in this difficulty.
I think it should be perfectly clear that it is just as much to the interests of the U.S.S.R. as it is to our interests that we should come to some sort of settlement in regard to these problems. Marching with these Mohammedan Arab States along the southern borders of the U.S.S.R. there are a number of so-called autonomous republics which are almost entirely inhabited by Moslems and on which the events in Iraq and Syria cannot fail to be making some sort of impression. I should have thought that it is perfectly obvious that it is just as much to the interests of the U.S.S.R. as to our own interests that we should try to come to some sort of arrangement by which these very explosive forces could be controlled and guided into more peaceful paths. I am sure that the course which we are now adopting is not calculated to direct them into peaceful and constructive paths. The only result will be that when American troops are seen marching up and down the streets of Beirut and British troops are seen marching up and down the streets of Amman, it will cause a revulsion of feeling. You have only to think of what you would feel yourselves if foreign troops were in the streets of London.
LORD MOYNE: We have often had Allied troops in London, and we have always regarded them as our friends. We have never felt any shame about it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
LORD CHORLEY: If the noble Lord can imagine their landing in London in the sort of way that the American Army has been landing in Beirut during the last few days, and can seriously make that suggestion, I cannot imagine how his mind works.
LORD ST. OSWALD: These troops were invited.
LORD CHORLEY: As my noble friend Lord Stansgate pointed out, they were
1310
invited by a President who was on the point of having to go, and they were invited in the first place simply for the purpose of keeping him in power and quite obviously against the desires of the elected members of their Parliament.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Not in the least obviously.
LORD CHORLEY: If the noble Lords could only retain their objectivity in these matters, they would see that it is so abundantly clear that it is hardly necessary to argue about it. The difficulty that the noble Lords opposite have is that they can never put themselves into the shoes of the opposite party. They are all so concerned to pursue what are the short-term interests of this country that they cannot take the long-term view. They have got us into the mess in which we now find ourselves, and I cannot see how they can be prevailed upon to take a more objective and sensible view of the situation.
5.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for the procedure which he suggested for our debate to-day and for the responsible way in which he and the noble Earl—and naturally we would expect it of him—have conducted their speeches; and, indeed, for the responsibility of all the speeches which have been made in the House where, for the greater part of the debate, a high standard has been maintained.
Throughout these dangerous months, when it must have been clear to any observer with any knowledge of the Middle East that the situation was becoming more and more tense, Her Majesty's Government have sought to make it clear, in another place and in this House, that any action we might have to take—because it was clear that action might have to be taken—we should take within the United Nations Charter and according to the practice of international law. The noble Viscount was really concerned about that, as the House will be concerned. For although it is true, as my noble friend Lord Conesford said, that there is no obligation upon a member of the United Nations in all circumstances to wait upon that body, nevertheless, as civilised

1311
nations we have all undertaken to work within the framework of the United Nations Charter and according to its rules.
What, then, have the United States and United Kingdom Governments, both members of the United Nations and both responsible democracies, done? They have answered an invitation to send help which was issued by a friendly nation that felt itself in danger. That is the simple fact. I think that there can be no doubt in any quarter of the House that, by every test of morality or legality, that was a request to which the United States and British Governments were fully entitled to respond. I could not help recalling to myself, when the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was speaking just now, that the Americans are here in the United Kingdom on our own invitation—
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY rose—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF HOME: I will certainly give way in a moment, but if the noble Lord will allow me to complete my sentence, perhaps then he will not ask me to give way. The Americans are in the United Kingdom on our own invitation. As a matter of fact it was the Government of the Party opposite who invited them into this country, and we have never had any indication that that was a cause for anybody's concern, still less that it entitled the Russians either to object or to take any adverse action because of that concession. This is a perfectly simple proposition. The United States and the United Kingdom have been invited by the Governments of the Lebanon and of Jordan to come in and help them. The invitations, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, came in one case from the President of the Lebanon and in the other case from the King, the Government and the Parliament of Jordan.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am very anxious to have one answer. Did the noble Earl know that the Speaker of the Lebanon Parliament had sent a protest; and, if he knew it, when did he know it?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we did not know it, and we still have no
1312
actual knowledge of it, though it was in The Times and it is probably so. What we do know is that the Parliament of the Lebanon have not met, so it cannot have been sent from the Parliament, although it may be from one Member of the Parliament or from the President of it.
