Lords Sitting of 13 May 1959

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

REPORTS ON PARKING METERS SCHEMES
2.5 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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 they will request local authorities authorised to introduce parking meter schemes to provide annual reports of the receipts and expenditure in connection with the schemes, and of the expenditure from the profits upon the provision or maintenance of off-street parking accommodation.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am sure that, in the early stages, we shall all welcome information about the financial results of these parking meter schemes, including the help they are giving to off-street parking schemes, and that the local authorities running them will be very ready to satisfy our reasonable inquiries. Later on, however, when all such information has been obtained annual reports would be of little value and would involve unnecessary work and my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, does not contemplate seeking any amendment of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to make such reports a statutory requirement.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether when this idea of parking meters was first brought before Parliament it was not distinctly laid down that the monies raised were to be devoted towards the provision of off-street parking? Surely the motor world, which is paying well over £500 million a year, has a right to be told how much of the proceeds are being devoted to this particular purpose. May I also ask the noble Earl whether he has noticed that in the last day or two the Minister has given authority for eleven new schemes in
338
eleven cities? Are we to be told that we are never to know how the money contributed by the motor world for parking is spent, and never to be given any idea of what the balance sheet might be?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Earl's feelings in this matter, but I thought that perhaps the first part of my reply would have already answered his question. I am certain that there is no desire on the part of the local authorities to hide any such figures; in fact, we are convinced that they will provide all the figures which my right honourable friend will require to help over the future. But the fact still remains that there is no statutory requirement on the local authorities to provide these figures as a right by demand from Parliament.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he appreciates that there is a great depth of apprehension concerning the provision of off-street parking places out of the proceeds of parking meters?—because that was the bargain. Can the noble Earl indicate whether he is aware that any plans have as yet been promulgated by any local authority in order to provide off-street parking out of the profits of this venture?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I understand that that is, in fact, so. As regards the first part of that question, I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that in Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, local authorities are required to use surplus monies which they get from the parking meter schemes to meet all or any part of the cost of the provision and maintenance of parking accommodation otherwise than on highways.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the Answer which the Minister has given through him to-day will be regarded as most unsatisfactory by the people interested?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask whether, in the interests of getting the maximum co-operation possible in all the circumstances put by the noble Earl, the Minister would undertake to ask the local authorities—I know that there is

339
no statutory compulsion—to make returns from time to time, and with the privilege of laying them before Parliament for its information?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that my right honourable friend requires this information as much as anybody else, and there is no doubt that local authorities will provide him with all the information that he requires. But he has not the right to demand that he should receive the information. My noble friend Lord Howe will forgive me for saying that I think his final remark is most unjust, in view of the first part of my reply, which was that my right honourable friend is convinced that the local authorities will supply all information to all interested parties. It is a new scheme. All I am saying is that it is not up to my right honourable friend to demand such information by law, because the law does not provide for him to do so.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, arising out of that last reply, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will ask his right honourable friend to make available to the public whatsoever information he does receive from local authorities upon this subject?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will certainly ask my right honourable friend about that. I cannot give a direct reply to the question.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, can the noble Earl say if the accounts of local authorities when, they are audited will show whether the income from parking meters is being devoted to off-street parking? If that is so, the public will be aware of the situation.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that intervention. That, as I understand it, is so.

ANTIBIOTICS IN COSMETICS
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: 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 antibiotics are included in cosmetic preparations sold in this country; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent such use of antibiotics.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords. so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, no cosmetic preparations including antibiotics are on sale in this country. They are assured that no such preparations are manufactured here, and none are known to be imported. The scope for the uncontrolled sale of such preparations is in any case extremely limited, as the sale or supply of most antibiotics is controlled under Part II of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, which applies to penicillin and such therapeutic substances as are brought within the scope of the Act by regulations made jointly by the Health Ministers of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, being substances which appear to the Ministers, after consultation with the Medical Research Council, to be capable of causing danger to the health of the community if used without proper safeguards.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the sale or supply of such substances, or of any preparations which contain such a substance, except by or on the direction of a medical practitioner, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, or veterinary practitioner for treatment on the direction of the practitioner or surgeon; or at a registered pharmacy on the prescription of such a practitioner or surgeon. The Act provides that the Ministers, by regulations, may relax this prohibition in particular cases in such circumstances and according to such conditions as may be specified. No proposals have been made to the Ministers to relax the requirements of the Act so as to permit the free sale of cosmetic preparations containing antibiotics. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the statutory provisions are sufficient to avoid any risk to health from the sale of cosmetic preparations containing antibiotics.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that very satisfactory answer, may I ask whose duty it is to enforce the regulations to which he has referred?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, under the Act I have just mentioned, anybody who is found selling these things without proper right or control is liable to a fine of £100 and, on subsequent convictions, to imprisonment. These things can be sold only through the manufacturer, who sells them to the retailer in the ordinary way to go to a chemist or a doctor. Should the retailer sell cosmetics containing antibiotics he would be liable to a fine of £100 and, for a subsequent offence, to three months' imprisonment. I would suggest to your Lordships it is more than unlikely that this could be done, because 'the manufacturer puts things of this sort in his cosmetics only to advertise, "This is a better cosmetic than somebody else's because it contains something which stops giving you skin trouble." If any retailer sold such cosmetics he would immediately be fined £100, and go to gaol for three months on a second conviction. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is most unlikely and we have no evidence of the fact that this has been done.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what system of inspection there is to ensure that antibiotics are not introduced into these cosmetics?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the manufacturer manufactures a certain antibiotic. He sells it to the retailer, where it is controlled. If somebody else chooses 'to use that controlled drug otherwise than in accordance with Section 9 of the Act—and I am not going to bore your Lordships by reading out the almost unpronounceable names of the list of controlled antibiotics; they are all ones that matter—then he is liable to prosecution.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I should be quite content if the noble Earl
342
would tell me what the system of inspection is.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is no form of inspection in that way at the moment; it is merely that certain drugs are controlled under the 1956 Act. If any of those are used out of control, then the purveyor of those things is liable to prosecution under the 1956 Act.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that the ordinary inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act make periodical visits to certain places and take samples. May I ask a question on one point which does not seem to be quite covered? I am obliged for the very full answer the noble Earl has given. What is done to control the importation from abroad of these cosmetics, some of which undoubtedly contain antibiotics?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, that matter comes under the Board of Trade, and does not arise out of the Question I am answering. It is a perfectly fair, non-Party thing to say that the situation at the moment is as I have stated. These drugs are controlled under the 1956 Act. Anyone who sells them anywhere except through the proper channels is liable to a considerable fine and imprisonment. It is most unlikely—in fact we have no evidence to support it—that any cosmetic is being made which has as an ingredient one of these possibly harmful antibiotics.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether imported cosmetics are subject to analysis from time to time to see that these regulations are complied with?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, that, again, is rather wide of the question. That is a Board of Trade matter. If the noble Lord would like to put down another Question I should be delighted to get my colleague to reply to it or. if it comes to me, to do my best to answer it.

