Lords Sitting of 25 March 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will be making a statement in regard to Malta at some time after half past three.

  TRIBUTES TO THE LATE VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
  2.36 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is my privilege to-day to pay tribute to a distinguished predecessor on the Woolsack, Lord Maugham. He was a great Judge and a loyal friend. My mind inevitably turns back thirty-three years, to the time when I had to argue against him at the Bar, a responsibility at which many a more distinguished advocate would have had a tremor. A strong strand in the skein of advocacy at the English Bar is what might be termed the pellucid, high-powered mind, producing an argument so clear that at the moment it is almost impossible to imagine that an alternative exists. Lord Maugham as an advocate, had this gift; but behind it there was always a potent suggestion of almost imperious determination, which is not always the accompaniment of lucid exposition.
  As a Judge, Lord Maugham listened patiently and courteously to the presentation of a case. He had the gift of encouraging the full development of an argument, a gift which again is not always bestowed upon a strong and determined mind. When he had reached his conclusion he not only added to the argument which had found his favour but transformed it by impeccable and polished prose into a real contribution and addition to the law. This power was based on a mastery of the law and on sound learning lightly worn, while his Evidence
  384
  Act will always show the practical bent of his mind towards the improvement of our practice.
  In his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, no one could have the least doubt as to where he stood. Whether your Lordships agreed or disagreed, your Lordships were left in no doubt as to his support of Mr. Neville Chamberlain and his colleagues in the difficulties of twenty years ago; and later, when another might have kept silence in the changing tide of opinion, Lord Maugham devoted the resources of a formidable controversialist to supporting his views by voice and by pen. My Lords, if, as I happen to believe, loyalty is the primary virtue, Lord Maugham had it to the full.
  But I should not like your Lordships to think—because it would be quite wrong—that Lord Maugham was an amalgam of impersonal qualities, and I ask your Lordships to bear with me in two memories. The first is of twelve years ago, when I invited some French colleagues at Nuremberg to dinner to meet him; and he charmed them all especially by his recollection of the time when, as a very small boy, he was evacuated from Paris before the siege of 1870. The other was the remarkable gathering of his friends, at which I was privileged to be present, when his ninetieth birthday was celebrated eighteen months ago. My Lords, a long and full life has closed; and in extending our sympathy to his family I should like them to believe that we share not only their loss but their pride in a race so well and fully run.
  2.42 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise on behalf of my noble friends and myself to join in the tribute which the noble and learned Viscount has just paid to a very great man. Few of us in this House are in the position of the Lord Chancellor, that of being able to speak of Lord Maugham from personal acquaintance or friendship; to us he was a legendary figure of an earlier generation, but a very great figure.
  Looking at his career I feel that there can be few people in this country who have had as great a career as Lord Maugham had in the field of law. I gather he did not start in that way. He was a great athlete at his university, and

  385
  he took mathematics and not law. But he finished as President of the Cambridge Union and was one of Trinity Hall's most distinguished sons, of whom they are, and have been, intensely proud. But from the time when he was called to the Bar his career was astonishing. He took Silk; in due course he was a Bencher of his Inn; he became a High Court Judge, and it is said, on the authority of The Times, at any rate, that there is no known instance of any decision of importance of his having been reversed. I imagine that there can be few judges of whom that can be said. He went to the Court of Appeal, he became a Law Lord, and he became Lord Chancellor. That must be a dream to which any young man would look forward as the highest ambition that could possibly be within his reach. There have been other Lord Chancellors, and there will be again, but there must be very few who attained that position purely as a lawyer—and that was Lord Maugham's position. He was not a politician—he did not aspire to be a politician—and his appointment was entirely due to his merits as a lawyer.
  My own fleeting association with Lord Maugham was during the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. He came to see me. He had made a study of the Bill; he seemed to have a knowledge of it which was certainly not shared by many others, and he was troubled about one or two points. I should like to pay this tribute to him. Obviously, he was no sympathiser of the Bill itself but he was most courteous and kindly and friendly (and I saw him several times), and understanding. He was very willing indeed to see the point of view that I put forward. Whether I persuaded him or not I could not say, but he came away expressing himself fully satisfied with the talks that we had had. I certainly regard it as a great privilege to have had the opportunity of discussing the measure with him in those circumstances. Since then, in the House, as every noble Lord knows, he has always been most courteous,, kindly and friendly—always ready to have a talk—and our memory of him is a very pleasant and agreeable one. I am very glad, on behalf of my noble friends, to support the tribute to this great legal figure who has just passed away, and to express our sympathy with his relatives in their loss.
  2.48 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should just like to add one word on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches about the late Lord Maugham. Like a great many of your Lordships I have no knowledge of him as Lord Chancellor; I knew him only when I became a Member of this House, when I think Lord Maugham was not taking a very active part in the affairs. But there were two points which were most impressive about his work. The first was in regard to his book, The Tichborne Case. There was also his publication The Trial of Jean Calas, which again brought his name before a much wider range of public thought. Lord Maugham was a person of considerable courage. I want to remind your Lordships of the book which he wrote about the Nuremberg Trials, in which he passed two criticisms which were not altogether popular at the time. Those younger Members of your Lordships' House who knew him in the Dining Room and met him in the corridors found him an extremely gentle and courteous person to speak to, and he always impressed us by his wisdom. We should like to be associated with the kind words of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Silkin.
  2.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to the tributes that have been paid to one who was, to me, a very old friend. I knew him first as a junior counsel at the Chancery Bar more than fifty years ago; I knew him as a King's Counsel, then as a Judge, as a Lord Justice, as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and, finally, as Lord Chancellor. In the end, I had the rare privilege of sitting with him as his colleague in the hearing of appeals in this House.
  Those are circumstances, my Lords, in which every quality of mind and heart make themselves known. I cannot, in a few sentences, say what I would of my old friend. But this at least I must say—and I think it is something he would have liked most to have said about him: of all the great advocates and great Judges that I have known, there was none in whom the passion for justice flamed more fiercely. Whether as advocate or Judge he gave himself without stint to that cause, determined, as an advocate, to obtain justice on behalf of his client and, as Judge, to dispense

  387
  it with an even hand to the parties. And he was, in truth, by his rare intellectual endowments, well equipped to carry out what the shining integrity of his character prescribed. My Lords, he will leave behind him a tradition and a memory which those who practise the law will long honour.
  2.51 p.m.
  LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, perhaps I may be excused for speaking, not as a Cross-Bencher here but as one of the few who were colleagues of the late Lord Maugham in the last Cabinet to which he belonged. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was one also, but there are very few of that Cabinet who have not now passed away. I am sure they would all have been glad that this most distinguished and charming character has been paid by your Lordships' House this afternoon the tributes so greatly due to him.
  When I became a Cabinet Minister, almost by telegram, coming from India, I had never before been in the House of Lords, and I should have been completely lost in the work that I had to do had it not been for the most remarkable assistance I received from Lord Maugham. I mention that not to recall my own story but to recall the exceeding kindness, willingness and delight with which one was received on approaching him on some difficult problem the nature of which one had never had to tackle before. I believe I could not possibly have got on, even as badly as I did, had it not been for the kindness of Lord Maugham and the way in which sometimes he would almost take my place on the Front Bench and tell me what to do—or get up and speak himself. That was typical of him, and in our long friendship afterwards I always had a great feeling of gratitude to him for what he had done to help me and thereby prevent the Service to which I belonged from being less well represented than it was.
  2.54 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as one of the few survivors of those earlier days I should like to pay my
  388
  tribute to a great Judge and a great friend. Like the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, I knew him from my earliest days, and I well remember, as a very humble member of the Bar, how kind he was when one went to him or had the tremendous honour to be led by him. No one could have been more kind; and even those who started at the Bar and have now attained great judicial posts, which I never did, will agree what a difference it made when so great a leader would say to some leading solicitor what help he had had from his junior counsel—when one knew one had been really rather an impediment to him.
  We remained friends as he went up the scale, and there came a day when a new Lord Chancellor had to be appointed. I do not think I reveal any secret when I say that the Prime Minister discussed with two or three of his colleagues who that should be. When the name of Lord Maugham was suggested by one of them, the Prime Minister said, "But he knows nothing about politics. He has never sat in the House of Commons, or been a Minister." Then I—well, that other person—said, "I believe that if Lord Maugham is appointed you will find that he will learn that side very well and that he is what a Lord Chancellor should be—an ideal colleague in Cabinet. "Obviously his judicial qualifications were supreme.
  In Cabinet, Lord Maugham was all that. He took his place, modestly at first, but always ready to give an opinion, as time went on, not only on those judicial matters on which obviously his colleagues would look to him but with that wise understanding of affairs which had given him his enormous practice at the Bar and that sympathetic understanding which is so valuable in a colleague, a Minister, or anyone else. So to-day we remember a dear friend and a great colleague who came, like the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, with no previous political experience into the high office of Lord Chancellor; and those who served in Cabinet with them both will say that nobody ever had better colleagues than those two.

  WELSH STEEL STRIP MILLS
  2.58 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government where in Wales they intend that the new steel strip mills estimated to cost £200 million shall be erected.]
  THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject of an additional strip mill.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he expects to be in a position to do so in the near future, as this matter has now been going on for two years without a decision? Also, would he be good enough to let me know when he is in a position to do so, so that I may put down another Question?
  LORD MILLS: My Lords, to answer the second part of the question first, I will gladly let my noble friend know when I am in a position to make any statement. I would rather not try to forecast when that will be.