I think that the House has fairly faced the situation which the Government have to meet, but I should like to remind the Opposition of the circumstances. First of all, in the Sudan a few months ago there was an attempt by Egypt to overthrow the legal Government. It did not get very far. It was nipped in the bud owing to the vigilance of the Sudanese. Secondly, in the Lebanon there was an attempt at a coup, inspired by Egypt and in which Egypt was deeply implicated, which was frustrated. Only the other day, as we know, in Iraq the lawful Government, whatever one may think of individuals in it or of the dynasty, was overthrown by murder and by arms: and we know that that was the result of a conspiracy.
Exactly on that deadly model, Jordan was faced with a three-pronged coup, involving external aggression from Syria, arms infiltrated through Syria and an attempt to overthrow the King and Government in Amman. That evidence has been given to us by the King and Government of Jordan and, as I said in my statement earlier this afternoon, it has been corroborated by our own information. If the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, or anybody else wants any further information, I might tell him what the radio in Baghdad was putting out last night. In a broadcast repeated several times, Baghdad radio said that the Jordanian people would rise to-morrow in a great revolution to destroy the Monarchy. There is the clearest evidence beyond doubt that this has been a coup planned with scrupulous care, a second barrel of which failed to go off when the Iraq coup took place, because the King of Jordan managed to get notice of it. There is no doubt at all about the evidence of this coup.
The wisdom of our action is one thing, but on this occasion I trust that we have acted in time. If the United States and the United Kingdom had allowed this procession of nations which Egypt wants to swallow simply to be gobbled up, one by one, and their legal Governments to be upset by murder and subversion from

1313
within, incited from without their borders, the whole basis of civilised living and of organised society in the world could go. The noble Viscount asked me what is the British interest in all this and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, also raised that point. We shall return to this matter on another occasion, and after I have had more time to consider what I have to say I will come back to the various aspects of the British situation in this. But I am going to answer the noble Lords to-day in three simple words. The British interest is that law should rule. Unless somebody puts a stop to this process which the United Arab Republic is fomenting in this part of the world, then not only shall we see the whole of the Middle East go, but the rot will spread to Africa, and far beyond.
What, then, have been the immediate purpose and the longer-term purpose of the United States and the United Kingdom in these operations? First of all, in the case of the Lebanon the objective has been to secure the frontiers between the Lebanon and Syria until a United Nations force effective to do the job is able to take the place of the Americans who are there now. Secondly, in the case of Jordan it has been our immediate purpose to bring stability, to protect the legal Government and the Sovereign and to help the Sovereign to bring stability into the internal situation and resist this aggression from outside, again against the day when the United Nations Organisation can organise an effective system of security in this Middle East area.
I do not believe that anybody, as think one of my noble friends said, could seriously suppose that the United Nations, as at present organised, could deal with the situation such as we were faced with in the middle of the night. I remember Mr. Hammarskjoeld—and nobody has done more to try to bring peace to this area—saying in an address which he made a short time ago:
"The United Nations cannot assure evenhanded justice in the settlement of disputes mainly because it does not have the power to enforce its recommendations."
It is the hope of Her Majesty's Government and of the United States Government that we can put into the United Nations the force and the authority which are necessary to deal with aggressions of this kind. That is one of the shorterterm
1314
projects of the two operations in the Lebanon and in Jordan.