MIXED COMMITTEE ON KRUPP ASSETS
2.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 whether, with reference to the 1953 agreement for the disposal of an estimated 74 per cent. of the steel, iron and coal producing assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach, they will (1) give the names of the seven members of the Mixed Committee to consider applications for an extension of time and the political, business, economic or other associations of each member (2) state the terms of reference to the Committee; and (3) say whether the meetings of the Committee will be held in public.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lards, as regards the first part of the Question, the members of the Mixed Committee so far appointed are: for the United Kingdom, Sir Edward Jackson, who is a distinguished Judge and former colonial civil servant who has served in Germany as Chief Judge of the Allied High Commission Court in the British Zone and afterwards on the Mixed Board on War Criminals; for the United States, Mr. Spencer Phenix, an economist and former investment banker. The names of the French and the three German members have not yet been announced by their respective Governments. The seventh member will be elected by the other six.
The answer to the second part of the Question is that the terms of reference of the Committee are given in Article 10 of Chapter 1 of the Bonn Settlement Convention, published in 1955 as Command Paper 9368. In brief, the Committee can grant an extension of time if the applicant establishes that without it the securities could not with the exercise of reasonable efforts be disposed of on reasonable terms and on a basis compatible with the German public interest and without a disruptive effect on the German capital market. As for the third part of the noble Lord's Question, it is most unlikely that the meetings of the Committee will be
344
held in public. It is laid down in the terms of reference to which I have just referred that the Mixed Committee shall adopt its own rules for the conduct of its business.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his comprehensive reply. With regard to the names of the other members of the Committee, perhaps he will allow me to put down a question after the Whitsuntide Recess. With regard to the answer as to whether the meetings will be in public, will there be any report, of any sort or kind, to Parliament as regards the findings of this Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, my Lords, the findings of the Committee will be reported.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether those who have strong views on this question will be enabled to make representations before the Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There are always the normal channels for views of this sort to be expressed, and I think that we can say that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has perhaps been very clear in the views that he holds and has been given every opportunity of expressing them.
LORD OGMORE: If the noble Viscount wishes to express them in person and thus give them more force can he do so? Could he go to this Committee in person—he or anyone else—and express his views?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 whether, with reference to their answers in this House on April 27, 1959, that the purpose of the Krupp Mixed Committee is "to work out the best solution in the interests of Europe" and "to consider whether it is reasonable within the time limits … to insist on the remainder of these deconcentration requirements in the general interests of Europe", the findings of the Mixed

345
Committee as to what is, or what is not, in the interests of Europe in this matter will Abe subjected to their review and to the approval of the Legislature of the United Kingdom.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Answer is, No. The decisions of the Mixed Committee will not be reviewed by any of the national Legislatures concerned. There is no provision for such procedure under the terms of the Bonn Settlement Convention of 1955. The findings of the Mixed Committee will therefore be final.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, in which he made no reference to the general interests of Europe. May I ask him this question? Is he aware that there was never any question of an extension of time being granted except in the event that the original period was inadequate in which to dispose of the prescribed assets? Is he further aware that April 22 last, in the course of questions and answers to questions raised by me, was the first time that Parliament heard from the Government that the general interests of Europe were to be discussed in considering an application for an extension of time. Will the noble Marquess say when, and on what ground and authority, this new element of the general interest of Europe was introduced into the matter?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I wonder whether the noble Viscount considers that the interests of. Germany are incompatible with the general interests of Europe.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, are we not entitled to use a couple of common quotations to suggest that, from the Answer given by the noble Marquess, "the chips are down" and "the pass is sold"?
LORD BIRDWOOD: Would the noble Marquess agree it would be both improper and quite unpractical to attempt to enforce any unilateral point of view of one Parliament concerned on the other Parliaments concerned? I wonder whether he would also agree that the principle of deconcentration was conceived at a time when there was very little conception of a European Common Market, and that that fact has to be
346
brought into consideration in considering the interests of a great firm such as Krupps?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the noble Marquess does not want to answer that point, may I ask him whether he is aware that following April 22, when there were questions and answers in this House, a paragraph appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, on April 24 under the heading "Der Westen braucht Krupp"—"the West needs Krupp"? May I ask him whether he is aware that there is very little likelihood of improved Anglo-German relations on the basis that the Krupp organisation is built up again, an organisation which enabled Hitler to go to war and during most of which war Herr Krupp conducted his operations with slave labour, male and female?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If the noble Marquess is not going to attempt to answer that point?—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have had a series of speeches addressed at me, and it did not seem to me that some of them really called for reply. I am perfectly willing to answer the questions which the noble Viscount addresses to me so far as is within my power.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Since the noble Marquess does not consider the questions so far merit a reply, may I ask a question which may merit a reply. Is the intention, when he speaks of the general interest, to increase the arms potential of Germany?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and of the other Governments concerned, that the decision which we have reached is for the best.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it a fact, from what the noble Marquess has said, that Parliament has no further power in this matter and that the Government have surrendered their powers and the powers of Parliament to this Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as I have tried to explain, when this Mixed Committee is set up it will be an autonomous Committee to which we all agree; and it does have

347
complete and absolute powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, understands. That is correct.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is the noble Marquess aware that when this Committee was adumbrated under the Bonn Convention it contained no reference at all to the ultimate objective of the Committee as now disclosed, and that therefore Parliament ought surely to be consulted when that objective is discussed?

DOG LICENCES BILL [H.L.]
2.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments and Orders in Council relating to the licensing of dogs kept in Great Britain. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1aand to be printed.

FIRE SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Fire Services Act, 1947, and make further provision as to the pensions of persons transferring to or from the fire service and as to members of fire brigades becoming temporary Instructors in training establishments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord
Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (62) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 9, after ("crofters") insert ("and of the persons so appointed at least one shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests of farmers, and at least one shall represent the interests of crofters").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that in selecting three members of the Red Deer Commission from nominees of organisations representing farmers and crofters my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will appoint at least one representative of farmers and one of crofters—in other words, it is recognised now that crofters have a special place in the Highland economy, and it gives them a definite voice on the Commission. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("may") and insert ("five persons, being a chairman and four other members, two of whom shall, in the opinion of the Commission, be representative of the interests mentioned in heads (b) and (c), and two of the interests in heads (d) and (e) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, and of any such panel as aforesaid three shall be a quorum.
(2) The Commission").
Leave out lines 23 to 27.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, if I may, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. The effect of these Amendments is that the membership of the panel which was fixed at a minimum of three is now altered to a fixed number

349
of five—that is, a Chairman and four members. Two of the members will represent farming and crofting interests, and two of the other members will represent the sporting and land-owning interests. That means that the interests of the members on the panel will be balanced. It also provides for a quorum of three. It was felt that the minimum membership of three made no allowance for any unavoidable absence. The second Amendment is consequential on the first. My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 2, line 38, after ("matter") insert ("relating to the purposes of this Act").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this is a clarifying Amendment. It makes it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may obtain advice from the Commission only on matters relating to the purposes of the Bill. It was never the intention that my right honourable friend should be able to ask advice from the Commission on matters not relating to the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 3, line 27, at end insert ("and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this Amendment deals with penalties. Clause 5 empowers the Commission to require owners to make returns of the numbers of red deer killed. The present penalty for failure to make a return or for making a false return is £20. The Amendment provides for a penalty of £50, or three months' imprisonment, or both, upon a second or a subsequent conviction. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 3, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this section").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 3, line 29, leave out ("habitually").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, by leaving out the word "habitually" the Commission or the panel will be enabled to take action against marauding deer which have only once caused damage. The safeguard against unreasonable action by the Commission is that the damage must be substantial and that the killing of deer is necessary to prevent further damage. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 3, line 29, at end insert ("or garden ground").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this Amendment enables the Commission or the panel to take action against marauding deer which have come on to garden ground and have caused substantial damage. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 3, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this Amendment places on the Commission or

