Lords Sitting of 6 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Viscount Simonds

B.O.A.C. AND PACIFIC FLIGHTS
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 United States Government has yet granted permission to British Overseas Airways Corporation to carry fare-paying passengers across the Pacific from the United States on its round-the-world service; and, if not, what representations Her Majesty's Government are making in the matter.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, although there have been unexpected delays since my reply to Lord Ogmore's previous Question on 16th April, we see no reason why the decision to grant B.O.A.C.'s foreign carrier permit to include Tokio in their round-the-world service via San Francisco should not be available very shortly. Her Majesty's Government have left the United States authorities in no doubt about their great dissatisfaction with the continued delay in the grant of this permit to which B.O.A.C. are fully entitled under the United Kingdom/United States Air Services Agreement. Representations have been made both here and in Washington and will, if necessary, be continued.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that forthright reply. May I ask him what sum it is costing B.O.A.C. per week in not having this permit?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the answer is the same as I gave the noble Lord last time, approximately £25,000.

BELGIAN CONGO REPORT
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they will make available for members of this House the recent report on the Belgian Congo prepared by Senator Van Hemelrijk, Minister for the Congo.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount is referring to the report by the Belgian Parliamentary Commission on the events in Leopoldville in January, 1959. The report was published in March this year under the signatures of nine members of the Belgian House of Representatives. I shall be glad to make a copy available for the Library of the House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, that is the report. It was Senator Van Hemelrijk who went to the Belgian Congo, as the noble Marquess knows. I am very much obliged for the Answer, because it appears from the extracts of the report published in the newspapers that the Belgian approach to their difficulties at Leopoldville has been rather successful.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount has had the opportunity yet of reading the report.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I must confess that I myself have not read it fully, although I have read a lot of it. I think the noble Viscount will be very interested when he reads it. I am sure that, should he wish to address any questions to my noble friend who is responsible for colonial matters, he will be only too pleased to answer them.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for his very courteous and helpful reply.

THE SUEZ CANAL
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the apparent disregard in the case of s.s. "Ingetoft" of the rights of free passage for all ships and cargo through the Suez Canal, what, if any, action they intend now to take.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been personally discussing with the United Arab Republic the whole question of the rights of free passage for all ships through the Suez Canal. He has, no doubt, particularly been concerned with the question of the passage of Israel shipping and cargo.
The view of Her Majesty's Government has always been that the Suez Canal should be open to the shipping of all nations. Your Lordships will recall that we supported resolutions to this effect in the United Nations Security Council both in September, 1951, and again in October, 1956. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government no useful purpose would be served by British intervention at the present time.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for that explanation of the position, may I put this supplementary? Would it not appear that the apparent ineffectiveness of the United Nations in this case appears similar to that with regard to Hungary, and that it will cause still further concern among those who fear that the United Nations as an instrument of settling international difficulties is steadily diminishing?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with great respect, I hardly feel that the noble Lord can consider that his supplementary has any bearing whatsoever on the original Question.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Marquess spoke about our view that ships have the right to pass. Is that another way of saying that we hold the Suez Canal Convention—I think it was 1888—still valid in its entirety?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government I should have thought was abundantly clear. We subscribe to the United Nations Security Council resolutions of September, 1951, and 1956. upholding the rights of the passage of all ships of all nations through the Suez Canal. That is still our position.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Surely it is not improper to ask the representative of the Foreign Office whether the overall treaty, the Convention of 1888, is still valid.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As the noble Viscount is well aware, and so am I, there are many complications about the Convention of 1888. I therefore referred specifically to the matter to which this Question was originally addressed, and that is the free passage of all ships. Under those two resolutions to which I referred, of 1951 and 1956, our position is absolutely clear, and we stand by that.

PARKING PLACES (EXTENSION OUTSIDE LONDON No. 1) ORDER, 1959
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD THE EARL OF GOSFORD rose to move, That the Parking Places (Extension Outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 12th of May.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The effect of this Order is to apply Section 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to the County Boroughs of Birmingham, Bristol, Derby, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Salford, Sheffield and Southend-on-Sea. If this Order is approved by Parliament it will give these boroughs the same powers as those enjoyed by boroughs within the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London—namely the right to apply to the Minister for individual orders designating parking places on highways at which charges may be made.
This Order does not in itself authorise county boroughs to designate such parking places; the procedure laid down in the Third Schedule to the Road Traffic Act must first be complied with. It may