What of the longer-term purpose to which both the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made reference? Can we, as the noble Viscount put it, restrain Arab nationalism, which is a force which may grow in this area? Ought we, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, to make terms with it and learn to live with it? I make a distinction which I hope is not too fine: that Arab pride and patriotism is one thing with which you could make terms; but when patriotism degenerates into armed nationalism, that is a deadly danger which may bring civilisation to an end. Surely, the murder of Nuri, the founder, if I may remind your Lordships, of the true modern Arab patriotism, and the murder of the King, cannot be said to be an expression of true Arab nationalism! It is nothing less than an international conspiracy of murder directed from outside.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that it is impossible to have a foreign policy unless it is based upon justice. Is Egypt's foreign policy based upon justice? Is Nasser the enlightened statesman of the world, and Nuri a person who should he liquidated because of his narrow views? The noble Viscount will know that that is a picture which nobody will sustain.
The appeal to the United Kingdom and the United States by Jordan was made not only by the King, as I have said, but by the Government and by the Parliament of Jordan, representing the Jordanian people. I must ask noble Lords: if they had been faced by that appeal to come to the assistance of a nation threatened from outside in order to restore stability and give the United Nations time to deal with the situation, would they have refused? If they will not give me an answer to-day, I hope that when they have thought it over they will come to the conclusion that they could have done nothing else than we did last night.
I have had to make a rather hurried reply to this debate, after, I am afraid, many hours of standing on my feet, which does not lead to particular coherence, but I do want to add this. I trust that the free world finding the United States and the United Kingdom, who are together leading and responsible democracies, answering these appeals from legal

1315
Governments, will find that we have done something to halt this new and deadly form of aggression, which the United Arab Republic and the Communists are using, and to put in its place the rule of law, to assert the authority of the United Nations and make it a reality.
5.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it would be quite wrong, in view of the reasons for which I introduced the debate, to make another speech. I will say only that we shall study with great care and attention the answer of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. We shall have to examine carefully where we stand if the United States and our country are to become more or less the arbiters as to what is the rule of law in these places. We will look at it, and no doubt at the end we shall be leading up to circumstances where either the international situation will have been reduced, as I hope, in temper, and we can have an ordinary foreign affairs debate, or, if not, and this crisis continues, we shall have continued debates so that we may have the combined wish of Parliament in shaping any policy that is to be adopted. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

OPENCAST COAL BILL
5.38 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 31 [Compensation in respect of easements and similar rights]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 16 are drafting Amendments designed to get complete clarity in the wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 24, after (" land ") insert (" comprised in the order, over which the easement or right is exercisable ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 29, leave out (" in question ") and insert (" to which the benefit of the easement or right is annexed ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Compensation in respect of minerals]:
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Where the Minister certifies that by reason of the grant of an authorisation under section one of this Act, other minerals associated with coal in the land on which it is proposed to work coal by opencast operations will be worked by the Board, or that the working of such minerals will be rendered impracticable, the compensation payable by the Board, and assessed in accordance with this section, shall be paid by the Board within three months of such certification.
(3) Compensation under this section shall be assessed upon the basis of market value as defined in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment refers to Clause 33, dealing with the various interests who are owners of or have an interest in the minerals in the land. The point I wish to make is quite a simple one. This time, unlike in the case of the Amendments to which I referred on the Committee stage, I cannot apologise for the wording, because it is not mine, and if on the ground of the wording this Amendment is not acceptable I can only hope for the best. It simply means that in the case where the mineral undertaker receives compensation of a capital nature, instead of, as under the Bill, its being paid to him at the end of the period of occupation by the Coal Board, he should be paid at the time the Coal Board go in. I believe that in any case he gets whatever annual compensation may be due to him for loss of rights, and he also gets his terminal compensation. I suggest that this is not, in principle, a difficult proposal to accept, because the Minister has practically accepted it in the case of forestry. It was one of the points I was trying to make in the Amendments I was moving, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to cover it in his Amendment concerning woodlands. An occupier of land who is farming receives his compensation for crops when the Coal Board go in and when he loses his assets.