351
the panel an obligation to take action against marauding deer causing substantial damage and likely to go on causing damage. Previously, the clause said that the Commission "may" take action. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 3, line 42, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 44 and insert ("make a request to that effect in writing to that person.
(3) Where any such request as aforesaid has been made to a person, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation under this section unless it appears to them that he has become unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the request").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, subsection (1) of Clause 6 provides that where the Commission are satisfied that marauding deer are causing damage that is likely to be continued they shall authorise someone to kill the deer. But subsection (2) provides that where they are also satisfied that they know from which land the deer are coming, and that the owner or the shooting tenant of that land will forthwith undertake the killing of the deer, they shall not issue an authorisation but shall instead give him an opportunity of doing so at their request. The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that if it becomes apparent that he cannot or will not comply with the request, the Commission shall then authorise someone else, for example one of their own stalkers, to undertake the killing without further delay. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 6, page 4, line 5, leave out from ("give") to end of line 7 and insert ("as soon as practicable to any person, who in their opinion is likely to be on any land mentioned therein, such warning of their intention as they consider necessary to prevent danger to that person").
Clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("it") in line 9.
Clause 6, page 4, line 10, leave out ("that owner") and insert ("the owner of any land which is to be mentioned in an authorisation under this section").
Clause 6, page 4, line 11, after ("intention") insert ("to issue that authorisation").
Clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out ("or occupier").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 together. These Amendments relate to notification by the Commission in respect of entry on to land when following marauding deer. Formerly, the Commission were required to give occupiers of the land at least 24 hours' notice of entry. Amendment No. 11 substitutes a warning to any person 'likely in the Commission's opinion to be on the land. This allows the Commission to make a common-sense decision as to who should and who should not be warned. The remaining Amendments are drafting and purely consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, this clause has been thoroughly discussed in this House and in another place. It has been amended and re-amended, and I should just like to state that I think its final form is an extremely satisfactory one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 7, page 4, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 34 and insert—
("7.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated, they shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken for that reduction or extermination as the case may be
(2) Thereafter it shall be the duty of the Commission to consult with such owners or occupiers of land, being land where red deer are established, as the Commission consider to be substantially interested, to secure agreement on the carrying out of the measures which they have determined as aforesaid.
(3) Where after such consultations the Commission are satisfied that it is not possible to secure agreement as aforesaid or that the measures agreed on are not being carried out, they shall make a scheme (hereinafter in this Act referred to as a 'control scheme') for the carrying out of such measures,")
LORD FORBES: My Lords, in short, this Amendment substitutes the word "shall" for the word "may" in Clause 7, dealing with control schemes. The Commission now "shall" make a control scheme when the owner or occupier of land cannot, or will not, cooperate in reducing stocks of deer as requested by the Commission. To bring this into effect, and for other minor reasons, the whole clause has had to be redrafted. For instance, there was no qualification of the word "damage", and action could have been taken where the damage was only slight. This defect has now been rectified. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the previous requirement that a scheme should require confirmation by the Secretary of State for Scotland has been omitted from this clause and, if so, whether he can explain the reason?
LORD FORBES: My Lords, the scheme still requires to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 9, page 5, line 38, at end insert ("and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, Clause 9 at present provides for a penalty of £50 for failure to comply with the requirements of a control scheme. This Amendment adds the penalty of £100 and/or three months imprisonment for a second or subsequent conviction. Although in case of default the Commission will, under Clause 10, be able to carry out the work themselves and charge the owner or occupier, it is felt that if the defaulter fails year after year to carry out a requirement he will be imposing a heavy strain on the Commission's staff and equipment. The heavier penalties should deter defaulters from repeating their offences. Most of the credit for this Amendment. I believe, must go to the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Mathers. I beg
354
to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 11, page 6, line 5, leave out from ("from") to end of line 8 and insert ("the owner or occupier concerned by the Commission")
Clause 11, page 6, line 13, leave out ("or payable to")
Clause 11, page 6, line 17, leave out ("or payable to")
LORD FORBES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 together. Clause 11, as at present drafted, enables the Commission, in the event of an owner or occupier failing to comply with a control scheme, to recover the cost of carrying out the scheme by selling the venison, the excess money from the sale going to the owner or occupier. The effect of these Amendments is to leave the excess money in the hands of the Commission, thereby increasing the incentive for owners and occupiers to comply with the control scheme requirements and so benefit from the disposal of the carcases. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 12, page 6, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Clause 12, page 6, line 36, after ("provision") insert ("for the providing of equipment by the Commission").
After the words last inserted, insert—
("(2) Any agreement in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection shall, unless the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State otherwise decide, provide").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together. Clause 12, as originally drafted, provided that the Commission might recover expenses incurred in the provision of services and equipment. If they thought it unreasonable to do so, they need not make any charge, or they could make a reduced charge. Amendment No. 24 obliges the

355
Commission to recover the expenses but leaves scope for discretion in the case of hardship. The Commission, however, can use this discretion only with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The remaining Amendments are purely drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 15, page 7, line 27, leave out ("anauthorisation") and insert ("any of the functions of the Commission").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, at present if the Commission wish to enter on land to investigate damage done by marauding deer, they can do so immediately only with the occupier's consent. It may be assumed that the occupier will welcome investigation by the Commission. However, if this is not so, the Commission will have to give fourteen days' notice of intended entry. The effect of this Amendment is to permit investigational work in connection with marauding deer without fourteen days' notice of warning. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.(Lord Forbes)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 17, page 8, line 18, leave out ("twenty pounds") and insert ("fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, Clause 17 provided a penalty of £20 for wilful obstruction of persons acting in execution of Part I. The Amendment increases that penalty to £50, and adds a penalty of £100 and/or three months' imprisonment for a second or subsequent conviction. The argument for this Amendment is that obstruction of a person authorised to kill marauding deer or required under a control scheme to kill deer might result in further damage being caused to agricul
356
ture or forestry. This Amendment, again, was originally suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Mathers and Lord Greenhill. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 20, page 8, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 35 and insert ("agriculture 'and 'agricultural land') have the like meanings as in").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to provide that agriculture, for the purpose of this Bill, is defined in the same way as in Section 86 (3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. This Amendment arises from a request that Clause 7 should contain a reference to horticulture so as to ensure that the Commission would be empowered to make a control scheme to prevent damage to horticulture. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the same Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 21, Page 9, line 3, at beginning insert ("Subject to section thirty-three of this Act")
Clause 22, page 9, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to section thirty-three of this Act")
Clause 23, page 10, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to section thirty-three of this Act,")
Clause 23, page 10, line 7, at beginning insert ("Subject to section thirty-three of this Act,")
LORD FORBES: With your Lordships' permission I will take Amendments Nos. 28, 31, 33 and 34 together. These are all drafting Amendments, designed to draw attention to the fact that Clause 33 contains exemptions. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 21, page 9, line 26, leave out from ("imprisonment") to end of line 30.
LORD FORBES: The effect of this Amendment is to delete the penalty provision for the conviction on indictment of a person killing deer during the close season. The purpose of the close season is not to deter poaching, which is dealt with in Part III, but to facilitate the conservation of deer and to prevent cruelty by the owner or occupier—for instance, to prevent the shooting of a hind with a suckling calf. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 21, page 9, line 32, leave out ("sixty-one") and insert ("sixty-two")
2.50 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, the date for the introduction of close seasons was amended in your Lordships' House from October 21, 1962, to 1961, against the advice of the Government. Since then the Government's views have not changed. The Government's views are still that a speedy reduction in the numbers of red deer where they are causing damage to agriculture or forestry is essential. Persons complying with control schemes would, of course, be exempted from close seasons. However, the Commission will not be able to launch control schemes for all areas affected in the first few years. This is bound to take time.
Secondly, the initial reduction necessary in the interests of agriculture and forestry is a considerable one, and in the Government's view two years is too short a time to allow for this to be done. The question might be asked whether the Bill, in bringing in the close seasons, will in any way alter the prevention of poaching. I can assure your Lordships that there is no need whatsoever to fall back on close season provisions to prosecute poachers. Poaching provisions stand by themselves and come into force one month after the Bill becomes law. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government have considered any means of inspecting the very sub-standard venison which will undoubtedly come on to the market as a result of this severe reduction of deer during the out-of-season periods; and I wonder whether they have decided on any means of checking that this venison is not sold as being fit for human consumption when really it is fit only for dog meat.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, that is an administrative matter and will certainly be taken into acount.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 22, page 10, leave out lines 1 to 3.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this Amendment puts the onus of proof, in the case of legal right or permission to take or kill deer, on the prosecution, as is customary in Scottish law. The prosecution, therefore, will have to prove that the person did actually commit the offence. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 23, page 10, line 17, leave out from ("imprisonment") to end of line 21.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, Clause 23 relates to cases of conviction of a single person for offences of night shooting or killing deer otherwise than with a rifle or shotgun. By this Amendment the penalties for conviction on indictment only have been dropped; the remaining penalties stand. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I think it is extraordinary, when we have had all these other Amendments increasing the penalties all the way along, that we should at the same time, for no explained reason, reduce the penalties on indictment for serious poaching. It seems to me an unsatisfactory Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount in that observation. I think it is an extremely unsatisfactory Amendment.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I think I should point out that this clause deals with the single person who commits an offence. If, however, two or more persons are engaged in the offence they will be liable to prosecution under Clause 24, under which the penalties are very much stiffer.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I can never understand why something done with someone else is any different from an act done alone.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 25, page 11, line 10, leave out ("is in insert possession of") and insert ("has used").
Clause 25, page 11, line 12, leave out from ("Act") to ("that") in line 13.
Clause 25, page 11, line 21, leave out ("is in possession of")and insert ("has used").
Clause 25, page 11, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("that").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will take together Amendments 36, 37, 38 and 39. As Clause 25 stands at present, people could be charged with unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition on suspicion that they had intended to commit offences. We thought that this might lead to unjustifiable interference with innocent persons carrying, say, shotguns for legitimate purposes. The Amendments limit the possibility of charges being brought under the clause to cases where a person has actually used the firearm or the ammunition to commit an offence. It will not be possible to charge a person merely on the suspicion that he has intended to commit an offence. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, again I think it is a most unsatisfactory Amendment. If a person is found strolling along in a deer forest armed, whether he has fired his shotgun or not, it is difficult to imagine that he has taken the firearm with him for personal protection against
360
attacks from seagulls. He could have been there only for a very obvious nefarious purpose. I think that this is a serious weakening of the Act and a regrettable one.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, has the noble Viscount thought of the possibility of a trapper with a gun on the moor?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, yes, indeed; but we expect that the courts in Scotland are presided over by reasonable people who, if there is a reasonable defence, are not going to convict.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 33, page 14, line 4, leave out ("of subsection (2)").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 33, page 14, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section twenty-one of this Act, or of any order made thereunder, it shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands, or for any person authorised by him in writing in that behalf, to take or kill during a close season any deer found on any arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent grass (other than moorland and unenclosed land) forming part of that land, or on such woodlands, as the case may be.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act, it shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands to take or kill during the period specified in that subsection any deer found on any such arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent grass as aforesaid, or on such woodlands, as the case may be.
(5) The provisions of the last two foregoing subsections shall be construed as one with the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.")
Third Schedule, page 19, line 39, column 3, at end insert ("in section forty-three, subsection (2)").
LORD FORBES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take Amendments 41 and 45 together. The effect of these Amendments is, first of all, to exempt from the close season penal provisions the occupier of agricultural land

