Lords Sitting of 16 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

LORD CRATHORNE
The Right Honourable Sir Thomas Lionel Dugdale, Baronet, having been created Baron Crathorne, of Crathorne in the North Riding of the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Sandford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAX RELIEF ON LIBEL DAMAGES
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the case of damages and/or costs awarded against a newspaper the sum paid is reckoned to be a business expense for the purpose of taxation; and whether an annual insurance premium against damages for libel is a business expense.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am advised that, in general, damages for libel and costs awarded against a concern carrying on the business of publishing a newspaper would be deductible in computing the business profits for tax purposes. An annual insurance premium would likewise be deductible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Do Her Majesty's Government not think it is rather an unsatisfactory position that an erring newspaper can in this way pass off on to the general taxpayer more than one half of the penalties awarded against it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord may perhaps be interested
74
to know that in the case of Fairrie v. Hall in 1947 the Court refused to allow damages and costs to be deductible for income tax purposes. This arose from a case in which a sugar broker had published malicious and defamatory statements about another sugar broker who was his business competitor. The Court held that the damages and costs were not a legitimate business expense. I understand it is very doubtful whether this ruling could be applied to any libellous statement published by a newspaper.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary information. Would Her Majesty's Government consider taking some action, either administratively or legislatively in the next Finance Act, to remedy what appears to the ordinary citizen a very curious position?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think it would perhaps be a little dangerous to alter the law in order to deal with particular cases of that kind.

LABOUR CONDITIONS IN HONG KONG
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the regulations made under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance which came into force on January 1, 1959, in the Colony of Hong Kong are having upon the pay and conditions of labour of men, women and children employed in the Colony.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the introduction of the regulations, which, as the noble Lord will know, apply to women and young persons, coincided with an expansion of trade and a rise in industrial employment. Hence it is impossible to estimate the effects of the regulations alone. Wage rates have tended to rise sufficiently to offset the effect of the shorter hours imposed by the regulations. Some part of the rise in the numbers in employment may also be due to the reduction

75
in the hours of work of women and young persons over 16. Noble Lords may like to know that the owners of six cotton spinning mills employing 4,500 people have announced their intention of operating eight-hour shifts in place of twelve-hour shifts; and that in some cases men's hours of work have been reduced in line with the reduction of hours of work of women.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that statement. Is it a fact that as a result of the regulations a large number of women have lost their employment and been rendered destitute? And would the noble Earl look at the question of applying these regulations to the men, because, as he said, there are no regulations as to hours of work, payment or anything else applying to men in the Colony?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not aware that in the case of women a large number have lost their employment. My information is that employment has, on the whole, risen. In relation to men, certainly the Hong Kong Government have said that they look upon this as a first step in implementing the Government's policy of raising minimum standards of employment and so forth.

REPORTING OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PROCEEDINGS
3.1 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what rights the public, the newspapers and broadcasting organisations have to attend and report upon the proceedings of local authorities; and whether those rights are adequate and are observed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, there are certain statutory provisions which bear upon this point. The chief of these are contained in the Local
76
Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908, which gives representatives of the Press the right to attend the meetings of local authorities and also the meetings of education committees which act with delegated powers. The Press may be temporarily excluded from these meetings by specific resolution, however, if in the opinion of a majority of the members present at the meeting the special nature of the business makes it advisable in the public interest to do so.
Over and above the statutory obligations it is clearly in the public interest that all local authorities should keep their electors informed about the actions taken in their name and the reasons for those actions, and there is no doubt that the great majority of local authorities have a proper sense of responsibility in this matter. However, as a result of representations made to him, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has in recent months been discussing the matter generally with the associations which represent local authorities in England and Wales. His intention is to secure that all local authorities give proper facilities to the Press and the public, and he has stated to Parliament that the Government would not hesitate to advise an amendment of the law, if it proves to be necessary.
My right honourable friend feels sure that the statutory rights of the Press are observed by local authorities generally. Certain councils, however, have recently excluded the Press from their discussions for reasons connected with the present dispute in the printing industry. He cannot pronounce on the legality of these actions, as that is a matter for the courts. But he has indicated in another place, on the 6th of this month, that he strongly deprecates the action of any local authority which excludes the Press and the public for any reason save that the nature of the business requires it to be considered in private.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that satisfactory reaffirmation of the Government's view, may I ask whether, having regard to the possibility that any legislation may be delayed for some time. it would not be a good thing

77
if the Leaders of all Parties in this House were to make as strong a statement as the noble Earl has made?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should think it would be most advisable for everybody to agree, as I hope noble Lords do, with the statement that has been made to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if we have an opportunity, we will make it.

NOISE OF HELICOPTERS
LORD ERASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what research is being undertaken with a view to reducing the noise of helicopters; and whether Her Majesty's Government are actively engaged in such research.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, work is being done by Government research establishments, universities and industry to determine the causes of noise in aircraft and their engines and to develop means of suppression, for example, by the development of silencers and the design of engines with lower ratio of noise to power. Much of this research applies to helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft. Silencers have been developed to reduce the noise of the tip-jet units used in certain helicopters, and development is continuing to increase their efficiency.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, in this small island is it not most desirable to have effective and acceptable helicopters to provide transport from the centre of one town to another? And could there not be built upon a large use of these vehicles in Britain a substantial export trade? If that is so, and as the aeroplane-making industry is needing work, would the Government give every possible encouragement to this special field in which we have already shown ourselves leaders?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are so doing.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government are considering the possibility of imposing limitations on the number of decibels which any aircraft may emit?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, not having my slide-rule with me, I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord a correct answer on that point. Perhaps he would put down a Question, or I could write to him and tell him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.5 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (no two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of challenging this Motion, but to ask whether the Leader of the House is in a position to say which particular Bills he has in mind of which two stages will need to be taken on one day. Is this a purely formal Motion or has he specific measures in mind? If there are specific measures I think we ought to know of them before we approve this Motion.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before the Leader of the House replies, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for raising this point. Some of us are worried at the possibility of the suspension of Standing Order No. 41 in regard to the Legitimacy Bill. At the present moment, Clause 1 has been deleted. If, as the result of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on that day, Clause 1 is practically reinstated, some of us would like to have time to consider our views on the matter. That would be impossible if the Third Reading were taken immediately after the Report stage.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this is a Motion which we usually move at this time of year to allow us to put through a number of Bills which are usually uncontroversial. There is, for example, one on the Order Paper to-day, the Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill. But we had thought that the Legitimacy Bill might go through all its stages on Tuesday next, the 21st. I am in a difficulty here, which I think my noble friend Lord Jessel will recognise, in that there is only a limited time. We must not make it impossible, by any delays we have here, for the House of Commons to consider any Amendments to this Bill—that would not be fair to the promoters of the Bill. But if he will allow me, without any pledge at all, to look at this question and to consult, it is possible that we can make an adjustment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I point out that the delay between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the Report stage which now brings about the problem to which the noble Leader has referred, is due not to the opponents of any clause in the measure, but to the promoters. There was no need whatever to postpone the Report stage until so late a date. If the Bill is radically altered on Report stage, obviously the Third Reading cannot possibly be a formal matter but must be most carefully considered.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Leader will stick as closely as possible to the view that he expressed on this Bill just now, because there are people on this side of the House who are also interested. There are views on both sides on this clause, not all on the one side. I think it is most important that this Bill, which has passed another place and which has had this important Amendment made here, should have a chance to be reconsidered as some of us propose to have it reconsidered, and not to have to go back to another place where it has already been passed, with such a controversial change in it from when it left there, and within such time that it might not be possible to get it through in this Session at all. I think it is most important that the Bill should become law, in whatever final form and I hope that, whatever
80
views a particular section of this House may have upon the rights or wrongs of the Amendment we made, we shall so arrange our Business that the Bill has a proper chance of being carried through.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough. Surely it is important, from our point of view, that this Bill should be given proper consideration. It may well be that on the Report stage the Amendment which is now foreshadowed will be defeated and the Bill left in its present state, as it passed through Committee. In that case no delay will be involved. But in the event of that Amendment passing, this House would be placed in a very difficult position, because there would be no opportunity for further consideration. The Bill would have to go back to another place improperly digested by this House. It is not for us to consider what happens in the other House; our duty here is to consider what is the considered opinion of noble Lords in this House, whatever view they may take. I think it would be very unfortunate if, in order to make certain that the Bill passed in this Session, this House were denied the proper opportunity of giving full consideration to this very important matter.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Marquess has stated the difficulty very clearly and rightly from the point of view of the proper consideration of this Bill. I cannot make a promise now. I think I can see again the difficulty of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and some of his friends. I think that, as Leader of the House, the only thing I can do is try to have some consultations, and see whether we can secure the right of the House to consider such legislation properly while also keeping in mind the importance of getting this Bill back to another place in time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether he intends to leave the Legitimacy Bill as first Order on Tuesday of next week?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have looked at the Business. The only Business with the Legitimacy Bill is the [Finance Bill, on which I understand

81
there will not be very much discussion, and therefore the Legitimacy Bill will be taken at a reasonable hour.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend considers the matter, would he bear in mind this technical difficulty? I think I am right that under the Rules of this House it is perfectly in order for any noble Lord to move an Amendment on Third Reading, but written notice of that Amendment must be given. How would it be possible to give notice of an Amendment which might result from what takes place on Report, an Amendment that might be desired by a noble Lord sitting in any quarter of the House, if the Third Reading were taken on the same day?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, again, that is the sort of question I shall have to look at.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will the noble Earl try to see that the wishes of the House of Commons, which have been quite clearly decided on this matter, are not defeated by juggling with procedure in this House?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount would re-word his question if he gave it a little more thought. There is no question of "juggling."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, when he reconsiders this matter, to bear in mind that there is other important Business to come before the House which some of us would like to get through, and that we should not like that other Business to be interfered with in any way or the possibility of carrying on a debate on those matters being frustrated.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is one more of the difficulties.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like just to ask this question. Am I to gather from the course of events this Session that it is unlikely that any Business will be left over entailing an autumn Session?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, without drawing any inferences at all, may take it that that is so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Earl leaving time for discussion on Nyasaland if the Devlin Report comes in?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like to discuss that with the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is likely that the Colonial Secretary will have the Nyasaland Report, and, if that is so, I think probably we ought to readjust our Business in order to debate the findings.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LIBRARY
The Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library with reference to the proposal that Peers should be able to borrow certain books was laid before the Committee and approved.
2.—CLERKS IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee approved an extension of service to Mr. C. F. L. St. George, C.B.E., the Clerk of the Journals, to 31st March, 1960.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. P. G. Henderson as a Senior Clerk in the Parliament Office from 1st May, 1959.
3.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY

(a) The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishments Circular No. 25/59 (Pay of the Higher Civil Service) to the Officers of the House of Lords to whom it may be applied.

(b) The Committee approved the revised scales of salary consequent upon the application to the staff of the House of Lords of Establishments Circular No. 14/59 (Pay of Clerical Officers etc.).

The Committee sanctioned consequential increases in superannuation awards in two cases.
4.—POLICE
The Committee authorised the payment for additional Police required for the opening of the Palace of Westminster to the public on Mondays in August.
5.—REPORTING STAF
The Committee reviewed the agreement with Messrs. H. Craig-Kelly Limited for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates and approved an increase in the existing rates of pay from the 1st July, 1959.
6.—RETIREMENT OF REGISTRY CLERK
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Josiah Edward Symonds, M.B.E., on his retirement on the 18th September, 1959.
The Committee instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to convey to Mr. Symonds their warm appreciation of the manner in which he had carried out his duties.
7.—RETIREMENT OF HEAD OFFICE ASSISTANT
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. John Edward Roberts on his retirement on the 1st November, 1959.
8.—RETIREMENT OF INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIANS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Ernest Victor Jacobs on his retirement on the 7th October, 1959.
9.—RETIREMENT OF A CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned a revised pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Stanley Frederick Hartopp who retired on the 11th April, 1959.
10.—RETIREMENT OF AN UNESTABLISHED CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a revised gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Edwin Wise who retired on the 6th April, 1959.
11.—GRATUITY TO A HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Dale on her retirement on the 15th August, 1959.
12.—VENTILATION IN THE CHAMBER
The Committee considered the method of ventilation in the Chamber. The Lord Great Chamberlain undertook to pursue the matter with the Ministry of Works and report back to the Committee at its next sitting.
13.—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FOR DINNER
The Committee considered the advisability of the House being adjourned for a period during late sittings, and agreed that adjournment was desirable during Government business but that during debates of a general nature the general rule should be not to adjourn, although each case should be judged on its merits.
The Committee authorised the Clerk of the Parliaments to examine the difficulties that arise with regard to the Reporting Staff, when the House does not adjourn for dinner during late sittings.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now agreed to I should like to say a few words on the first paragraph, which deals with the Library. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, put to the Committee a proposal that facilities for obtaining books from an outside lending library should be provided. The Committee were not able to agree to that proposal, but they have put forward, as your Lordships will observe, a counter proposal to the effect that Members of this House should be allowed to take from the Library on loan one copy at a time of certain books, entering their names in a book which will be provided for the purpose. There will be a list of books placed inside that book for names, indicating which books should not be taken from the Library—such books as Law Reports, reference books and so forth. But if this Report is adopted it will become possible, so far as I know for the first time, for noble Lords to take out one at a time such books as biographies and other literature of that kind, though it will not be possible to take out what are termed "new books"; that is, those books which are for a temporary period placed on the shelf provided. Until those books are removed from that shelf and put in the general shelves they will not be taken out.
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will find this a convenient course and will approve of it. I do not think that there are any other matters in this Report to which I need particularly to refer, but, needless to say, if any noble Lord wishes to ask me any questions I will do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL
3.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): My Lords, this is a very short Bill and its sole purpose is to remedy what seems to be a defect in Section 7 of the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906. The Act of 1906 established the Board of Trustees—and here I quote:
"for the purpose of managing the National Galleries of Scotland and for such other purposes connected with the promotion of the fine arts in Scotland as may be prescribed".
That is to say, as may be prescribed by Order of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Further, the Act defined the National Galleries of Scotland in such a way as to cover not only the existing Galleries but any others that might be prescribed. So it gave ample power to extend the functions of the Board of Trustees.
The financial provisions of the Act were not, however, so widely drawn. Section 7 provides for paying, out of moneys voted by Parliament, the expenditure of the Board of Trustees on the management of the galleries that were brought under their control in 1906—that is to say, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. The section
86
does not provide for meeting out of voted moneys the expenditure on any new functions which may be conferred on the Trustees or on the management of any galleries other than the two galleries that I have mentioned.
Now this was clearly not the intention of those who framed the Act of 1906. As they foresaw that the Trustees might at some future time have additional functions, surely they must have envisaged also that money would be spent on those functions, and we can only conclude that the financial provisions of Section 7 were so narrowly drawn in error. The Bill which is before your Lordships will amend the Act of 1906 so as to provide for paying, out of moneys voted by Parliament,
"the expenditure incurred by the Board in the payment of officers and otherwise in connection with the management of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery and"—
and here, my Lords, follow the words added by the Bill—
"with the performance of such other functions as are conferred on them by or under the Act."
Although the need for this amendment of the Act of 1906 came to notice in connection with the proposal to establish a temporary Gallery of Modern Art in Inverleith House in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, I should like to assure your Lordships that the Bill itself is in purely general terms, and will cover expenditure on any further development of the National Galleries. The second point I should like to make is that the Bill does not confer any new powers either on the Board of Trustees or on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. All the powers that are required are there already in the Act of 1906; it is simply the expenditure on new functions of the Trustees that is not provided for, and that is the defect which this Bill seeks to remedy. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Forbes.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have listened with some care to the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, of the purposes of this Bill, and I am reminded of the attitude adopted by the Under-Secretary of State in another place in dealing with this