The point behind this proposal is that if a mineral operator who is working minerals loses them because of opencast working, he ought to be free to employ his assets and his cash resources in working minerals elsewhere, if he is in a position to negotiate for some other site. If he does not get his money until the end

1317
of the period of occupation, it is more difficult for him to negotiate. The Amendment is simply to provide for that situation. It may be said that, in the very nature of the case, it is not possible to make a valuation at the beginning as to what these minerals are worth. But we have heard only this afternoon that in some cases under the requisitioning procedure the Coal Board have made such a valuation and paid it to people who have interests of this sort; they have made their calculations and paid a lump sum of some kind. I think it is fairly well understood that rights in minerals have a market value and can be sold. The land is bought or leased on the basis of the minerals in it before they have been exploited. So one would think that, in practice, this is something that could be done. I hope I have explained what I desire here, and that the Minister will agree that it is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 25, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment proposes that compensation to a mineral undertaker whose land is comprised in a compulsory rights order should, in certain circumstances, be paid at the beginning of the Board's occupation of that land. This is a very important point, and one to which we have given much thought. The suggestion does not sound unattractive, but we have come to the conclusion that the balance of argument is against it.
I think the main argument for the Amendment is that opencast coal working destroys the minerals, and that they should therefore be bought outright. That, however, is a misconception. Only a part—in most cases about one-third—of an opencast coal site is excavated. Often the minerals in the remainder of the site will remain workable after the end of the Board's occupation. Our aim must be to devise provisions which will compensate the mineral worker for the fact that he has been deprived of the opportunity of working all the minerals in that site during the Board's occupation, and that at the end of the Board's occupation some of his minerals may have been destroyed or rendered unworkable. It is not possible to say in advance exactly which minerals will be destroyed and which will be left workable, so it seemed to us that
1318
the only way of achieving our objective was to follow the general pattern of the provisions for compensation in this Bill and provide for the mineral undertaker to receive annual and terminal compensation; and that is what we have done in the Fifth Schedule.
A second difficulty about paying for the mineral compensation at the beginning of the Board's occupation is that new information which may affect the assessment of compensation may be brought to light by the Board's operations. This may not often happen, but it is a possibility which we cannot ignore. I think the noble Viscount has recognised some of these difficulties by providing that compensation will be payable in advance only in those cases when the Minister certifies that the minerals are likely to be destroyed or their working rendered impracticable. I do not think that this really overcomes the difficulty, however, for I do not see how any Minister could say in advance whether the working of a particular site will go according to plan or will involve changes of plan which will affect the amount of compensation payable for the minerals.
So much for the case against making such a provision in the Bill. The arguments which I have used, however, do not apply anything like so strongly to a voluntary agreement between the Board and a mineral undertaker. I have already said that the Board intend to seek the rights in land they need by agreement, and to use compulsory powers only in the last resort. The Board have told me that in mineral cases they would be willing to base agreements on a once-for-all settlement of compensation if the mineral undertaker is also willing to accept this more rough and ready basis of settlement. I hope that, in view of the difficulties about his Amendment, and with this undertaking from the Board, the noble Viscount will not press it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been helpful in what he has said. It is a pity that what has been done in the past by voluntary agreement as a rough and ready method cannot be done under this Bill. One could have hoped that, as in other things, regulations could have provided for this. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Entry on land]:
5.45 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (6) (b), to leave out "held" where that word occurs a second time, and insert: "land in respect of which functions are exercisable". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Clause 39 of the Bill seeks to authorise the Minister to empower the Board to enter upon land with a view to testing its suitability for opencast coal operations. It is clearly contemplated in subsection (6) that such tests may include an excavation of land and the making of trial borings. In the Bill as introduced in another place, there would have been nothing to prevent such operations from being carried out in such a way as to affect the stability of the banks of a watercourse—I emphasise that point—under the jurisdiction of a drainage authority.