361
or enclosed woodland, or any person authorised by him, killing deer on his enclosed or arable land or woodland; and secondly, to exempt from the night-shooting penal provisions the occupier of agricultural land or enclosed woodlands killing deer on his enclosed, arable or wooded land. There is therefore no question, in the second case, of the occupier authorising other people to do the work for him. If there were, it might lead to collusion between poachers and unscrupulous occupiers. The third point is that Section 43 (2) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, is repealed. This restricted the tenant's statutory right to kill deer to the hours of daylight. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I think the fact that people are going to be able to shoot deer with rifles by night is extremely dangerous, apart from being extremely cruel. There are bound to be a great number of wounded deer. I cannot understand how this Amendment came to be proposed. I think it is extremely unsatisfactory.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I cannot understand why, when people have not been allowed to shoot deer on enclosed land by night since 1948, it is now necessary in 1959, in a Bill designed to introduce a close season and to stop cruelty to deer, to bring in this rather remarkable provision. While the rest of the Commons Amendments are fairly satisfactory I feel that this one seems to be going back on the whole object of the Bill.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, this merely enables the owner-occupier or the tenant-occupier to protect his own crops —that is, crops that are on enclosed land.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Is there no reference to the Commission in this matter? Can the occupier do this as much as he wants? Is there no possible appeal against abuse in this connection? Surely it is a very wide and extensive power to give, without requiring that permission be obtained, and without there being any form of supervision over these owners.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, the Commission do not come into the matter of a farmer's, an occupier's, right to protect his own crops.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have known of instances where tenants have made holes in the fences so that the deer can come on to their crops in order that they can shoot them by night. It is extremely unsatisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 37, page 14, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("except in so far as it relates to the amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957").
First Schedule, page 15, line 14, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
("3. Part II of the First Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957 (which specifies certain commissions, tribunals and other bodies, all members of which are disqualified under that Act), shall have effect, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as if after the entry relating to the Pig Industry Development Authority there were inserted the following entry:—
'The Red Deer Commission'.")
LORD FORBES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 together. The effect of the first Amendment is to extend to the United Kingdom the application of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule. Without the Amendment, a member of the Commission could become a Member of Parliament for an English constituency or for a constituency in Northern Ireland, though not for a Scottish constituency. The Second Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Forbes.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, why does a member of the Commission who happens to become a 'Member of Parliament for an English constituency, or for a constituency in Northern Ireland, immediately become a bad member of the Commission, a position in which he may be doing a good job?
LORD FORBES: No member of a Commission of this type can be a Member of Parliament. It does not apply

363
nerely to this Bill: it applies to any other Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
First Schedule page 15, line 44, at end insert—
("11. The Secretary of State may provide the services of such officers and servants as the Commission may require.")
LORD FORBES: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that the staff of the Commission will be civil servants. Had this not been so, the Bill would have had to include extremely elaborate superannuation provisions. As this is the final Amendment, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to extend this discussion for one minute further. This Bill has had a rough passage. There is no doubt that it has been improved since I introduced it into your Lordships' House. I personally am very thankful that the provisions of this Bill will become effective without delay, as the noblest animals in the hills of Scotland have suffered for too long from ignoble treatment. Now, at last, both deer and farmers will have the protection they deserve, and the sportsman will not be denied his sport. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for bringing this Scottish Bill to the Statute Book. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Forbes.)
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, if I have refrained from taking part in the discussion on any of the Amendments that have been moved this afternoon it is not because I have complete agreement with the improvements that were introduced in another place but because I think that the Bill, as a whole, is a very great advance on what has obtained hitherto. I think that at last we are in a position which we have tried our best to achieve; that is, to reconcile the needs of the deer-forest owner with those of the sheep farmer. This has not been an easy process. so far as I can understand. It has been the outcome of long and careful negotiation; and I think the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward this piece of legislation, which I
364
hope will now inure to the benefit of our country as a whole.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, for many years I have been pressing this question of the deer in Scotland, and I am grateful and thankful that at last the matter is to be settled.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, from these Benches, as one who took a little part in the earlier proceedings, I should like to add my tribute to that which has been paid by the noble Lord on my left. I think this is now a much better Bill than when it first was introduced, and I should like to add my tribute to that paid by my noble friend to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, upon the very congenial and able way he has conducted this Bill during, its course through the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS
3.7 p.m.
LORD NATHANrose to draw attention to the White Paper on Government Policy on Charitable Trusts in England and Wales (Cmd. 9538) arising out of the Report of the Committee on the Law and Practice of Charitable Trusts (Cmd. 8710); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is almost to the month exactly ten years since the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. whom we all rejoice to see here in his place to take part in this discussion, opened a long debate calling attention to
"the need for the encouragement of voluntary action to promote social progress."
That arose out of a book then recently published by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, Who would certainly have been here to participate in this debate had it not been for the heavy bereavement he has sustained and in which all your Lordships will sympathise with him.
The outcome of the debate which the noble Viscount opened was a statement by my noble friend Lord Pakenham on behalf of the Government of the day, undertaking to set up a Committee to look into charitable trust law reform. It was stressed in all parts of the House, which was of one mind on this wholly non-political issue, that the problem in its various aspects was one of pressing