  THE CAPITAL ISSUES COMMITTEE
  2.59 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Capital Issues Committee have disclosed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principles on which they make their decisions; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will state what those principles are.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My, Lords, the Treasury have been empowered to control the issue of capital since 1939. They have exercised this control on the advice of the Capital
  390
  Issues Committee. The task of the Committee has been to apply certain general principles of economic policy laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to individual cases. A White Paper was published in May, 1945, giving the broad principles on which the Committee would give its advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These principles have been changed from time to time to meet current economic requirements and the terms of letters to the Chairman have been published in Answers to Questions in Parliament. It is not an easy task to apply general economic principles to individual cases, but in the opinion of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, Lord Kennet and his colleagues have exercised their duties with understanding and ability.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that full Answer. May I ask this further question? If, as I understand from the Answer, the principles on which the Committee exercise their powers are understood by Her Majesty's Government, could they perhaps be made more intelligible to the City and to Parliament?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think they are easily intelligible. I said that they are difficult to apply in individual cases, but I think that that will inevitably be the case. However, I should have thought that those who practise in this matter—and I believe a number of people do—could reasonably understand and forecast the result of the applications.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, would it not be wise, in view of the length of time that has elapsed since the publication of the White Paper and the numerous modifications which have been made by way of correspondence, to publish a new White Paper giving those principles as they are now?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I will certainly see that my right honourable friend bears that point in mind, which I think has a certain force.

  THE JAMES II STATUE
  3.2 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what their reasons were for rejecting the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission against moving the statue of James II from Trafalgar Square.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, when Her Majesty's Government received in October, 1956, the generous offer of a statue of Raleigh for London they were most anxious that a suitable site should be provided for it. They therefore selected the position in front of the National Gallery where the statue of the founder of the first permanent settlement in Virginia would balance one of the first President of the United States, who was himself a Virginian. Furthermore this gave Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of moving Grinling Gibbons' fine statue of James II from where it was temporarily placed after the war to a site where the sculptor's craftsmanship could be admired from all sides.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply: it failed to give an answer to my Question at all, but that is a minor point. I should have liked to hear whether the noble Earl does not think that the statue of James II is well placed in Trafalgar Square, which is primarily associated with the Navy, and whether a statue of Walter Raleigh might not well be placed near the Foreign Office, which might be appropriate, or possibly in Palace Yard, where (if my memory is correct) Sir Walter Raleigh lost his head.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why a political and not an artistic decision has been made on this matter. The Government have discarded the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission, a Commission of experts appointed by themselves, and I should like to know why they have put the decision into the hands of people who do not know a hawk from a hernshaw.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, first of all, I thought that the two reasons which I gave (although one may have been a political reason) were answers to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. He asked me why the statue of James II should not be where it is at the moment. I have great hesitation in giving any personal opinion when I look at the noble Lords who are here and know of the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission. But I think that the second reason that was given is one which bears very careful consideration—namely, the difficulty at the present time of seeing the statue from all sides.
  This morning I went once more to have a look at the statue. I felt that I ought to look at it from all sides, but that was very difficult. You have to get up a step about three feet high—itself a difficult thing to do. I then went along the path and, rather daringly I thought, went across the grass and started looking at the statue from the other direction. One or two people looked at me—probably considering whether I ought to be arrested or some such thing. But if it is true, and I understand it is the case, that this is a statue which was originally intended to be seen from all sides, then I personally would say that it is not well placed where it is at the present time.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions? Is he aware that in December, 1947, before the statue was placed where it now is, I asked the then Minister of Works in another place to consider a possible site elsewhere; and he gave the answer that it would be placed where it now is but that if any further move were ever made the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commission would be taken and carefully considered. May I ask my noble friend, further, whether he can give the real explanation of the astonishing decision that has been made? Is it dislike of Grinling Gibbons, dislike of the Royal Fine Art Commission, or dislike of the Trustees of the National Gallery?
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why this statue of a good Stuart King, who was manœuvred off his throne by intrigue, should be subject to these further indignities of being kicked about London?
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, was it not a pity to disturb the balance, much admired by visitors from abroad, between the man who kicked us out and the man whom we kicked out?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I deal first with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank? I would only say that I am a warm supporter of James II, as an ancestor of mine was one who went into exile with him. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, certainly the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commission has been most seriously considered; indeed, it was because of a suggestion they made that a possible site at Greenwich was ruled out, as they said that if the statue were to be moved it was most important that it should be in a central position in London.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I first make a comment on the reply of the noble Earl, who said that he had difficulty in viewing the back side of the statue, because, as your Lordships know, there is a stone there about two feet high. May I suggest that he could get over that difficulty, as the Duke of Wellington did when he wanted to mount his horse outside the Athenæum, by putting a stone there? That would enable people easily to climb up and see the back. The second point that arose from the noble Earl's reply was this. When our friends from America raised this question, they did not first consult the Royal Fine Art Commission. I think perhaps the trouble has been that they made their decision first, that the National Gallery was a good site, and then afterwards, as a matter of form, consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission. Now, my Lords, this is a matter of very important principle.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The question!
  LORD KINNAIRD: This is the question I am coming to. When are we to consult and take the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission? Both the Fine Art Commission and the National Gallery Trustees have made strong protests. Do the Government agree that the recommendations of the Commission in this case, enforced by the protests of the National Gallery Trustees, should not be passed over except for the strongest reasons? Is not the question of the beauty and appropriateness of the Trafalgar
  394
  Square layout for the siting of this statue essentially one in which the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission and the National Gallery Trustees should be paramount? The question of money does not arise, nor the question of traffic, and such things.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
  LORD KINNAIRD: Is there any strong reason for not accepting the views of the Commission?
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask one question?—and it will be a question, I promise your Lordships. Would it not be desirable, particularly in the case of this monarch, that the decision on where the statue should be should rest, as it did in the earlier event, with Parliament and not with any Commission?
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I understand that one of the reasons for removing this statue is that it cannot be seen from all directions. Will not the same thing apply to the statue of Raleigh? Or is it thought that the statue of Raleigh need not be seen from all directions? In view of the obvious feeling that exists, not only in your Lordships' House but everywhere, would the Government not reconsider this matter?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, if I may deal first with the last question but one of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, Mr. Macmillan, the sculptor who has been asked to do the statue of Raleigh, was told where the site was to be and has specially designed this statue with the idea of its being seen from the front, rather than from all directions. As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, who kindly gave me notice that he was going to raise this question of principle. I think that ordinarily the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission, especially when backed up by those of the Trustees of the National Gallery, certainly weigh heavily; but as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, in the last analysis the decision must be for Parliament or, in the first instance, perhaps, for the Government, backed up by Parliament. But that does not mean to say that in the great majority of cases the views of such august bodies of people, so well experienced in good taste, are not of the

  395
  greatest importance. I think that what would be valuable would be to have any further suggestions about where the statue of James II might be put. It will be remembered that the original site was at what is now the Citadel of the Admiralty, though, as your Lordships will remember, it had to be moved from there during the war. If there are any sites thought to be more suitable than that now proposed, I know that my right honourable friend will be glad to consider them.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, the noble Earl seems now to have moved away from the political to a moral point of view. Neither of these has any effect whatever on a statue. The character of James II is of no importance in the question at issue. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he considers that, for instance, the Venetians should take down the statue of Colleoni because the character of Colleoni does not suit the morals of the present time or any other time. I cannot find that the value of this statue, which is one of the few good statues in London, is affected by the fact that James II was not a thoroughly desirable man. There are a great many politicians—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Viscount. I should have thought that in many respects, and particularly from the point of view of the Navy, James II was a highly desirable King.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Earl is willing to consider an alternative site for the James II statue, may I ask whether the Government would consider an alternative site for the Raleigh statue? For a number of reasons, which have been well set out by the Royal Fine Art Commission, the statue of James II in its present place is greatly appreciated and I am sure that public opinion would wish it to remain where it is. It might be wise to find another place for Raleigh.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that the statue is to be put at the bottom of the Downing Street steps, in that admirable place near to the Foreign Office? I understand that that
  396
  is the decision. While entirely agreeing that this is one of the few really beautiful statues in London, is that site not likely to be a place where everybody can see it from all sides and as near as possible to the site where we should like to see it, in front of the Admiralty? Is that not a much better site for the statue than where it is at the present time?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think that it would be difficult for me to say much more on this subject this afternoon. I would just point out that when the statue first went to its present site in 1948, the Royal Fine Art Commission were not at all happy that it should be placed there. At that time, The Times ran a campaign against its being placed there—it just shows that things can change. I think that we should give it a chance on a new site, where people can go and look at this very fine statue from all directions without fear of trespass. Another point is that I think that it would be difficult to find stones lying around Trafalgar Square on which one could climb to have a better look at it.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  3.18 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brecon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): I beg to move that the Amendments made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills be agreed to.
  Moved, that the Amendments made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills be agreed to.—(Lord Brecon.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I believe that it is my duty to satisfy your Lordships that these Amendments ought to be agreed to. In that connection I think that I can assure the Committee that these Amendments are of a non-controversial character. The first is merely for the purpose of avoiding doubt and therefore I do not think that I need say more about it. The next three Amendments, to Clause 4, are for the protection of the Electricity Board and puts the Board in the same position as the Postmaster General in relation to the laying of certain cables. The Amendment to Clause 6 deals with wrecks and I think will speak for itself. It is part of a proviso and slightly relaxes the strictness of the prohibition on the use of explosives. The Amendment to Clause 7 deals with lights and buoys; and the Amendment to Clause 10 and the three following consequential Amendments merely make it clear that dues to be levied on vessels going out of the Haven will not necessarily be the same as those on vessels coming into the Haven. I think that is all I need say on these Amendments, which, as I have said, are of a non-controversial nature.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 1:
  Establishment and duly of Conservancy Board
  (6) In formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions under this Act, the Board shall have regard to the desirability—

  (a) of preserving natural beauty; and

  (b)of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest; and

  (c) of ensuring an easy passage at all times through the waters of the haven for ascending salmon and sea-trout.