721
be to your Lordships' convenience if I remind your Lordships of the main stages of the procedure. The normal sequences of events must be gone through; the Chief of Police must be consulted; proposals must have public advertisement; steps must be taken to bring to the knowledge of owners of properties adjacent to the proposed parking places particulars of the scheme, and so on. After this the scheme, with all objections duly made, must be referred to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for decision; and he may, if he wishes, hold a public inquiry.
The Ministry of Transport are preparing an explanatory circular on how to apply for controlled parking orders and copies will be sent to all local authorities. This circular will soon be issued and will explain the procedure laid down in the Third Schedule, which I have just mentioned. It will also explain the underlying general principles of a controlled parking scheme and the detailed provision of orders already made. It will be factual and will take the form of a guide rather than a manual of instruction.
Our divisional road engineers have studied the general nature of the traffic congestion in the county boroughs named in this Order, and in each case there are adequate grounds for consideration of a controlled parking scheme. I commend this enabling Order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 12th of May.—(The Earl of Gosford.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced this Motion to your Lordships' House has not so far explained the alterations which have taken place since the parking meter question first came before your Lordships' House. We were then told that parking meters were going to be installed, and that when they had been installed the money derived from them would be devoted to providing off-street parking accommodation. That was perfectly clear, and clearly understood in both Houses of Parliament, and do not think anybody questioned it. Some of us did not like
722
the parking meter idea; we should have preferred another scheme. But we all understood what was meant by the Government.
But since then something altogether new has arisen which was never even hinted at when the Government were producing the parking meter idea: that when all these authorities the noble Earl has mentioned to-day get their parking meters, they are going to be mulcted in income tax, with the result that there will be practically no money available from the receipts from parking meters whereby off-street parking accommodation can be provided. I submit to your Lordships that this must have been known to the Government at the time. No hint was ever given by them; we were never told that this sort of situation might arise, and I feel that the motor world, which is really being mulcted of the receipts from parking meters, has a real grievance here. I would ask the noble Earl who is to reply, is it really necessary that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should be allowed to come in and so to speak, levy a toll from the receipts of parking meters? If so, I submit that it alters the whole position, and I suggest that when the Government first came down and told both Houses about it, they did not actually tell the truth. They must have known. If my interpretation is correct, I feel that Parliament has considerable complaint against the Government in that they failed to divulge information which they must have had when this scheme was first introduced.
It may well be that the other scheme to which I have referred your Lordships—the parking disc scheme, which is working extremely well in other countries—would be much better, because the receipts from that scheme are very small indeed and would certainly not be subject to income tax. Here you have the receipts from parking meters all subject to income tax. In my submission, we should have been told about that when the scheme was first introduced, and would beg Her Majesty's Government to tell us why they kept quiet on this matter—they sat on it; they did not tell us. As that is so, are they really prepared to go ahead with a scheme which, as the noble Earl has just told us, affects some of the biggest cities in this country?
2.44 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, if I may just for a moment support what has been said, I think that we should have some opportunity of trying the disc scheme. But it is a question of the chicken and the egg. The House is very well aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation said that the scheme requires rather complicated legislation but at the same time he invites local authorities to put forward a disc scheme. I should like to bring one further point to the attention of the noble Earl, namely, what was said on June 30 in another place, reported in column 410 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, where my right honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said:
"My personal view is that as these schemes spread and the police make enforcement effective, the demand for off-street parking by those who want to leave their cars in the centre of towns, whether London or elsewhere, will be such that private enterprise, too, will supply it."
Then in column 412, when asked a question about the income tax matter, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
"If the meter revenues were used in combination with the financing of off-street garages those revenues would very rapidly be swallowed up by the losses made in operating the garages."
How on earth can you say to a private enterprise, "Put these garages up, because they will make a profit", and then one and a half columns later say that the garages were going to make a loss? I just do not know what this means. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain that.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as a Member of your Lordships' House who went into the Division Lobby with my noble friend Lord Howe in support of parking discs, I should like to say a few words, because at that time I felt that parking discs were the answer in London. But, having studied a little the trial of parking meters in tests in the Mayfair area, I feel that possibly I may have been wrong, and that for London parking meters may be the answer. I say that, having lived a number of years in Paris and having seen parking discs in operation.
The point we have to consider to-day is that ten county boroughs have made an
724
application for powers to provide parking places. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether, in the case of these ten towns, the local authority will be able to consider parking discs and parking meters, because it may well be that for the individual towns mentioned in this Order parking discs may be more appropriate. I should like to ask the noble Earl if, in his reply, he could tell us whether these towns, in considering the provision of parking places, have to adopt the parking meter scheme, or whether they can consider the parking disc scheme.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies can he answer one question for me which has some bearing on this issue? Supposing a local authority starts to build off-street parking garages, will the local authority be able, for tax purposes, to offset the cost of the building of off-street parking garages against the receipts from the parking meters?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if the noble Earl can bear one more speaker before he replies, I should like to say a word or two about this idea. My noble friend Lord Howe has already pointed out that at the time when parking meters were first introduced, off-street parking was promised simultaneously with the introduction of them, and it has not been supplied. I think this is a great pity, because, quite frankly, parking meters can be an abominable nuisance to the motorist. I had my first experience of one the other day. It worked very simply and was quite easy for me. On the other hand, it is extremely irritating to go to a parking place where the spaces for cars are marked out in white lines, and there to find a solo motor-cycle occupying the entire space for one car. That is inevitable, of course, with parking meters; but with the parking disc system no car takes up more space than it requires.
I confess that I consider it a little strange that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has not shown himself willing even to try out the disc system, which I believe would be appropriate to London. I think it is likely to be every bit as appropriate for London as it is for Paris, for I cannot see the difference. One

725
cannot help wondering—though naturally I do not like to make any imputations on the motives of the Ministry—whether it is not that the parking meter system brings in revenue and the disc system does not. If we are to adopt a policy of "soak the motorist" for parking purposes, I must point out that not all motorists are wealthy people. A great many of them have cars because they need them for business purposes or because they live where there is no other means of transport; and motoring expenses are not small in these days.
I feel, therefore, that the motorist should be considered to a certain degree, and there is no doubt that, from the point of view of relieving traffic congestion, the difference between the meter system and the disc system is nil. In neither case is off-street parking needed. I believe that we ought to consider these things very carefully before passing this Order, which will permit the meter system to spread much more widely over the country. Moreover, it is well known that the motoring organisations are very much set against them. So I feel that the right honourable gentleman the Minister should think twice before he asks for this Order to be approved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise only to ask a question. I do not know whether the noble Earl can answer it now, because I gave him no notice of it. If it is possible for us to be told, it would be of great interest to the House to know what sum of money has been brought in by parking meters in the area in which they have been installed in Mayfair, and what has been the cost of installing the parking meters; because certainly I, and I believe a great many in the House, understood that the profits gained from these meters were to be devoted to the provision of off-street parking. If it has turned out that there was a miscalculation the House should know of that before we proceed very much further with this proposal.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to make a suggestion with regard to motor-cycles and scooters. Is it really necessary to devote parking meters to those? Would it not be better to have a free gap every now and then in the row of parking meters with a sign up saying: "Motor-cycles or
726
scooters only", and not to charge anything for them? That might do away with the trouble of a scooter or motorcycle taking up space that would be sufficient for a Rolls Royce.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, there is no question at all of bad faith on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that all your Lordships know that any receipts by local councils are in the normal way subject to income tax, and that such receipts are no different from any others. In practice, however, only about 10 per cent. of local authorities would have to pay at the moment on receipts from any parking meter or other fee-paying parking scheme. Here I am not speaking of 10 per cent. of the local authorities affected by this Order, or of those in London who already have parking meter schemes; I mean 10 per cent. of the local authorities in the whole of the country.
The interest that most local authorities pay on loans obtained for their various functions exceeds the profits from any profitable enterprises in which they may be engaged. They are entitled to deduct income tax from this loan interest and their liability is therefore confined to paying to the Inland Revenue this deducted amount. Their income tax liability therefore increases with each new source of profit. One way of reducing liability to income tax, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said would be to finance off-street garage provision by a loan which would enable them to off-set the interest against tax on profits from parking meters. On the contrary, I believe that, by this scheme operating with normal income tax, local authorities would be encouraged to obey the law, as laid down by Parliament in 1956, to provide off-street parking.
The noble Lords, Lord Merrivale and Lord Somers, brought up the question of parking discs versus parking meters. In fact, of course, this Order has nothing to do with that matter—at least not directly. I should like to point out however that this Order does not necessarily mean that local councils will ask the Minister for permission to put up parking meter schemes. It allows them to ask the Minister's permission to start charging fees for parking, but not necessarily through parking meters. The

