HL Deb 25 March 1958 vol 208 cc416-32

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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, 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, 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—

  1. (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;
  2. (b) retain any land acquired by them for such time as they think fit; and
  3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.