As a result an Amendment to deal with this was moved in another place on behalf of the drainage boards. Like so many Amendments which are moved without expert drafting, however, it was said that the form of the Amendment was not satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government. But, as I am advised, the principle underlying the Amendment was accepted, and as a result an Amendment was moved at a later stage on behalf of the Government which now forms paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the clause. When that subsection is examined, I am sure that any impartial person must agree that it is far from satisfactory from the point of view of the drainage authorities. This is the essential point. The subsection assumes that the land in question is held—to use the actual term of the Amendment—by the drainage authority. As I have said previously, the work of drainage authorities is not well known. It may not be as well known in the Ministry of Power as it may be in other Departments. But it is a common error—and this is where the subsection falls down—to think that drainage authorities exercise their statutory functions on land actually owned by them.
This Amendment which I venture to submit to your Lordships is designed to reflect the true position, and will provide that the protection afforded by the paragraph is to apply to land in respect of
1320
which the drainage authorities exercise their functions, and not, as the subsection stands, where land is owned by them. I hope I have made that somewhat technical point clear, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 28, leave out (" held ") and insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I quite understand that the Bill provides for the case of land held by boards and drainage authorities. This Amendment seeks to make it apply, in the case of river boards and drainage authorities, to land in respect of which they exercise their functions. That I quite understand. The present provision is modelled on the proviso to subsection (9) of Clause 103 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That provision is also limited to land held by the authorities in question; so to accept this Amendment would impose on the National Coal Board a limitation which is not imposed on any other public authority with powers of compulsory entry.
There are practical difficulties about this Amendment. We could not confine the change to river boards and drainage authorities but would have to extend subsection (6) of Clause 39 to cover land in respect of which the functions of all the public authorities mentioned are exercisable. That would bring in land used as water-gathering grounds and for many other purposes, and would cover very wide areas indeed. Moreover, while the land held by a public authority is clearly defined and easily recognisable, land used for the purposes of their functions is often ill-defined, and in many cases there would be the greatest difficulty in knowing to which land the subsection applied.
For these reasons I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I think I can tell the noble Lord that the objectives which he is seeking to achieve are already partially achieved in other ways. The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 39 makes it quite clear that the Board's powers to prospect under this clause do not enable them to contravene any prohibition or restriction imposed by any enactment. This would include prohibitions or restrictions imposed under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, which is designed to safeguard the purity of our rivers.

1321
Moreover, this proviso means that the Board will require town and country planning permission for their prospecting operations. It is the intention of my right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and the Secretary of State for Scotland to amend the Town and Country Planning General Development Order so as to make opencast coal prospecting what we call "permitted development". That means that the Board will have to go through the full planning procedure for each prospecting proposal. The amending order will, however, require the Board to give 42 days' notice of their plans to prospect a particular site to the local planning authority concerned, who will have an opportunity to issue a direction which, if confirmed by the Minister of Housing or the Secretary of State, will bring that particular proposal under full planning control. I am sure that local planning authorities will keep in close touch with river boards, drainage authorities and other public bodies, and if any prospecting proposal is likely to affect any public interest take steps to bring it under planning control. I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but I hope that in the amending of the general order under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it is not intended to impose the limitation which is in this Schedule so far as the people who are to be notified are concerned. I hope that the wide scope of people to be notified as prescribed in the Town and Country Planning Act will apply, and therefore the river boards and the drainage authorities will be notified of the proposal to prospect.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can only say that I note what the noble Lord has said and will keep the point in my mind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 40 [Claims for compensation payable by Board]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that Clause 40, which deals with the method of claiming compensation under the Bill, will not apply to claims for compensation under certain
1322
provisions of other Acts which are applied by the Bill. Those claims will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Acts in question. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) References in this section to compensation under this Act do not include any compensation payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section thirteen or section sixteen of this Act, or any sum payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section forty-five of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Special provisions as to property held for religious purposes]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment, designed to make it clear that cost of works terminal moved compensation under Clause 22 in respect of work carried out on land in which an interest is held for religious purposes shall be payable to the person who carried out the work and not to the Church Commissioners or other central religious body. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 24, at end insert—