727
parking disc system does not come under this, and as your Lordships have already been told in previous debates in this House, further legislation for such schemes would have to go through Parliament in the ordinary way before such schemes could come into force. It is quite untrue, as was suggested, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that my right honourable friend has set his face against the disc scheme. Not only has he not done so but he has never said he had; and if a local authority is willing, or wishes, to put a disc scheme to him he will look at it, in the same way as he will look at any other scheme; but as I have said, such schemes, if proposed, would require further legislation.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl to put to him a question in that connection? Would Her Majesty's Government provide the time for such legislation?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think at the moment that is a hypothetical question. As to the advantages or disadvantages of disc schemes, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, gave the impression that, if anything, they were equal and that it was merely a question of "milking" the motorist. A second party under Mr. Samuels went to Paris in April and have produced a very interesting and, I would say, convincing report which has been available to your Lordships in the Library for about a week. The main points which are made are these. First and foremost, the disc scheme would require three times the number of men required under the present parking meter scheme. Secondly, there are no spaces under the disc scheme for lorries to load or unload; thirdly, the chances of evasion in the disc scheme are, I think, as probably those of your Lordships who have been to Paris know, pretty easy; and there is no financing in the disc scheme to provide off-street parking for the motorist.
But, I reiterate, my noble friend has not said that he is against the disc scheme. If any local authority choose to put to him a request that they should try such a scheme, he has already stated in Parliament that he is perfectly willing to agree. My noble friend Lord Salisbury asked about the cost. I understand
728
that as regards the Westminster scheme the cost of installation was approximately £25,000. If the noble Marquess will forgive my pausing, because I did not have notice of the question, I will find the information which I have with me. The approximate actuals for the financial year ended March 31, 1959, were: income £24,400, expenditure £20,600, surplus £3,800. The probable outturn for a twelve-months period, based on these figures, would be £33,800 income; £24,850 expenditure; £8,950 surplus.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, does that include capital expenditure for installing the meters or not?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords I understand that that includes not the capital expenditure but the interest on the capital and the repayment of the capital.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: And depreciation?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question before he finishes? Is it intended that the cities referred to today should publish an income and expenditure account in connection with these parking meters? One of the troubles has been that we have been quite unable to get any income and expenditure account out of the so-called experimental area in Westminster.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I would refer the noble Earl to an answer I gave to his question on the subject a few weeks ago.
EARL HOWE: You have not that account?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARKING PLACES (SCOTLAND No. 1) ORDER, 1959
3.4 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES) rose to move, That the Parking Places (Scotland No. 1) Order, 1959, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Order is much the same as the English one, though possibly it will not attract quite so much attention. The Order is made under subsection (8) of Section 19 of the Road

729
Traffic Act, 1956, which allows my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to apply subsection (1) of Section 19 to designated areas in Scotland. The area designated by the present Order is the City of Edinburgh, because it is the City of Edinburgh, and at present only the City of Edinburgh, which has applied to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for an Order to be made. If other authorities in Scotland request a similar Order we shall certainly give it careful consideration, but the initiative must come from the local authority concerned.
As in the case of the English Order, the Scottish Order does not mean that parking meters will necessarily be erected in Edinburgh. The next step is for the Corporation of Edinburgh to put up a scheme designating the streets in the city where they propose to make charges for parking. This scheme must be advertised and brought to the notice of persons likely to be specially affected, and my right honourable friend will consider, in the tight of any objections received, whether or not a public inquiry should be held. If he eventually decides to confirm the scheme, it will be laid before your Lordships' House and can be annulled by Resolution of the House if your Lordships say so. In brief, the instrument which is now before the House is an enabling Order, and I commend it to Your Lordships as a measure which will enable steps to be taken, if necessary and after due inquiry, to deal with congestion caused by parked cars in the City of Edinburgh.
Moved, That the Parking Places (Scotland No. 1) Order. 1959, be approved.—(Lord Forbes.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the people interested in Edinburgh will be given a chance to find out what the income and expenditure account is in connection with any scheme which may be proposed and which may pass this House? Legislation on Scottish and English affairs is not always exactly the same.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, in this case the procedure will be exactly the same.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHEVENING ESTATE BILL
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this must be one of the most agreeable Bills that it has ever fallen to the Leader of the House to move. I am privileged to invite your Lordships to-day to give a Second Reading to the Chevening Estate Bill which enshrines a most splendid gift to the nation from one of the nation's most distinguished sons. It is a gift splendid in itself and in the spirit in which it has been made.
Your Lordships will observe from reading the Bill that my noble friend Lord Stanhope seeks nothing at all, no smallest privilege, for himself by the terms of his generous offer. He endows after his own death Chevening House, with its beautiful pictures and furnishings and historic manuscripts, its gardens and parkland, for the use of the nation; and he endows with it the princely sum of £250,000. When he dies—your Lordships will trust that that may not happen for many a year—this Estate and its endowment will be free of death duties. So long as he lives my noble friend Lord Stanhope will remain, as he does now, in enjoyment of the property and will continue to pay full taxes on the estate and its endowment. It is only when the State inherits Chevening under the administration of the Trust provided in this Bill that the burden of taxation will be lifted. Therefore, I know your Lordships will all agree that no gift could be more generous or imaginative.
We are not concerned to-day with the Trust Deed which has already been executed and is reproduced in the annexe to the Bill, but it may be convenient if I mention its main features. The Trust provides that the house and estate and the Trust Fund shall be held first for the benefit of the Settlor during his lifetime; thereafter for the benefit of the Prime Minister, to be occupied by him as a country residence; or, if he so desires, the Prime Minister may nominate one of his Cabinet colleagues to occupy Chevening; or he may nominate certain members of the Royal Family, defined as the widow or any lineal