  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN and others had given Notice of two Amendments, the first being to omit subsection (6) of Clause 1, and the second to insert after Clause 1 a new clause dealing with the preservation of amenities. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. Its object is not to delete subsection (6) from the Bill; indeed, we attach such great importance to what is contained in that subsection, that we think it is deserving of a clause by itself. If the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will look at the next Amend
  398
  ment, he will see that the proposal is that there should be a new clause which will include the contents of subsection (6), as well as a number of other provisions, which my noble friend Lord Ogmore will explain in greater detail.
  The reason why I should like to see subsection (6) as part of a new clause is, first, that as a matter of form it deals, with something that is quite different from the other provisions of the Clause, Clause 1 sets out the duties of the Board, but subsection (6) is really an instruction to them to have regard to amenities. It is not of tile same character as the remaining provisions of Clause 1, and we feel that it would be much more suitable in a clause by itself. Secondly, I think the question of amenity is an important one, and it was the subject of many of the speeches made on Second Reading. The noble Lord will remember that there was a great desire on the part of everybody to ensure that the amenities of this area should be preserved as a result of the passage of this Bill. It seems to me that this matter is of such importance that it should be specifically incorporated in a special clause of the Bill, rather than be one of seven subsections of a clause dealing with a variety of other matters.
  I do not propose at this stage to argue the merits of the new clause we propose to substitute in its place. That clause reproduces everything in subsection (6), but it also introduces new matter, which, as I have said, will be argued later, Whether or not these additional provisions are accepted by the Government, I still think that, even if subsection (6) were left as it is, it would be much better as a separate clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Silkin.)
  LORD DYNEVOR: One has a natural sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but I am wondering whether it is not going a little too far, in the sense that it may prevent desirable development by undue delay. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can enlarge upon that aspect. It seems to me that the words "amenity of the neighbourhood" spread the area very wide in which the Government might be forced by an. unreasonable objector to have a public inquiry.
  LORD SILKIN: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord unduly, but he is now discussing the merits of the proposed new clause. We have not got there yet. My contention is that, whether the new clause is accepted in its printed form or not, subsection (6), even in its existing form, would be much better as a separate clause than tagged on to Clause 1. When we come to discuss the new clause, all the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, puts forward will be relevant.
  LORD BRECON: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked that subsection (6) should be deleted. This particular subsection comes in part of the Bill that deals with the duties of the Board, and we can see no reason why it should have a separate clause of its own. In the whole of this part the greatest care has been given to the question of amenity. At the moment we require that this clause shall remain as it is in the Bill, and I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  LORD DYNEVOR: With respect to my noble friend. I think I was in possession of the Floor, and I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, only at his request. I was going to say, in reply to what Lord Silkin said, that I appreciate the point he makes, but the Amendment he has moved is that we should leave out subsection (6), and I should have thought that my arguments were reasonably relevant to that Amendment. However, I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships. If it is thought that my arguments would be better directed to the next Amendment I will take that course. I gather that there is no particular objection to my continuing for a moment, so perhaps I might develop my argument. If we were to agree to the noble Lord's Amendment, we should be forced to discuss a wide issue, which I do not think we could reasonably put into this Bill if we are to have a Conservancy Board for Milford Haven. Your Lordships have drawn strong attention to the desirability of these Amendments, and in so doing have performed a great service, but I do not think the Committee can go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests.
  LORD SILKIN: I have listened to the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, and I want to make every
  400
  possible allowance for the fact that he does not know the ways of this House and that this is the first measure he has conducted. But he will have to give much more satisfactory explanations before rejecting an Amendment than he has given in rejecting this one. He has given no reasons whatever, but has said merely that he thinks the subsection ought to be there. I have given strong reasons why I think it should be a separate clause. The first is that. although this clause sets out the duties of the Board, the question of amenities is something different from the other provisions; it is something the Board have to bear in mind. The other is that I feel that this question of amenity is so important that it ought to be marked by a separate clause and not tagged on to a lot of other things. The noble Lord may not agree, but he should at least honour us by telling us why he does not agree.
  LORD OGMORE: I must say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin. I think that the Minister, whom we are all pleased to see here to-day—there is nothing personal in this question, of course—has given a most inadequate, so-called explanation of why this Amendment, which has been put down with great care, should not be passed by your Lordships. It was also done in the middle of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, which added a certain amount of confusion to the issue. It would have been much better if the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, had waited to hear the arguments developed and then given a reasoned decision by the Government in the matter. If the Government had listened, and considered it—which obviously they have not—then they might have had some sympathy.
  The whole reason why we have put down this particular Amendment is that we feel that the amenity issue is so important in this area that it should have a special place in the Bill; that it should not be added to a clause the other parts of which have nothing whatever to do with amenities. If your Lordships really believe that in a beautiful part of the country such as this, a part predominantly rural and agricultural, the amenities are of so little importance that we need not even give them a clause to themselves, then you will be doing far less than your

  401
  duty, and I cannot believe that your Lordships feel that way about it. There is no question of objecting to the principle of the Bill. We support the principle, but say on this Amendment: "For Heaven's sake do realise that this is a lovely county, this is a beautiful coastline, and do make these people realise that they must do everything possible to bear in mind their responsibilities for the preservation of the amenities." That is our point.
  LORD LLOYD: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that as one who has had a little to do with these matters in the past it seems to me that before we go any further we ought to decide one issue. Obviously, what noble Lords opposite are dealing with—indeed, all those of us who have ever been concerned with Wales—is the question of the natural beauty of the country. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend for guidance on this matter. Noble Lords opposite appear to wish to delete subsection (6) which deals with amenities. I gather that their intention is to put in a more comprehensive clause on the same subject after Clause 1. I should have thought that this matter must be discussed properly, and the question is whether we discuss it on this Amendment or on the next Amendment. I feel that the noble Lords have a point here, because in Wales the question of amenity is, I believe, a very live issue. I should be grateful if my noble friend could guide the House as to whether we have a full debate on this matter on this Amendment now, or whether he is going to reject the Amendment; in which case. Frankly, we shall not have much of a discussion.
  LORD SILKEN: Before the noble Lord replies, If hope he understands that my Amendment does not stand or fall on the question of whether the new clause is accepted in its entirety. Even if it is not, I would still argue that the amenity provision should be quite separate.
  LORD DYNEVOR: If the noble Lord withdraws the first Amendment he will not have an opportunity of making his points on the second Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): There is a little danger that we may be getting into a
  402
  muddle. I am not, I must confess, conversant with every detail of this Bill, and I do not think noble Lords opposite would expect that I should be. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is proposing to leave out subsection (6) and to insert the clause which is the next Amendment on the Order Paper. Even if that Amendment were not accepted, he still thinks that subsection (6) ought to be a separate clause. Is that so?
  LORD SILKIN: Yes.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I thank the noble Lord. That makes it clearer.
  LORD OGMORE: I think it may now be a little difficult to carry out our proposal strictly on the Amendments we have down. I hope the Committee will accept our Amendment in full, but even if it does not the Government could restore it on Report as a separate clause. There is nothing in the mechanics that need worry us. What we want to-day is to get a decision from your Lordships as to whether you agree that the provisions relating to amenities should be widened in the way we propose. It is quite a simple issue.
  LORD BRECON: The point is that if the provision regarding amenities is put into a separate clause it does not carry any greater force than it does at the moment. So far as amenity is concerned everything that can possibly be done has been taken care of right through the Bill, and a great deal of attention has been given to it. If it is felt that it should go into a separate clause, perhaps further consideration of the point could be taken on the Report stage. Could we leave the matter there?
  LORD SILKIN: In view of the promise that this matter will be considered between now and the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  3.36 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
  Preservation of amenities etc.
  "2. In formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions under this Act, the Board shall have regard to the desirability—

  (a) of preserving natural beauty; and

  403

  (b)of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest; and

  (c)of ensuring an easy passage at all times through the waters of the haven for ascending salmon and sea-trout; and

  (d)of safeguarding the amenities of the district in the neighbourhood of the haven; and

  (e)of fostering the cultural and social development of the population in the district in the neighbourhood of the haven;

  Provided that if any person interested makes representations and objections that any proposal of the Board is likely prejudicially to affect any of the provisions of this section the Minister shall, if necessary, hold a public inquiry on the subject."
  The noble Lord said: We now come to the crux of this matter and the principle at stake. As I have said previously, we welcome the Bill, under safeguards. There is no question of our disagreeing with it on this side in any way, except that we believe that it does not go quite far enough. Your Lordships realise, I know, that there is a growing and serious unemployment situation around the periphery of the United Kingdom—in the West of England, in West Wales, in North Wales, in the Hebrides, and so on. In the Milford Haven area the unemployment figure is 11 per cent., which is much greater than the average of 2 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is made worse by a concentration of direction and management of our national life in London. The "Great Wen" has become a monstrous carbuncle, and it has drained away much of the life, not only from the Provinces but from Scotland and Wales.
  For these reasons, the proposal to have new works and new industries in West Wales is one of which we approve, provided, as I have said, that the various conditions relating to their establishment and their progress are carefully considered. There are eight developments proposed in this area, and I think it is only right that your Lordships should be apprised of them, because you will realise exactly what sort of change is going to be made in this particular area on the coast and far back into the hinterland. In the first place, a landing stage is to be built in the harbour at Popton Point, capable of taking the largest oil ships afloat—and, according to the debate we had last week on merchant shipping, this means something like 100,000 tons. It is to be financed by the
  404
  British Petroleum Company, and then Milford Haven will become a harbour for giants.
  The second proposal is for the building of a £20 million refinery on the Northern shore of the Haven by the Esso Company. Hundreds of acres have been acquired for this purpose and it is intended that the development should be completed in 1960. It is to deal with 5 million tons of crude oil a year, and the refinery will be connected with jetties extending into the Haven to a distance of 2,800 feet. The third proposal is a £9 million project for two dry docks, five wet berths and a discharging pier. The fourth is for a deep-water unloading berth for iron ore. The fifth—and this is one of the most controversial—is for an iron ore stocking ground at Angle, or nearby, on the shores of the Haven, where the Steel Company of Wales propose to cover a wide area 60 feet high with Canadian iron ore. This area is in the National Park. The sixth is for another refinery built on or near the Haven by another oil company. The seventh is for a group of chemical and kindred factories. The eighth is a ship-repairing project at Pembroke Dock, which is a little distance away.
  Any of your Lordships who knows this particular area, or even those who do not but who exercise their imagination, will quite easily appreciate that the area, now predominantly rural, will completely change in character—not only Milford Haven itself, which is a delightful spot, but the neighbouring towns and villages, the seaside resorts, the fishing villages, Tenby and the little towns and fishing villages around the Pembroke coast, the sort of villages that were the background to the Dylan Thomas poem Under Milk Wood. The scenery will be affected, the the rivers will be affected, and, above all, the national park, which is the first coastal national park in the world, will be affected. The changes affect the whole character of the district—not only the Haven but much of the area around; they will have an effect on the whole of Pembrokeshire and, I should say, upon the whole of West Wales. Take, for example, the effect on population. These changes will mean at least 50,000 more people going into the area.
  With regard to the national park, no one could envisage with any sympathy