87
matter. Both the noble Lord and the Under-Secretary of State appear anxious to describe this measure as being a small, trivial thing, of financial interest only, and as arising out of an error made a half century ago when the Act of 1906 was passed. Indeed, if I may repeat some of the expressions used about this Bill, they reinforce what I have just said about this attempt to minimise the importance of this measure. The Under-Secretary of State, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, described it as
"A short and simple Bill."
He said:
"Its object is to remedy what appears to be a defect in Section 7…",
as the noble Lord has just said. He also said that it is
"simply a financial machinery Bill."
He further said:
"It arises because of the chance oversight of Parliament fifty years ago."
On the Third Reading of this measure, the Under-Secretary of State said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 608 (No. 137), col. 395]:
"The genesis of the Bill was that the Secretary of State proposed to add to the functions of the trustees the management of a gallery of modern art at Inverleith House."
I do not wish to emphasise what other reports say about Inverleith House, although I could quote from the report of the Arts Council. On page 75 it says:
"…it is clear that the building is far too small to provide, even on a token scale, all the services for which the new Gallery should be responsible".
But I do ask what functions are to be added which the Trustees do not now already possess. In any case, is a new Act such as we are dealing with to-day necessary? Could not the Secretary of State prescribe by order, under Section 2 of the 1906 Act, that Inverleith House should be added to the three included under the title of "The National Galleries of Scotland"? As the noble Lord will be aware, the three are mentioned in detail in Section 2 of the 1906 Act, which reads as follows:
"'The National Galleries of Scotland' shall, until otherwise prescribed, mean the several buildings situated in Edinburgh and known as the Royal Institution, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and shall include any other buildings which may be prescribed."
88
What reason is there, I ask, why the Secretary of State cannot, by order or otherwise, prescribe that Inverleith House should be added to these other three, and so include the whole under the general title of "The National Galleries of Scotland"? If he cannot do so, I should be much obliged if the noble Lord would tell me why not.
The new power conferred, we are told, is of a general character, and is not limited to any particular project. If it is of a general character, how does the general character differ from the powers already possessed by the Trustees; and what is the nature of the general character that is envisaged in any project at all? Now, my Lords, it may appear that what we are dealing with is, in a sense, a rather trivial matter. It emerged in the course of a discussion in another place that the amount of money involved in this measure is some £7,500. Presumably, that £7,500 is intended to include not merely the purchase of new works of art but also to cover the cost of running the place and paying for its general upkeep. If that be true, then it would seem that £7,500 is a very small sum indeed about which a measure of this kind should be raised at all.
But I think there is another aspect to all this. Let us bear in mind that what we are trying to remedy, presumably, is a measure fifty-odd years old already. Are we to ignore the fact that in this last half century or so there have been changes of such a magnitude as to warrant a reconsideration of the whole of our attitude towards National Galleries? The noble Lord will be well aware that very recently there have been two reports dealing with the general question of providing for the art needs of the people—one by the Arts Council and the other by the Gulbenkian Foundation; and he will know as well as I do some of the questions raised in these two reports. For example, we know that the changes in the financial position of individuals within the last fifty years have been such that there are comparatively few people now left in a position to purchase for their private possession some of the valuable works of art that occasionally come up for sale. He will know that there has been a tendency in recent years for purchases of this kind to be made either by national bodies by public bodies, such as local authorities, or by private trusts or the like; and that very

89
large sums of money are necessary and are not available except through agencies of that kind.
He will also be aware that nowadays we have departed from an era in which there was, if one might say so, a cultural elite who appreciated the value of art generally, and that the appreciation of art has now spread very widely throughout the community. To-day an increasing amount of interest is taken by people in local government and in the community generally to see that the people as a whole should now come to appreciate the value of these works of art for their own enjoyment and for their own edification. It is no) my intention to emphasise the difference in cultural standards, as was done in another place, I gather, between the people of Glasgow and the people of Edinburgh. Whatever may be said about Edinburgh, at least I can say this about Glasgow: that we in Glasgow have at some cost to the ratepayer, tried to further understanding and appreciation and love of art by encouraging schoolchildren to come to our art gallery. I think that we have probably one of the most representative collections of any art gallery in the world. A collection of worldwide interest was given to us by the magnanimity of the late Sir William Burrell, a collection which, I think, must arouse the admiration of all lovers of art—though it may be said that we have not yet decided where to house the whole of this collection.
In the Local Government Act, 1948, power was given to local authorities to levy a rate up to 6d. in the pound in England and up to a fraction over 5d. in the pound in Scotland for the purpose of encouraging the arts, and I would emphasise this provision, which has been touched upon by both the reports to which I have referred. It is remarkable to think that, according to the Gulbenkian report, only about one-twentieth of this 6d. rate is being devoted to the purpose for which local authorities have the right to rate. I wonder whether I dare suggest a means whereby the understanding and love of the arts may be considerably increased. For instance, in Glasgow, where a penny rate brings in some £60,000 a year, a 5d. rate would make £300,000 a year available for the purpose of encouraging the arts—ballet and music, drama and art. I wonder whether it would not be possible to set up local
90
bodies, to consist not only of elected representatives but also of men eminent in the various arts, to form a kind of trust that would administer the large sums raised by the local rates in the interests of the arts generally. This would not only place the encouragement of the arts under the guidance of a body set up for that purpose only, but also prevent the conflicts which usually take place in local government bodies when they come to discuss matters of this kind. In this way we might be able to derive an increased interest in art, which I think we should all agree is very necessary these days. It is rather humiliating to learn from these objectively written reports that the artistic tradition in this country compares unfavourably with that in other countries, such as France, Germany and Italy. Surely, in spite of the difficult times which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us are always with us, it would be possible to devote some of this money to the encouragement of art.
I am aware that some of what I have said may not be particularly relevant to the Bill with which we are dealing, but I am trying to point out to your Lordships that this amending legislation, brought forward after half a century, provides an opportunity whereby the Government can thoroughly reconsider the position. Perhaps at some early date they may be able to bring forward some further proposals which will really do something to raise the standard of art in this country.
3.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this Bill, which has been expounded with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the Minister of State. I hope that it will find support from all quarters of your Lordships' House. It was in 1929 that the Royal Commission first recommended, in its Report, that there should be established a gallery of modern art in the capital of Scotland. From that Royal Commission sprang the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, which in its numerous reports has never ceased to advocate the same thing. So, after thirty years, we seem to be getting somewhere in this matter, although it is going to be only a temporary home for modern art in Scotland.
This Bill, as my noble friend has pointed out, makes provision for the

91
setting up of a gallery of modern art in Edinburgh. That is done by order under the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906, and all the present Bill does is to provide the means whereby Parliament can vote the money necessary for its operation, and maintenance. Here comes a sore point, which was strongly expressed during the debate on this Bill in another place. A gallery of modern art is not much use unless there are objects of modern art—painting and sculpture—to put in it. There is no collection of modern art in Edinburgh at present—nothing to speak of at all. It will all have to be built up from scratch. And if this collection is going to be worthy of the capital of a great country and is going to be representative of modern British and foreign art, the purchase grant of £7,500 is quite inadequate. For example, a Braque was sold recently for some £36,000, and a Matisse, which I am told was entirely suitable for acquisition by this new gallery, was available at £20,500.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, if I may say so, is under a misapprehension as regards this £7,500. I am informed that it is purely a purchase grant for the acquisition of paintings, sculpture and the like, with which to stock the gallery. I do not think it has anything to do with the sum required for the maintenance, alteration, or reconstruction of this building.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I hope that I have not given the wrong impression. I tried to convey that I regard this £7,500 as covering salaries, wages and general cleaning and upkeep, not for the improvement or alteration of buildings. But suppose I am wrong and the whole of the £7,500 were available for the purchase of new works, no one would pretend that it is by any means a big sum nowadays.
LORD FORBES: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage to say that the £7,500 is purely for the purchase of pictures and sculpture.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: That is what I understood; but I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for the reasons which I have just explained, that it is a wholly inadequate sum. However, this is no occasion to bring up the vexed Question of State assistance
92
to the arts, which has been so fully debated in your Lordships' House and so often stressed in the reports of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. I am going to say only this: let us be thankful for small mercies. We have got something, at any rate, and let us be thankful for what we have got. The Trustees believe that something useful can be made out of Inverleith House, at any rate as a temporary expedient. I hope that this Bill will obtain a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I would merely say from these Benches that I heartily support this Bill and also what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I look upon this as a great step forward after fifty-three years, but I hope that it is only a stepping-stone to a greater future. I give this Bill my support from that angle.
3.41 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, for expressing his views. As we all know, the noble Earl is a great authority not only on antiquities but also on art in general. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for so ably putting forward his views on art—if I may say so, art all over the world—which are most useful in this respect. Certain noble Lords have expressed some misgivings about this Bill, but in general it has been welcomed. I think I can safely give your Lordships an assurance that this scheme—what I might call the Inverleith House scheme—like modern art itself is not as bad possibly as it is painted to be. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked me whether the Secretary of State could prescribe for the new gallery under the existing Act. The answer to that is that, although the Secretary of State can prescribe the management, be cannot provide any finance under the existing Act. We are trying to remedy that position by this new Bill.
There is the question of the £7,500, which is a Supplementary Estimate which now lies before Parliament. That is purely for the purchase of new paintings and sculpture. I understand that the new purchases will be purely purchases

93
of paintings done during this century. They need not necessarily be by Scottish painters but can be by other painters. There has been some criticism that £7,500 is not very much, but I would point out that it is possible to get a Supplementary Estimate for any particularly valuable picture that is required; for instance, only a short time ago a Supplementary Estimate of no less than £30,000 was approved for this very purpose.
Perhaps I should say a word or two about Inverleith House, which I have seen and which I am quite satisfied has great possibilities as somewhere to house a modern art gallery in Scotland. It is a house which is in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. It is quite easy to get there: you take a bus to the Botanic Gardens and you then have an extremely pleasant walk through the gardens to the house. It has an ideal lawn round the house, so that it will be quite possible to exhibit modern sculpture there. Another great asset about Inverleith House is that it is already owned by the Ministry of Works and it is not a question of buying another house. We have the complete approval of the Trustees of the National Gallery for this project. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, quoted from the Arts Council Report, where it said:
"…it is clear that the building is far too small to provide, even on a token scale, all the services for which the new Gallery should be responsible."
But the noble Lord did not go on to quote what it said lower down on the same page, and perhaps I may be allowed to do so. The Council then say:
"Nevertheless, we welcome the opportunity it would provide for an embryo Gallery in which useful work could be done on a miniature scale and the nucleus of a collection for a larger Gallery be made."
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt for one moment. I think the noble Lord mentioned the sum of £30,000 as a Supplementary Estimate. Are we to understand that that is a sum voted in addition to the £7,500 for Inverleith House?
LORD FORBES: No. I am sorry if I misled your Lordships, but that £30,000 was purely to buy a picture which now hangs in the National Gallery.
LORD GREENHILL: It was the Netherlandic triptych.
LORD FORBES: I hope your Lordships will give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

RIGHTS OF LIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (81) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Leave out Clause 4.
Clause 6, page 6, line 20, leave out from ("Tribunal") to end of line 21.
Clause 8, page 7, leave out lines 13 to 16.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these three Amendments from another place deal with the point which was in the minds of your Lordships when the Bill was in Committee here and, if my memory is right, especially in the minds of Lord Silkin, Lord Granville-West and Lord Milner of Leeds. Clause 4, which the Amendments delete, was intended to prevent the system of registration and notices under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill from being by-passed. As all your Lordships are aware, under Section 3 of the Prescription Act, 1832, right of light is acquired after twenty years enjoyment unless it was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed or writing. Therefore one of three methods which will exist of preventing the acquisition of a right of light is an agreement in writing which, but for Clause 4, would not require registration and since it need not appear in the title deeds might escape the notice of a purchaser.
We tried to deal with that point and we thought it would have been met by the registration of agreements. We realised that we could not deal with existing agreements, because that would have meant an immense amount of labour and

95
trouble. We thought that we could deal with future agreements, but three objections have been raised which seem to us to have weight. They really are practical objections. The first is that quite a number of agreements are more commonly found now in conveyances and leases than in separate documents. It would obviously be inconvenient to register the whole conveyance or lease and very difficult to extract the power. Secondly, it has become almost common form to include such consents on the sale or lease of a plot of building land, and that would have meant that the number of registrations might swamp the procedure. Thirdly, it would not be possible by registration to give the agreement exactly the same effect of the rights of a purchaser of the dominant land as an agreement has at present because of the difficulty that it might be necessary to bring the contents of the agreement, and not the mere fact of the existence of the agreement, to the minds of the relevant persons.
For these reasons (which I think were those which worried noble Lords who took an interest) the Law Society have asked us not to keep the need for registration under Clause 4. We felt that in a matter like this we ought to pay attention to the practical advice of those who have to deal with the problem. Therefore, I should recommend your Lordships to agree with the Amendments which have been made in another place. As they are all on the same point, your Lordships might allow me to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these three Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has explained to us very clearly the reason for these Amendments and, speaking for myself, I feel that I have to acquiesce in that reasoning. It is a great pity, because I think registration would have been of great advantage, especially at a time when there is so much development taking place. I know from practical experience the difficulties that arise from the fact that restrictive covenants which have never been anticipated arise at the very last moment. People suddenly turn up with
96
the benefit of covenants, and they have got to be disposed of. Had it been possible to have notice of this by registration, it would have been a great advantage. I do not propose to detain the House by arguing the matter any further. I think the reasoning of the noble and learned Viscount is very strong, and we must accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW TOWNS BILL
3.53 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.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Preliminary
1. As respects England and Wales, the provision made by section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, for the dissolution of development corporations and the disposal of their undertakings shall not have effect, and instead their assets and liabilities shall be disposed of, and the corporations shall be dissolved, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that this section shall not have effect until the Minister by order after consultation with the council of the county and of any county district in which any new town is situated is satisfied that the purposes for which all the new towns in existence on the passing of the Act have been substantially achieved and until such order is made all Development Corporations shall continue to act as heretofore."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The purpose of the Amendment is to defer the handing over of these new towns to the intended Commission until all of them have reached the stage of having substantially achieved the purposes outlined in the Act of 1946. The Amendment, however, does adopt the proposal which is otherwise provided in Clause 6 (1) of the Bill, that there should be consultation with county councils and county district councils.
It may be convenient in this connection to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill whether he can give any indication to your Lordships as to what will be the matters upon which consultation is intended with the council of the county or of any county district; what particular aspects of the activities of the new towns will be embraced in that consultation, whether the views of the county council or of the county district councils will be really taken into account, or whether it will just be a kind of notional and formal consultation. After all, the county council's activities, liabilities and responsibilities will be affected by the existence of the new town, and the county district in which the new town is located will be more keenly and more comprehensibly affected by the existence of the new town.
As I have said, the purpose of the Amendment is to defer handing over these new towns until they are all ready to be handed over. The procedure is that they shall be handed over one by one, piecemeal—a kind of shiftless procedure—under which one new town may be transferred to the Commission earlier than another. Moreover, in the course of the progress of time the purposes of the New Towns Act, 1946, as envisaged when the Act was passed will become much more enlarged, and we all hope that they will provide for wider amenities. It is suggested that it would be unfair upon those new towns which, because of their energy and because of circumstances associated with them, have achieved the purposes of the 1946 Act earlier than other new towns, that they should be transferred in advance. In our view, the structure and personnel of the Commission, the constitution of the Commission, might initially be quite appropriate, quite effective, quite suitable, for taking over say, one or two new towns, but not for taking over eight or nine or, indeed, the twelve which ultimately under this Bill will be taken over. Our view, therefore, is that if the Commission is to take over these new towns it should not be done piecemeal, one by one, as it were, but should wait until all the new towns have discharged the requirements which were set out in the Act of 1946. It is for that purpose that this Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD SILKIN: I have put my name down to this Amendment and also to the next Amendment which proposes to omit Clause 1 altogether. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss both Amendments together, because the view I take of it is that Clause 1 is wholly unnecessary. Indeed, I go further, and suggest that the whole Bill is unnecessary. I want to argue the latter point quite seriously. The Bill is intended to come into operation when the first of the new towns is substantially completed. That will be in possibly three years time—I think that in the course of the discussions in another place it was suggested that the first of the new towns might be substantially completed in three years time. In those circumstances, is it really necessary for a dying Parliament to put forward a controversial measure of this kind, which cannot possibly come into operation or be effective for three years? Would it not have been wiser and fairer if the whole thing could have been deferred until after the General Election, or until we had more nearly approached the time when the towns were being completed?
We are assuming for the purpose of this discussion—and the Minister in another place assumed—that it would be about three years. But I say that a town is not substantially completed, and the purpose for which it was built has not been substantially achieved, until it is really a living community, until all the services and the amenities that are essential in a town of the size of, say, Crawley or Harlow, with a population of 60,000 to 80,000, have been provided—in fact until it is an organism comparable with the older organisms, the older towns of the country. A town that I often compare these new towns with is Worcester. I would say that until these new towns have become really living communities, like a town of the character of Worcester, or Guildford, or a similar town, it cannot be said that the purpose of the Act has been substantially achieved. If I had had any responsibility in the matter, I doubt whether I should have come to the decision that even in three years' time, with the amenities