731
descendant of His late Majesty King George VI or any spouse, widow or widower of such a descendant. At the present time this description would include Her Majesty The Queen, the Queen Mother, The Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Margaret, the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne.
My noble friend Lord Stanhope has been far-seeing and made provision if this Trust should fail—and this could happen if Chevening was not used by the Prime Minister, or by a person nominated by him, over a continuous period of six years, or if the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition together informed the Trustees that Chevening was no longer desired for this purpose. In that event, Chevening would be made available for the Canadian High Commissioner in the United Kingdom; or, failing him, for the United States Ambassador; and failing him, the property and Trust Fund would pass absolutely to the National Trust. While the Trust is operative for the benefit of the Prime Minister or the person he nominates, it will be administered by a body of Administrative Trustees. This will consist of the Lord Privy Seal, as chairman; two persons nominated by the Prime Minister; one person nominated by the Minister of Works, and also the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, with power to co-opt.
My Lords, I do not think that the House would wish me to say any more about this Bill, or that I need say any more, except most cordially to recommend its acceptance to your Lordships. I would ask your Lordships to allow me, in the name of the House and of the country, to thank our most generous benefactor. It is a real pleasure to us to recall that, among Lord Stanhope's most distinguished achievements, by no means the least which is remembered by us, and I hope is remembered often by him, is the period when he led your Lordships' House from March, 1938, to May, 1940. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have been asked by my colleagues of the Opposition to support very cordially the
732
Motion which the noble Earl has just moved from the other side of the House. It is a very pleasing duty. In all Parties in the State we have a high appreciation of the voluntary public service that men give to their country for the sole reason of so serving their country: and whatever criticisms may be made from time to time of policies on one side or the other, when it comes to the reckoning, long public service always endears an individual to Parliament and to the State. There are few records of such public service so varied and so prolonged as that of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. This gracious and generous gift which he is making, as explained in the Bill that we are debating, is perhaps—what shall I say?—a crowning act of public service to the nation; because it is not in any sense, as perhaps in the past some gifts may have been partially, for the obtaining of any special relief to himself or his family.
The other place has already dealt with this Bill in all its stages, and it has been notable, and has been pleasing to read, how all Parties accepted the Bill in that place, where fiscal questions are often matters which are raised upon private bequests of this sort, to make sure everything is all right. I was very struck by the fact that one of the most distinguished lawyers on the Opposition side, who said he had been into every little bit of this Bill, said that he had found it, if I may put it in summary form, really a model for any Bill of its kind in the future. It therefore seems to me to have received very hearty approval from all sides in the other place.
I should like to say, if I may, that I spent a considerable time myself in the Admiralty—nearly nine years—and that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, as Civil Lord, Parliamentary Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty, spent, altogether, nearly six years there; and I have from the days when I was there the most pleasant memories, personal memories, of the manner in which he served in that very great Department: not the least the kindness with which there was the memory of his late wife, Lady Eileen. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to convey to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, our very great appreciation of this generous gift; and to hope that, in spite of the gift now having

733
already been made and covered by Trustees to operate when the time comes, he will live to enjoy for a long time to come not only the life he has but the appreciation of the nation.
3.15 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is perhaps suitable and desirable that, in accordance with our political tradition (though this is in no sense a Party matter), I should officially join the third—and, at the moment of speaking, the smallest—Party in your Lordships' House in completing the unanimity which we all feel towards a great public benefactor and towards his gesture of deep generosity and of imaginative altruism which we have before us in this Bill.
Some years ago, but within the memory of many of your Lordships, one of the popular slogans of the Liberal Party, as the champions of democracy, was, "The land for the people". This was not, of course, popular with the Conservative Party: but it is indeed a full circle which brings us to-day to consider a most practical and most acceptable implementation of that Radical effusion by such an eminent, respected and admired Member of your Lordships' House, who has himself been so many jewels in the crown of the Tory Party, whenever that Party has worn a crown, From these Benches we support the Bill with cordiality, but also with a very serious sensibility of the gratitude which this country owes to the noble Earl.
With those words, may I couple something which I hope the noble Earl will forgive: that is, that although we on this side of the House are supposed to be of Radical tendencies, anybody with a sense of political history and tradition will be extremely sad that the great Earldoms of Chesterfield and Stanhope, which are now united, exist for the last time in the person of our most respected colleague whose generosity we now praise.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I, as an old colleague and a much older friend—a childhood friend—of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, join in the tributes which have been paid in gratitude for this unique gift? I say "unique", an adjective which is often misused, because I think Chevening is indeed unique. It is not only its extraordinary beauty—and any of your Lordships who know it will,
734
I think, agree that probably neither in this country nor in any other is there a park that, if it can equal, can surpass, the beauty of Chevening. Lord Rosebery rightly called it "Paradise".
Long before Chevening became a haven of refuge for successive Prime Ministers of all Party colours it had been, in a peculiar sense, a part of England. The Pilgrims' Way meanders along the top of Chevening Park. I much regret, in reminiscence, to inform the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party that it was the most Radical Earl, "Citizen Stanhope," who diverted the Pilgrims' Way in order to enlarge his park—a diversion which has since been altered and made good by the present wicked Tory Earl.
My Lords, I have known Chevening for many years. I have never met a ghost at Chevening, but I think that probably the happy ghosts of Prime Ministers come back to Chevening to revisit their earthly paradise. It may be that, in the future, the ghost of Lord Chesterfield will look over the shoulder of the young son of some Prime Minister of the future as he reads Lord Chesterfield's letters in the original (they are all there) and learns from those letters knowledge of the world, courtesy, and, not least, a caligraphy which schoolboys had better learn in modern times, and which equals that of the Lord Great Chamberlain himself. We are all grateful. Lord Stanhope has no heir; but he will live very long in the memory of posterity for he has made all England his heir.
3.21 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as an old Leader of the House, may I add a few words to the tributes that have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Stanhope? As has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Home, we meet to-day to confirm and give effect to one of the noblest gifts chat has ever, I suppose, been made to this nation. It is no doubt a platitude to say that we live in an age of change, but though in many ways it is an age of change—and we are all glad of it—we must sadly record that it is also in some ways an age of decay; and in particular is this true of the great houses of this country, those houses which, as your Lordships

735
know, grew up over the course of centuries as memorials of a particularly intimate kind, of a certain facet of the British way of life, over some of the most important periods of our history.
They depend for their charm not only on their architectural beauty, though this is often remarkable, but even more on their contents, the collections that have been accumulated over centuries by the families that own them. It is this which has given them their especial life and charm. Unhappily, under the influence of heavy taxation, as your Lordships know, in many of these houses the contents are being rapidly dissipated, and with them the lifeblood of the houses is slowly but surely being drained away. I am not saying that this is avoidable. It may be that they are out of the spirit of the time and they could not hope to survive—that they are what I might call casualties of progress. But it is something which is sad in itself and I believe a loss to the country. But, at any rate, here we have a glowing exception.
Chevening is one of the most renowned of our great houses, renowned for its architectural beauty, renowned for its historic associations and renowned for the glory of its contents. Now, by the supreme generosity of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, it is preserved complete and intact, both as a living memorial to the glories of the past and as a place where, we may hope, plans can be worked out for an equally glorious future. In that sense I feel that it is a particularly appropriate and imaginative gift.
England is an evolutionary country and, as an evolutionary country, as I see it, is like a tree with its roots in the past and its branches stretching up into the future. Chevening, I hope and think, will be the epitome of that spirit, transmitting to the future the spirit that has always actuated is past. I should like, therefore, if I may, to join with those who have already spoken in thanking my old friend Lord Stanhope for this most splendid and imaginative gift. It adds one more to the many debts which are owed to him both by your Lordships' House and by the country as a whole.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
3.25 p.m.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (FURITURE AND FITINGS) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION) CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
FIRE SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
3.27 p.m.