365
urgency. That was ten years ago. The Committee was appointed by my noble friend Lord Attlee—then Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister—and I was appointed Chairman of that Committee. We set to work in January, 1950. Over a hundred years previously a Committee of Inquiry into the law of charities had been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Brougham. That Committee took a period of seventeen years to conclude its labours, which were ultimately found, in essence, to be incorporated in the great Charitable Trusts Act of 1853.
The Committee of which I was Chairman started upon its task in January, 1950, and in the summer of 1952 reported to Sir Winston Churchill, who had then become Prime Minister. It was in the summer of 1953, six years ago, that the Report was debated. On that occasion, the Motion was also moved by my noble friend Lord Samuel. The debate was long and covered a wide field—indeed, it occupied no fewer than 100 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It was two years after that debate of 1953 before there was any movement on the part of the Government, and the movement, when it came, was the publication of the White Paper referred to in the notice of Motion. Two years after a debate, which was itself more than a year after the presentation of the Report, can hardly be called rapid progress. And the rest, since 1955, has been silence.
In the 1949 debate on Lord Samuel's Motion I spoke in the light of my own experience of a good many years of voluntary service: in the 1953 debate, I spoke as Chairman of the Committee whose Report was under consideration: to-day, I speak with further practical experience as Chairman of the Isaac Wolfson Foundation, established four years ago, the latest recruit to the small but notable band of our great national charitable trusts.
In bringing this subject forward today, I have two main objectives. In the first place, the White Paper presented in 1955 has not yet been debated, and certainly should be. Of course, it is right that the public must be allowed time in which to form its views, in order that the Government may know how public opinion stands; but, even allowing for all that, and the importance of this subject to vast masses of Her Majesty's subjects.
366
close on four years must surely be accounted enough in which to gauge public opinion. This debate, I hope, will bring public opinion to a focus. In the second place, since the publication of the White Paper there has been no evident progress at all. During the past four years not only has there been silence; there also, to all outward observance, has been complete inactivity. I hope that the discussion to-day may lead to some indication from the Government of what they actually intend to do and how soon they intend to do it.
In the light of our past discussions, I scarcely think it necessary to stress the importance of charitable trust law reform. For a hundred years it has excited the minds of many of those qualified by their own activity in the field of voluntary service and charity, and since the passing of the Act of 1853 there has been a constant movement pressing for reform. Why is it important that this matter should not be allowed to remain much longer as it is now? I will give your Lordships what seem to me to be some, at least, of the fundamental and pressing reasons. In the first place, I think that I shall carry your Lordships with me when I suggest, as a general proposition, that voluntary action in itself is valuable in the community and should be encouraged. It was my noble friend Lord Pakenham who, in the debate ten years ago, speaking then for the Government of the day, said that:
"Without voluntary service the State would lose its soul."
I adopt that phrase. Voluntary service is a vital strand in the social fabric. Your Lordships may have seen yesterday that The Times had a valuable turnover article very revelant to these contentions and very apt in point of time.
Another reason why matters cannot be left as they are and why reform is pressing is that charitable trusts are an important form of public service, and voluntary bodies should be able to play their part to the full. No unnecessary obstacles should be placed in their way. I think that your Lordships will feel that all the more when I recall that the number of charitable trusts, so far as known, is no less than 110,000—possibly a great many more. Their funds, irrespective of land, are estimated to be of a value of upwards of £200 million, and their

367
investments in land are enormous, though the exact extent is not precisely known. That shows how, from every point of view—from the point of view of the values involved in terms of property, the number of people involved in terms of service, and the vast, incalculable number of beneficiaries—this is a matter of prime public importance.
Another reason why the moment for action has come, and more than come, is that the law of charitable trusts has been the object of criticism, as I have said, for more than a century, and particularly as regards that peculiar, perhaps somewhat obscure, central doctrine of charitable law which is recognised as the cy-près doctrine. The law as it stands constitutes a major barrier to the effective working of trusts in more than one respect. It is not only that since the Act of 1853 the efforts have not yet culminated in reform. The last decade, the last twenty years, have seen more than one heavy attack on charitable objects by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, whose activity, however disinterested their motives, cannot have anything but an enervating and unnerving effect upon the charitable movement as a whole. That is why elaborate rescue operations have been resorted to by Parliament in order to repair the damage thus done. Parliament had to see that they put right what had been done against the will of Parliament, as shown by their own subsequent actions.
First, there was the necessary pronouncement, as a result of my Committee's Report, by the noble and learned Viscount the predecessor of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to-day. That pronouncement was followed by the passing, as an emergency measure, of the Charitable Trusts Validation Act, 1954, in order to save for charity trusts which otherwise the Revenue were likely to seek to have declared invalid. That Act proceeded directly from recommendations made by the Charitable Trusts Committee and arose out of two cases which will be familiar to some of your Lordships, at least—namely, the Oxford Group case and the Ellis case. Then there was the more recent legislation necessitated by the devastations caused by the decision in the Baddeley case. All the more reason, therefore, for forging ahead with charitable trust reform and thus putting new heart into the voluntary
368
movement for which we have worked so hard and suffered, in this way, so much for so long.
What about the White Paper? The Government had the advantage over the Committee of being able to judge the Committee's recommendations in the light of public reaction to them. Of course, this Government, like any other, would wish to carry the public with them, especially in a matter like the law of charitable trusts, so closely bound up with principles that should govern testamentary dispositions, questions of social responsibility and the whole range of activity which falls within the definition of voluntary service. Therefore I will say at once, and frankly, that, having read and studied the White Paper, I feel a great measure of gratification to find that on so many issues the Government's White Paper is at one with my Committee's Report.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships by reciting all the points of agreement and disagreement. Let me, however, examine three or four of the more important issues, partly of agreement and partly of disagreement. I shall say nothing save on what I regard as the issues most essential to maintaining the health of charitable trusts, to some of which The Times drew attention to-day in what I regard as an interesting, helpful and, I hope, prophetic leading article. There are four, and possibly five, subjects that I will quite shortly put to your Lordships. The first is that the public should be allowed to know and have the opportunity of learning what charitable trusts exist. When I speak of "the public", I mean not only potential beneficiaries but also public authorities, which must increasingly nowadays work in partnership with the voluntary bodies. I think it is worth observing—and it is sometimes overlooked—that all charitable trusts are, both in fact and in law, not private trusts but public trusts, and should, therefore, be recorded for the information of the public for whose benefit they were designed.
Then, again, the objects of trusts must keep in step with public needs. And needs change. As even the youngest among us have seen, needs have changed rapidly during the past few years. Domestic servants, for instance, for whose benefit many charities were founded over

369
a long period of years, are, alas! a disappearing class; but delinquent or emotionally disturbed children have appeared as a new class of possible beneficiaries. These children were not treated in the old days as possible beneficiaries of charitable trusts but were treated in quite a different way. However, we have learned better now. Beneficiaries change; areas change; and great public services rise to carry out the work previously shouldered by the voluntary movement. It is the business of charitable trusts to pioneer, not to stagnate in backwaters of social change, and the law must put nothing in their way.
Then, while, as a general rule, trustees must clearly be allowed to manage their own affairs, there must, I think, be some central authority ready to step in to induce laggard trustees to undertake, where necessary, reform of their trust if it is called for in the public interest. Further, there is a highly controversial question, and perhaps the only really controversial question upon which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and I may not think alike; we shall see. I believe that the present arrangements for the proper husbanding of the property of trusts are not satisfactory. There ought to be safeguards of their income and general resources, which during these past years have decreased so vastly in value. Trusts ought to be capable of protecting themselves in periods of sustained inflation from the effects of a fall in the value of the pound; they ought to have the same possibilities as are open to the trustees, as prudent men, looking after their own affairs.
How do the Government propose to deal with these three or four key issues to which I have referred? As to the need for the recording of trusts, which was strongly pressed by my Committee, the Government agree; and I regard that as a big step forward. The Committee, it is true, pressed for a central record to be kept by the Ministry of Education for educational trusts and by the Charity Commissioners for the rest. This is accepted. But the Government do not accept the further recommendation that there should be local recordings also. I said in the debate in 1955, and I repeat it now, that though I should have preferred there to be local recording also, it is not a matter I should wish to press unduly. The fact that it is now accepted
370
that trusts should be recorded, even though only centrally, is a great step forward. As these invaluable records are built up, I have not the least doubt that enterprising local authorities will see to it that they get, somehow or other, the information they need and would have had under the law had our recommendation in that respect been accepted.
I now come to the central point of difficulty—it is an old point—about the relaxing of the cy-près doctrine. Here, again, the Government have accepted the Committee's solution, and I must confess to a feeling of considerable satisfaction that the Government and the Committee have reached a fairly identical conclusion, for thus may be solved one of the thorniest and most difficult problems of the whole great tangle of charitable trust law. Broadly, under the existing doctrine, a trust's objects may be altered only when impossible of fulfilment, and then only to objects as near as possible to the original. Under the powers proposed by the Committee, and broadly accepted by the Government, it would be possible, with the consent of trustees within the first thirty-five years, and without their consent if unobtainable after thirty-five years, to change the objects in conditions falling a good deal short of their having become impracticable or impossible. These conditions would include, as the White Paper puts it, changing circumstances (including changes in the scope of public or local services); and the purposes of a charity having become obsolete.
Again, the principles put forward by the Committee to govern the changing of trust objects are also accepted by the Government. They are derived largely from the existing Scottish law, and I would make my tribute here to Lord Macmillan, who gave evidence before my Committee, and who drew my Committee's attention to these particular provisions of Scottish law which we adopted. The principles which have to be borne in mind are: the public interest; existing conditions; the spirit of the intention of the founders; the interest of the locality to which the endowment belongs; the possibility of effecting economy in administration by grouping, amalgamating or combining trusts or by dividing them. I believe this to be an entirely workable and acceptable plan for a reformed cy-près doctrine, and I am glad