  405
  the dumping of iron ore to a height of sixty feet on a national park. The fishing rivers and the supply of water to the countryside must be affected. Road communications will be even more chaotic than they are at the moment, right up to the Severn, because your Lordships know already that the Government's failure to implement the promise of their predecessors over the Severn-Wye Bridge and the approach roads is having a serious effect on the traffic situation in South Wales.
  When I first got to know of the extent of this subject in August last year, I intervened and gave an interview to the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo on it. In that interview I asked Mr. Brooke, the Minister, before agreeing to this enormous development, to issue a White Paper explaining to the people exactly what it was about and how it would affect them, so that they might ascertain what lay before them; and this I thought would avoid misunderstanding and bitterness. On hearing this, as I thought, reasonable suggestion, the Chairman of the Pembrokeshire County Council, who is a local tradesman, took me seriously to task. He said that there was no need for any such disclosure to the public; that the scheme would be of great benefit to Milford Haven (particularly to the tradesmen, although he did not say so); that all the sellers of land were only too willing to sell; and that, furthermore, the community was not Welsh-speaking. In other words, as the tradesmen and the owners of land in Milford Haven were satisfied, why should anybody else bother his head about it? I must say that this attitude on the part of the Chairman of the County Council made me most uneasy, and I wondered who was looking after the interests of beauty, of the countryside and of posterity—evidently not the Pembrokeshire County Council.
  I pursued the matter further, and I am glad to say that Mr. Brooke, the Minister, took what I thought was a wider and broader view of the circumstances than did the County Council, and he refused the Esso Company permission to develop 1,000 acres; he cut it down to 350 acres and gave them that permission only under very stringent conditions. He also introduced this Bill, for which I give him full credit, and he has now, within the last
  406
  few days, told the Prescelly Water Board that with regard to the proposal to take water for development from the Western Cleddau he is not satisfied with the information he has and he wants more. I think we can congratulate the Minister on taking a very real view of his duties, and I am glad that he has done so. I point out that if he had not taken this view, a larger scheme than this would have gone through without the public's knowing anything about it and without any such safeguards as there are in this Bill.
  My only regret is that the Bill does not extend to the hinterland, because frankly, as I have said—and I say it with full responsibility—I am not happy about the attitude of the Pembrokeshire County Council in this matter. I am sorry it is not possible for the Bill to extend to some of the wider area inland, so that the same conditions can apply to development there as apply in the Haven itself. We have put down this Amendment so as to extend the safeguards to further amenities and also to empower or direct the authority, the Board, to foster the cultural and social development of the local population.
  This, in our view in Wales, is a very historic and romantic area; quite apart from the beauty of the area, which so many visitors from England and elsewhere visit with great pleasure every year and year after year, it is a very historic area. There is the old cathedral city of St. Davids, one of the oldest in Europe; at one time two pilgrimages to St. Davids equalled one to Rome. There is nearby Pembroke, where Henry Tudor, afterwards Henry VII, was born. Not far away he landed when, with the help of the ancestor of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, he proceeded to Bosworth and won the crown from Richard III. Nelson visited it with Lady Hamilton—which is a romantic association if not a particularly moral one. In the pre-Sputnik era the last invasion of the United Kingdom took place near there, when the French forces were repelled by the Pembrokeshire yeomanry assisted by the spectacle of Welsh ladies in their red capes. In those non-austerity days the British regiments of the line wore red coats, and the. French mistook the ladies for regiments of the line.
  We say that our additions are necessary, first, because what is done in the Haven vitally affects the hinterland, the

  407
  land around the Haven. For example, the proposal to unload vast quantities of Canadian iron ore is going to have a good deal of effect on the lives and amenities of the people living quite a long way from the Haven. Then there is oil bunkering and oil discharging. It seems to me that whenever an oil ship is discharging oil into a refinery—and we know this too well already in South Wales—it also discharges oil into the surrounding water. It is already often the case that when one goes down to bathe along the foreshore—or it was so a few years ago when I bathed there—one was very lucky if one did not strike here and there a patch of oil, which is not the pleasantest thing to strike on a picnic or a bathing party. Then there is the erection of unsightly buildings or installations. All these matters are not purely Haven matters; they affect the lives of people in the surrounding district.
  Secondly, our additions are necessary because we think these industries and authorities must realise their responsibilities not only for the physical amenities but for the cultural and social development of people who live in the neighbourhood. In South Wales, as in industrial areas in Scotland and parts of England, we have had lessons from the past which should make us very careful about what we do in the present. We have found that in the 19th century and early 20th century those responsibilities to the people were ignored by those who were developing the new industries. Beautiful South Wales Valleys—The Rhondda, the Garw, the Ogmore, the Llynfi, the Neath and many others, were ruthlessly and wantonly destroyed. The Glamorgan coastal plain was brutally desecrated. Mining camps were hurriedly flung up in the valleys, and industrial slums were created on the plain. The people responsible were too ignorant, too greedy, or perhaps too cynical, to care what they were doing. They were often small-time men with dust in their souls.
  As a result of the destruction of beauty, people were condemned to exist in sordid surroundings, and scores of thousands led narrow lives in insanitary houses, often with the result that they died from tuberculosis—and all quite unnecessarily. After a time, the location of industry changed; these desecrated spots became derelict; the life was drained out of them
  408
  and industries went away to the coast or elsewhere, so that these towns and villages became ghost towns—they were towns, as we remember, on the dole. We on this side feel that this fate must be avoided for Milford Haven, and we want to make certain that it is avoided by the provision of strict supervision over the activities permitted in the area. We think that it can be so avoided by strict attention to the amenity provisions that we seek to have inserted in this Bill, in addition to those already there.
  We are well aware, of course, that there are those in this country who, unfortunately, are not only indifferent to beauty but actually hostile to it. They are also indifferent and hostile to culture. I want to say that that does not apply in this House, where I think we are far more sympathetic than in many places, as one can see at Question Time, to beauty and culture. But it does happen. To those who feel that beauty and culture are of no significance I would just add this argument: that they have a cash value. The tourist industry in this country as a whole, and in Wales in particular, is becoming a very important industry, and people do not go hundreds of miles to see vast quantities of Canadian iron ore. This plea for amenities and culture should, I feel, be supported as strongly by the English as by the Welsh, because it is by no means only Welsh people who go there. We are glad to welcome year by year large numbers of English people, especially from London, who go down and enjoy the amenities of Pembrokeshire and the other Western counties of Wales, where they can enjoy fishing, bathing, sailing and a hundred and one other things, such as the pure air, free from the great urban centres such as London.
  One can say that cultural and social development is no business of a harbour authority. In our view, however, this is the business of everyone concerned in the development of an area, because by importing, for instance, a large quantity of labour from overseas or elsewhere, the character of a whole area can be completely changed. Pembrokeshire has its own flavour; it has its own culture. In some ways it is rather different from the rest of Wales; certainly it is different from England. It has a delightful culture and flavour of its own, and we

  409
  strongly urge that nothing should be done to interfere with this culture and the social structure of the people of Pembrokeshire as a whole. That is why in our Amendment we put on the Board the duty of having regard to
  "fostering of the cultural and social development of the population".
  Some may say: Why have national characteristics any longer? But why have local characteristics? Why not have just one national characteristic; all the people talking the same tongue, all looking alike and thinking alike? Why not have just twentieth century American or twenty-first century Russian? That is a point of view. But in my opinion the world would be the loser by losing the cultural and other contributions made by various peoples of the world, and particularly the smaller nations who in the past have made a great contribution to art and science, and to culture as a whole. Therefore we ask that the culture of Pembrokeshire be safeguarded in the way we propose.
  As to the proviso to this new clause, as the Committee will see that says:
  "that if any person interested makes representations and objections that any proposal of the Board is likely prejudicially to affect any of the provisions of this section the Minister shall, if necessary, hold a public inquiry on the subject."
  That means that if anybody gets to hear that any of these provisions is likely to be infringed, then he can draw the Minister's attention to it, and the Minister shall, if necessary—he is, of course, not bound to do so, because there may be cases where there are frivolous objections—hold a public inquiry, and thus satisfy the mind of the public and secure the provisions of this clause for the benefit of Pembrokeshire. I feel that we in this House hold, to a very real extent, a watching brief for posterity. The claims of posterity are often disregarded in the urgency of the present. There are no Party politics here at all. We are supporting the Bill: we hope to make it a better Bill. We ask the Committee, wherever your Lordships sit, and wherever your Lordships live, to support the Amendment that we have put down on the Order Paper. I am quite confident that your Lordships are really in sympathy with it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ogmore.)
  THE EARL OF PERTH: With your Lordships' permission, I should like now to make the promised statement on Malta. I know that many noble Lords are waiting to hear it.
  House resumed.