99
of these new towns in their present condition, the purposes would have been substantially achieved.
At the present time, recognising that a good deal has been done and is being done by these communities themselves and by the development corporations—though nothing like as much as should be done—I would say that these new towns are largely in the condition of enormous housing estates, not even closely knit as a town. If you go to any of those towns you will find they have neighbourhood units separated by open space and very little amenity in each unit. It is not, of course, the fault of the new towns themselves; it is something that has got to evolve and develop as time goes on. We might have made a very great mistake in providing the amenities before we were satisfied what the needs of these towns were. But the fact remains that until these amenities have been provided—adequate meeting places for the population, halls, swimming baths and so on; the usual things that are required—one cannot really say that the purposes for which the new towns were created have been substantially achieved.
I do not want to argue this matter closely, but the noble Earl will know that these were not intended to be simply housing estates; they were intended to be live living places; to be an example to the whole world of how new communities could be got together and could live in a post-war world. So my contention is that it will still be a good many years before the new towns can be said to have been substantially completed. Therefore, what is the hurry to come to a decision to-day, under conditions which are somewhat harrassing?—because we are all under pressure to get through the business as quickly as possible. What is the hurry in coming to a decision to-day on this question? I know that the noble Earl has no authority to withdraw the Bill at this moment—if he did, I imagine that he would get into serious trouble. But if the Government were wise they would say, "Having introduced this Bill, and the public realising what is in our minds, let us now leave it", and then withdraw the Bill. If circumstances should necessitate a new approach they will be able to make it. If, in due course, they want to reintroduce this measure they can do
100
so, but there is really no hurry. It would do equally well in two or three or four years' time.
Therefore, while supporting every word my noble friend Lord Latham has said in moving the first Amendment, on the assumption that the Government intend to proceed with this Bill, against my advice, I still think that the wiser course would be to delete Clause 1, which I recognise would, in effect, mean the withdrawal of the Bill entirely. At this stage, I support my noble friend, and I hope that my words will at least impress the noble Earl, if they do not impress Her Majesty's Government.
4.6 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think I shall have to stick to the Amendment here. The noble Lord opposite has really made rather a Second Reading speech on this matter. The Amendment before us is a detailed one. Admittedly he said he wanted to range a little over the second Amendment too, which is to withdraw the whole clause; but we shall come to that in a moment. The Amendment before us here is a fairly simple one, I think, in essence, as it has been explained, although it was a little difficult to understand as one read it on the Order Paper. I was a little puzzled how the Minister is satisfied "by order," but perhaps I have got my grammar wrong, and it was slightly difficult to construct.
To come to this Amendment, the effect of it would be that all twelve of the present towns should move over at once, not one by one. I really cannot see the point of this. If you are going to say that none of these towns should be regarded as substantially completed until a large proportion of the children have grown up and married, and it has become more a town like Worcester, as the noble Lord said, and even if the Government considered it was right to shift their ground to that extent—we have said the town is substantially completed when the special powers of the corporation have substantially been achieved—I do not think we should adopt this course suggested in the proposed Amendment. For whatever view one takes of the right moment to wind up a development corporation, the fact remains that all the

101
towns will reach that point at widely different times.
We believe—I think it is generally agreed—that Crawley is likely to get to this position about 1961, Basildon perhaps about 1965. If it is right that Crawley, although ready in 1961, should wait till 1965, then Basildon should wait till 1970. I cannot see why the Opposition want the town which finishes soonest to be held up until the last in the race. If it is right to establish a Commission at all, and this Amendment (we must stick to the Amendment before the House) does not dispute this, it is surely right to hand over each town to it at the moment when it is ripe for handing over, and not wait for the last one in the race.
I must remind your Lordships of the main disadvantage in keeping the corporations in being after they have substantially achieved their function, and that is that so long as the corporations are in being all the provisions of the 1946 Act designed for stage 1 remain in force. The development corporations have these compulsory purchase powers and exemption from planning control, and so on, which we mentioned on Second Reading. We do not think it is right that the corporations should keep those powers when their work is finally done; we think those powers should go by the board when they are no longer needed. If they remained, the new towns would still remain somewhat abnormal in some respects—much more abnormal than they need be. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment, which I really do not think would improve the Bill at all.
LORD LATHAM: Are we to take it from the noble Earl's reply that the principal object of this proposal is to denude the development corporations of certain exceptional powers which they at present enjoy?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: NO. AS the noble Lord knows well, the object of this exercise is that at a certain stage, at the end of stage 1 of the development of the town, the corporation winds up; stage 2 starts, and the Commission takes over. The Commission's functions, duties and powers are laid down in this Bill and the corporation's powers then lapse.
LORD LATHAM: I want to be abundantly fair to the noble Earl. He said that one of the purposes was that the provisions of the 1946 Act, conferring certain powers upon the development corporations, ought to come to an end. Of course they will come to an end, even though the corporations remain in existence after the purposes for which those powers were given have been achieved. There will be no purpose in the corporation seeking to take advantage of the powers of acquisition of land if they do not need the land. It seems to me that that argument is a little exiguous in support of this most objectionable proposal. A further point I would make is that if the taking over of the new towns were deferred, as is suggested in the Amendment, it would at all events, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has indicated, give Parliament time to think again and maybe to go back to the original decision emphatically come to in 1946, that these new towns, if they are to be transferred, should be transferred and handed over to local authorities.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must remind the noble Lord that there was no "if" about it in the 1946 Act. The towns were to be transferred when the development corporations' purposes were substantially achieved—they were to be transferred in a different direction. This Bill is simply bringing in a stage, and there never was any question that the development corporations should remain indefinitely.
LORD SILKIN: I did not suggest indefinitely; I suggested until the purposes had been substantially achieved. I went to some pains to describe what I meant. I did not think that they were being achieved merely by creating a series of housing estates, which is very largely what they are at the moment. I do not want to be unfair to the new towns, but they are little more than that. They are not living communities as a whole but a series of separate, neighbouring units not very closely knit together. My contention was that the towns were not substantially complete until they were completely living communities in the same way as—the noble Earl does not like Worcester; he could have Guildford or some other town. I thought that was a fair example to give.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I entirely appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, but we are not talking about the towns being substantially achieved; we are talking about the work of the development corporations being substantially achieved. When the work of the development corporation—that is to say, the laying out of the town and the building of it—is substantially achieved, then we say that we need a period of good estate management, which is to be taken up by the Commission. That is the point.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the noble Earl has quite appreciated the point, because even under this Bill the new Commission are going to be responsible, I hope—at least it is proposed to be so—for providing the amenities of the town. That is one of their jobs. Therefore, I think it was equally the job of the existing development corporations, and they have not achieved it yet. That is why I contend that the purposes for which the town was conceived will not have been completed or substantially achieved merely when the houses and the shops have been built; there is still a great deal to do before it becomes a real town. However, I do not want to pursue the point because I realise that the noble Earl is not in a position to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to press it. On the whole, I imagine not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I have already outlined my case for leaving out Clause 1. The noble Earl rather set it aside and wanted to direct his attention only to the first Amendment, and he therefore did not really explain why it was essential that we should pass this measure here and now. Even on his own definition, the first of the new towns, Crawley, will not be substantially complete until 1961, and there is no secret about the fact that some time between now and the next few months there will be an Election. The period after the Election would have allowed ample time to enable a decision to be made as to the future of the new towns, even as to the future of Crawley. So that I cannot see why there is any urgency to pass this measure now, unless the Govern-
104
ment think that they are going to "make hay while the sun shines". I recognise that leaving out Clause 1 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. That was my object in putting down this Amendment. I shall be glad if the noble Earl can explain what is the urgency for getting this Bill through at all this Session. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: If I may apply my thoughts to the Amendment under discussion, I may say that I was in some doubt when I saw the Amendment whether it was a legalistic one or whether it was a wrecking Amendment, The noble Lord has said that it is a wrecking Amendment. Of course, it could have been taken in a legalistic manner, because the noble Lord could have said, "This clause does not add anything to or detract from the Bill. The Bill can go on without it. It is an explanatory, expository clause, but I think it is not one which makes the Bill intelligible to the lay reader". If that had been the argument, I should not have thought it would have been worth while taking it out at this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord has said why he has put the Amendment down. He realises that I shall have to ask your Lordships to resist it as a wrecking Amendment. Very well—we must resist it.
On Second Reading and in the long discussions that have taken place in another place the arguments were deployed as to why we think that this matter must now be dealt with in the life of this Parliament. The year 1961 is not all that far ahead, and it may well be that by 1961 at least one of the new towns will have reached that stage of development which even the noble Lord may agree is a fair example of the definition of "substantially achieved" in relation to the powers of the development corporation. One must not be driven into a corner and wait until the thing is upon you before you decide what to do. What has been growing up during the years in which we have seen the new towns growing and have been watching them develop, is the doubt in our minds, as I explained on Second Reading, whether, when a town is ripe (if that is the right phrase) for the next stage, that next stage should be municipalisation.

105
And we have not made up our minds about ultimate municipalisation, as the noble Lord knows. What we have said is that we must have a middle stage, which is what this Bill is about, and that is why we could not have left the matter any longer in doubt or vague. We had to bring in this Bill to explain that a new town that would shortly be ripe under all the definitions of the 1946 Act would not be going straight to the stage envisaged in Section 15 of the 1946 Act: we wish there to be an intermediary stage. There is no more about it, and I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment which would wreck the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment and functions of Commission for the New Towns
2.—(1) There shall be a body corporate by the name of the Commission for the New Towns having perpetual succession, a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain, and incorporated for the purpose of taking over, holding, managing and turning to account the property previously vested in the development corporation for a new town and transferred to the Commission by an order under this Act.
(2) It shall be the general duty of the Commission to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, and to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there.
(d) to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit.
(7) Where it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury and with the Commission, that the Commission have a surplus whether on capital or on revenue account after making allowance by way of transfer to reserve or otherwise for their future requirements (including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under the last mentioned paragraph (b)), the Commission shall, if the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid so directs, pay to the Minister such sum not exceeding the amount of that surplus as may be specified in the direction: and any sum received by the Minister under this subsection shall be paid into the Exchequer.
4.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (1):
"The Minister shall when the purposes for which the new towns have been substantially achieved or seven years after the coming into operation of this Act whichever is the later direct that the Commission shall cease to act and thereupon the provisions of section fifteen of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect."
The noble Lord said: "We have now agreed substantially that there is to be a Commission set up, though the details follow in later clauses. Over and over again in the course of the progress of this Bill, and as recently as two minutes ago, it has been stated that this is an intermediary stage. There are three stages in the progress of the new towns. Stage 1 will end when the Minister decides that the purposes have been substantially achieved; stage 2 is the stage laid down under this Bill, and there is to be a stage 3. That has been said over and over again. But there is not a word in this Bill about stage 3. Nobody reading this Bill would imagine that there is any further stage. It reads as if the end of the story is that all the new towns will in due course be administered by a Commission. There is nothing to indicate that at any time in the future there will be a reconsideration of the matter and a decision as to what is the best form of ultimate administration.
As I understand it, the Minister and the Government have not even ruled out the possibility that in a few years the local authorities may be the most desirable bodies to administer the new towns individually. At least, I do not take it that that has been entirely ruled out. But whether it has or not, if there is to be a third stage there ought to be some indication somewhere, in some part of the Bill, that that new stage will come about at some time in the future. The object of my Amendment is to provide that within a fixed period, seven years, after the coming into operation of this Act, or seven years after the new towns have been substantially achieved, whichever is the later—and I give the noble Earl the benefit of that: whichever is the later—at the end of that time, this fixed period of seven years, then the Commission shall cease to act and the provisions of Section 15 of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect. In other words,

107
the third stage, according to my Amendment, would be that the local authorities will at the end of that period be ripe and ready to undertake the task of administering the new towns.
I hope that the noble Earl will not reject the Amendment simply on the ground that he does not want to commit himself to handing the new towns over to the local authorities. If that were his only objection, I think I should be prepared to do a deal with him and leave open the question of the ultimate destination of the new towns. What I am concerned about—and this is the main purpose of my Amendment—is to ensure that there is a time limit for this second intermediate stage, and that when that is finished then there will be a third stage, which is certainly not the case under this Bill. I have put down what I think is the right course; what Parliament decided in 1946; what all sections of Parliament decided upon; what I was urged to do by noble Lords opposite here and by honourable Members opposite in another place—to ensure that when the objects of the new towns were substantially achieved they would go to the local authorities. I have put that in my Amendment. If the Government are not sure about it or have changed their minds, or if they are prepared to accept this time limit, or some time limit, for the duration of the Commission, I shall be perfectly prepared to put down an Amendment at a later stage leaving out the ultimate destination of the new towns. I make that offer: I do not know whether the noble Earl is in a position to accept it. Subject to that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord moving this Amendment has said, and to his friendly offer that he would like to make a deal with us here. I am afraid that I must disappoint him, because I do not think I can make any such deal; and I will try to explain why. It is not perhaps for the reasons which the noble Lord may think I am going to give. These are the reasons why I believe it to be quite unrealistic to bring in what the noble Lord wants: a time
108
limit for the life of the whole Commission in this way. Quite apart from the fact (which we will leave aside because the noble Lord knows I cannot accept it) that this Amendment attempts to deal with the third stage—and the opposition has been made perfectly clear—we remain absolutely uncommitted as to what the third stage is to be when it comes.
LORD SILKIN: Or as to whether there is to be a third stage.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No. It is a new point to me, but I am sure this Bill has been discussed in the Commons and in Committee, and a great deal around the country, and on this question of three stages the suggestion is almost inconceivable. The noble Lord says there is no indication as to how this Commission is to come to an end. But if there were any intention that the Commission should be perpetual, I should have thought there would be some indication that this was the ultimate end of the new towns. What we have said, both in another place and here, is that this is not to be the end but only the intermediate stage—the process of taking over, managing, good estate management and so on. On that basis I cannot accept the Amendment because it begs that question. It says that at the end of the period of seven years some specific thing shall be done, and my right honourable friend is not committing himself as to what specific thing shall be done when the time comes.
Surely this Amendment suffers from the same weakness as the previous Amendment suffered from; that we should have to go at the pace of the slowest; that we should have to deal with all the towns at once. The Amendment says:
"…when the purposes for which the new towns have been substantially achieved…"
These new towns are very different and varied, and are in very different stages of development. If we have a town well advanced—Crawley, for instance—and other towns less far advanced, I am not at all sure that we want to wait—in fact I am pretty certain we do not want to wait: it is this point that we made before—and hold up the next stage for the advanced town until the most backward own comes along. I do think that this point should be borne in mind: that