("Provided that this section shall not apply to any compensation payable by virtue of section twenty-two of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 1, leave out from beginning to (" by ") in line 3 and insert (" by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him ").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Interpretation]:
5.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to the definition of "agricultural land":
"For the avoidance of doubt land used for agriculture shall include land used for woodland."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one last plea to the Minister. We had a long discussion about forestry land and agricultural land, and while he did not give any undertaking, he almost said

1323
that it might be possible to do something on the definition part of the Bill. If it is easier to put it in the definition clause, that undoubtedly will meet the case. I will not weary the House with a repetition of what was said before, but this is a plea that forestry land should be recognised as agricultural land and have physical restoration in the same way. There is a history to this matter, in that under the old requisitioning that was not always done. Those concerned want it to be stated in the Bill that it should be done. The Minister has told us that restoration will be done in all cases where it should be, and we accept that; but many of us would be happier if something could be put in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I wish I could meet the noble Viscount. If I may say so, the noble Viscount has been most ingenious in devising this Amendment as a way of bringing woodland within the scope of the proviso to Clause 2 (2) of this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Amendment goes much beyond this, and would have some very odd effects indeed on certain other provisions of the Bill for which the definition of agricultural land is important. For example, the Amendment would bring woodland within the scope of Clause 14, which makes various adjustments in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and of Clauses 26 and 28, which contain certain special provisions for compensating the occupiers of agricultural land for their short term improvements and for tenant-right. It would be quite inappropriate to bring woodland within the scope of these provisions. Indeed, I am advised that this Bill is so closely linked with the general Agriculture Acts that it would be very dangerous to use in it a different definition of agricultural land from the one used in the Agriculture Act, 1947. For these reasons, I cannot accept this Amendment, though I should like to make two points which I hope will help the noble Viscount.
The first is that the definition of "agriculture" in this Bill is the one in the Agriculture Act, 1947, which states that "agriculture" includes the use of
1324
land for woodland where that use is ancillary to the use of land for other agricultural purposes. I realise that this does not go as far as the noble Viscount wants but I think it goes some way to meet him. Secondly, I should like to repeat what I said during the Committee stage. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 imposes on the Minister a general obligation to secure the restoration of all kinds of land. This general obligation includes woodland, and to add special provisions about the restoration of woodland would in no way strengthen the Minister's obligation in respect of woodland. It would, however, cast doubt on the position of other types of land. I hope that, in view of the technical difficulties to which this Amendment would give rise, and the points I have made, the noble Viscount will not feel it necessary to press it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I appreciate the technical point, and there is nothing that can be done, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in the interpretation of "appropriate minister" after "sewage disposal undertaking" to insert:
"or in relation to any matter affecting the functions of a river board under Section nine of the River Boards Act, 1948, or under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act. 1951."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next three in my name are linked, and to put it, I hope frankly but not unkindly, they are designed to ensure, if possible, that the Ministry of Power does not ride roughshod over the work which has been carried out by river boards and other authorities in accordance with the instructions or agreement of the appropriate Ministry. For example, the apparatus of a river board, which is liable to removal under Clause 13, might be gauges placed in the river in pursuance of a direction by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 9 of the River Boards Act, 1948, to measure river flow, or apparatus for measuring pollution to enable the river board to carry out its duties under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. In that case, of course, the Minister who had been in contact with the river board, and had made those arrangements about the

1325
gauges and so on to be placed in the river, might find his work rendered of no account if he were just ridden over rough-shod by the Ministry of Power.
If I may put the point perhaps more kindly, may I ask what co-operation, what measure of understanding or of agreement will be reached by the Ministry of Power with the other Departments in connection with work which impinges upon what they have done? For example, some of the work may have been carried out in connection with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that this is an Opencast Coal Bill and that what it is designed to achieve is an important matter in our national economy. On the other hand, everything ought not to be subordinated to that end; there are other interests which ought to be considered.