  MALTA
  3.59 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Committee stage, but the statement on Malta is being made by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary in reply to a Question in another place, and I know the interest of many of your Lordships on the question of Malta. The statement is as follows:
  "The plan for integration was accepted in principle by the British Government in March, 1956. Last October and November in talks with Maltese Ministers we reached agreement on most of the outstanding points in the detailed plans for integration. Then on the 30th December last a resolution threatening the severance of ties with the United Kingdom and her Allies was passed by the Maltese Legislative Assembly on the initiative of the Maltese Government. In the view of Her Majesty's Government this has done great harm to the relations between the two countries and the future well-being of Malta which the plan of integration was intended to enhance.
  "In the discussions which have just concluded the Prime Minister of Malta refused to recommend integration to the Maltese people on the imaginative terms proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He attempted to attach a political condition, namely the right to independence on a unilateral basis, which strikes at the root of a union in mutual confidence which was the basis of the integration proposals. It is impossible for the United Kingdom Government to pledge Parliament to proceed with integration unless a very different state of mind is shown. We are, however, prepared to resume discussion with the Maltese Government in order to find a modus vivendi pending consideration of long-term arrangements.
  "At the talks the Prime Minister of Malta proposed that Her Majesty's Government should immediately enter into further financial commitments of a most extensive character or be ready to grant independence to Malta. He suggested that in implementing the plan for integration the United Kingdom Parliament should undertake that until such time as full economic equivalence was achieved, they would be prepared to grant independence to Malta if a Maltese Government were at any time during that period returned to office with a mandate for that policy. At a later stage he offered to withdraw this proposal, provided that the United Kingdom Parliament were prepared to extend to the Maltese people at their next election a choice between integration and independence.
  "In the circumstances I revived the tentative suggestion that rather than lose all the fruits of our long negotiations, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared, if the Maltese people so desired, to proceed with interim constitutional and economic arrangements for a period of five years. The essence of this five-year plan would be that Malta would be granted a Constitution broadly on the lines of that proposed under the integration plan, save for the time being making Malta part of the United Kingdom and providing for representation at Westminster; the same economic and financial arrangements; and at the end of the five years, both Governments would consult together to review the working of the constitutional and economic arrangements and to consider whether they could then proceed to the conclusion of arrangements on a permanent basis.
  "Let me tell the House what our other offers were. In the first place I made it abundantly clear that there was no question whatever of Her Majesty's Government abandoning Malta and its people or of their being indifferent to the economic consequences of the effect of defence cuts. I repeated again the assurances already given about the level of employment in the Dockyard until 1960 and again confirmed that pending investigation of the possibility of converting the Dockyard to commercial use, no decision had been taken about its future there
  412
  after. I repeated that we stood by the economic and financial commitments under the integration plan.
  "What in fact were these? We offered to provide over a period of five years capital assistance of £25 million for diversifying the economy. We offered percentage grants towards the social services costing not less at the start than £1 million a year and with provision for it to rise materially thereafter. We offered additional assistance towards remedial measures in the event of there being, unhappily, substantial unemployment. We offered to set up a Working Party at once to consider what practical plans could be made in advance to deal with the problems that might arise if, despite the joint efforts of both Governments, there should be substantial unemployment after 1960 owing to changes in defence policy. As to the cost of converting the Dockyard to commercial use, we made it clear that this is a separate issue and that it would not affect the arrangements which I have just described.
  "At our last meeting we discussed the 1958/59 budget. I said that in the light of our current financial difficulties, our contribution would have to be less than in the present financial year; but we were still ready to provide the very substantial sum of £5 million. In our view and that of independent economic experts, the Maltese Government are fully capable of making a contribution from their own resources, such as raising a local loan. There was therefore no reason why the rate of advance in Malta need be slowed down. It was then suggested that there should be a period of three months during which Her Majesty's Government should provide interim financial assistance. The Maltese Government maintained, however, that this should be given without prejudice to the size of the United Kingdom contribution for the whole year and to the question of the Maltese Government making a contribution from their own resources. It was not however, possible to agree on the provision of interim financial assistance without prior agreement on these two points, since it would make the United Kingdom taxpayer liable for an unknown deficit which would in the end be determined only by the rate

  413
  of expenditure which the Maltese Government decided to incur. Moreover, Mr. Mintoff maintained that he could not withdraw the resolution unless agreement had been reached at the end of three months on all outstanding issues.
  "I regret that Mr. Mintoff did not accept Her Majesty's Government's offers. He and his colleagues returned to Malta on the 21st March. I have felt it my duty to this House and to the people of Malta to inform them of the full undertakings worked out in the negotiations with the Maltese Government to which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to agree. With permission, I will circulate a full summary of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
  The following is a summary of the main features of the proposals that had been worked out in negotiations with the Maltese Government.

  INTEGRATION PROPOSALS
  I. Constitutional
  It would be provided in legislation that Malta would be comprised in the territories of the United Kingdom and Parliament would be asked to affirm in the legislation that in no event would Malta cease to have this status without the consent of the Maltese Parliament.
  Provision would be made for Maltese representation (by three members) at Westminster and Parliament would affirm that the representation of Malta would not cease without the consent of the Maltese Parliament.
  Parliament would also be asked to affirm in the preamble to the legislation that they would not pass laws extending to Malta with respect to which the Maltese Parliament had power to make laws except so far as the United Kingdom Parliament might judge it necessary for the fulfilment of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities for defence and external affairs and certain other specified purposes.
  The new Constitution for Malta would provide for the disappearance of the dyarchy in its present form and for the Governor to act in accordance with the advice of Maltese Ministers in matters within their responsibility.
  The Maltese Parliament would have power to legislate on all matters except those specified in a. Schedule of excluded matters, of which the main items would be defence and external affairs.
  The Maltese Government would have delegated to it certain executive powers in the field of external affairs, notably to negotiate trade agreements with neighbouring countries.
  Her Majesty in Council would have power to make provision for Malta by Order in Council with respect to defence and external affairs where such provision is urgently necessary and for a limited period, in order to modify or adapt the law of Malta in those fields.
  There would be provision in the legislation for consultative machinery in Malta and London.
  The responsible Secretary of State would have certain powers of directing reservation of Maltese Bills affecting Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities for defence or external affairs or certain other specified matters.
  II. Economic
  Her Majesty's Government would approve and support the ultimate aim of the Maltese Government that after a reasonable period of years Malta should reach an economy and standard of living comparable to that of the United Kingdom.
  It would be open to the Maltese Government after 12 to 15 years to request that their economy become an integral part of that of the United Kingdom.
  The Maltese Government would recognise the obligation of the Maltese people to make sustained efforts to bring the economy of Malta to a level which, taking account of all relevant factors, was comparable to that of the United Kingdom.
  A development programme would be drawn up on certain lines in consultation with Her Majesty's Government.
  Towards this plan, Her Majesty's Government would as a first step provide assistance for the first five years, as follows:
  Capital
  A grant of £25 million over the five years.
  The good offices of the United Kingdom Government to attract industry to Malta.
  Recurrent
  A minimum annual contribution of £1 million towards the social services, or more as the case might be, as follows:

  (i) Education:—one third of the annual recurrent expenditure of the Maltese Government if it was less than £.1,250.000 or one half if such expenditure were £1,250,000 or more;

  (ii) Health:—one third of the Maltese Government's expenditure;

  (iii) Other Social Welfare services:—one quarter of the Maltese Government's expenditure.

  III. General
  The above financial arrangements would be reviewed and the United Kingdom Government would be willing to assist the Maltese Government in taking remedial measures to be agreed if in consequence of any drastic change in Imperial defence policy, the level of unemployment in Malta should reach and for six months remain at a higher level than the rate in the United Kingdom.
  A Working Party would be set up at once to consider in advance what plans might be made to deal with such a situation should it seem likely to arise, including the possibility of changes in the arrangements for unemployment benefit and gratuities for men discharged by the Service Departments.
  An independent Commission could be set up after two years and would in any case be appointed towards the end of the first five years to review progress and to report on possible changes in the above arrangements.

  FIVE YEAR TRIAL PERIOD
  I. Constitutional
  A new Constitution for Malta broadly on, the lines of the proposed integration arrangements, save the comprising of Malta in the United Kingdom and representation at Westminster.
  II. Financial
  The same arrangements as under the integration plan.
  III. General
  The same commitments as under the integration plan.
  IV. Final arrangements
  The working of the arrangements in I-III above would be subject to review by both Governments—at the end of the five years in order to see whether agreement could be reached to proceed with more permanent arrangements for the achievement of full integration or for some other agreed constitutional and economic basis for Malta's future.
  4.6 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the long and careful statement he has made about the position of Malta. The course of negotiations has been long and troublous, and I think it is time that the House, and the country as a whole, had some clear conception as to what steps have been taken. All that we have known up to now is that Mr. Mintoff has arrived and Mr. Mintoff has left.
  I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government one or two questions, recognising that these negotiations have involved a considerable amount of patience and restraint. First, are Her Majesty's Government still committed to the principle of integration? Secondly, why has it taken two years since the Round Table Conference and the decision on integration to negotiate the position? Could it not have been done more quickly, and would it not have been easier, if the tempo had been rather quicker than it has been so far? Lastly, I take it from what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said in his statement that the door is not closed and that negotiations will be resumed. Apart from what he has said in the statement, could he tell us whether the Maltese Government have been informed that the door is open and how
  416
  the position has been finally left? Is it for this country or for the Maltese Government to make an approach?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also feels that it is time for the story of the Malta negotiations to be made known to everybody. I wish that we could have completed everything very much more quickly. That it was not so was certainly not for want of trying, but whenever it was thought that one thing had been settled another difficulty seemed to crop up. When the noble Lord reads the statement that I hay e made—I know that it is very long—I believe he will see that I dealt very carefully with the point he raised about integration. On his question as to where we stand now. I would say that we are always ready to go on talking, and it is very much our hope that when the Maltese Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and the people of Malta, have been able to think over what we have now made public there will be a change of heart and mind which will enable us immediately to resume discussions.