FATAL ACCIDENTS BILL
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Extension of classes of dependants]:
LORD BIRKETT LORD BIRKETT moved, in subsection (2), to insert as a new paragraph:
"(a) an adopted person shall be treated as the child of the person or persons by whom he was adopted and not as the child of any other person; and, subject thereto,—"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can explain in a minute the purpose of this Amendment. It is merely to remove a possible doubt that might arise in future. Clause 1(2) of the Bill makes plain that the adoption of a child shall overrule and override any other relationship. If noble Lords have the Bill before them, they will see that in Clause 1(2)(c) the words "subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection" appear.

737
The Amendment desires that these words shall be left out because no such words appear in paragraph (a) and it was felt that there was a risk that in future someone might construe this section as saying that the words "subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection" applied only to paragraph (c) and not to the first paragraph.
If your Lordships accept this Amendment, the subsection will then have the present paragraph (b) first; then follows the present paragraph (a) and then paragraph (c) with the words "subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection" omitted. This seems to be a very complicated way of dealing with a simple matter, but it was felt that it was wise to remove now any doubt about the construction on the ground that because it was limited to apply to paragraph (c) it would not apply to paragraph (a). With this proposed alteration, I think that this doubt will be removed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential on the first.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out from end of line to ("an") in line 18 and insert ("and").—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BIRKETT LORD BIRKETT moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "infants" and to insert "children". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can explain in a sentence why this Amendment has become necessary. In a later Amendment your Lordships will find that some of the provisions of the present Bill are to apply to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. This explanation, again, is going to sound complicated, but really it is not. The Fatal Accidents Acts do not apply to accidents to passengers travelling by air; they are governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. That Act is the result of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 dealing with international carriage by air, and many Orders in Council made since have applied the provisions of the Act of 1932 to carriage by air that is non-international. That Act puts a limit on the amount of damages which may be claimed by the
738
relatives or dependants of a person killed when travelling by air. The Act itself, although it sets out a list of the people who may be regarded as dependants, says nothing whatever about the manner of assessment of damages, which are usually assessed at Common Law. But by Section 1(4) the Act provides that the remedies under it shall be in substitution for any damages that might be claimed either at Common Law or by Statute.
Now, the Act of 1932 applies to Scotland whereas the Fatal Accidents Acts do not. Clause 1(3) of the Bill says:
"In this Section 'adopted' means adopted in pursuance of an adoption order made under the Adoption Act, 1958, or any previous enactment relating to the adoption of infants, or any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland."
Seeing that that subsection will, by the later Amendment, be applied to the Act of 1932, it is necessary to remove the word "infants" and to substitute "children" because I am informed that in Scotland the word "infant" means a different thing from the word "infant" in English law. In English law an infant is somebody under the age of twenty-one, but in Scotland I am told an infant is a babe in arms. It therefore becomes important, when Clause 1(3) is applied to Scotland by a later Amendment that we should put in the word "children" instead of "infants", which makes it all right for Scotland and leaves it still all right for this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("infants") and insert ("children").—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.34 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT LORD BIRKETT moved to add to Clause 1:
"(5) In paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932 (which specifies the persons for whose benefit actions in respect of a passenger's death may be brought under that Act) the following shall be substituted for the words from 'In this paragraph' to the end of the paragraph:—

"(2) For the purposes of this paragraph the following shall be taken to be the members of the passenger's family, that is to say, the passenger's wife or husband, parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren and any person who is, or is the issue of, a brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the passenger.

(3) Subsection (2) of section one of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959, shall apply in deducing any relationship for the purposes

739
of this paragraph as it applies in deducing any relationship for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1959, but as if it extended to the whole of the United Kingdom; and the definition of 'adopted' in subsection (3) of that section shall apply accordingly'."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the Amendment which links the present Bill with the Act of 1932. The Amendment says:
"(5) In paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932 (which specifies the persons for whose benefit actions in respect of a passenger's death may be brought under that Act) the following shall be substituted for the words from 'In this paragraph' to the end of the paragraph:—"
The words as they exist at the moment in the Act of 1932 read as follows:
"In this paragraph the expression 'member of a family' means wife or husband, parent, step-parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, child, step-child and grandchild."
In a word, the Act of 1932, as it stands at the moment, has a wider range of claimants than the Fatal Accidents Acts or code have at the present time. But when the Bill which is before your Lordships' House becomes law, then the Fatal Accidents Acts will have a much wider range of claimants, because in the Bill there are not only brothers and sisters, but there are uncles and aunts and the issue of any of them. Therefore it is provided by this Amendment that for the purposes of this paragraph, the following people should be deemed to be members of the passenger's family; that is to say,
"the passenger's wife or husband, parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren and any person who is, or is the issue of, a brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the passenger."
It might have been possible to do this by way of reference to the Fatal Accidents Acts, but the relevant provisions are widely separated: some are in the Act of 1846 and some in this Bill. It is therefore thought preferable to set out in this Amendment the actual people who may claim, and they are there in the new paragraph (2).
Finally, I come to sub-paragraph (3) in the Amendment, which reads—
"Subsection (2) of section one of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959, shall apply in deducing any relationship for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies in deducing any relationship for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1959"—
740
and then come the words:
"but as if it extended to the whole of the United Kingdom"—
which, of course, is to include Scotland—
"and the definition of 'adopted' in subsection (3) of that section shall apply accordingly."
It is thought that the provisions of Clause 1(2) of the Bill for tracing or deducing relationship should apply to the Act of 1932, and that is done as I have indicated by the new sub-paragraph (3). The reason why the words, "as if it extended to the whole of the United Kingdom", are inserted is in order that it shall apply to Scotland. The Convention of Warsaw, which is the foundation of the Act of 1932, does not specify the class of people who may sue, nor does it control in any way the method by which damages are to be assessed. It is therefore open for this country to legislate on this matter, and it is felt that this is the proper way to do it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Birkett.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question on this Amendment. I am not sure that I understood him correctly, but I gathered he was explaining that the 1932 Act hitherto covered a wider class of dependant than the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846.
LORD BIRKETT: Yes.
LORD SILKIN: The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to widen the class of person who can claim under the 1932 Act, but even so the class of claimant who will be able to claim under this Bill, when it becomes law, will be wider than the extension of the 1932 Act. Am I right so far?
LORD BIRKETT: If I may put it in a sentence, the position is this. Under the Act of 1932, as it stands on the Statute Book at the moment, the relationship of the people who may claim is set out in the Schedule in the words I have read. At the moment that is wider than the claimants who may claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts as they exist at the present time. But by this Bill the range of claimants will be very much extended, because it will include uncles and aunts and their issue and so on,