109
some of the last towns that will come in will probably be the least able to stand on their own feet financially. No one can predict how long this period will be, but the Government are certain that the limit set by the Amendment—that is, seven years, or the substantial achievement by the slowest runner in the race—will be much too short.
LORD SILKIN: I quite understand that the noble Earl is speaking on behalf of the Government and not on his own behalf, and that he is not in a position to accept this Amendment as it stands. Is he in a position to accept the principle of the Amendment? Would he be prepared to go back to his right honourable friends and see whether they would accept the idea of some termination of this second stage? That is the real purpose of this Amendment. The noble Earl may quarrel with the drafting, of course. Our drafting is always defective; and the noble Earl's drafting will be defective when he comes to put down Amendments. None of us is expert at that, and we can always make plain the defectiveness of the wording of an Amendment. Of course my Amendment is defective; I knew it was when I put it down: but the fact remains that we both know what is intended by this Amendment.
The intention is that there should be some time indicated. If seven years is too short, make it longer. If you do not know how long it is to be, then make some provision for the Minister to declare by order that the time has now come. But do not say in the discussions in this House that this is a second stage and that there is to be a third stage, yet not put a word in the Bill to indicate that. At present it is to be inferred from reading the Bill that there is no further stage and that these new towns are being handed over irrevocably to the Commission—subject, of course, to any further legislation that may come about in the future. If the noble Earl is prepared to go and put that point to his right honourable friend, I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment and to have another talk about it at a later stage. I should not have thought, in view of the most positive statements that have been made both here, by the noble Earl, and in another place—namely, that this is only a second stage—there should be any difficulty at all in having words incor-
110
porated in the Bill which would make that plain.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot at this stage go back to my right honourable friend and ask him to put in a definitive time limit——
LORD SILKIN: Not a definitive time limit.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Well, a time limit. I cannot accept that at this stage. I would ask the noble Lord to be fair. I had not accused him of any rough or inaccurate drafting in his Amendment. I carefully had not done so. As a matter of fact, my legal people had told me that there were defects in this particular Amendment, but I have been careful not to mention them. I suppose the noble Lord may have been so conscious of them, and was so certain I was going to mention them, that 'he defended himself for putting them in; but I did not do so.
There is one other point. The noble Lord—I know he meant it kindly, but I cannot accept it—said, "Of course, the noble Earl is speaking for the Government, and the Government cannot accept this". He rather implied that I should have liked to have this myself. That is not so. I have studied this Bill with great care, and I believe that this must be right: that we have got to have this business of the Commission in the middle, and that we are right not to say what happens at the end of the life of the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to press this point unduly, but is it not right to say something to the effect that there will be a further stage, even if you do not say that it will be in seven years time, and even if you leave the period indefinite and indeterminate? What is the good of the noble Earl saying to us, "This is only an intermediate stage," and not including a word about that in the Bill? That is the point. It may be that seven years is wrong. It may be that we ought not to commit ourselves as to what is to happen at the end of seven years. But that something should happen, and that at some time, which has been recognised, the Commission will come to an end and you will have to think again about the third stage, seems to me to follow axiomatically from what has been said by the noble Earl.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is not actually in the Bill—I must admit that—but my right honourable friend has said it over and over again. He has even given his guess or estimate as to the possible life—"ten to twenty years" I think was the phrase used; and I used it again on Second Reading. All that, taken together, surely demonstrates beyond all shadow of doubt that there is no question of this being the final stage. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (2) "and in particular to the provision of amenities for the town." The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 4. In any case, this Amendment cannot be characterised as being a wrecking Amendment. It deals with one of the elements which is of the essence of the success of these new towns—namely, the provision of adequate amenities, both social and recreational. The Amendment proposes to add to the words in Clause 2, subsection (2), the words which appear in the Marshalled List. It will be said, no doubt, by the noble Earl that in Clause 2 there is a reference to the provision of amenities; but the Commission are to provide such amenities only with the approval of the Minister and, in addition, with the concurrence of the Treasury.
During the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government used these words—and I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, of December 1, 1958 [Vol. 596, column 851]:
"My right honourable friend and I realise that there is a feeling in some quarters that in the past the corporations have not done enough to provide those amenities, although what they have done ought not to be underestimated."
I should have thought, having regard to the experience which the new town corporations have had, that that statement was an exaggerated one. For what has been the experience of the new towns? In many cases the corporations have been led to complain in report after report to the Minister of the inability to get the concurrence of the Minister and of the Treasury to the provision of amenities,
112
and it can be said that the utility and the purpose of the new towns has been seriously impeded and impinged upon because of the inability in many cases of the new towns to obtain consent to expenditure on the provision of amenities. We have some apprehension that if the Commission is subject to the approval of the Minister in the first place, with the concurrence of the Treasury in the second, the experience of the Commission is not likely to be any more encouraging than has been the experience of the new town corporations.
In the Report on the new towns presented to the Minister for the year ended March 31, 1958, we find a catalogue of complaints about the need for the provision of more facilities for social and recreational amenities. When we read these reports, we are impressed by the fact that most of the amenities, especially the provision of community centres, playgrounds and facilities for recreational activities, have been provided by the much despised local authorities, to whom it is not thought wise to hand over these corporations.
If we turn, for instance, to page 158 of the last Report, we find this in regard to youth services in Crawley new town:
"During the year the corporation has agreed with the county council sites throughout the town for temporary and long-term development for youth service buildings and has built or leased to the council prefabricated buildings in Northquay and Langley Green for youth societies, in addition to building a centre at West Green."
It goes on to say:
"The urban district council is responsible for 200 acres of playing fields, open spaces and parks and 36 acres of allotments, which have been either leased or sold to the corporation."
Your Lordships will observe that it is the local authority which is providing the amenities which are so needed in most new towns.
If we turn to the report of the development corporation for Hemel Hempstead, we find this at page 280:
"The Government have announced that they intend to set up a central authority to take over the assets and liabilities of all development corporations when the task of building each new town is substantially completed. It would not be proper for the development corporation to express a view as to whether it considers this decision to be right or wrong, but whatever arrangements are made for the future management of the new town assets, the corporation most sincerely hopes that the

113
responsible authority will be given adequate powers and resources to complete the town, particularly by the provision of those amenities which successive Governments have not so far allowed the corporation to build."
That, it seems to me, is a pretty formidable indictment of the successive Governments referred to.
When we turn to Stevenage, one of the earliest of the new towns, we find this on page 263 of the report:
"The most serious threat to the wellbeing of the town at present lies in the comparative sparseness of its amenities. It is considered that the town centre must be made the focus of town life, and as it will be the hub of all transport routes it should equally be the centre for amusements and relaxation. Hence the corporation's desire to see an early start made on the building of the college of further education, the public library and the health centre, and its anxiety that such places of social intercourse and recreation as cinemas, dance halls, swimming pools, cafés, restaurants and public gardens should be provided."
It goes on to say:
"It is essential to satisfy these needs not only from the social point of view but to stabilise and maintain property values in the town, and the relatively small expenditure required for providing many of the necessary amenities should therefore prove to be a good investment. The corporation hopes that whether facilities are provided by itself or by other public or private bodies, your Ministry will give the fullest possible support in solving this problem."
I suppose that when the Commission takes over, it will be left to the Commission to deal with that problem as a good landlord. Well, having regard to past experience, we are not encouraged to believe that the good landlordism will embrace the provisions of these essential amenities. In my submission, these amenities are the life blood of these new towns. We cannot remedy or lessen delinquency unless we provide competitive recreational and social facilities, and in practically all the new towns there is a disturbing—a very disturbing—lack of these facilities.
The policy of the Minister and of the Treasury has been one of cheese-paring, a miserly policy which has been enforced on the corporations in the past and has left them at the mercy of the local authorities, who themselves have been restricted in their capital expenditure because of Government policy. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it obligatory that proper concern is shown for the social and recreational amenities and that this is in the mind
114
of the Commission when it takes over the new towns. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after ("there") insert ("and in particular to the provision of amenities for the town.").—(Lord Latham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I hope that I shall be able to make the noble Lord a little happier about this matter than he seems to be at present. I think that it is wrong to assume that the Commission is going to fail in its duties. I see no reason to suppose that. The noble Lord quoted from the report of the development corporations that it was hoped that the Commission would have adequate powers and resources to complete the amenities of a partially developed town, and he described that as "a formidable indictment". It is not a formidable indictment at all; it is a very proper hope; and I can assure the noble Lord that this Bill gives adequate power and resources to the Commission to complete amenities in the proper way. We have to remember that these amenities are largly properly supplied by the local authority. I think the noble Lord used the words "much-despised local authority". He put words into my mouth; I do not despise the local authorities at all. The development corporation puts in the sewers and builds the houses, and then the local authority comes into being. The local authority is probably the right entity to provide the amenities, such as playing fields and so on, and the Commission in this intermediate stage have the power and the financial resources to give the necessary assistance.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Earl explain why the local authorities should provide the amenities at their own expense if they are not capable of administering the new towns?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Nobody has said that they are not capable of administering the new towns; that is an absolute travesty of what I said earlier and on Second Reading. What we have said, and I will repeat it, is that the Government do not think an experiment in wholesale municipalisation at a certain stage is wanted. We have said all along that the local authorities are by their very nature service providers, and that they

115
had much better go on being service providers than property owners. That is the point I want to come to.
LORD LATHAM: It is an entirely different point of view from that taken up by the Government when in opposition in 1946.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think the noble Lord must allow me to develop this point. The primary duty of this Commission is going to be to enhance and develop this property and complete the job in this intermediate stage. Amenities, of course, are important, but the maintenance of adequate employment and prospects for the people living in the town are more important. We must not get this amenity business out of proportion. The Commission will be allowed to spend reasonable sums for this purpose—and, incidentally, this will not depend on the revenue surplus of any one town. One of the great advantages of this centralised Commission is that the Commission will treat all the towns as a whole. The needs will decide how much the Commission will assist the local authority in providing amenities (and normally that will be the way it is done).
The noble Lord said that we had been niggardly in the past and things of this kind have had to be restricted. Of course they have. They have been restricted for the older towns like Worcester and Guildford, which were mentioned in the debate, just as they have been for new towns like Crawley and Basildon. There has been a credit squeeze and financial stringency. But these things are easing up now, and there is no reason to believe that when conditions are easier for one they will not be easier for the other. The Commission will assist and have powers and resources to do so. It is wrong to regard the Commission as primarily a sort of milch cow or universal fairy godmother merely to provide amenities; they have far more to do than that. This Amendment would distort the operations of the Commission from their primary duty, which is to maintain and enhance the property. The mere fact that this welfare is mentioned is plainly adequate to direct the Commission's attentions to amenity considerations. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (4) after "(1)" to insert "and (2)". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I should have thought, is merely a correction of an omission in the Bill as printed, because as it reads at the moment it says that
"the Commission shall have power, with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)…"
I cannot see any particular purpose in subsection (1) except to take over and manage the property. I should have thought that their main purpose was that mentioned in subsection (2). Would it not be correct to say
"with a view to the better fulfilment of the purposes mentioned in subsections (1) and (2)"
rather than to define their duties merely in relation to the holding of land and turning to account the property? What they have to do, among other things, is
"to promote or assist by any means, and in particular by making advances towards the cost of purchasing land…the setting up or extension of businesses in the town",
including the adapting of buildings or works and so forth. That purpose is laid down more in subsection (2) than in subsection (1). To a large extent I think it is a drafting Amendment, but it seems to me that merely to define their functions in relation to what is mentioned in subsection (1) is narrow and restrictive and does not really achieve the purpose which it is intended to achieve in this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, after ("(1)") insert ("and (2)").—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a technical Amendment which I find a little difficult. I fully sympathise with the intention of the Amendment, so lucidly expressed by the noble Lord who has moved it. I think the best way I can describe it is by saying this: that subsection (1) is purpose, and subsection (2) is duty, and subsection (2) is ancillary to subsection (1); the greater includes the less. I believe that this Amendment is really quite unnecessary, and also, if I may say so, slightly un-grammatical. Clause 2 (4) supplements the implied powers of the Commission with certain expressed powers and indicates that they are to be used to promote the convenience and welfare of people living and working in the new towns and

117
to further the purpose for which the Commission will be established as described in Clause 2 (1), which says: "holding, managing and turning to account…"
The Amendment seeks to add a reference to Clause 2 (2) which defines the Commission's duty. We are getting a little metaphysical here in defining differences between "purpose" and "duty", but I believe that to a large extent this Amendment is otiose. The only new consideration which it is possibly intended to add (although I am advised that it would not effect this, as drawn) is that the Commission may use their powers to further the purposes for which the new towns were originally established.
LORD SILKIN: More than that—to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business. That is staled as a purpose; and yet in the clause that purpose seems to be deliberately excluded.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am advised that it is not deliberately excluded, and that that runs the whole way through the purposes for which the new towns are created and were created. My advice is that it would be wrong to give this aspect of the Commission's functions more weight than the clause already gives it, for when the purposes for which the development corporations have been established have been substantially achieved, ex hypothesi there is little more that either the corporation or the Commission need do about it. Clause 2 (2) says only that the Commission shall "have regard" to these purpose. This was always intended to make only a marginal difference where the Commission have a choice of alternatives, shall we say, in one of the London new towns, of setting up a new business which comes from Bristol or from London. The nature and purpose of the London new town would, I think, give the marginal weight to the London business. Other things being equal, that business should be preferred, because the town was originally designed to draw industry out of London.
The Commission's powers under Clause 2 (4) are adequate to deal with this sort of situation, because they are linked to wider issues raised in Clause
118
2 (1), which itself embraces the narrower issues raised in Clause 2 (2). As the noble Lord said, this is a technical and drafting Amendment, but I must advise your Lordships that it would not improve the Bill and that it is unnecessary. I must ask your Lordships to resist it.
LORD SILKIN: It is almost a drafting, but not wholly a drafting Amendment. The inclusion of subsection (2) would widen the scope of the Bill. It was so intended, and I think it ought to be so. I suppose it is useless to ask the noble Earl to reconsider this matter. I do not propose to do so, and I must let the Amendment be negatived. But I deplore the spirit in which this has been conducted. I do not think that these Amendments are being properly considered at all. I think the noble Earl has been instructed to refuse everything, to make no concession whatever and to give no proper consideration to these Amendments. In those circumstances, it seems hardly worth while discussing them.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I really must object to that. If I have to advise your Lordships to reject an Amendment I think it is wholly unwarrantable that it should be suggested that I have not given it careful consideration, as I have carefully considered this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am saying merely that I am perfectly convinced that in some cases we have made out a case which is worthy of further consideration. I have on at least two occasions asked the noble Earl whether he would go back to his "masters" and ask whether they would consider it. He is not even prepared to do so. I think that this is a case where one might quite properly have asked for further consideration on the point, and I should have been very happy to withdraw the Amendment on the basis that it would be considered. We think it would improve the Bill to include subsection (2) as one of the purposes. However, the noble Earl has had his instructions and I must accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to omit paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: I suppose it is not much

119
good moving this Amendment either. The noble Earl has had instructions to reject it. But I will just state the purpose of it. I want to leave out as one of the purposes of the Commission:
"To dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit."
There is no qualification in that at all. Is it really intended that they should be able to dispose of any property in the new town just as they think fit? I am not quite sure what "property" means. Does it mean landed property or chattels, or what does it mean? On the assumption that it means every kind of property, including land, it does not strike me even as being consistent, because subsection (5) provides that
"The Commission shall not without the authority given generally or specially of the Minister—

(a) transfer the freehold in any land.…"

If they cannot do that without the consent of the Minister, then I do not see how they can
"dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit."
I propose that those words should be entirely deleted, because they are giving the Commission far too wide powers without any control whatever; and it is not even clear what is intended by it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 43 and 44.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The removal of paragraph (d) would deprive the Commission of the power to sell freeholds. The intention behind the Amendment is unacceptable, because if the Commission are to do their job properly, the job of estate management, they must have, under proper safeguards, the power to dispose of land by way of freehold sale or long lease, either to industrialists or commercial interests who wish to build shops, cinemas or a dance hall, in accordance with their professional judgment. It is not sensible to give a Commission a professional job to do and at the same time place what are really political restrictions on the methods and policies they may adopt.
There are times when the sale of property is the best course—I think of religious organisations, charitable organisations, and so on. If we remove this
120
power to dispose of any property in such manner as the Commission think fit we have removed all the powers of sale. Incidentally, of course, it would entirely preclude another Government, with other political views who came into power, from directing the Commission to sell the houses to the local authority. I am sorry to have to resist the noble Lord. He feels that I am under instructions in this, but I think this is a radical alteration, and I must resist it.
The noble Lord asked what "property" was. The assets will be transferred to the Commission from the development corporation. The Commission must have this right to dispose. I thought the noble Lord might have been going to deploy the argument that this gives power for them to be a disposal board, and to sell it all off overnight. I dealt with this point on Second Reading, and my right honourable friend in another place has said categorically—I will quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 596 (No. 25), col. 850]:
"I am advised that it would be outside the scope of the Bill for any Minister to tell the Commission to sell its estate wholesale either to local authorities or to private interests. I am advised that that would require another Bill".
I thought perhaps the noble Lord was moving the deletion of this paragraph because he feared the "disposals board" aspect, though I know he has not made that point. He has made the point, with which I cannot agree, that the Commission should not be allowed to sell anything at all. I think that in the ordinary run of good estate management they must, under proper restrictions, be allowed to sell whenever they think fit, under the direction of the Minister.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to continue the argument, except that I certainly do not want it to be on record that I said what the noble Earl says I said. I did not say that they should not be allowed to dispose of anything at all. What I object to is that they should be allowed to dispose of "any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit" without any qualification whatever. I think that is too great a power to give any body of any kind, however eminent. It is all very well for the noble Earl to say that this is not a disposals board, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent their disposing of the whole assets of a