371
to know that Her Majesty's Government are of the same mind. I would ask your Lordships to notice in particular, as one of the conditions of change, regard for "the spirit of the intention of the founders". It is that to which the scheme-making authority must have special regard as a central factor in reaching their determinations. I believe that this reform, even though taken by itself, holds out great promise of new life for scores, hundreds and perhaps thousands of charitable trusts.
But progress is clearly closely linked with the nature or constitution of the authorities which will exercise these new powers. For various reasons, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, there is not likely to be much difficulty with the Ministry of Education in the administration by them of their powers. But what about the Charity Commissioners? Here the Government do not see eye to eye with the Committee—far from it. The Committee wanted the Charity Commissioners reconstituted as a part-time body of men and women of standing in public and charitable affairs—a body of the same kind as the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation backed by an advisory body and served by a permanent staff like, for instance, that of the Director-General of the B.B.C. In effect, the Government want to maintain the present Charity Commission almost unchanged. They add to the two legal Commissioners a non-legal Commissioner, but, on the other hand, they take away the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I must confess to disappointment about this matter. I believe that the newly-constituted Commission will be less likely to take full advantage of new powers than the body suggested by the Committee, and I feel fairly confident that it will also carry with it far less of the confidence of the public than the Commission which we proposed. I trust that if, contrary to my belief as to what is likely to happen, the Government decline to resile from their present position and adopt the Committee's suggestion, they will at least make provision for an advisory committee. There might be a good deal of public advantage in that.
I am glad that the White Paper shows that the Government have accepted the recommendation that a Minister—it turns out to be the Home Secretary, and that
372
is an admirable selection—should be appointed to represent the Commission in Parliament and in the Government. Hitherto it has had no spokesman, either in the Government or in Parliament. The Minister's powers will, rightly and properly, be much hedged about, but he is there as a safeguard against a tendency to stagnation on the part of the Charity Commissioners or trustees.
I come lastly—and I am always frightened of those who say that, because so often it is misleading—to the question of the maintenance of trust income. Here I must frankly say to Her Majesty's Government that I feel a good deal of alarm and despondency at their refusal to accept a widening of the range of trustee investments recommended by the Committee. The evidence for revision and extension, as given to my Committee on behalf of the London Stock Exchange and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, was overwhelming. That change has had persistent support in the Press, and the courts have also shown a general inclination to broaden the range of charitable investments. It is mostly with regard to the older charitable trusts that this difficulty has arisen; in the more recent trusts the range is, from the outset, fairly wide. For over forty years no trusts with which I have ever been concerned have had any but the widest provision for investment, and I believe that to be the general practice.
But these old trusts ought to be protected, and also those modern trusts where settlors have been so misguided as to insist upon the restriction of trustee investments. It is sad to think that where trusts are tied to the narrow range of fixed-interest-bearing stock, authorised under the Trustee Act, 1925, in times of inflation, such as those through which we have been living, the effect has become not merely serious but disastrous. We all know the fall in the value of the pound, and the resources of charitable trusts, both as regards their investment and their income, will be a third of what they were in the years immediately preceding the war. It would not have been so had they taken advantage of the large range of investments that the courts are now permitting, on application being made, in cases where they consider it to be just and proper.
The Government's alternative is to keep the present pitiful range of trustee

373
investments broadly speaking as it is, but to give power to the Charity Commissioners to widen the range of suitable trusts. Now to the Charity Commissioners "suitable", in practice, means suitably large. The weakness of the Government's proposal is that most trusts are too small to be acceptable in this context to the Commission. So that the country has before it the astonishing spectacle of the Government immunising against polio, on the one hand, and, on the other, injecting the rank and file of charitable trusts with a wasting disease known to be fatal to them. I hope the Government will think again, particularly, perhaps, as the rise of unit trusts offers, it seems to me, a new field of investment very suitable for the funds of small charities.
Now I come to a matter which, in the presence of the noble Viscount, I would not ignore; it is one to which I know he has attached great importance, and so, in a personal way, have I, and that is the establishment of common-good trusts. I must confess I am disappointed that the Government have been so lukewarm; I could wish that they would have taken some positive action. Surely charity has a better moral claim to bona vacantia than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in my belief, has no moral claim to it at all.
I have confined myself to what seemed to me the really outstanding issues on this broad matter, which has been before your Lordships now for a period of just ten years. I hope to hear that the Government intend without more delay to bring in at least the long-awaited reforms they have accepted, the reforms they accepted four years ago. I do not think I can do better than end by expressing the hope that, when legislation is introduced, it will not take the form of a series of Bills to deal with reforms subject by subject—as for instance, the repeal of mortmain—but will take a broad, comprehensive view. I hope that, in the closing words of my Committee's Report,
"… the present law, with the changes we propose, should be simplified and re-enacted as a single, short, intelligible Statute."
I hope we shall hear to-day that this is in fact the Government's intention, for if it is we can look forward to the opening, not in the very distant future but almost at once, of a new era for charitable trusts and a new era for the whole move-
374
ment for voluntary services upon which so much of the welfare and wellbeing of our people depend.
3.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nathan has covered a very wide field in a very comprehensive fashion. There is nothing in what he has said from which, on first hearing, I should be inclined to dissent, and there is no excuse, therefore, for me to repeat a second time anything that lie has said. Consequently I am able to confine my speech to-day to a brief space and to occupy your Lordships' attention for a very short time.
I propose to deal in fact with only a single point. It is the one which was my chief interest when I first brought this matter to the attention of your Lord-ships' House ten years ago, and it is my chief interest still. It is the proposal to establish what were called common-good funds. I was impressed by the fact that in Scotland there are many ancient funds in many of the Scottish towns, some of them dating back for centuries, which have a total capital value (so I was informed by the Scottish Office), of about £4 million and a revenue of some £400,000, and many of which have rendered and are rendering great services in the cause of charity. Some, it is true, are devoted to convivial purposes, and perhaps that may be often quite a legitimate thing to do. In the United States also these institutions are a common feature of the social life of the country.
I was in search of some possible source of revenue for such funds, to start them off. I was impressed by the fact that there are various dormant balances in banks or in the Chancery Division of the High Court, and there are intestate estates, and it might be possible to bring these sums, or some of them, in to give a beginning to the establishment of these new funds. I did not know then, and I do not think that anyone was fully aware —the fact was disclosed only a few weeks ago when the centenary was celebrated of the building of what were, 100 years ago, the new Law Courts in the Strand—that the money for those buildings, amounting to about £1 million, was taken from derelict funds in the hands of the Chancery Division of the High Court. I do not know—perhaps the noble