741
and that is a much wider class than the claimants under the Act of 1932. Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is to make the claimants under the Act of 1932 equivalent to those under the Fatal Accidents Acts. There will be no difference between the two. I hope that is now clear.
LORD SILKIN: That makes it quite clear. I want to be quite sure that the class of claimant under both Acts will be identical.
LORD BIRKETT: They will be identical.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I gather from what the noble and learned Lord said in introducing the last Amendment, that the next Amendments are consequential.
LORD BIRKETT: They are all Amendments which brings the 1932 Act into line.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will allow the noble and learned Lord to move the remaining Amendments together.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, that will be very convenient and I will do it in this way. The Amendment to Clause 2, at page 2, line 14, is merely to introduce the same rules for assessing damages as in the Act of 1932. The rules for ascertaining the damages under the Act of 1932 are the rules which are applicable at Common Law and, therefore, any benefits which accrue to a claimant under the Act of 1932 must be brought into account. The only exception is the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, which excludes all National Insurance benefits. What this Amendment is designed to do is to say to those who claim under the Act of 1932, "You shall have all the same facilities in relation to the assessment of damages as are given under the Act of 1846 and this Bill."
Next there is the Amendment to Clause 3, at page 2, line 42. It took me a long time last night to understand this Amendment myself. It is needed, because the Fatal Accident Code does not apply to Scotland and some of it does not apply to Northern Ireland. Therefore,
742
it is necessary to make special provision for the Part of the Bill which is going to apply to the 1932 Act, which does apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned they are bound by the Acts of 1846 and 1908, but not by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, or the Act of 1948. The Statute which allows you to leave out of account benefits which come from National Insurance does not apply to Northern Ireland. Therefore, this provision, which seems so complicated, is merely saying with regard to Scotland that the provisions of the Bill will apply so that Scotland in proceedings under the Carriage by Air Act, shall have the full benefit of the Bill. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, these provisions are to apply so that Northern Ireland shall have the benefit. Subject to that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland.
The next Amendment, in the Schedule, at page 3, line 14, repeals the whole of subsection (5) Section 2 of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948. In the Bill as it stands, only part was repealed. Now under the new provisions, it is necessary to repeal the whole subsection, and that is done. The Amendment at page 3, line 18, repeals words in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1948, which are now rendered otiose by the application of the Bill to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. The last Amendment on the Marshalled List is to the Title. The Title at present covers merely the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Amendment is designed to amend the Title by including the Carriage By Air Act, 1932. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 14, after ("1846") insert ("or under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932")
Clause 3, Page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say, subsection (5) of section one, and so much of section two as relates to actions under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland, so much of section three and the Schedule as relates to the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, extends to Scotland, and so much of that section and Schedule as relates to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1948 extends to Northern Ireland; but except as aforesaid this Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.")
Schedule, page 3, line 14, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert ("Subsection (5) of section two")
Schedule, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

("12 & 13 Geo.6.c.23 (N.I)

The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland),1948.

In section three, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the words or under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932'.")

In the Title, line 1, after ("1846") insert ("and the Carriage by Air Act, 1932").—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL
3.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Schemes in connection with elimination of excess capacity]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: I think this would be the most appropriate time in the Bill's progress to make the few remarks I intend to make. For thirty-six years come Michaelmas I have been directly or indirectly connected with this industry, and I have seen it decline the whole time, with the exception of a brief boom after the last war. That decline has to a large extent been caused by the fact that the trade was always full of weak sellers. These weak sellers could be unmercifully exploited by the markets of the world. The various sections tried to organise themselves by group-selling arrangements, but they were always subject to one or two weaker brethren who would break the prices and thus pull the pool down in the general decline of the industry.
744
It may be said that after this Bill has been passed and there has been the elimination of some surplus capacity, there will be no more weak sellers. Anybody who takes that view is one who clearly knows nothing about the cotton trade, because inasmuch as demand for cotton goods comes to Lancashire in fits and starts—and always has done and always will do—it is absolutely essential that there should be a greater degree of capacity available than would be actually justified by the ultimate consumer off-take at the time. I hope that the reorganisations which are foreshadowed in Clause 1 of this Bill will take this question of the elimination of weak sellers into account. I know that any arrangements for price maintenance are very unpopular these days, but I assure your Lordships that unless we can find some way of getting rid of the weak sellers out of this industry the rest of the Bill will be really a waste of public money.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am not quite sure about the various technical terms which have been used. I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, means by "weak seller" the price cutter?
LORD HAWKE: What I mean by "weak sellers" is that in my experience of the trade, between the wars in particular, there was always some person who was willing to take a loss in the hope that the tide would turn the day after to-morrow.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: That is price cutting. Now I am on more familiar ground. In the retail trade in general one meets it fairly constantly. In fact they have a particular name for some lines which are subject to that practice. I expect the noble Lord knows about it; they are called "loss leaders".
LORD HAWKE: Before we get into some sort of argument, I think we are talking about two totally different things. I am talking about manufacturers and I believe the noble Viscount is talking about retailers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS- BOROUGH: Yes, but the same sort of practice seems to exist. I have a wide and superficial knowledge of a