  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  4.10 p.m.
  Committee stage resumed.
  LORD LLOYD: I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had to say about the Amendment which noble Lords opposite would like to introduce. As he said, it concerned a large part of the issue and is something about which all those who are interested in Wales must have certain views. The noble Lord, and indeed everybody who is considering this matter, is in a certain difficulty. He started off by pointing out, very rightly, the unemployment that exists in West Wales and particularly in Milford Haven. He will know as well as I do that in Milford Haven there has been unemployment for a very long time now, and, generally speaking, with the closing of the old tinplate mills in West Wales unemployment has been getting worse. Clearly, anybody who has a regard for or interest in full employment in West Wales must welcome this development. It is a wonderful thing, I think, for West Wales, and something

  417
  upon which we can all congratulate ourselves.
  Inevitably, at the same time, if you are going to undertake large-scale industrial developments in any area there must perforce be some interference with amenities: it is almost impossible, however many Amendments are put down to any Bill, to stop that from happening to some extent. I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was suggesting that some interference with amenities and beauty was not inevitable; and this Amendment is not going to stop it. What he was saying, if I understood him aright, was that we want to draw the line somewhere and we want to make sure that no more interference with the beauties of West Wales will take place than is absolutely necessary. If he was saying that, I think your Lordships will agree with him.
  The next difficulty we come up against is the question of what is interference with the beauties of Wales. When I had to do with these affairs I found that one of the most difficult things was to get any agreement on this matter. An example was the hydro-electric scheme at Maentwrog. There, I think that, far from spoiling the amenities, the Maentwrog scheme made that particular area much more beautiful than it was before. We had a lovely lake; it was beautifully planned, and I think that the Maentwrog scheme provided an improvement. Nevertheless, here was a strong campaign waged by many people against the whole of that scheme. They said it was absolutely disgraceful and that it was ruining the area. Any Minister who has to deal with this clause will be in that difficulty, because he will always be faced with disagreement as to what is beautiful and what is not.
  Next, I think that the clause itself suffers from one disadvantage in that I do not consider it is reasonable to ask a Board of this kind, which is really a Board dealing with an industrial and commercial matter, to be responsible for
  "fostering the cultural and social development of the population of the district".
  I do not know what that phrase means. If it means that the Board are to be responsible for the schools, then I should have thought that that was quite wrong. And to which direction does the culture relate? Pembroke is known as "the
  418
  Little England of Wales". Are the Board supposed to encourage Welsh culture in Pembroke? I submit that this particular subsection (e) of the Amendment is far too vague to be practicable, and I do not think it deals with what is a reasonable duty to put upon any Board which is charged with the development of Milford Haven.
  But, in general principle, I have sympathy for the noble Lord's Amendment. The only thing I wonder myself is whether it is really going to be practicable, because, if I know anything about the matter at all, the unfortunate Minister under this clause will be flooded with applications by people, from those who object to a television aerial to those who object to a stag hunt, and I think he will have a terrible time. If the subsection were the other way round, and if the Minister could take action without any representations when of the opinion that the Board were doing anything contrary to the amenities of the district, then I would suggest that that would be an Amendment which possibly my noble friend might be able to consider.
  LORD HURCOMB: May I make one or two remarks of a general aspect on the issues which arise out of this Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, ended his speech by emphasising the interest of posterity. Now that seems to me to raise a very real point, because is there not a risk that these great industrial concerns, whether they are private concerns or whether they are nationalised concerns, may get into the habit of thinking that they have a sort of freehold and an absolute right to devastate one of the great national areas of especial interest and beauty (and therefore constituting a real national asset), and to do that for perpetuity, without a thought of what they are doing or what is going to be the position a century or two hence?
  In a recent inquiry into one of the proposed atomic station sites in North Wales, something was said which had not, I think, been generally realised: that once these stations were built they would not last very long—fifteen to twenty years, or something of that sort—and that they would be very expensive and possibly dangerous to demolish; with the result that they would be left as interesting ruins and have to be paralleled on the site by something similar. And the extent to which developments are now likely to

  419
  proceed raises the issue to which Lord Ogmore drew attention: that the interest of posterity—the major, natural features of the land—may be in danger.
  No one, of course, is going to say that economic development can be stopped or thwarted or made unreasonably expensive; and the problem is to consider what can be done to mitigate the consequences of developments which are inevitable. The best way to do that is, no doubt, to clothe the appropriate authorities with a duty to have regard to these wider, long-term considerations, and to see that they regard it as their duty to give reality to that injunction. I have no view upon; or competence to say, what is the right or best way to give effect to the kind of instruction which is in the Bill—whether it should be in the clause, or whether it should be separate—but I hope it is the intention and is generally accepted that it is part of the duty of any Board such as is now being set up to have regard to these considerations. I have read the words:
  "The Board shall have regard to the desirability…"
  and so on, as meaning that it was their duty to have regard, and to have a very real regard, to these considerations. After all, this is a harbour conservancy and it cannot do everything within its powers as a harbour board.
  I am glad that the Government have incorporated in the Bill words which the Minister of Power was good enough to accept in another connection recently in your Lordships' House. Whether they go far enough or not is a matter of opinion, and I should not wish to say anything to prejudice Lord Ogmore's argument on that point. I feel that any authority of this kind should realise that it is part of their duties to give real consideration to these matters; it is not enough for them merely to say that they have given consideration but that to do something would be very troublesome or expensive. They really ought to feel that their object is to find the solution. Very often, without damaging in the least necessary commercial or industrial developments, something could be done to avoid many of the evils which have come about in the past. I should like to feel, too, that the Ministers concerned, in so far as they have a supervisory capacity, also take the view that their real
  420
  duty is to find a solution, and not merely to say that it would be difficult or expensive to meet objections raised on the ground of amenity.
  The extent of the risks to which this area is subject is rather frightening. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, listed a large number of projects, all of which are going to have some effect upon the natural beauty or natural interest of the neighbourhood. There was one to which I think he did not refer—that is, the proposal to dredge a great deal of the contents of the Gann channel. That probably would have a deleterious effect on the marine biological station at Dale Fort, at the mouth of the estuary, which is largely used for the training of young people interested in that branch of science. I believe that that risk is at any rate temporarily removed. But there again it is important that the planning authorities who have some sort of control should exercise their duty, and should not take the easy line that, because this looks like a profitable industrial and commercial development, therefore it must be allowed to run its course, regardless of any other consequences. Whether it be the county council or any other authority which has been vested by Parliament with powers to exert control, that authority must exert that control in a realistic and constructive spirit.
  Reference was made to the risks of oil pollution. The law is, I think, as satisfactory as it could be. Your Lordships will remember that when we considered the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill (now an Act) a year or two ago, the late Lord Waverley, who was chairman of the Port of London Authority, was much concerned about the state of many of our harbours. An argument arose about Southampton Water, and it was explained that it was not possible for a refinery to avoid some slight emission of oil into the water but that that would be done only with the greatest care and under the closest supervision. I recall that to emphasise my point that, if the authorities who are given powers are kept up to the mark about the way in which they exercise them and are vigilant in what they do, a great deal of the evil that might otherwise result can be avoided. In this matter the oil companies in this country have always taken a very enlightened attitude.

  421
  I do not regard the losses to amenity or to natural interest which these developments are bound to bring as completely beyond any kind of control, and it is a matter of great importance that, in conferring powers or imposing duties on new bodies of this kind, Parliament should do so in the form which will be most practical and effective. Your Lordships' House is entitled to assurances from the Ministers in charge that, as a matter of administration, they will do all they can to ensure the enforcement of the law and to see that the planning and other authorities are kept up to the mark in their protection of long-term public interests. I support the Bill as it stands, if this cannot be taken further, but I feel that, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has advanced, there is great force in the plea for some wider control than the Bill itself necessitates.
  4.26 p.m.
  LORD DYNEVOR: I do not want to prolong this debate unduly, but I feel sure that the Government must be impressed by the weight of opinion on all sides that the mistakes of industrial development in the last century should not be repeated here, if it is at all possible to avoid them. I would appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to see whether he cannot tell the House that he will take another look at this clause as drafted in the Bill.
  I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Lloyd said, in pointing out that Milford Haven cannot be developed without some spoiling of the neighbourhood: and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has pointed out forcibly what is very much in my own mind—the width of the damage which can be done throughout the whole of Pembrokeshire. Could the Government not have another look at this matter to make quite sure, short of stopping the project altogether, that further safeguards could not he put in? I would draw your Lordships' attention to one remarkable thing, which seems to show how useless some of these safeguards can be. A large part of the development of Milford Haven is to take place within a national park, which was given over to the country for all time as a glace for the recreation of the nation. Yet when economic pressure comes, that action has to go by the board. This is a very serious matter and it should be
  422
  allowed only when the necessity is very great. I do not wish to labour this point, but if the Government can tell us that they will look at this question again before Report stage, I am sure that the whole House will be extremely grateful.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, referred to the fact that part of this area was a national park. There are only ten national parks in the country, and this one is by no means the least beautiful. It is a very lovely spot, and it is heartbreaking to think that it should be necessary—and we all accept the necessity—for some kind of industrial development, of a nature which will not make it easy to retain the beauty of the area. The development is bound to be prominent and leave a mark on the area. The anxiety of all of us interested in this spot—and although I am not a Welshman, I am very interested in South Wales—is that the least possible damage should be done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that some damage is inevitable. It is for that reason that this new clause has been devised.
  I come back to the point that this subject is worthy of a clause by itself. My noble friend and I have done our best to produce the kind of considerations which should be in the minds of the Commission, but we are by no means infallible, and it may even be that word's can be introduced which would strengthen the position. At any rate, we should have no objection to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor: that this matter should be carefully considered by the Government in the light of what has been said. This might possibly lead them to produce something which would meet the case.
  On the question "of fostering the cultural and social development", I must admit that those terms are vague; but we want to put some responsibility on the Commission not merely to be employers but to be concerned with the 50,000 or so people who are going to be introduced into the area. We do not want them merely to pay them a weekly wage, but to see that the environment in which they will be is as good as it can be, and that they have facilities for recreation, and so on, which all the best employers provide. The best employers accept a certain responsibility for the welfare of their