121
new town. If I am wrong about that, I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will correct me. But that is my reading of it; that as these words stand, the Commission can dispose of anything they like. What the noble Earl says here, or what the Minister said in another place, has no validity as against the wording of the Bill itself. If the Commission can dispose of anything—and the noble Earl has argued that they ought to be allowed to do so in the interest of good management—these words certainly give them that right for any purpose that they may think fit.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a somewhat legalistic argument. The noble Lord did say "without any provisos at all"—I think those were the words he used. But this is a subsection which begins:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister, the Commission shall have power, with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)…"
and so on. This is not just an isolated clause, with no qualification before or after, saying that they can dispose of any property in such way as they think fit. I am advised, and my right honourable friend in another place is advised—and we must take it that he went carefully into it before he said it—that it would not be within his power to direct the Commission to act as a disposals board, and I must repeat that. That is the legal advice my right honourable friend has obtained on the construction of this clause.
LORD LATHAM: I do not wish to be in any way legalistic, but I would ask the noble Earl to explain why there is no requirement in this clause that the provision and disposal shall have the approval of the Minister and the concurrence of the Treasury, which is the case as regards amenities. I should like to draw a comparison—not a legalistic one—with the rights of local authorities. If a local authority buy land for a specific purpose, then under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act recently passed through your Lordships' House they have to get the specific consent of the Minister to dispose of that land if it is not wanted for the purpose for which it has been acquired. And yet this Commission, which is not an elected body, which is
122
not responsible to the electorate or to the citizens or to the tenants of the new towns, can apparently, without let or hindrance, without any consultation, approval or concurrence of the Minister or of the Treasury, dispose of "any property"—which I take it means all property as well—"for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit." Loud have been the complaints, unjustified in my submission, of certain people against local authorities being able to buy land and then, later on, because they have changed their decision as regards its user, selling it. Here we have the Commission taking over land which has been bought for a specific purpose, namely, as a part of the new towns, and yet it is to have power to dispose of it without let or hindrance, without the approval or concurrence of anyone.
LORD DERWENT: My noble friend has convinced me that the wording with regard to the disposal of the property for such purposes is protected under this Bill and is not so wide as the noble. Lord, Lord Silkin, thinks. But I am somewhat unhappy about the words "in such manner as they think fit". I do not think I need go further than to say at the back of some of our minds is the story of Crichel Down. Perhaps "in such manner" might require further explanation from my noble friend.
5.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious that I should try to help with the matters that are troubling noble Lords opposite. I could not quite appreciate, although I listened as carefully as I could, what was troubling the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As I understood him, he seemed to fear that the power was an absolute power in the hands of the Commission. If he looks at the preceding words he will see that it is
"Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any direction given to them by the Minister…"
So there are two qualifications on the power: it is subject first to the provisions of this Act; and secondly, to any direction given by the Minister. On the first point, "Subject to the provisions of this Act", one has to look at subsection (1) of this clause and also at subsection (2), which says:
"It shall be the general duty of the Commission to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return

123
obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed under the New Towns Act, 1946, and to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there."
In a matter like this I do not think that one can limit the sanction entirely to the legal provisions. One has to take into account the political sanction on the administration of an Act; and of course an Act must be administered according to the intentions that are expressed in these clauses.
If the noble Lord would look at subsection (5) (this is the third point) he will see these words:
"The Commission shall not without the authority given generally or specially of the Minister—

(a) transfer the freehold in any land, or grant a lease of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, except in the case of a private dwelling and in pursuance of an agreement to make the transfer or grant to the person occupying or proposing to occupy it as his residence…"

So there is that qualification where the Minister's authority must be given. There is another point in answer to Lord Latham—and it is also relevant to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent. Subsection (6) states:
"The Commission shall not have power to dispose by way of gift, mortgage or charge of any land or, except as provided by paragraph (b) of subsection (4)…of any other property; nor shall they have power to borrow money except by way of advance from the Minister under this Act."
It seems to me that when one examines that provision, and the words" subject to the provisions of this Act", there is a considerable circumscribing of the power. Then one has the second part—subject to "any direction given them by the Minister". Of course, the Minister has to have regard to the general purpose of the Act in giving directions under subsection (3).
In regard to the other aspect of the point of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I would only say that "in such a manner" means that it is intended to give every discretion as to whether in proper cases disposal shall be by sale or by lease. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree that the difficulty behind Crichel Down—which was the difficulty of land that had been compulsory acquired, or acquired by threat
124
of compulsion and then not returned to a previous owner—is unlikely to arise, so far as I can see, in any of the new towns provisions under this Act or in any amendment of them. It is not a problem which is likely to arise, and the intention is not to have any secrecy. I hope that I have been of some help. I have just been reminded that the Royal Commission is at 5.30 and we ought to make preparation for meeting it, so that the Commons will receive our Message in good time.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to say a word in reply to this, but time does not permit just as the moment. A lot of what the noble and learned Viscount has said is worthy of careful consideration. I should like to ask at this stage whether we can have a separate Report stage of the Bill, because obviously no Amendments are going to be entertained—I can see that. If we could have a Report stage, one could read what has been said. I do not want to enlarge on it; I just put the question straight away because it will have an effect on the course that we take.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Could we consider that immediately? I should like to have a word with my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn about it before we agree to that course, but I could let the noble Lord know later in the day.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Town and Country Planning,

Weeds,

Dog Licences,

Rights of Light,

Street Offences,

Bucks Water Board,

Reading and Berkshire Water &c.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

NEW TOWNS BILL
5.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount had finished his remarks. My difficulty about the provision that I want to delete is that I recognise that the Bill contains the two safeguards—"Subject to the provisions of this Act", and, "with a view to the better fulfilment of the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)". Nevertheless, it gives the Commission an absolute power
"to dispose of any property for such purposes and in such manner as they think fit";
and unless there is a direction by the Minister, they have the sole decision as to whether they shall dispose of the property or not. When we come to the next provision, it is that they shall not dispose of freeholds or leaseholds except in a manner set out in subsection (5). The provision I want to delete contains no such restriction. There is nothing in the provision which requires the Minister to be consulted. They can dispose of property if they think it is right that they should do so. They are not obliged to consult the Minister, and the Minister could act only after the event. So I think that this power needs looking at again.
In my submission, it is not really necessary at all. They can carry out their duties without having this power: but if it is thought that they should have some power to dispose of property I think it should be much more circumscribed—either that they should have to obtain permission, or that it should be more closely limited. So I would suggest that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again and that we ought not to be in such a desperate hurry to get this Bill through as to reject anything in any proposal that may be put forward.
It may be that this Bill is so perfect that it is not in need of any amendment at all, and that nothing that anybody can suggest can improve it. How different from the Bill which is coming after it, where we have had hundreds of Amendments proposed by the Government, some of which we are going to consider even on the Third Reading! And how different from a previous measure which we have had before us, the Town and Country Planning Bill, where in the
126
aggregate I think we had something like 400 Amendments. Is it not a remarkable thing that this Bill should go through without a single Amendment; that it comes to us absolutely word perfect, and that nobody can suggest any possible improvement to it? I hope, in spite of what I have said, that we shall have a Report stage and that we shall get a further statement as to whether or not it is desirable that this provision should be amended.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am very conscious of the sincerity with which the noble Lord has spoken on this matter, and I am glad to be able to say that it will be possible to have a Report stage on this Bill. I understand that that can be fitted into Monday's business. That being the case, I shall be glad to consider again what has been said to-day, and to consult my right honourable friend.
LORD SILKIN: In view of the new atmosphere, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (4):
"And in particular when the Minister is satisfied that amenities for the town are lacking and are not being provided as set out in paragraph (c) of this subsection he shall give directions to the Commission to make such contributions to the cost of providing amenities for (he town as may be contained in the directions."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to Clause 2. As the clause stands, the Commission are under an obligation to consider the question of amenities and, within their discretion, to make contributions towards the costs of providing them for the town. It is one of the things they must have in mind, subject to any direction given by the Minister. They will have the power to do this. But what I want to secure is that where the Minister thinks that the amenities are lacking and ought to be provided he will give directions to that effect. It makes the position mandatory rather than permissive. But, of course, it is only where the Minister is satisfied that the amenities are lacking and are not being provided as set out in paragraph (c). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides that the Commission must comply with any direction given by the Minister. The only fetter on the Minister's discretion in giving directions is that he must have regard to the general duty laid upon the Commission in Clause 2 (2)
"…to maintain and enhance the value of the land held by them and the return obtained by them from it, but in discharging their functions in relation to any town the Commission shall have regard to the purpose for which the town was developed…"
Therefore it is possible for the Minister, in the exercise of his power under Clause 2 (3), to give such direction as the Amendment envisages, providing he has the agreement of the Treasury. But there is the assumption in the Amendment as it is drawn that the Commission will fail in this matter. If that is so, I doubt whether the Amendment really covers the point. It would not give the Minister power to direct the Commission to provide amenities. It would give power to the Commission to contribute to the amenities that are provided. The assumption is that somebody else will provide the amenities, and normally that will be the local authorities. A direction to the Commission to give financial help to some other body may not necessarily induce that body to do the work.
In seeking to give a mandatory direction here, we must take a wider view. In a period of acute financial stringency, with which any Government might be faced, when there were necessary reasons why public expenditure had to be curtailed, a mandatory direction of this sort would single out new towns as the only bodies to which the Minister had to give directions to provide certain amenities, which may be denied to anybody else. But this is only a secondary point. The main point is that in normal circumstances I am advised that the Bill as drafted does provide what the noble Lord wants and that this Amendment is really unnecessary.
LORD SILKIN: I do not accept that it would be unnecessary, because it would place a duty on the Minister, whereas in the Bill as it stands it is optional on his
128
part to give a direction. But since there is to be a Report stage, I am very willing to consider what the noble Earl has said and not press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (7):
"and shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of what is to happen to any surpluses that may arise in connection with the finances of a new town. The Bill as it stands provides that any surplus shall be paid into the Exchequer; and if my reading of the Bill is correct, there the matter ends. There is no obligation on the part of the Exchequer to do anything with a surplus, except to use it for the purpose of general tax relief. This is a surplus after taking into account all charges—repayment of debt interest and so on; it is a true surplus which, in my submission, should go to the benefit of the new town itself.
I can certainly speak of the intention of the Government which introduced the 1946 Act. They did not regard the new towns as primarily a profit-making concern. They were not entering into the development business for the purpose of making a profit, although we always believed that eventually they would be profitable. The real question for consideration here is whether that surplus should go to the relief of the taxpayer or to the benefit of the new town. I should be perfectly prepared to have a discussion on what is the right course, but this clause seems to assume implicitly that the surplus will go to the benfit of the taxpayer, because once it is paid into the Exchequer there is no obligation on the Exchequer to account for the surplus.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the surplus
"…shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine."
It also provides that a surplus on one town is not necessarily to be devoted to

129
the benefit of that particular town. I am accepting the principle of the Bill and asking that any surplus on one town should go to the town that most needs it. So far as I see it, the Bill as it stands is silent about this point. I hope that we may have some further elucidation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, after ("Exchequer") insert ("and shall be used for improving the amenities of the new towns or for such other purposes for the benefit of the new towns as the Minister may determine.")—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The point of the noble Lord's Amendment was discussed on Second Reading on a slightly wider front. The slightly narrower point on which the noble Lord puts forward his Amendment is whether a surplus should be earmarked for any one town or should be used for the benefit of all twelve of the new towns. I think that the points I made in reply to the debate on Second Reading must still weigh with your Lordships. It is not right to assume that the Government should be content with getting back the money expended, as if (to borrow a phrase which was used in the Second Reading debate) they were debenture holders, and that the local people—or now, under the Amendment, the wider group of the twelve towns—should have an equity interest and get the benefit of a surplus, if any. I do not think this can be accepted.
It is the money put up by the taxpayers of the whole country, and not just by the local people, that has produced the assets of the new towns, and it is the taxpayers as a whole who are entitled to the surpluses. The convenience and welfare of the local people will be a prime consideration of the Commission, and provision for the amenities that should be provided in the new town will be taken into account before a surplus is required to be paid over. That is the point that must be remembered. Clause 2 (7) of the Bill as originally drafted was amended in another place, and the words
"(including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under the last mentioned paragraph (b))".
were put in to cover this point. It was considered that no surplus which was not a true surplus should be declared and sent off to the Treasury. That is really the case.
130
There is another point. If Clause 2 (7) has been properly complied with, after consultation between the Treasury and the Commission and so on, and it is agreed that there is a surplus within the terms as I have tried to define them, the Amendment means that the Commission can be told: "Now apply that surplus back again for the very things you say have already been completed." Ex hypothesi those reasons for spending the money are no longer there. I think the safeguard here is that the surplus will not be treated as a surplus and go to the Treasury until it is a real surplus.
LORD LATHAM: It seems to me that the noble Earl wishes to have it both ways. First of all, the Government are in the position of debenture holders, and they have a first charge for the service of the debt. Then if there is an equity, the Government claim also to have the equity. Even in these, shall I say, progressive financial days in the City that is a little unique. It seems to me that the noble Earl has not made any case whatever for the Government's insisting that the surplus, which is the equity surplus, should be paid over to the Exchequer. My own view is that he is a little optimistic if he assumes that all the reasonable and desirable objectives in connection with the town, including amenities, will have been achieved and, therefore, if there is a surplus, that there will be nothing upon which it can be properly spent. I think that is assuming that the Commission, with the consent of the Minister and the Treasury, are likely to be more generous in regard to the provision of amenities than will actually be the case.
If the new towns are not to have this surplus, ought not the local authorities to have some of it? They carry an enormous burden as the result of the establishment of these new towns, and it will take many years before the rateable return from the properties which are created pays for the cost of providing the services, especially on the very costly basis (quite properly) upon which education is being provided and will be provided in the future. It seems to me to be quite indefensible that the Government should claim first of all to be debenture holders, having a prior charge, and then, having had their interest and their principal paid, should claim to have the equity.
LORD GIFFORD: I must confess that at first sight I had some sympathy with this Amendment, but the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, having pointed out that contributions to amenities would be taken into account before any surplus was declared, I feel entirely satisfied.
LORD LATHAM: There is nothing in the Bill requiring the Minister to take into account anything before establishing a surplus.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I can add nothing further to what I have said. The principle involved here is that no Government can accept that a particular part of their revenue can for all time, and irretrievably, be earmarked for a particular purpose. That has been tried before, and it does not work, and we do not think it would be correct to do it here. As my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, the essential works will have been done. It is not right to say that there is no qualification for this. The whole of this Bill is laying down what the Commission have got to do, and it is only when there has been consultation between the Treasury and the Commission and when all the things mentioned in Clause 2 (7) have been carried out, that, as it were, a dividend is declared and the surplus is known. And I may say that there is not likely to be a general surplus for a long way ahead. A question was asked in the Second Reading debate about Harlow, which had a surplus on revenue account but which had a much bigger deficit on another account. One must take the picture as a whole. It would not be right for me to say that I will consider this point again, because it has been carefully considered already. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl is really misdirecting himself. He is assuming that this is a surplus which properly belongs to the Exchequer and that it would not be practicable or wise to earmark it for another purpose. But that is the whole difference between us. I say that it is not a surplus which properly belongs to the Exchequer. The only claim that the Exchequer has is for the return of its money and interest. The Exchequer is not a speculator; it has not embarked on this venture in order to make profits. If there is a surplus, that
132
surplus really belongs to the community who are responsible for its creation. That is the issue. For the noble Lord to say that it belongs to the Exchequer, and therefore the Government should keep it, is really begging the question. I remain quite unconvinced and I may return to the attack on another occasion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer of houses to district council
". The Minister shall when he is satisfied that the provision of new dwellings by the Commission in any town is substantially ended convey to the county district in which such new town is situated all the dwellings owned by the Commission in the new town and thereupon the Council of the county district shall be entitled to the rents and subsidies of such dwellings and shall be liable for the cost of their proper maintenance and for the outstanding debt in respect thereof to the Exchequer."
The noble Lord said: This new clause provides that when the Minister is satisfied that the provision of new dwellings in any town is substantially ended, then those new dwellings should be transferred to the administration of the local authority. One of the arguments put forward by the Government for not handing over the functions of the new town to the local authority is that many of these functions are not normally the functions of a local authority. There is a certain amount of superficial merit in that point, and it is quite an understandable one. However, the management of housing is purely a local authority function. Is there any reason why the housing part of the undertaking of the new town, once it is finished, should not be handed over to the local authority for them to manage? Are they not in a better position to manage their own housing in their own area than the Central Commission, sitting possibly hundreds of miles away? I should have thought that to transfer these houses to the local authority for their management when the housing functions have been completed was a common sense and fair thing to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a clause which again anticipates the third stage that we have been discussing and raises the whole point of whether we should legislate for what happens at the end of the life of the Commission. I have had to say many times that the Government are not prepared to do that at this moment. The clause would compel a Minister to hand over houses to the local authority. There is really a contradiction in terms here, because in fact, in all the towns, housing accounts form by far the greater proportion of the property, both financial and physical, of the development corporation's estate. If we move on logically, we are saying that at a certain stage the development corporation hands over its property to the development Commission for certain purposes to manage, enhance and so on, as we all know. If we divest the Commission of most of its property at that point, we are really contradicting ourselves in saying that we must hand over this property for the Commission to conserve. This clause, on a slightly narrower front, raises the general question about the ultimate ownership of the development corporation's assets. I do not want to go into that detail now.
There are only two other small points I would make on this Amendment as drafted, and that is that it would hand over these dwellings at one bite. I am told that the Labour Party has in fact suggested that they ought to be transferred in stages, and I do not know, therefore, how much noble Lords opposite want to use this handing over power at once when, according to the newspapers, it is not the policy of their Party to do that. Secondly, this clause would really be unprecedented if it were incorporated, because the local authority would be bound to take over what might be a burden, with no right in the matter at all—no statutory right to have any say in the matter, particularly on financial terms. They are to take over the houses and the outstanding debt at a time chosen by the Minister. I cannot believe that any Government would propose to Parliament a clause of this kind without at least giving the local authority the right, for instance, to go to arbitration or to go to Parliament regarding the financial terms. I think the clause is defective in detail, in failing to specify how the Minister is to convey the property of the
134
Commission to the county district council. For those defects alone, I would say that it would not be proper for your Lordships to add this clause to the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: Obviously the noble Earl is not going to accept this clause, but, I submit, for entirely bad reasons. I do not want to take up a great deal of time, and I want to mention only one of the points the noble Earl made, which is that this would be done without consulting the local authorities. He will remember 1946, a long time ago, when the New Towns Bill was before this House, and the Government were then urged to transfer the assets of (he new towns to the local authorities without consultation at all—as they were in the Commons, as I well remember. This point was never taken then, and I do not think it a valid point now, because the local authorities have definitely expressed their desire to take over the assets in the new towns and, in particular, housing.
If the noble Earl is interested, I would tell him that this Amendment is inspired by the local authorities of the areas in which the new towns are situated, so he may ease his mind as to imposing this burden upon the particular local authorities. Nor did the 1946 Act give the local authorities any option as to the terms. It was all laid down to be agreed. However, I do not think the noble Earl has made a case for rejecting the clause, except on the wording of whether it should be done all at once or in stages. If that were the only difference between us, again I should be ready to "do a deal" with the noble Earl, but I imagine that that is not the real difference and is simply one stick with which to beat this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer and compensation of officers
"—(1) Any order under section six of this Act may contain provisions as to the transfer to the Commission of existing officers affected by the order and shall contain provisions for the protection of the interests of any such existing officers.
(2) Every person who is or who but for any national service of his would be an existing officer and who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is