745
great many industries of production as well as retailing; and especially in a trade in which there are so many varieties of goods it is not at all an unusual thing to have a few lines sold at below what is the generally accepted market price as a means of getting in on the ground floor. That is a loss leader. It is exactly the same as with a firm that sells sugar below the market rate so that they may get trade in other commodities as well. There is always a case for reasonable price maintenance, and I should welcome the remarks of the noble Lord as a general principle if it could always be arranged that the fair price should be the maximum price, so that the public as well as the trade should know exactly where they were.
There are two things I want to say upon this clause. The first is by way of apology, because I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would move an Amendment to the clause; apparently the Amendment was not handed in and it may well be that he does not intend to move it. I should feel rather more happy if, by any chance, the Report stage could be taken fairly informally on another day rather than to-day, so that I could take that point up. I know I have no right to demand it, but it would be convenient to me if that could be done. I can put to the noble Earl now the kind of point my noble friend had in mind. It was with regard to subsection (2)(a) of the clause. He wanted to get some words inserted which would make it quite clear that in preparing the scheme note had been taken of the needs and requirements of the other sections of the industry. Looking at the Bill again, I suppose it might be argued that subsection (2)(c) possibly meets the situation to some extent. However, I should like to get this matter cleared up before the Bill leaves the House, and I cannot press it further than that to-day.
In general upon this clause, which is so much the operative clause in giving authorisation for the scheme, may I say that I am disappointed that the scheme is in general going forward (and at this stage I do not see how the Opposition could have moved an Amendment, in view of the passage of the Bill through another place) without some inducement for reorganisation of the industry, instead of providing merely for the
746
scrapping of old plant, the taking of new plant and the like and the elimination of other firms. If you are going to keep in the markets of the world as well as in the home market, you should try to eliminate all the unnecessary charges which exist between each one of the horizontal lines of organisation in the industry: raw cotton, spinning, weaving, finishing, dyeing, printing, packaging—all separate, horizontally organised lines in the industry. At every stage the overhead costs and the profit upon those overhead costs have to be taken into final account—that is, about six times cumulatively—in fixing the final selling price at the end. I feel certain in my own mind that that is bound to be an enormous handicap in the rehabilitation of the selling power in the markets of the world. The Bill seems to me to do nothing effective at all in that direction. The noble Earl will recognise that this is the last opportunity we shall have of pressing that point.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is not here to move his Amendment, because I had hoped to discuss this question of obsolete buildings. I should like to refer to Lord Hawke's remarks. I believe he was referring—I am sorry to have to say this—to a different subject than loss leaders. It seemed to me that his remarks were really an expression of no confidence in the future of the industry, because weak selling is, of course, a product of a situation in an industry where there is too much competition. But unfortunately weak sellers do not go out of business, and it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord knows much better than I do—although I have had something to do with the cotton industry—that this is something which has bedevilled the cotton industry for many years. It has been faced all the time with a declining market.
As I understand it, the Government's hope is that they will, one way or another, reduce the capacity of the industry to such an extent that there will not be the surplus of capacity that there is in the present situation.I am gloomy about the prospects of their succeeding in this matter, because it is competition not only within this country but from abroad that will inevitably force the owner of a business, in a desperate

747
attempt to keep his business going, to sell at a price below that which would normally be regarded as suitable to prevail at the time. This seems to me to be an inevitable product of the competitive system. I do not know whether the Government have any cure for it, but it is one of the disadvantages of the laissez-faire economy which we have not yet learned how to control. I should have liked to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, how he would propose to eliminate these weak sellers. I assume that if the Government succeed in what they are hoping to do, the industry will be stronger and more effective. In the last resort it seemed that Lord Hawke's proposals amounted to a request for a return to price agreements of a kind which have been made impossible by the action of the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am most grateful to your Lordships who have spoken for your observations on this clause. With regard to the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Barnby which Lord Shackleton mentioned just now, I understand that he put them down in order to obtain elucidation on certain points, and as I have had a lengthy conversation with my noble friend I think he may not intend to move them. It is certainly the hope and the intention of the Government that the cotton industry shall reorganise itself not only by getting rid of redundant capacity but by making itself more efficient in every way. As I tried to point out to your Lordships on Second Reading, we think that there are better hopes of doing that if we help the cotton industry to reorganise itself rather than if the Government were to prescribe to the industry the exact lines upon which it shall be reorganised. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, feels gloomy about it. Certainly it is a formidable undertaking which confronts the cotton industry, but we have good hopes that, with the aid that we are able to give under this Bill, the industry will succeed in adapting itself to modern conditions, re-equipping itself, meeting competition and expanding its markets, particularly among the higher quality sections in which, in our view, there is most likely to be an expanding demand among the more advanced countries of the world.
748
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for mentioning the fact that Lord Shepherd wanted information on some point, and I shall be delighted to help him in any way I can. I have looked up his intervention on Second Reading. It appears to have been concerned only with the question of whether there would be a White Paper. I was able to answer that at the time. But I shall be delighted at any time to receive any questions or representations from the noble Lord and to give him a full answer at once. I am sorry, but I do not think it would be right for me to agree to delaying the Report stage of this Bill, in view of the extreme urgency of the timetable which confronts us at the present time. But I am at your Lordships' service in every way to answer any queries which your Lordships may want to put.
LORD LATHAM: May I ask the noble Earl whether we are to regard his speech, helpful as it may have been, as being the elucidation which led to Lord Barnby's withdrawal of his three Amendments?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I mentioned the Amendments of Lord Barnby only because they were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. They are on altogether different points.
LORD LATHAM: I gather from the noble Earl that they were withdrawn because of the elucidation he gave to Lord Barnby. Can we have the benefit of that elucidation? After all, these Amendments are the property of the House now, once they are on the Marshalled List.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is not for me to say whether my noble friend should move his Amendment or not. Surely it is a question for him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On that matter we wish to proceed on a subsequent stage of the Bill. We are not really satisfied in regard to some of the points that remain and on what has appeared in the Marshalled List. Surely we should be entitled to move at a later stage of the Bill any of the matters which were put down by Lord Barnby and are now not being moved. We have no opportunity of doing so straight away. This is a

749
Parliamentary Paper. We have no explanation as to why the Amendments are withdrawn. We have no real explanation of the reasons for not proceeding with these questions. It is quite clear that we ought to have a Report stage, or at any rate we must have the right to move on Third Reading.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think it is not for me to explain the reasons why any noble Lord does not move an Amendment. Surely, that is for him and not for me. I thought it was perhaps courteous to mention that my noble friend might not intend to move his Amendments since Lord Shackleton alluded to the fact that my noble friend was not here. But it is not my responsibility, and I cannot accept any responsibility for it. I think I am right in saying that any of your Lordships will have the right to raise any matters that your Lordships may desire on Third Reading.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Re-equipment grants]:
4.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to speak to Clause 2. I should have liked to ask the Government for an explanation of the policy with regard to re-equipment grants in the matter of buildings that may be obsolete. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is the substance of the Amendment that has not been moved, and it would seem that it would be appropriate to speak to it on Clause 2, which is concerned with re-equipment grants and the conditions under which they are permitted. We are confronted with the particular problem of an industry which has a large number of economically obsolete buildings, which have, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will bear out, been a serious factor in limiting re-equipment. The spacing of machines and even the requirements of the newer factory legislation have made it difficult for the owners of certain mills to do the sort of job that they would want to do.
I should like to know from the Government what their policy is in this matter. I certainly would not have gone so far as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was prepared to go in suggesting that no
750
grants should be given for new or reconstructed cotton spinning machinery unless it was housed in suitable, single-storey buildings. I regard that as an impossibility. There are a certain number of mills in Lancashire, and some most efficient ones, which are certainly not single-storey buildings, and noble Lords who know Lancashire do not visualise the mill as a type of modern factory. It may well be that modern mills should be of this kind. But I should be interested to know what the Government's view on this matter of buildings is—not merely the conditions under which machinery grants will be allowed, but the suitability of the buildings into which the machines are to go. This seems to me to be an important and material consideration to this particular clause. I hope that I am not taking an unfair advantage of the noble Earl, but since he has given this satisfactory explanation to Lord Barnby, it may well be that he could satisfy other noble Lords.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: There are two reasons which either have been, or may be, urged for getting rid of derelict or out-or-date buildings. One is the economic reason, as it will lead to more efficient production; and the other is the aesthetic reason: that if a building is derelict and abandoned—that is, not used at all—it may become most unsightly, and it may be desirable in the public interest that it should be removed. On the first point, the economic point, we do not wish to control the methods by which the industry re-equips itself under Clause 2 of the Bill. The main thing is to prepare the groundwork by Clause 1, by getting rid of the excess machinery. Without that no progress can be made. Then we come to Clause 2, under which a grant of 25 per cent. for new machinery is payable. That leaves 75 per cent. to be paid by the industry, and we do not consider it likely that if the industry is to pay 75 per cent. towards re-equipping itself it will do so in an uneconomic and wasteful manner.
We feel that the main weight of Government assistance should be given to the necessary groundwork—that is, getting rid of redundancy. Having done that, we are providing a further additional stimulus by this 25 per cent. grant for new machinery. We think that that