  423
  workers outside working hours, and we want to ensure that that kind of consideration will be introduced into the Bill so that the Commission recognise that they have this responsibility.
  Finally, your Lordships will not have failed to notice the last proviso in this new clause, providing for an inquiry, which includes the words "if necessary". I would not suggest for a moment that whenever there is an objection, however frivolous and of however minor a character or irrelevant it may be, the Minister should necessarily hold a public inquiry; I should be content to leave that to the discretion of the Minister. But I feel it is necessary that, in a proper case, where public feeling is likely to be strong, there should be a public inquiry so that everybody in the area should have an opportunity of stating his case. I hope that when consideration is given to this clause, if the noble Lord agrees to take that course, favourable consideration will be given also to the proviso in it.
  LORD TEVIOT: I entirely agree with the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and other noble Lords. I am suffering from the complete destruction of the value of my own property through something analogous to this—namely, the complete destruction of the amenities of the surroundings where I live, and terrible inconvenience and annoyance through noise due to aeroplanes. Has the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the point in mind that, where undoubtedly damage has been done to the value of property, compensation shall be paid for it, and that the proper valuation of it before this scheme is put forward shall be considered by the right people? There is a situation that is bound to arise. There must be many people living in this area who will find that their property has been seriously reduced in value, and I should like to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has that in mind.
  LORD OGMORE: I must admit that I had not contemplated that particular consideration. I was thinking more of interference with the physical beauty rather than the compensation to be paid to those whose amenities have been interfered with. It is a matter for the Government, if they feel that it is a consideration which should be included, to make the necessary provision on the Report stage; but,
  424
  as I say, I had not; contemplated such a provision.
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD BRECON: I have listened to the debate with great interest and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for once again drawing attention to the importance of the effect on amenity of the projects that are going to take place in West Wales. The feature attracting development there in the future is the deep water. We should like to see development take place, because in that part of Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, there is unemployment, and we should like to see that disappear completely from West South Wales. I think the important thing to remember here is that the Milford Haven Conservancy Bill is a Bill to deal only with the waters of the Haven and not with any of the surrounding lands and developments likely to take place there. Therefore, the Bill that is before the Committee at the moment is dealing only with that area of water that goes up to the high water mark, and does not deal with what takes place on dry land. Anyone wishing to carry out a development within the Haven itself has to come to Parliament to get an Act of Parliament to carry out the desired development. So far as the Board are concerned, if they themselves require to do anything on land they will have to go to the planning authority to get planning permission. Their duties and powers lie only within the water of the Haven. That is where their responsibilities begin and end.
  LORD LATHAM: It may turn out that what is done on the water may have deleterious effects on the land.
  LORD BRECON: Before anything is done on the water by way of development there has to be an Act of Parliament.
  LORD LATHAM: I do not think the noble Lord has understood the point I was making. It is that what you have authority to do on the water may have serious deleterious effects on the amenities of the land. What is done in river and on sewage farms through the use of detergents is having deleterious and damaging effects well away from the origin of the complaint.
  LORD BRECON: But the Board will not be carrying out any development,

  425
  and, therefore, will not be causing any deleterious effects on shore.
  LORD LATHAM: Is it the case that the Board have no voice of control or influence on what is done on land?
  LORD BRECON: They have no control of what is done on land at all.
  LORD DYNEVOR: Clause 3 says:
  "Powers with respect to works and cables. The Board may construct, whether within or outside the haven, any works required for the purposes of their functions under this Act, including moorings"
  and so on.
  LORD BRECON: If they construct anything on the land they will have to get planning permission from the planning authority to do so.
  LORD LLOYD: Perhaps I might raise another point here. In Clause 2 it says:
  "The Board may—

  (a) acquire by agreement, whether by way of purchase, lease or exchange, or by gift, any land, whether within or outside the haven, which they may require for the purposes of their functions under this Act;

  (b) retain any land acquired by them for such time as they think fit; and

  (c) sell, lease, exchange, whether with or without paying or receiving any money…"

  If they are going to do all those things, presumably they are not going to buy the land for the fun of it. The noble Lord says that they have no powers to do any development on land. I am probably quite wrong, but could the noble Lord explain this clause? If they are not going to do any development on the land, I do not understand Clause 2.
  LORD BRECON: I am a little strange to this, but I will do my best. They can acquire land, but if they wish to develop anything on that land they have to go to the local planning authority to get permission.
  LORD TEVIOT: May I ask a question? Surely, if this scheme in the Haven is going to be of any use at all it is bound to affect land contiguous thereto. Is there not responsibility here on the part of the Board to take into account the position of the land and the difference in regard to the development of all these schemes? It seems to me that the scheme is not worth carrying out unless something of this sort is in the Bill.
  LORD BRECON: The duties of the Board are to control navigation and ship
  426
  ping within the Haven. That is its prime object—to see that when these ships come in there is proper control over the whole of the shipping and navigation within the Haven. It has no authority to carry out development itself. It may not undertake any developments such as the oil companies are to undertake, or as the Dry Dock Company is contemplating within the Haven. It is there purely to safeguard the Haven and to see that it is properly used in every way.
  LORD LATHAM: I should not wish to hamper the Minister, but in connection with what he has said, would be explain to your Lordships the significance of the provision in subsection (6) of Clause 1, of conserving flora and fauna and geological features of special interest, if they are not going to be concerned with land?
  LORD BRECON: The geological features would be below water. We feel that there are substantial and effective safeguards in this Bill as it stands to look after the amenities of the Haven. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the question of oil within the Haven. Oil pollution can be dealt with under the Oil In Navigable Waters Act, which the Board will enforce. They will see that oil is not discharged within the Haven to cause the troubles which we know it can. So far as amenity is concerned, the Bill allows the Pembroke County Council, who are the planning authority, to appoint three representatives. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, does not think that the Pembroke County Council are doing their duty as a planning authority.
  LORD OGMORE: I should not like to say that. The last thing I should like to do would be to involve myself with the County Council. What I said was that one can understand that the local authority are so anxious to get works done in this area, where there is unemployment, that they have not looked at the wider picture. I paid a tribute to the Minister—not the noble Lord but his chief—for having looked at the matter from a wider point of view. I am glad that he did. I want the noble Lord to look at it a little more widely and add what I think all sides of the House would wish.
  LORD BRECON: I drew the wrong inference from what the noble Lord had said. The County Council is represented

  427
  there and also the National Parks Commission. I was glad to hear the tribute paid to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and for Welsh Affairs, who has taken great personal interest in this question. He will call in all the planning applications that will take place for consideration by his Department. As I have said, the National Parks Commission will also have a representative on the Board. I think I can say that the Bill imposes on this Board a greater duty to look after amenities than is on any other harbour board in the country. We have all been really keen to see that, in promoting this Bill, full consideration is given to amenity and that as little despoliation as possible will take place in that area. I do not, however, see how the Conservancy Board can in any way have anything to do with fostering the social and cultural development of the population when it is dealing with shipping. Matters of cultural and social development are the responsibility of the local county council, the committee for further education, youth clubs and many other organisations. We have agreed that we will consider whether the amenity provisions should go into a separate clause on their own, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but at the moment I feel that they should remain where they are in the Bill, in Clause 1 which deals with the basic duties of the Board.
  So far as the local inquiries are concerned, there are many people who may want to object to all sorts of things, and I am wondering whether the proviso made here will allow all sorts of people to put in all sorts of protests with the result that the Minister will be completely inundated. Clause 19 of the Bill allows the Minister to hold a local inquiry whenever he thinks it is required. If there was strong public feeling on this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned, then I am sure the Minister would agree to have a public inquiry. I think we must have confidence in this new Conservancy Board. We do not want to hamper its work. It will be a fully representative Board. It will have local interests and local people on it, and I am sure that it will look after the Haven and see that the future development and care of the Haven will be looked after. It will also continue to safeguard those
  428
  lovely amenities which the Haven provides at present, so far as this can be done subject to any developments that may be approved by Parliament.
  I hope that your Lordships will give this matter thought. So far as we are concerned, we have given it very careful thought, and we are of the opinion that the Bill, as it stands, provides all the amenity care that is required in the development of Milford Haven. We must remember that the object of the Bill is to look after the navigation of the Haven, and not to enable the Board to carry out development such as has been spoken of this afternoon. I cannot myself accept this Amendment, and the Government cannot do so either. I can assure the Opposition that every care and consideration will be given to this matter, and I hope that in the circumstances they will not press their Amendment.
  LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me—my noble friend Lord Silkin, with his great experience in these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, also with great experience as an important civil servant, and the noble Lords, Lord Dynevor and Lord Lloyd, who have long family connections with Wales. It is heartening that they should feel as we feel.
  We do not say that these are the only possible words, because it is difficult to frame words to fit exactly what one means, but I should have thought, in view of the wide feeling expressed in your Lordships' House and, I am certain, felt by people who have not spoken, that the Minister would be wise to take the clause back and look at it to see whether he could help us on the Report stage. He has agreed to look at Clause 1, and I should have thought he could look at this particular Amendment and possibly have a change of mind before the Report stage. We certainly shall not withdraw this Amendment, because it is an important matter.
  I was a little concerned at the Minister's last reply, because he seemed to imply that, as it stands without our additions, subsection (6) refers only to water and to anything that might be under the water. I do not think that that was the idea held in another place. It does not accord with the language and it certainly does not accord with the intention of this particular subsection. There

  429
  is not much natural beauty you can preserve in water; if the water is there it is clean or dirty and you can do nothing about it. Then there is the question of "physiographical features". I do not know what that means, but I should not have thought it meant under the water; it must be around the water as well. The Board has jurisdiction up to high water mark—not low water mark but high water mark. As has been pointed out, quite rightly, by the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Dynevor, there are extensive powers in this Bill enabling the Board themselves to take land either within or outside the haven, to buy it, lease it and so on, and also to construct works either within or outside the haven—works that may be of a substantial kind. When the noble Lord so limits the intention of this subsection to things that are under the water, I feel quite certain he is not in accordance with the Government view or the view of Parliament. Obviously, this subsection as it stands must extend to matters very much wider than merely things under the water. I hope that that will correct any wrong impression that the noble Lord may have unwittingly given.
  As to the national park, here again I would point out that quite a number of eminent people (the noble Lord. Lord Strang, Sir Julian Huxley, Lady Hopkin Morris and others) have written to The Times and other newspapers on this matter of the national park, so we are not alone in feeling considerable anxiety on the subject. We on this side feel that we cannot lake it any further; we are only a small band. If the Government refuse to look at the Amendment again before the Report stage, we shall not withdraw it; it can be negatived by the House. We would ask the Government to look at it again and see whether they might have a change of heart before the Report stage.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Power to make byelaws]
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) The power to make byelaws under the foregoing subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and such byelaws shall not have effect unless a draft of the byelaws has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: Before turning to this Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to be out of order for a moment and to explain that when we saw the enormous number of people coming in who had not heard the debate at all, we decided that it was useless to have a Division on the Amendment we have just been discussing.
  I now come to Clause 8, which gives power to the Board to make byelaws which have to be confirmed by the Minister, and the purpose of the Amendment which I am moving is that such byelaws must be approved by Parliament. Noble Lords will see the various purposes for which byelaws may be made, and they will see they can be pretty far-reaching. I would only refer to four of them:
  "(d) for preventing and removing obstructions or impediments within the haven not authorised by or under any enactment;".
  That is a case where the Board can take matters into their own hands and simply remove any impediment. Under paragraph (g) of subsection (1) the Board may make byelaws
  "for regulating the conduct of boatmen, ferrymen and others plying in the haven…"
  I should like to draw attention to paragraphs (i) and (j), in both of which cases it is open to the Board to make byelaws involving the imposition of penalties.
  For instance, paragraph (j) provides, in the case of persons offending against the byelaws, for fines which may. amount to £50, and in the case of continuing offences, for further fines not exceeding £20 for each day. Those are far-reaching powers, and it seems to me quite wrong that those powers should be conferred upon a body which, though it is representative, in the sense that it includes people from the local authority and from the National Parks Commission and so on, is nevertheless a body that is appointed and not elected. It seems to me odd that such a body should have the power to punish people for offences against the byelaws. That is creating entirely new offences, which can be taken very seriously. Therefore, I would ask that before these bye-laws are actually operated they should be approved by Parliament. There is nothing unusual in that, and I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accepting at any rate this Amendment. He has not been very accommodating so far—he has made a bad start. I hope that he will improve