135
attributable to the provisions of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to have his case considered for the payment, of compensation by the Commission such compensation to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and subject to the provisions of this section those regulations shall apply accordingly with any modifications which the Minister may by order consider it necessary or expedient to make for the purpose of the application of those regulations to compensation under this Act.
(3) For the purpose of this section and the the said regulations as applied hereby—
"existing officer" means an officer in the service of a development corporation on such date or dates as may be specified in an order relating to that development corporation;
"national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be specified in an order under section six of this Act; and
"officer" includes the holder of any place situation or employment.
(4) (a) If after the passing of this Act regulations relating to compensation payable to officers and servants of local authorities come into operation the Minister may by order amend the provisions of this section by substituting such regulations for the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and by making such consequential amendments to this section as may be necessary.
(b) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. May I briefly recall the history of the new towns in so far as it has some bearing on the Amendment? In 1945, the Government appointed the Reith Committee and the terms of reference were:
"To consider the general questions of the establishment, development, organisation and administration that will arise in the promotion of new towns, in furtherance of a policy of planned decentralisation from congested areas; and in accordance therewith, to suggest guiding principles on which new towns should be developed as self-contained and balanced communities for work and living…"
Most of the Committee's recommendations were incorporated in the New Towns Act, 1946. For this we are indebted to the practical idealism of my noble friend Lord Silkin, who was then the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
It is, I believe, correct to say that initially twenty new towns were planned,
136
capable of providing accommodation for one million persons, and these were to be followed by other new towns. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that the new towns were to produce a new type of citizen, healthy, self-respecting, dignified, with a sense of duty, culture and civic pride. Thirteen years ago, when the new towns were launched, the development corporations had to recruit the administrators, architects, engineers, surveyors, town planners, housing managers and other officers. The important point is that most of these officers were recruited from the local government service. Many of these officers were aware of the conditions prevailing in some of our industrial towns—the slums, the contrast between rich and poor, the lack of any communal life and the absence of any sense of neighbourliness. Therefore, with energy, skill and imagination they tackled their new and exciting tasks, and to-day as some of the new towns are reaching completion they are a joy to see. To those who work and live in them they are a source of pride and pleasure. But apparently no more new towns are to be built.
Writing to The Times a few weeks ago on another matter, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said:
"Actions by Governments are unpredictable and can be devastating in their effect".
That comment is certainly true so far as the decision of the Government to build no more new towns is concerned. At the last conference of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, a trade union with over 250,000 members, the President, dealing with the question of the position of the staff now employed in the new towns said:
"It may be true, as the responsible Minister has said, that these men and women were given no guarantee either of permanent employment or of compensation, and that they have, therefore, no legal claim. But it is equally true that there was expectancy that if the first new towns were a success others would undoubtedly follow and there would be a lifetime's work for them. On that basis many of our colleagues abandoned safe jobs and a promising future. They have therefore the strongest moral claim for compensation. That we have pressed, and shall continue to press, with all our force. We regard the Minister's attitude, adopted on narrow legalistic grounds, as an example of petty meanness paralleled only by the veto of the Health Service's 3 per cent. increase, and one we must resist. Further frustration faces our colleagues from the recently announced intention of the Government to form a national

137
Commission for new towns. In this connection, there is no clear or concise indication of the Government's intention with regard to staff for the commission or local agencies."
In this restrained language the President expressed the discontent of conference, a discontent sharpened by a sense of injustice.
The Amendment standing in my name follows very closely the provision made for compensation, for example by Water Bills. The Minister of Housing and Local Government in another place said in April last year:
"In every local Act passed since 1950 which authorised extensions of local government areas, the provision as to compensation for existing officers made by the Act, where such provision was required, took the form of applying the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, subject to specified modifications. Where local legislation dealing with the reorganisation of water services involves provision being made for the payment of compensation for loss of office, the appropriate precedent is Section 153 of the Kent Water Act, 1955."
Frankly, it is difficult to understand why the staff of the new towns are refused the protection which is normally afforded where functions are transferred from one public authority to another public authority.
In another place the Minister argued that the staff of the new towns were losing their jobs because the work for which they were engaged will end, and therefore it was wrong in principle to provide compensation for anyone taken on for a limited period. That is a clear and precise statement. I submit that we are entitled to expect some consistency in this matter of compensation for loss of office. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill daring the Second Reading debate said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 217 (No. 96), col. 765]:
"The Commission fills the gap in an intermediate stage and the decision on the ultimate policy for final ownership is deferred."
Clearly, therefore, at some stage or other it is contemplated that the work of the Commission will end, and therefore the work of the Commission is on a temporary basis. And yet, after all the declarations in another place in regard to temporary employment not ranking for compensation, subparagraph (8) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to this very Bill provides that the Minister will be enabled in respect of the members of the Commission engaged on a temporary
138
basis to pay out of monies provided by Parliament such pensions, allowances or gratuities in respect of retirement or death as may be determined. I ask the Minister, why this discrimination? For the architects, planners and others who by their creative genius have built up these new towns there is no protection provided in the Bill and its provision is resisted at every stage. For those who will take over the properties on a temporary basis, simply as administrators, provision is inserted in the Bill, protection is inserted in the Bill, for compensation, gratuities and things of that kind.
Of course, I do not imply that they should not have that protection, I am suggesting only that what is good enough for fifteen members of the Commission is equally good enough for those men who have created the new towns. The trade union of the officers still considers that a compensation clause should be inserted in the Bill. It is not agreed that there will be a mere, small hard core of difficult cases. More than once during the passage of the Bill through another place reference was made by the Government spokesmen to the fact that little difficulty is envisaged in the case of rent and rate collectors, and so on. But the Association are particularly concerned with the technical staff, architects, surveyors, engineers, town planners and so on. I cannot see how all those people from the new towns can be assimilated into the work of the new Commission.
I welcome the observation of the Minister in another place on the Second Reading when he said that the new Commission, when recruiting its own staff, would not simply consider the first development corporation which may pass out of existence but would in effect afford equal opportunities to staffs of all the development corporations. Further, I hope that when the hard cases come to be considered a realistic view will be taken of the amount of compensation to be paid to the officers concerned. So far, nothing has been said about the amount or type of compensation which the Government might have in mind, but we hope that payments will be related in some way to the existing compensation code and will not take the form of terminable gratuities. The Minister's undertaking to refer particulars of the

139
hard cases to the Whitley Council as soon as the managers of the new towns have made their report is also welcome. May I add that it is also hoped that in due course the Commission themselves will be represented on the Whitley Council, and—this is most important—that the Minister will use his good offices as a referee should the necessity arise.
Finally, I should be most grateful if the Minister would confirm that any arrangement for the payment of compensation, or whatever form the payment may take, entered into by a development corporation will be taken over by the Commission—in other words, not only will they take over the assets but that they will take over the liabilities. It is appreciated that when referring to this matter in Committee the Minister gave an undertaking that from the new towns, whether from the development corporation or from the Commission, help would be given if it were needed. It may well be that a particular development corporation, familiar with the skill and merits of a particular officer, would be inclined to be more generous in the matter of compensation than would the Commission. Thus I hope that the Commission will take over without any cavil, without any attempt to whittle down anything which the development corporations may have awarded. I am sorry at this late hour to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but this is regarded by the officers and by the trade union as a matter of vital importance to the staff concerned. Therefore, I hope that we shall receive some satisfactory assurances this afternoon from the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I know how deeply and sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Burden, feels for the members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association, for whom, as he has told us, he has largely spoken today. I am glad to say that I hope to be able to reassure him on the two main points he made. The first point was that in paragraph (8) of the first Schedule there was provision, as he said, for compensation for the bosses but not, he felt.
140
for the men. There is no discrimination here. There is no provision for compensation for either.
LORD BURDEN: If the noble Earl will excuse me, it is true that the word "compensation" is not used, but the word "allowances" and other terms are used. In view of the way in which the 1946 Act was construed, that the Minister could grant gratuities and so on—or that the development corporations of the new towns could do so—it is really of no value to say that that clause could not be construed to include compensation. I did not use the word "bosses"; I used the phrase "fifteen members of the committee."
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Pensions are protected for members of the Commission, and they are protected for the staff; there is no discrimination there.
LORD BURDEN: I am sorry, but the noble Earl has not yet got my point. Members of a new body are getting protection—I will put it that way, using a non-committal word. The men who have built up the new towns have nothing at all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord must put it that way. I am afraid he must use the words in the Bill, and what we are suggesting is contained in | paragraph 1 (8) of the First Schedule, which deals with pensions, allowances or gratuities. That is the provision dealing with the pensions of members of the Commission. I am advised and assured that the pensions and similar rights of the members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association who will be working for the corporations are similarly protected.
LORD BURDEN: I know that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The other point made by the noble Lord was this: supposing the corporation do something, do the Commission take over the liability? The answer is that they do. Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act says that every
"corporation shall have power…generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidentally thereto."
I am entitled to say that this matter was discussed on the Recommittal stage in