375
Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to tell us—by what authority that was done. Presumably it must have been a clause in the Finance Bill or some legislative measure of the kind, but it would be interesting to know how it was that that came about.
When the debate took place in your Lordships' House ten years ago I was astounded that it had a very loud echo from the country. The Press gave it great prominence; I had, I think, more newspaper cuttings about that debate than about any other speech that I had made in the House until that time. The public interest was concentrated on this particular point: that it seemed that there was money to be had for nothing; that instead of putting everything on to the taxpayer or raising special subscriptions there were some scores of millions of pounds to be had, somewhat like a pirate's treasure hoard, and that I had the chart for the discovery of the Treasure Island and for revealing where all this glittering wealth was situated, as it was only waiting to be fetched. As my noble friend has said, ten years have passed since then. I do not myself think it is a very excessive time. My experience is that the majestic deliberation of our legislative procedures for any measure which is almost generally agreed to be obviously right and proper to be carried into legislative effect takes, as a rule, twenty or sometimes thirty years; so if this now bears fruition in the present Parliament we should be exceedingly pleased that such prompt progress has been made.
This period has been put to good purpose in this instance, as it has been in a great number of other instances, by the opportunity having been given for a most careful and laborious inquiry. It is often thought that a Government refers a matter to a Royal Commission or a departmental committee usually merely as a convenient way of shelving some difficult and possibly controversial question. Certainly that may be the case occasionally. But almost all the great reforms, political and social, in this country during the nineteenth century and the present century have been preceded by inquiries—by Royal Commissions as a rule, many of whose Reports have gained historic importance. In this
376
particular case the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues are entitled to our gratitude, as indeed have been all those who have laboured at these various inquiries on political matters.
Lord Nathan's Committee sat for two years; they presented a Report covering 250 pages—thorough, painstaking; one might even call it monumental. I moved another Resolution in the House after the publication of that Report in July, 1953, when the Lord Chancellor was the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, who took a great interest in the question and who was able to announce to the House that the Government thought that there was a case for consideration with a view to legislation; and under the present Lord Chancellor the White Paper was published in July, 1955, which made a number of practical and positive recommendations.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is a Minister who possesses one of the most valuable qualities that a Minister can have: he is expert in the art of getting things done, and his period of office has been exceedingly fruitful in the legislative harvest. For my own part, I am becoming expert in exactly an opposite quality. With years that are not merely advancing but formidably advanced, I am practising with growing skill the art of shifting work on to other people; and this matter, in particular, I have been happy to transfer to my noble friend Lord Nathan, who has the additional advantage of being a solicitor of long and wide experience, while I have not been trained in either of the legal professions.
With regard to this question of dormant funds, the Committee were informed by the Government that that was not for them, and implied that if that subject were to be discussed it should be done by a Committee somewhat differently constituted. I cannot quarrel with that. I think there is great force in what was said. The consequence is, however, that we have not before us any proposals with regard to dormant funds as such. But the Committee did recommend most strongly that common-good funds should be 'established. The Report strongly favoured that proposal, and the White Paper also favours it in principle, though with important qualifications. I do not quarrel with those qualifications. I am

377
anxious that a Bill Should be prepared and presented which should not be controversial and should pass with little difficulty through both Houses of Parliament in a short time. It would be a great pity if there were any overt disagreement on any particular points among the advocates of that measure at the outset. Therefore I do not quarrel with any of the passages in the White Paper.
The first is a very minor point—merely verbal. The Government do not like the term "common-good funds," and, for reasons which they give, they prefer the expression "common-good trusts". I see no reason to dissent from that. But much more important is the fact that they do not favour the idea of national common-good funds or trusts, such as were recommended for England, Scotland and Wales. The reason that they give is —I imagine that it was the probable reason—that some of the great national organisations, charitable or cultural, are against the proposal, because they fear that subscriptions and bequests might be diverted from channels through which they usually now flow to favour more generalised funds. The Church of England in particular, through the mouth of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, urged that it would be a mistake Ito set up funds such as this which might take away bequests from ecclesiastical purposes. The National Council of Social Service took the same view.
It is the case that persons who are testators and who have no family or other cogent claims on their money of estates have a wide choice of objects, of which everyone is aware, to which they can devote their funds—not only ecclesiastical, not only the Council of Social Service, but such bodies as the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Trust which provides for the preservation of places of natural beauty or historic interest, or the National Art Collection Fund, and so forth. Therefore, I do not think we need attach too much importance to this question of the national funds. Perhaps these various organisations are unduly alarmed at the prospect held out. That may be so, and I am rather inclined to think that it is so. if so, after a few years' working, it may be that national funds might be established.
378
But since the Government are definitely against it, and since there is this large body of opposition from responsible quarters, I think it would he a mistake for us to make a sine qua non of this particular proposal. I believe that the case of the Law Courts and the Chancery funds may be taken as a precedent, and that if some occasion arises in the future of some object which commands widespread national support but which it is thought could not properly be paid for out of taxes or rates, special measures might be taken for an expedition to be sent to my "Treasure Island" to find the ownerless wealth there, and devoted by general consent to that particular object.
For the rest, the Government in the White Paper, in paragraph 69 on the last page, express agreement that more common-good trusts should be established, but that they should be local and spontaneous in origin, unofficial and not subsidised or set up by the Government. For my own part, I should be most grateful if that were done. It would certainly require legislation, and I hope that we may assume that the legislation will come at an early date, preferably in the present Parliament, because there is always a risk—slight though that risk now appears to be—that after a General Election some other Lord Chancellor, perhaps not quite so fully informed and sympathetic, might be installed upon the Woolsack.
If this is done, and if these funds are set going from private contributions or bequests, then it may be that a century hence the common-good trusts may be the normal part of the social equipment of all progressive towns. They will originate or help to maintain perhaps thousands of institutions, philanthropic or cultural, enlisting on behalf of charity or the promotion of the arts the very valuable quality of local civic patriotism. If that is so, then your Lordships may feel pleased to think that our successors may be glad that the initiative for this had been taken by this generation of the House of Lords.
4.1 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's plea for action, because even since the White Paper was published in 1955 cases have arisen which show the urgency of the need for action on what my noble friend

379
called the essential point of the doctrine of cy-près. I cannot say that I have much confidence in my knowledge of charity law, let alone that of cy-près, but I can perhaps give your Lordships an illustration of how it works.
In the year 1956, when a case came before the courts, it appeared that the people of Ulverston had for years subscribed together at fetes, bazaars and street collections for a new hospital for their area. Between 1930 and 1947 they had collected some £32,000 for this hospital. Then, with the coming into force of the National Health Act, there was no longer a need for this hospital, for it was to be provided by Government funds. What was to happen to the £32,000 which had been collected? The matter came before the courts. Your Lordships might think that it was a good case for that £32,000 to be applied to what might be called cy-près—as nearly as possible to the original objects: homes for the elderly, disabled or infirm, whatever it might be. But lo and behold! the courts said that that could not be done. The £32,000 had been given for a hospital, and there was no general charitable intention otherwise. The money could not go to the Crown; it had to be returned to the people—if they could be found—who had put pennies in the collection boxes or spent sixpence in raffles at bazaars and so forth. If those people could not be found the money had to go, as I presume most of it has gone, to the unclaimed balances in the funds of the court. Surely there is an urgent case for the relaxation of this doctrine, so that when funds have become inapplicable for a particular trust purpose they can be applied to some good purpose as near as possible to it. That is the first point that I would stress—as my noble friend has stressed—the need for relaxation of that doctrine.
Then there is the next point. In 1954 the Charitable Trusts Act was passed especially to help imperfect documents, documents which had not been well drawn up—usually by lawyers. Charitable trusts were there mixed with non-charitable trusts, and the whole attempt failed. Let me give your Lordships an example which that Act did not cure: your Lordships will remember the case where a bus ran into a party of Royal
380
Marine cadets in the streets of Gillingham, in Kent, killing 24 and injuring others. The mayors of the three local towns put out an appeal far money for a memorial for the cadets, for care for the disabled, and then, it was said, for other worthy causes to be selected by the three mayors.
A fund of £9,000 was collected in street collections—a penny here and a penny there, and so forth; but only £2,000 was used for the cadets' funerals, because the bus company had admitted their liability to pay compensation. As a result, a sum of £7,000 remained outstanding. Your Lordships might think that in accordance with the mayors' declaration they could have chosen some other worthy causes for which the money should be used. But no! The courts said that the new Act did not validate that, and that the £7,000 could not go to any worthy causes selected by the mayors, although the money had been subscribed for them. The £7,000 was not to go to the Crown, as bona vacantia. It was to be returned to the individuals who had subscribed pennies, twopences and sixpences—if they could be found. If they could not be found, as presumably they were not, that £7,000, too, must go to the unclaimed balances in some fund somewhere which no one can touch.
In Australia and New Zealand they have wider legislation than ours to cure imperfect trusts. Only recently a case came before the Privy Council which will illustrate the wide power of the Acts in Australia and New Zealand. A lady had left her property to be applied to "such Order of nuns as my trustee shall select. "Your Lordships might think that that was a good charitable gift. But no! Some Orders of nuns are charitable—when they do good works; others are not charitable, when they do not do good works but pray far the welfare of others. In England there might be great difficulty in upholding that gift, because it is partly charitable and partly non-charitable; but the Australian and New Zealand legislation made that perfectly good, in so far as it could apply to what was really charitable, for the nuns who did good works, omitting those nuns who simply prayed for others. Our charitable trust legislation is confined to deeds before 1952, and is not so comprehensive as the Australian and New Zealand legislation. The Act