  431
  on it by agreeing that this Amendment is one which can be accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 18, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
  LORD OGMORE: I beg to support my noble friend in this Amendment, for the reasons which he has given.
  LORD BRECON: Having heard the arguments for the Amendment that Lord Silkin proposes relating to byelaws, I suggest that the thing to remember is that the byelaws will relate only to local matters, and only to matters within the Haven. They will not affect questions of public policy. It is, I think, important to remember that they will be quite local. Furthermore, they will deal only with matters on which the Board are authorised by this Bill to make byelaws. These bye-laws have to be published in the local Press, and one month's notice has to be given before they can be made. Therefore any objectors to the proposed byelaws will have ample opportunity to express their views about them.
  So far as the power to remove wrecks is concerned, I think that it is a normal part of the job of a conservancy board to remove obstructions and other impediments within a harbour. One must also remember that if the conservancy board is to regulate shipping within the harbour it must have some say in the boating and other shipping actualities that go on, in order to regulate them; otherwise there will be great difficulty. Most statutory authorities make byelaws, and these are not subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I am afraid that, in all the circumstances, and having given the matter careful consideration, the Government cannot accept the suggested alteration which would require the
  432
  byelaws to be referred to both Houses of Parliament, I feel that the provisions already in the Bill provide ample opportunity to ensure that the byelaws will be reasonable and will be put before the public at the proper time, and that the public will be given proper notice.
  LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Lord say where that is provided for in the Bill—the giving of notice to the public of the byelaws?
  LORD BRECON: It is Clause 8 (5). The Local Government Act of 1933 states that proposed byelaws must be published.
  LORD SILKIN: Once more I have to express my dissatisfaction and disappointment at the way in which the noble Lord has dealt with our Amendments. There has not been the slightest attempt to meet us in any way. The noble Lord has not gone once inch in the direction of meeting the legitimate point of view of those on these Benches. Once more it makes us wonder whether our function here is of any value whatever. We have studied this Bill and we have tried to improve it. We just get a blank negative right the way through, and I can only express my disappointment. I have said this before, and sometimes it has had some effect; but I can only express my complete disappointment, and wonder whether it is worth while having an Opposition to function at all. One gets these blank negatives and this blank wall, and that is the end of it. All I will say is, you can have your Bill. I am not going to do anything about it.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES LOANS BILL
  5.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to extend for a further period of five months the powers given by Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956. That Act provided for the making of advances from the Exchequer, through the Ministers concerned, to certain nationalised industries. The nationalised industries concerned are the public electricity, gas and transport undertakings, and the two Airways Corporations. The total of advances allowed for under the section was £700 million, and the date on which these advances were to be terminated was March 31, 1958.
  The present Bill extends from March 31, 1958, to August 31, 1958, the limit of time within which advances may be made. It does not increase the limit of the amount of the advances above the original figure of £700 million prescribed in the Finance Act, 1956. This limited extension of time is required because it is appropriate that the methods of providing finance for these industries should be considered as part of the general review by Her Majesty's Government of economic policy and announced in the context of the Budget. If it should then be decided to continue the present system, these provisions would extend the power to make advances until the Finance Bill can become law. If the system should be discontinued, these provisions will give time for some other method of financing to be introduced. Your Lordships may wish to know that the unexercised powers under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, are expected to amount to about £120 million. The estimated requirement during the period for which this Bill makes provision is about £117 million. The effect of the Bill, therefore, will be to give a natural life to the powers which Parliament has already granted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  5.13 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose a Second Reading of this Bill. On the face of it,
  434
  it is a very modest little measure, providing for only a slight extension of time on the law as it stands at the present moment. I want to make it perfectly clear, however, that we on these Benches are very apprehensive of the ultimate intentions that lie behind this Bill The noble Marquess who moved its Second Reading did not fully acquaint your Lordships with the situation, and therefore it falls to me, I think, to be a little more explicit over this matter.
  Up to two years ago, the nationalised industries obtained directly from the public the money they required for development. First of all, they were inclined to borrow from the banks; then, when they had borrowed a sufficient amount, they went to the public for a loan (and this is the important point) guaranteed by the Treasury. And not only was it guaranteed by the Treasury, but if the amount required was not fully subscribed, Government Departments (which as your Lordships will know have considerable holdings of gilt-edged stocks) subscribed the necessary amount; so that the loan was not only guaranteed but actually supported by Her Majesty's Government. The disadvantage of that method was that the nationalised industries went to the market at times which were not necessarily convenient for public finance, and so, in order to bring the borrowing into line with what the Treasury required, the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, substituted the present method under which Her Majesty's Government should finance these things and raise money by loans as a whole (what are called "global" loans) in order to pay for the capital development of the nationalised industries.
  The reason why we on this side of the House are alarmed, as were some of our colleagues in another place, is that in the last few months there has been a great deal of loose talk about the nationalised industries, in whole or in part, being expected to go to the public without a Government guarantee and without Government support; and that that will be the method proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. Some authorities are suggesting that that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say. It may be something quite different: he may

  435
  have some perfectly reasonable proposal, which we shall regard on its merits, and perhaps be able to support. Nevertheless, it seems to us important that the five months' period has been selected for it would appear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take some new method of financing these nationalised industries. If that be so, it seems to us very likely that it will be of a kind to which we shall take very considerable exception.
  Let us just look at the matter. To some people who have not thought about it, it may seem quite reasonable that these nationalised industries should have to go to the country, as ordinary private enterprise might do, to get money which it must raise on terms which are appropriate, granted that the public have confidence in these nationalised industries. But what is entirely forgotten by those who take that view is that these nationalised industries are of an entirely different character. In the first place, they are fundamental monopolies, because they are the basic sources of power, heat and light required for the industries of the country, and they must expand. It is certainly not for the general public, faced with an issue, to decide how far these industries should expand. That must be a matter of political decision. So far, the Government have recognised that fact, and the present Government have been notable for the fact that they have declared in advance exactly how much these nationalised industries ought to be expanded. They have changed the figure from time to time, and it is ludicrous to imagine that it is for the general public to come to a decision on purely financial grounds.
  Another factor to be taken into account is that, unlike private industries, these industries are not free in their dealings. An ordinary private enterprise may make a profit by increasing the price of what it sells—the price of its goods or services; and it can cut out a part of its service which is unprofitable. Under the present law it is not open to the nationalised industries to do that. They are under the authority of Her Majesty's Government. Many of them cannot increase their prices except with Government permission; nor can they cut out certain services which are neces-
  436
  sary. They are, therefore, in a totally different category. Hitherto they have gone to the Government and offered securities which are equivalent to debentures or loans of that kind at a fixed rate of interest. But the public enterprises have not gone to the public for what are known as equity shares, which are entitled to profits in certain circum-stances. There is nothing comparable with equities in this case at all. As I have pointed out, there are regulations, orders and Government control. The Government could prevent a profit from being made; they could make the profits enormously greater, and the public could not possibly subscribe in the dark without knowing what the Government intend in the matter.
  Therefore, we come to this situation: that if it were possible for these industries to go to the country without a Government guarantee, the general public would want a far higher rate of interest, and therefore it would be far more costly to the country to have these loans than if the industries go with a guarantee. As a matter of fact, the Government could not allow these nationalised industries to default and, therefore, however high an interest rate were charged for the loans, the Government would in the last resort have to go behind them to support them. As to an equity kind of loan, which depended on the making of profit and not on a fixed rate of interest, that, as I have pointed out, would be ludicrous, in the particular circumstances in which a nationalised industry is placed.
  These are not opinions of Socialists alone, but opinions that have found a place in a paper which is very far from being Socialist, the Economist, which never takes a Socialist point of view on anything. This is what the Economist says:
  "The most likely result of sending nationalised industries to the market without official support, indeed, would probably be that some of them would not be able to raise the money."
  That, of course, is the fact. So if it is the intention of the Government to create an entirely new method of raising the money from the public for the floating of the costs of the necessary extension of the nationalised industries, they will find a very considerable opposition not merely from Members in this House on the Opposition side, or Members of the other

  437
  House, but, I am confident, from persons of much public and financial knowledge throughout the country. Of course, there may be nothing in the point, but since the Government do not tell us why they are introducing this Bill—it is a case of "Open your mouth, shut your eyes and see what we are going to give you later on"—we feel it necessary to make this protest at the outset, so that the Government will know that they cannot make any such changes as I have hinted they might make, without there being very strong opposition.
  5.23 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great interest, as we always do, to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Tempted as I might be—I will not say to take up the challenge, but to follow the interesting discussions he has put before us, I know that he, of all men in this House, will realise that it is quite impossible and
  438
  quite inappropriate for me to do so, Whereas he says that he has got to open his mouth and shut his eyes, I think it is for me to shut my mouth and keep my eyes wide open. In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  5.24 p.m.
  Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.

  UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.