It is with a view to obtaining some assurance that the Ministry of Power, as one of the latest creations among the Ministries—the Ministry of Agriculture, has a long history behind it, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Goverment is an offshoot of other Departments—does not feel it incumbent on it to assume all the responsibility for the work of other Departments, and that it should interfere with anything that they have done without bringing them fully into consultation, that these Amendments have been put down. We should like to have some understanding of how the scheme will function. I venture to assert that both the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are worthy of consideration in any operations which impinge upon their work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 42, after (" undertaking ") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, it would be convenient to consider Amendment No. 25 along with Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 and Amendment No. 30. It is really a question here of which Minister should act in these cases, and we have chosen the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because he is the appropriate Minister for most river board cases and for all cases affecting internal drainage authorities. This Amendment would make the Minister of Housing and Local Government the appropriate Minister. The Gov-
1326
ernment have carefully considered that, and considered it when drafting the provisions of the Bill, and we came to the conclusion that it would lead to a great deal of practical difficulty, particularly for the National Coal Board, if, when proposing action affecting the property and apparatus of a river board, they had to decide in a particular case whether they should get the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Minister of Agriculture. There is complete consultation between the Departments in these cases. Therefore we felt it wise and appropriate to nominate one Minister and our choice fell upon the Minister of Agriculture, which is quite agreeable to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied with that assurance and be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am not going to fight for a Department which is not going to look after its own interests. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, after the definition of "prescribed", to insert:
"'restoration', in relation to land, includes rehabilitation, and 'restore' shall be construed accordingly".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment to fulfil the undertaking which I gave on Committee stage to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to ask the draftsman to try to find a suitable form of words which would include a reference in the Bill to "rehabilitation". When speaking on this point the noble Viscount asked about discussions with the agricultural organisations about improving the Code of Restoration which was introduced in 1951. We have already had some discussions with the organisations and have agreed on a number of improvements, but, as the noble Viscount said, these discussions were rather overtaken by the publication of the Bill. We should, however, welcome an opportunity to have further discussions about the code in relation to the new Bill, and we shall shortly be getting in touch with the various organisations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57 line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Mills.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has been able to put this into the Bill. I believe that it will be helpful. It will help people to see what is intended, and it will also be helpful when consideration is being given to the code. I am sorry that drainage has not been included, for that is one of the most important things and was one of the matters referred to during Committee stage. This, however, is a good deal and I am grateful for it. I believe that during the Committee stage debate it was mentioned that, because all these are very difficult and complicated matters for owners and occupiers of land, it was to be hoped that in due course Her Majesty's Government would be able to send out some simplified description of them—a book or pamphlet describing the law in simple words for the sake of those who may be affected by this legislation. Perhaps that is more of a general point, but possibly if the noble Lord has time to consider it he may be able to say something about it on Third Reading, if such a course seems desirable. I am very grateful for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [General application to Scotland]:
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether this Amendment is necessary, but I will move it formally and no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will put me right one way or the other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 25, at end insert ("and for any reference to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, there shall be substituted a reference to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act. 1951").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his invitation. I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
6.12 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment provides that the Bill shall come into operation on September 30, 1958, instead of one month after the Royal Assent, as is now provided in Clause 53. We originally provided that the Bill should come into operation one month after the Royal Assent because we were not sure that it would be possible to pass this long and complicated measure before the Summer Recess. Thanks to the co-operation of all Parties in both Houses, this has proved possible, and that being so there are three good reasons for deferring the date of operation until September 30. In the first place it will give all concerned a littler longer in which to prepare to bring the Bill into operation, and in particular to make the various sets of regulations which will be necessary, and to publish the popular explanatory leaflet which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has mentioned and which Her Majesty's Government intend to issue. Secondly, bringing the Bill into operation on the day after the next English quarter day eases the Board's administrative arrangements for the payment of compensation. Thirdly, there are advantages to all concerned in not bringing the Bill into operation in the middle of the summer holidays. For these reasons the Government think this is a sensible Amendment which will help the new arrangements to get off to a good start. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 35, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 36, and insert ("on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.")—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

STATE OF SINGAPORE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.