141
another place, and that is the statutory authority for hardship payments to their members by the development corporation. The Department advise that one of the things that will be construed as necessary and expedient is to treat the staff in a fair and proper manner; and therefore these obligations will be taken over by the Commission.
May I now turn to the Amendment? It is open to the fundamental objection expressed when this clause or similar clauses were tabled in another place: that it is inappropriate to forget that these corporations were, by their own definition, short-lived corporations. Noble Lords have been generous enough to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend in another place has said that he will deal with the hard cases, if any, that arise. I am sure that the members of N.A.L.G.O. know well enough that promises given in terms as categorical as those which the Minister used in another place are promises that neither he nor any successor of his could possibly avoid honouring without great trouble.
But there is a real difference here about which the noble Lord must forgive me for reminding him—I am sure he has been reminded of it before—between the cessation of a development corporation and, for instance, the compulsory amalgamation of two local authorities. As to the compulsory amalgamation of such local authorities, no employee could have foreseen this statutory action, unexpected, of which the staff received no notice. But the people went into these development corporations with their eyes open. In this world one has to take risks. One becomes, perhaps, a Member of Parliament, or accepts a position in the Government. One does not know whether the electorate or one's noble leader requires one's services any further, or whether one will get back one's job. One has to take these risks.
May I put this further point: that this Amendment as drawn would not meet the point we are trying to get at, because it will be as the corporation begins to fulfil its tasks that the people will have to begin to look for other jobs. The Amendment is drawn only to include statutory compensation for these people
142
at the moment the Commission take over. As for trying to provide (which I am sure would be wrong) for statutory compensation for all these people in these temporary corporations, if the Government were to give way on that they would have to do something very different from this Amendment to bring in the people who begin to go when they see the work coming to an end. I hope that the assurances which my right honourable friend the Minister has given (the words were quoted, and I will not quote them again); the fact that the pensions for both classes of people are covered, and also the fact that if the corporations incur an obligation it will be taken over by the Commission, will allay, at least in some measure, the anxieties of the noble Lord. I hope that he will not feel he must press this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Whilst not undervaluing but fully appreciating the value of the assurance given, quite frankly, and with the greatest respect, may I say that I do not consider that what has been said is an adequate reply to the case I have submitted. As I said, we value and welcome the assurance given in another place. But, really, one does not know the state of mind of people thirteen years ago. There was an impression—I have talked with these people—that this was a continuing process, and that—I will not say we should come to England's green and pleasant land again, but that some of our slums and terrible industrial cities would, in the days to come, disappear.
Be that as it may, I am sure the noble Earl will not think me discourteous when I tell him that this is a matter of principle so far as the men are concerned; and whilst I hope that I shall always be reasonable and accommodating in matters where vital principle is not involved, this is a matter which I could not withdraw without giving up what I regard and what is regarded as a vital principle. The Amendment must obviously be negatived, and then the responsibility is something which will have to be taken.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
6.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I do not think I need take very long in explaining to your Lordships the purpose of this Bill, which is simply to raise the maximum liabilities permitted to the Export Credits Guarantee Department under the Act of 1949 as amended in 1952 and 1957. Before 1949 the only business of the Department consisted in insuring British exporters against the risk of not being paid, on ordinary commercial principles, and that is still the larger part of the Department's business.
In the 1949 Act the limit which the Department was allowed to guarantee on this commercial insurance business (that is, business under Section 1) was fixed at £500 million, and in 1952 it was raised to £750 million, which is still the limit. But if we take the Department's actual and contingent liabilities together at the present moment we see that they are coming very near indeed to that limit. On June 30 of this year, which is the latest date for which there are figures, their actual liabilities were £553 million and their contingent liabilities over £189 million, making a total of over £742 million. This is within £7½ million of the permitted limit, so that it will obviously have to be raised if the business of the Department continues to expand. We have taken the figure of £1,000 million as a convenient round number, which will give a margin of £250 million over the existing liabilities.
The reasons for the increase in these liabilities are probably fairly numerous. One, I think, is the change from a sellers' market to a buyers' market, which means that a great many commercial contracts now have to be arranged on the buyers' terms, which often means a much longer period of repayment, and naturally the exporter is therefore more anxious to protect himself against future risks of default. But another reason is that the Department itself is spending £20,000 a year on advertisement; it does everything it can to advertise itself and to bring its business to the notice of British exporters because we believe that that is very much to the advantage of British trade.
144
All this Section 1 business (that is, the commercial business) is done on the advice of the Export Credits Advisory Council. That is a body of about sixteen persons: Sir Geoffery Gibbs is the Chairman and the members are all people of standing and ability in business or commerce. The Department submits all proposals for insurance to their judgment and acts on their advice. They do not receive any remuneration and the Government are grateful to them for this public-spirited service.
Section 2 of the 1949 Act sets the upper limit for "national interest" business at £100 million. That was raised to £150 million in 1952 and to £250 million in 1957, £250 million being the present limit. The business done by the Department under Section 2 of the Act is of two kinds. One is insurance involving "special guarantees" for insurance business in cases which are not considered to be commercially justifiable because the risk of non-payment is too great. Therefore, they cannot be recommended by the Advisory Council, and they cannot be dealt with under Section 1; but they can be dealt with under Section 2 if the Department and the Government consider that, in spite of the risk, it is nevertheless in the national interest that the transaction should be covered. For instance, it might be thought that, in spite of the risk of non-payment, if you take a long view of the future of British export trade it would be a very good thing that the particular contract in question should be accepted and given to a British firm; and on that ground it might be covered under Section 2 of the Act. The amount of outstanding liabilities in respect of these special guarantees is a little over £48 million at the present moment.
The other kind of liability under Section 2 of the Act is that incurred by the issue of export credit loans to foreign Governments who wish to help their own nationals who want to buy British exports for which they cannot immediately pay. These loans are issued in the form of sterling credits in Great Britain; the British exporter is paid in sterling in this country out of those credits; the borrowing Government—that is, the Government of the importing country—at the same time undertakes to repay to the Export Credits Guarantee Department the amount of the loan, with interest, in sterling, at whatever date may be agreed;

145
and the borrowing Government makes its own financial arrangements with its own nationals who are purchasing the British exports. The amount of liabilities under that heading at the present moment is about £46½ million.
Now, my Lords, the present ceiling is £250 million, and the present liabilities do not come nearly so close to it as they do in the case of commercial business. The actual liabilities, which are about half in the shape of loans and half in the shape of special guarantees, are about £95½ million; and the contingent liabilities—that is, liabilities which are now being contemplated and are likely to be entered into—are another £71 million. That gives only £167 million-odd altogether, leaving a margin of £82½ million before you get to the limit of £250 million. And yet we are proposing in the Bill to raise the limit from £250 million to £400 million. The reason is that there is ground for expecting that this Section 2 business will increase much more rapidly than Section 1 business. In fact, it has been increasing much more rapidly since the Montreal Conference last September. It was agreed at the Montreal Conference that Commonwealth assistance loans should be given, and this Export Credits Guarantee Department machinery is one way in which that can be done. At the same time, of course, similar loans can be given to countries which are outside the Commonwealth.
In the last six or seven months, since September, the loans which have already been published are a general loan of £28½ million to India; another of £10 million to Pakistan; another of £5 million to the Sudan; and another of £3 million to Yugoslavia. There is also a special loan to India, which your Lordships may have seen announced lately, of £23 million by the Burma Oil Company and the Export Credits Guarantee Department together, to enable the new pipeline to be installed from Assam. The Burma Oil Company put up some £20 million, and the Export Credits Guarantee Department the balance of £3 million. There are many other loans in contemplation; and I am sure your Lordships will agree that since, when a Colony attains full sovereignty within the Commonwealth, it ceases to be eligible for a loan from the Colonial Development Fund, it is therefore particularly desirable that facilities for loans from other sources should be made avail-
146
able. I think, my Lords, you will all hope that if our own foreign exchange position continues to get better we may be able to do more than we have been doing up till now for economically backward countries who cannot be expected to pay immediately for the capital goods which they so urgently need for their development but who are anxious to buy British goods while we are equally anxious to help them both to raise their standard of living and to progress along the road to political stability and freedom.
It may well be that this limit of £400 million which we are proposing may, before long, prove to be too low; but we do not want to ask Parliament to authorise a maximum which might appear to be excessively greater than the actual liabilities at the present moment. And, of course, it is always open to Parliament at any time to raise the limit as the business of the Export Credits Guarantee Department expands. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to ask a question? Is there any intention to subdivide this £400 million in any way between the two forms of loan under Section 2—that is, the first form of loans with an extra risk, and the second form of loans to Governments?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, they are not two different kinds of loan. One is an ordinary insurance transaction which is called a special guarantee because it is not regarded as a good commercial risk: but it is, nevertheless, covered because we decide that coverage is in the national interest. This is insurance. The loans are quite a different kind of business from that.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
6.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation of the situation, although as some of us knew perhaps a little about the previous Acts we followed it with ease. We welcome very much the idea of the Government to expand the limits to which this business can be carried by the means of granting the extra backing of the Government for the credits. That it

147
is still needed is shown by the latest survey issued by the Federation of British Industries at the end of May, which shows that there is a considerable volume of industrial capacity still unused; and the idea of expanding our exports with a view to assisting those particular industrial undertakings to come back into full production is always a very good one, and all parties have always been agreeable to this form of export guarantee.
There is, however, something that I should have liked to know. The noble Earl very kindly gave us a list of the new arrangements which have been made in the last year or two with the countries within the Commonwealth after the Montreal Conference; and tacked on at the end is Yugoslavia. Perhaps it just happened to follow after the Montreal Conference. But we have had many cases—such as that pressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank—of countries with which we seem to have only limited trading arrangements. How far will these credits be available for the increase of British export trade to countries behind the Iron Curtain? We do not include Yugoslavia now in that class. Wherever the opportunity is afforded for export business, then I think that it would be a good thing in helping to improve relations.
I dare say that when the Prime Minister was in Russia things were said and done which have influenced an increase of trade during recent months. I may say, from my own experience with the Co-operative Wholesale Society and their arrangements with the Soviet between 1921 and 1935, on a system of revolving credits, that never a penny piece was lost, and great good will was established. I think that that is something to go upon. Therefore, I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply he will say a word or two on how far this part of the Government's policy dealing with export credits may be applied on a wider basis, as opportunity arises, in such countries as Russia and the Chinese People's Republic and other countries in a similar position.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in connection with these guarantees, perhaps I may raise a matter of procedure. If the matter needs further in-
148
vestigation, I shall be happy if the Minister replies to it after this debate. An exporter makes an application to the Department, and if he is given the guarantee for which he applies, he goes, as is the practice of many exporters, to the bankers to finance the transaction. It seems desirable that the banks should be able to register their interest with the Department in the same way as the interest of a mortgagee is noted on an insurance policy. I understand that the Department is not willing to do this; and so far as it is not done the bankers have no protection against a creditor borrowing beyond the guarantee which has been given; nor is there any way of establishing priority of claim against the guarantee. I think that it would be helpful if normal insurance procedure could be followed by the Department in this matter.
7.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad that your Lordships are so ready to give a Second Reading to this Bill without a prolonged discussion. The only question which the noble Viscount asked, I think, was about the Iron Curtain countries, with particular reference to Russia and China. Of course, there is nothing to prevent export trade loans from being given to countries behind the Iron Curtain, if they ask for them and if it is thought a good thing by both Governments. It has been announced already that there is no question of giving these loans to Russia, because Russia is a lending country; and as she is lending a great deal of money to other countries, obviously she is under no need to borrow money for the purpose of paying for imports from this country. But Clause 1 of the Bill, under which individual exporters can insure themselves against loss in any country, will apply to trade with Russia as much as to that with any other country. So far, I think that the only loans which have been published are those which I have mentioned to your Lordships and I think that probably it will be found that priority in this matter is likely to be given to the undeveloped countries in the British Commonwealth.
I will look into the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I cannot honestly say that I can see what his difficulty is, because I do not see how

149
a mortgage holder could be prejudiced either by an export credit loan or by an exporter insuring himself against the risk of not being paid. I do not know whether the noble Lord was suggesting that if an exporter insures himself under Section 1 and pays a premium to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the payment of this premium might have an adverse affect on his other creditors.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: NO, my Lords, that is not the point. The benefit of the guarantee should be assigned to the people who finance the export.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the point seems to be that if an exporter has other creditors and if he should become bankrupt, the benefit of the guarantee should be assigned to them. I will certainly look into that. I do not know whether they would have any legal claim upon it or not. I imagine that if he went into bankruptcy, his insurance payments, from all sources would be included as part of his assets.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, if done by an insurance company, the benefit of that guarantee would be assigned. I only want to see that this would happen where these guarantees are financed by someone other than the exporter.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that it possibly does, but I will let the noble Lord know. I think that those were the only two questions to which noble Lords wished me to reply, and I hope that we shall now have the Bill read a second time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble Leader asked me to apologise because he had to leave before the noble Earl replied to the question which he had addressed to him, but Business has run later than expected and he had to get away to an appointment. We are glad to know that there are no restrictions on the use of any of this money for trade with Russian and China. I gather that it was the idea to give sufficiently long credit to facilitate that business. On this side we are very glad to know that the bulk of the loans will be going to undeveloped countries.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that I did say that it had been
150
announced that loans would not be necessary for Russia.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.9 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, as far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MENTAL HEALTH BILL
7.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I move the Third Reading of this Bill I would suggest that we take the Third Reading formally. I will then move the Amendments, and we can then have any discussion on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will see that there are a number of Amendments. I have gone through them carefully and I have a full note, which I have mastered, on each one. They are all drafting and clarifying Amendments. If your Lordships are prepared to accept that from me, I will move that all the Amendments on the Marshalled List be agreed to. If there are any points noble Lords may wish to raise I shall be glad to deal with them. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 80, page 60, line 44, at end insert ("or, where he is treated as if he had been so admitted by virtue of a direction under subsection (1) of section sixty-six of this Act, such form of mental disorder as may be specified in the direction under that subsection.")
Clause 87, page 68, line 6, leave out ("Part IV of")
Clause 87, page 68, line 8, after ("treatment") insert ("under Part IV of this Act")
Clause 87, page 68, line 11, leave out ("the said Part IV") and insert ("this Act")
Clause 87, page 68, line 13, at end insert ("under the said Part IV")
Clause 87, page 68, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
Clause 94, page 71, line 31, at end insert ("or under subsection (2) of section sixty-four of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949")
Clause 96, page 71, line 48, at end insert—
("(3) A patient removed to England and Wales under this part of this Act or under subsection (2) of section sixty-four of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. 1949, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as suffering from such form of mental disorder as may be recorded in his case in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section ninety-four of this Act, and references in this Act to the form or forms of mental disorder specified in the relevant application, order or direction shall be construed as including references to the form or forms of mental disorder so recorded.")
Sixth Schedule, page 122, line 36, at end insert (",and references in this Act to the form or forms of mental disorder specified in the relevant application, order or direction shall be construed as including references to the form or forms of mental disorder so recorded.")
Seventh Schedule, page 140, line 24, column 2, leave out from ("hospital") to ("under") in line 27, and insert ("mental nursing home or place of safety")
Seventh Schedule, page 146, line 33, column 2, leave out from ("1959") to ("or") in line 35
Eighth Schedule, page 149, line 38, column 3, at end insert ("In the Eighth Schedule, the amendment of section two of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913")
Eighth Schedule, page 150, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("In the First Schedule, in Part I, the amendment of subsection (6) of section fifty-seven of the Education Act, 1944, and, in the amendments of section one hundred and sixteen of that Act, the paragraph beginning with ' For the words'; and in Part II, the amendments of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913")
Eighth Schedule, page 151, column 3, leave out lines 28 to 30.—(The Lord Chancellor)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be delighted to accept the assurance of the noble and learned
152
Viscount the Lord Chancellor. If any further assurance is necessary, I can say that I have been through the Amendments and that I am perfectly satisfied.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My
Lords, perhaps I may follow the procedure that I followed two days ago. I should like to move formally that this Bill do now pass and then have the opportunity later on to deal with any points that your Lordships may care to raise. I hope your Lordships will not take that amiss. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.13 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to pass from a measure which aroused a certain amount of Party political controversy to one which has been discussed throughout all its stages, both in another place and here, on a non-Party basis. It would be wrong to suggest that there have been no differences of opinion, but such differences as have arisen have certainly not been on any ideological or Party basis and have arisen through deep-felt feelings on the part of individual noble Lords or Members of another place; and they have been resolved, I think, in a reasonable and generally satisfactory manner. So far as I personally am concerned, I still feel that the Bill is defective, mainly in one sense—namely, as to the qualifications for detention. I still feel that Parliament is making a mistake in not retaining the safeguard of some kind of lay control. However, we have had our discussions on that and as a good democrat I accept the fact that that is probably not the view of the majority of people and it is not the view of the Royal Commission.
On the other hand, I can say with a good deal of satisfaction that the Bill is a much better Bill to-day than it was when it first came to this House. A number of noble Lords have given a great deal of time and attention to it, and as a result we have considerable improvements. For instance, we have an improvement in the definition of a psychopath. That is a difficult question and one which gave rise to a good deal of discussion. Whilst I am not sure

153
that even now it is completely satisfactory, it is certainly a better definition than it was before. There has been some relaxation on the question of censorship of letters, a matter on which some of my noble friends and I felt fairly strongly. Then there have been other Amendments made to the Bill in the course of its progress through this House as the result of representations made from various parts of the House. I can hardly remember a Bill which has been discussed in such an objective and friendly manner, and with such generally satisfactory results, as this Bill has. Whilst it is, of course, a Bill that is far-reaching from the point of view of machinery, and provides the framework for carrying out vast improvements in our treatment of the mentally sick, on the other hand, it can remain a framework and nothing else. I hope and very much believe that it is the intention of all parties and everybody concerned to make a reality of this Bill and to take a big step forward in the consideration and treatment of the mentally sick.
I have referred to the improvements made to the Bill and to the discussions we have had on it, which I believe have been a model of what Parliamentary discussion on a Bill of this kind should be. No particular Party can claim credit for these improvements; they have been the result of discussions and representations from all sides of the House. I hope that the House (or so much of it as is now left) will forgive me if I refer to one or two individuals, and that for a particular reason. As your Lordships know, this House, and particularly my side of it, has needed strengthening for a long time past, and one of the methods of strengthening it has been the creation of a number of Life Peerages. I personally welcomed that step, but I wondered to what extent it was going to facilitate our work. It has been a great joy to me to find that the new Life Peers, certainly on this side of the House (I do not pretend to speak for the other side, or wish to do so) have enormously strengthened our opportunity of putting forward our views and in no case has that been so manifested as in the discussions on this Mental Health Bill.
If I may be invidious and mention names—and I will mention them in
154
alphabetical order—my noble friends Lord Stonham, Lord Taylor and Lady Wootton of Abinger have all played a great part in modelling and shaping this Bill. They have come here with great experience, knowledge and wisdom, and, above all, with the ability to express themselves, which is of vital importance; and they have made (I hope they will not mind my saying this, and will not think I am being fulsome) a deep impression on the House. I should like to say, quite frankly, that I am satisfied that what we regarded as a dual experiment, that of creating a number of Life Peers and of introducing women Peeresses into the House, has proved a success on both grounds. I am sure the House is extremely grateful to them for the great work that they have done. From my own personal point of view, as one who takes some active part in the discussions in this House, it has been a joy to find that we can get a team together to work, to discuss and to bring before the House proposals that have been found worthy of consideration.
I should also like to say to the House, however—and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not think that I am being fulsome—that we greatly appreciate the way in which he has dealt with this Bill. I am sure he would not pretend to be an expert on mental health, any more than I should, but he has been prepared to listen and to give consideration to every proposal that has been put forward in the Bill. He has given a large number of promises of consideration and he has kept every one of them, and kept them in a most friendly and courteous manner. Whether, at the end of the day, the proposals which have been put forward have been accepted or not, I should like him to know that we are entirely satisfied that he has carried out his assurances and given the consideration to the proposals as he promised. Naturally, in this life one cannot expect to get 100 per cent. of what one asks for: if one gets 25 per cent. one is very fortunate; and I think that probably that is about the measure of the success that has been achieved on this Bill. But I am perfectly satisfied, as I am sure are my noble friends who have taken such an active part.
I felt it right to say that because this is, I suppose, the first occasion on which