751
will put the industry not only in a better position, but in a much more creditworthy position; and we do not think it would be justifiable to give still further grants for the erection of new factory buildings which we think a re-equipped industry, having been relieved of the incubus, the drag, of redundant machinery, ought to be able to do for itself with the assistance which the industry is receiving under this Bill.
The social point was also dealt with in another place but it is not really a matter which is relevant to this Bill. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that planning authorities have powers under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act to require removal of unsightly buildings. My right honourable friend feels very strongly about this and he is consulting with the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether anything can be done to stimulate action. In fact, the last sentence of my right honourable friend on the Report stage of the Bill in another place, when he was replying to a point raised by an honourable Member, was that he would be glad to do what the honourable and learned Member had asked. I hope that that makes clear what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wished me to tell him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. The noble Earl says, however, that Her Majesty's Government do not want to control the methods and arrangements of the industry in its efforts at reorganisation, apart from what they are doing by way of grant under Clauses 1 and 2; but under Clause 2 itself, in subsection (4), a pretty strong attempt is made to have control in certain respects before payment is made. In regard to the Amendment under Clause 2 not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, might I ask what was the persuasive argument used by the noble Earl, apart from what he has said today, which caused the noble Lord not to move that Amendment? What is the view of Her Majesty's Government as to grants under this scheme for buildings other than single-storey buildings? What is the answer to that?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I did not say to my noble friend anything more than I have said to your Lordships. The question of double-storey buildings is a matter of opinion and the Cotton Board inform us that there are in the industry a number of authorities who hold the view that in some circumstances a building of more than one storey is perfectly suitable; and we could not contemplate making it a condition that there should be single-storey buildings for spinners when many people who know a great deal about the industry hold a different opinion.
LORD LATHAM: I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. Did I understand him to say that in another place the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade stated that he had enlisted the support of his right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard, particularly, as I understood, to obsolete buildings? Was that the Minister of Housing and Local Government?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: In regard to unsightly buildings.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes.
LORD LATHAM: In what way is it expected that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would help in regard to obsolete buildings which may become eyesores? Is he to bring them into a planning or development scheme and pay for their demolition? Would the noble Earl be good enough to expand that a little?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, I do not think so. Surely the obvious way is by stimulating action under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act. As the noble Lord knows, there are also special powers in development areas which the President of the Board of Trade can use directly for acquiring and demolishing buildings on economic rather than aesthetic grounds. But of course the North East Lancashire Development Area does not cover a very large part of the cotton area, and therefore I did not mention that aspect of the matter. Apart from that, however, it is a matter for town and country

753
planning legislation rather than for this Bill.
LORD LATHAM: It may be a matter for town and country planning legislation. At the present time the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no power to require the demolition of an obsolete factory. Indeed, if a local authority receives his permission to do it they now get no grant except as part of the block grant. I cannot see how the Minister of Housing and Local Government can advance the solution of the difficulties of obsolete factories in any important aspect.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is right, but I cannot add anything to what was said by my right honourable friend in another place.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendment read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The reference is to Bill (118) as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 3, page 2, line 23, at end insert ("and subsection (3) of section seventy-seven of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which provides for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grant towards expenditure out of the metropolitan police fund under the Fifth Schedule to that Act), shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph (a) thereof to the said Fifth Schedule included a reference to this section")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Government Amendment of a technical character. Its purpose is to authorise the payment of a grant, at the appropriate rate, on any expenditure
754
by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District in providing premises for the purposes of the probation service in the Metropolitan stipendary court area. Section 77(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which relates to the payment of grants for probation purposes generally) provides for the payment of Exchequer grant towards the expenditure of local authorities, and the expenditure out of the Metropolitan Police Fund, under the Fifth Schedule to that Act.
So far as expenditure out of the Metropolitan Police Fund is concerned, paragraph 7(1)(d) of the Fifth Schedule provides for the payment out of the Metropolitan Police Fund of such sums as the Secretary of State may direct to meet the expenses which, in the case of probation areas outside the Metropolitan stipendiary court area, would be payable by local authorities. The expenses of providing premises for probation purposes in the Metropolitan stipendiary court area have hitherto come within paragraph 7(1)(d), but Clause 3 of the Bill now gives the Receiver express power to provide land and buildings, and though the expenses of providing premises for probation purposes will still be defrayed out of the Metropolitan Police Fund, such expenditure will not be incurred under the Fifth Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, but under the present Bill. Therefore special provision must be made for the payment of grants under Section 77(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, in respect of this expenditure. The Amendment makes such provision by including in that Section a specific reference to Clause 3 of this Bill. My Lords, I am sorry to have taken up so much time on a technical Amendment, but it is a consequence of the alteration made by Clause 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether this Amendment would leave the basis of contribution by local authorities unaltered? I do not mean the amount, but the basis of ascertainment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that to be the position as to the basic plan; no alteration is

755
made there. It is simply a question that the expenses of providing premises for probation have hitherto come under paragraph 7(1)(d) of the Fifth Schedule, and because of Clause 3 such expenditure will not in future be incurred under the Fifth Schedule, but will come under this Bill. So far as I can see, it is simply providing for the new statutory undercarriage, but it is certainly not altering the procedure which the noble Lord and I know. It is a matter we have often discussed. In fact, he will probably be
756
familiar with my own statements on the matter which I made in 1952 and 1954.
LORD LATHAM: That is to say, the liability is under a different Statute?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is the same liability as was under the Statute, but the Statute, as I put it, that carries the liability has been altered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past four o'clock.