155
my noble friends the new Life Peers have come into action as a team, and I hope that there will be many more such occasions. I have complained of the large number of Amendments that have been introduced into this Bill in the course of its progress. Perhaps I should not complain, because to a large extent it has been due to the willingness of the Government to think again and to go on improving the Bill. In the case of the previous measure which we discussed a short time ago, I was complaining of the very opposite—of the refusal of the Government to consider any Amendments at all; and I suppose I cannot have it both ways. I would rather have a Government who are prepared to look at the Bill, and look at it again and again, and make quite sure that it is satisfactory in all respects, than a Government who dig their toes in and refuse to consider any improvements, however good they may be or however reasonable. So we pass this measure. We hope that another place will accept the improvements we have made. We wish this Bill every success, and hope that it will have the effect we wish it to have in dealing with the mentally sick people who are covered by it.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships for more than one moment. I know that if my noble friend Lord Feversham had been here he would have said a few words at this time. I have been able to deal only with the children's side of this Bill, and I, for my part, am perfectly satisfied that we have put before my noble and learned friend and the right honourable gentleman the Minister the urgency of training and planning in the centres, and also the great urgency of research. That is as far as I go. I believe that with goodwill on all sides these things may be carried out. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in paying a tribute to those on the other side of the House, and especially those who have shortly come into the House, and to say that the great work that they have put into this Bill has been an inspiration to us, and we are most grateful. To the noble and learned Viscount I would say, as I said on Second Reading, that he has been a real inspiration to us all.
7.25 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will understand that it is extremely difficult for me to speak at this moment, after listening to the warm, kindly and thoughtful words of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, supported as they were by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I am sorry that my noble friends Lady Wootton of Abinger and Lord Taylor are not here—they had other engagements—but I am sure they would have felt, as I do, that we had not deserved such comments, and certainly felt also that we have been very glad indeed to do such work as we have been able to do on this Bill. I am certain that it would have been quite impossible but for the courtesy and kindness which your Lordships have shown, which, of course, is constant and universal, and which we experienced from the very first day we came here.
My noble friend said that we were a team. Of course, it is quite a usual thing for Members of this House or, indeed, of another place, who are of like mind and have a common interest in a particular measure, to get together and discuss particular points and, whether by accident or design, they do appear to form a team. But the remarkable thing to me about this Bill is that we have had a team of the whole House, and the skipper has been the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. It is a remarkable thing that I have never previously experienced at Westminster, and I am bound to say that, in my humble opinion, it is an arrangement that could not possibly be improved upon, certainly on a measure of this kind.
I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will understand me when I say that I do not feel, so far as he is concerned, that I can add anything to what I said on another evening of this week, except this. I always think that when we speak "off the cuff" it comes straight from the heart and expresses our meaning best. Since then I have read what I said, and I would not wish to alter a word of it. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, in that I felt that one of the major defects of the Bill when it came to us was in the provisions with regard to the mentally handicapped. I am bound to say that I raised quite a

157
number of points, and on every single one of them I have been met either by an Amendment—certainly in one case a far better Amendment than my own—which the Lord Chancellor moved to meet my point, and on other points, where I have not succeeded in securing his agreement (and this particularly applies to the last two, where I did not think this was possible) I have received explanations which were completely satisfactory and which convinced me that the position was quite sound.
I should have wished, of course, that a great many of the clauses which we have passed, or will pass shortly, could have been mandatory and not permissive. But I feel that the spirit which has animated our discussion will continue, and if some parts of the Bill are not strong enough—if the authority to be given to the local authorities has not been imposed with sufficient force—nevertheless, if the drive that I expect to be given to this measure is given, then minor defects will fall into place and we shall get the position, before very long, when we can see all the mistakes we have made and when we can take steps to remedy them with the same good will with which we have discussed our differences on this particular Bill.
I feel that the great thing about this Bill is that we have turned our backs on the existing system of mental hospitals, which was a system based on segregation, segregation which arose through ignorance of the nature of mental illness, segregation which came from the fear that all the people had because of their ignorance of the nature of mental illness. The last ten years have seen such a revolution in public opinion on this subject that this Bill was not merely possible but imperative. We therefore, from to-day, shall be turning our backs on segregation and our faces towards the prospect of bringing mentally afflicted people to live in the community.
I have said before that the initiative will and must come from the mental hospitals, because only there at present resides the knowledge, the skill and the enthusiasm of dedicated people. It is not the fault of the local authorities, but it must come from the mental hospitals. What we have to see is that the enthusiasm that they have, the leaven which is already beginning to work, is
158
not frustrated in little things. I believe that the doctors and nurses who are working in our mental hospitals are at last beginning to believe that mental health is no longer the Cinderella of medicine. There are many things we can do. I hope the members of the Council of the Royal College of Nursing will perhaps read our debates and at long last do full justice to mental nurses and make them full members of the Royal College of Nursing. I hope that in the junior appointments in mental hospitals we shall end this injustice of having junior hospital medical officers and have registrar appointments in the same way as in other hospitals. It is in those ways that we can assure the personnel of our mental hospitals, the front line troops in this Bill as they will, at the beginning, be, that we mean what we say.
My noble friend mentioned—and of course it is absolutely true—that everything will depend on the drive with which this Bill is implemented. I hope that the Minister will say to local authorities, "I want your schemes back and approved within twelve months, and within the second year we must make a start on implementing them." If that programme is carried out, this Bill will be a fact. If it is not, then I think it will be just words, and they will be tragic words for we shall have raised hopes only to dash them again. I do not think we shall do that. I think we shall go forward, that the Minister will be prepared as the scheme builds up to provide the necessary money, that he and his staff will tackle this job with such drive and enthusiasm that they will infect the local authorities with the same enthusiasm, and that they, with the hospitals, will work together in providing a service by which the mental hospitals will show that they not only can, but will, live in the community.
As my noble friend said, this was a good Bill when the Minister introduced it. I hope and believe it is a better Bill now. In a few moments we shall have done our job and it will be up to the doctors, the nurses, the local authorities, the whole community, and, above all, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Health and his stall, to do theirs. I think they will do it, and I believe that in a few years' time, perhaps even less, mental health will

159
have taken its place with the rest of our Health Service and be, as that is, the finest in the world.
7.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to strike a jarring note, but I present myself at this late stage, in a few words, as one who can be described as only a qualified admirer of the Bill. I am, however, at one with other speakers in being an absolutely unqualified admirer of the way in which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has handled the Bill. It has been a most edifying performance, and, if I may say so, if it were possible to admire any quality more than his industry and dexterity it would be the gentleness and kindness with which he has dealt with us.
I feel myself, as I felt when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, that running through all our thoughts and discussions, and through the thoughts and discussions outside this House, there are two questions: first, the question of how we can provide adequate services, adequate in quantity and quality, which may mean devoting very large resources for the benefit of mental sufferers in order to prevent mental suffering in the future; secondly, according to what principles and procedure are we going to detain people against their wish in hospitals? There is the practical question and there is, if you like, the philosophical question, though it has a very practical edge; and those two questions are inseparable.
I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would agree—he has never made any pretence otherwise—that this Bill is not concerned directly with expanding the mental health service of this country. The Bill itself contains no pledge of expanded service. I feel that that is a grave omission. It is open to the Government to say that they had their hands full with this Bill, and the other steps could be taken alongside and taken later. But I am bound to put on record my disappointment that that side of things has been neglected in this Bill. I agree very much with what was said by my colleagues, that of course it is still open to the Government to remedy that defect at a later time, and I know various steps have been taken in connection with the Bill which all point in
160
the right direction. But it would be humbug, and indeed rather cowardly in this atmosphere of generous and sincere words, to conceal my opinion that a great opportunity of committing the Government to a great expansion of mental health services has been missed.
On the other hand, all those who have suffered most and laboured most in this field and with whom I have had any contact are agreed that one overwhelming task which is tackled directly by the Bill is the removal of the stigma which has separated those suffering from mental ill health from those suffering from physical ill health. Undoubtedly this idea of eliminating the stigma has been the driving force, as it seems to me, behind the philosophy of the Bill, and I entirely share the views of those who have applauded the Bill on that ground.
But, of course, even there very nagging questions have presented themselves. I think it might be said that they have been presented in the most difficult form by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, not only here but in her recent book. It is certainly very difficult, as the noble and learned Viscount would agree (he is himself interested in metaphysics), to know how far you can press this analogy between mental and physical illness. You certainly find points of obvious difference. In the case of mental ill health we have at a certain point in the case of certain people to say to them, "We are sorry; you are not fit to make up your own mind. We are going to detain you against your will"; and that produces philosophical and moral questions of extreme complexity.
In the case of psychopaths we come to a point where misconduct and illness criss-cross and are very difficult to extricate from one another. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said in her book, and as has been said elsewhere, the line between medical and moral becomes dangerously difficult to draw. These are problems whose difficulty the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has never sought to conceal, and he would be the last to say that we are very far advanced as a nation or that the modern world has gone very far in sorting out these issues. But some real progress has been made during these discussions, in particular in connection with the improvement of the definition of the psychopath.

161
Nevertheless, my last words should not be of that character; because, when all is said, whatever the precise sums spent in the next year or in the year after that, or the year after that, this Bill should prove of the greatest benefit to many thousands of sufferers from mental trouble and also those who suffer with them as their dear friends or relatives. It will be, too, a vast encouragement to all those who have dedicated their lives to serve these people. I have in mind those like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and other noble Lords in this House, such as Lord Stonham, the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, my noble friend Lord Taylor. I say that if only because it seems to me that the philosophy of this Bill is fundamentally right. It is based on the idea, which we can call Christian—I should like to call it Christian, but Heaven knows! there are many who are not Christians who share it—that we are all frail human beings, drawn together by our common human nature and, above all, by our common infirmities.
Because I applaud so sincerely, and indeed passionately, the philosophy behind this Bill I do welcome it, in spite of the political and, as I say, administrative reservations that I mentioned earlier. I join with all those who congratulate noble Lords (and here may I mention the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has boon our Leader), both here and on the other side, and, above all, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who has set an example which he himself and others will find it very hard to follow in future years.
7.42 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I apologise for not having given notice of wishing to say a few words on this Bill, but as one who took part in the Second Reading debate, and as one who has had a most wonderfully explicit letter from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in answer to some extremely difficult questions, I should like to associate myself with noble Lords who have paid a tribute to the noble and learned Viscount. So often these days we have the excuse made by people in all walks of life that one is too busy to be bothered to reply to a letter. I can only say—and I know that I speak on behalf of many noble Lords who have received letters which have been concise and explicit—
162
that we have received them promptly and courteously. Particularly in view of the great volume of other Business in your Lordships' House with which the Lord Chancellor has had to deal, I feel that no tribute could be too high to the work which he has put into this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned the model of democracy which has characterised the discussion on this Bill. In deference, I can only agree with him and say that those who criticise Parliament for apathy and for sluggishness, or for other reasons, would do well to read this Bill, which will prove to them that Parliament can, and does, discuss vital matters of this kind intelligently and assiduously. I think that is an important point. In conclusion, I should like to say that, with the high speed at which we live nowadays, the numbers of those who suffer mentally will not decrease, but, through scientific progress and through the exertions which both Houses of Parliament and all Parties have put into this Bill, those who are mentally handicapped will have a far better chance of recovering. I would say that this Bill will do more to show the world how we handle our health and social problems than perhaps any other measure.
7.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to thank every speaker for the kind words that he has said about me, I want to place only one memory before your Lordships. Your Lordships may remember that when I introduced this Bill on Second Reading I said that it was the first major measure and comprehensive revision of the law dealing with mental health since the great Bills of 1845. How different has been my experience from that of Lord Ashley, later the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, who introduced those Bills and recorded in his diary of July 22, 1845,
"have toiled through obstruction, insolence, delay, desertion to the Third Reading."
I have been spared his anxieties which led him again—I give the words which he recorded:
"To dream every night and pass in my visions through every clause and confuse the whole in one great mass."
I, on the contrary, have had the pleasure of informed and constructive debate from all parts of the House, and I should like to add my tribute to that already paid

163
from both sides of the House to Lord Stonham, Lord Taylor and Baroness Wootton of Abinger.
I want to say only one word on each of two points. The first is that which was raised by Lord Pakenham. I should like to put into his mind that perhaps the most important difference between this measure and any other and earlier mental health legislation is that it is set against the background of the National Health Service, and that, so far as the provision of hospital and local government services to which he referred is concerned, the function of the Bill is really to adjust and strengthen the existing legislation. It clarifies the powers, but they are existing powers of a dynamic organism.
Much of the discussion in the Committee and on the Report stages was centred on matters of that kind—the expansion of local health authority services, the supply and training of staff, co-operation between the hospitals and local authorities and mental health research. I am glad that it was. But I do want at this last stage to reassure noble Lords who spoke on these subjects that, while they cannot, because of the structure of the Health Service, and that being the background, be included in this Bill, the Government, and especially my right honourable friend the Minister, recognise their fundamental importance and will strive with all the energy they have for improvement and advance in the existing machinery. I am most grateful for the help we have had in improving the Bill. I think that, as Lord Silkin said, the new definition, the correspondence, the Mental Health Tribunals and the guidance that has been given to me in making the rules, are very important points where we have together definitely made concrete improvements of which we know. I am not going to say any more on that aspect, but the fact that I do not say any more does not mean that I do not appreciate the help.
One other point which deserves just a word of mention is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his great restraint, about the non-acceptance of the lay figure in the question of admissions. I think that there we have a genuine and unresolved difference of opinion which has certainly been thoroughly discussed, and we are satisfied that our system of check and cross-check provided in the
164
Bill will provide safeguards which are both effective and appropriate to the present circumstances; and we believe that the doctors and laymen taking part in the procedure will justify the confidence which the Bill places in them. But, again, I want to say that we do not leave the matter with the idea that we have found a solution for all time. If we find in practice that improvements are possible, of course we shall be prepared to have a look at them.
Now we go on to put the Bill into operation. We have to prepare the regulations; to set up the Tribunals—and there I hope, indeed I am sure, that I shall have great help from the Council of Tribunals, under my noble friend Lord Reading; to ensure that the principles are understood, and then press on with vigour for their implementation. It is a great task which still awaits us; we understand that. But I want to say once again that I believe that this legislation was well worthy of our attention and that it has called forth the highest qualities which your Lordships' House can show; and that, in turn, has earned gratitude on my part which I shall not soon forget. I thank you again.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before we adjourn, I would draw your Lordships' attention to two slight errors which were made earlier to-day. My noble friend the Leader of the House, in referring to the Business before the Legitimacy Bill on Tuesday, said that the Finance Bill would be taken, whereas of course he meant the Education Bill. He also referred to the Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill, saying that that would pass through all its stages to-day, whereas it was, in fact, the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Bill which passed through all its stages.
MID-WESSEX WATER BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.