381
to which I have referred was passed in 1954. I would plead for an extension of it now, so as to validate more of these imperfect trust instruments, some of which are not framed by lawyers but by laymen.
One last word about our own small parochial charities, which go back for centuries, whether for blankets, or coal. or a small pension—how they need to be reorganized! But they should not be taken away from the individual parish but kept for the area of benefit. There is a great deal of local community interest in these charities and they should not be administered indirectly through some central Commissioners but through the local people themselves. We all know of these small funds. They still do good work, with a few shillings being taken, here and there, to old pensioners. Let those be kept with the local community. Those are the three points that I wish to make, but there are many others in this field of charity to be dealt with, if Her Majesty's Government are to take up and improve the law on this matter.
4.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I regret that my first speech in this House should be concerned with certain technical points rather than with more weighty moral and spiritual issues, but at least I can assure your Lordships that, as a result, my speech will be marked by a brevity appropriate to one bold enough to touch on certain matters of law on which I can speak only with the limited knowledge of a layman. I venture to say a few words on behalf of the Churches Main Committee, of which I am chairman. This Committee, as your Lordships may be aware, represents all the leading religious denominations in this country, and is therefore in the unique position of being able to act as a mouthpiece for all the Churches of the country on any Government national questions which concern the welfare of the Churches, particularly on the material side. In general, the Committee have welcomed the Nathan Report and the Government's White Paper; and I would express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his initiative and leadership.
The law of charitable trusts and the administrative machinery to deal with it have grown up over a very long period
382
of years, and the present system could be improved in a great many ways. I shall content myself with referring, very briefly, to four particular points, and shall then turn, I hope with equal brevity, to a wider issue. The first point is that the proposed repeal of the cy-près Acts will greatly facilitate transactions in land for Churches and will therefore be greatly welcomed by the Churches of this country. Secondly, the procedure in amending trust cy-près, as the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Denning, have recently pointed out, needs to be widened and amended so as to meet changing circumstances. My third point is that it is greatly to be hoped that some relaxation will be made in the range of trustee investments permitted by the Act of 1925. Many church bodies are suffering under the handicap of this Act and are put to considerable inconvenience and expense in seeking to obtain relief from the Courts or Parliament. My fourth point is that control of dealings in land in some directions can be speeded up and simplified. This is a technical point on which I do not propose to enlarge.
Having touched briefly on these four particular points, I would turn to a more general point that has a wider significance. Churches are among the oldest forms of charity in this country, but in some respects they are different from all other charities. Many of the large denominations have a complete and organised system of control and check. We realise that the State has a duty to act as custodian of perpetual trusts and to ensure that the original intentions of the trusts are observed. But we do not think that the State would be justified in claiming to interfere in the collection, distribution and administration of church funds under trust, held in trust, for general maintenance. There is a danger that in the course of setting up new machinery for registering and controlling charities there may be unnecessary and unjustifiable overlapping and interference. I am sure that the Government have this point in mind. My Lords, with these brief observations, it gives me pleasure to support the Motion that stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has been good enough to allow me to intervene at this

383
stage, in his place, and that has given me the pleasure and privilege of congratulating the last speaker, the right reverend Prelate, on his contribution to our debate, and to say how warmly we all hope that he will frequently speak in future.
Having said that, I propose to say very little. I speak only because, on the last occasion on which this matter was debated in this House, it fell to me, as the occupant of the Woolsack, to say a few words upon the Government's intention in the matter. The other day I did what I dislike doing extremely: I read the speech that I made on that occasion. I was gratified to find how little I had committed myself to anything, and how little I had committed the Government to anything: because I said, as I observed over and over again, that the Government were giving the matter their earnest consideration. And, my Lords, how right I was! That was five years ago; and they have been earnestly considering it ever since. With those observations, may I just make one or two remarks upon matters that occur to me as being important?
I think that most speakers concentrate upon what they call the cy-près doctrine, a doctrine which enables the court to divert to some relevant purpose funds which had been devoted to a purpose that has become obsolete. There are two aspects of this case which have to be considered and, I think, kept apart. The first is this: at what stage is one entitled to say that a charitable trust has become obsolete, in the sense that it no longer usefully fulfils the purpose for which it was destined? That is a very difficult problem, because while it may well be that the general sense is that the purpose has become obsolete (as is so often the case with parochial doles), on the other hand, it seems very wrong that for the purpose to which the pious founder has devoted his fund there should be substituted some other purpose. That is one aspect of the cy-près doctrine: at what stage does it arise? When can one say that the fund is now no longer used, or cannot be used—perhaps the law does not permit it to be used—for the purpose originally destined, and therefore it must be applied cy-près?
The second aspect is this, Assume that the first condition is satisfied, and that
384
the fund can be applied cy-près. How near or how far is the new purpose to be from the original purpose? Upon that question I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding. I speak as one who for many years spent some part of his life in the administration of the law of charity in the Chancery Courts; and I believe that it would be a great mistake to think that any great relaxation is needed. In my experience there has been no difficulty, when once the purpose of the fund has been found to be obsolete, in devoting the fund to a purpose which is indeed remote; and I have never heard of any objection to it.
In connection with the matter of cy-près, I must take up one point with my noble and learned friend, Lord Denning. He referred to the case of Ulverston. That was a case where a fund was collected; no other purpose was designated except the particular purpose, which was no longer necessary. He seemed to think (and some other of your Lordships did, too) that it was very wrong that an attempt should be made to discover the donors who had given for the particular purpose, in order that, that purpose being no longer applicable, their subscriptions might be returned to them. That is one aspect. But who has not heard of the other: of the person who says, "I gave my fund for a particular purpose. If it is not wanted, why should someone else decide that it should go to some other purpose." That person wants his money back. The courts have often said that he is entitled to have it back. That is the other aspect, and I utter it as a word of warning, in view of what my noble and learned friend said, who regarded it as something preposterous. It is not. I might say, "I have given my money for a particular purpose and it is not wanted. I should be glad to have it back, so that it may be given to some other purpose which I choose, and not to someone else's purpose."
There is one other point on a very general question. I deprecate in these matters more central control than is necessary. We hear so much that "Charity begins at home". It is the child of civic pride and of local patriotism; and I think it will be a matter which will both damp subscriptions and be likely to prevent getting the right people to administer it if it is thought that there is going to be too

385
much interference with the local administration of their own home charity. Therefore, quite generally, I would venture to ask Her Majesty's Government to bear that aspect in mind; remembering, too, that in the matter of charity I doubt very much whether "Whitehall knows best". It is a matter upon which civic, local knowledge is all-important; and I think there would be grave objection to interference from central quarters.
There is one more word that I wish to say—and I am afraid I am delaying the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. There is one matter upon which I quarrel with the Government, and upon which, if the matter comes before the House in legislative form, I shall continue to quarrel with the Government; that is, any suggestion that there should be an alteration of the powers of trust investment which will rest upon any administrative body. It is suggested, I think, that the power of giving the right to invest in what are called "other than trustee securities" to some administrative body—the Commission, or whatever it may be—should form part of the new scheme of things. I think that is altogether wrong. If it is desired to give extended powers of investment, that should be done universally and by an Act of Parliament. For, if not, how are you going to determine it? Are large charities to be given extended powers and small charities not? Why should that be? It is just as important for a charity whose income is £100, to increase that income as it is for a charity whose income is £1,000 to increase theirs. If it is said: "A small charity cannot afford to lose its capital", the answer is that no charity can afford to lose its capital: and the risk ought not to be run, unless it is utterly negligible, of either large or small charities losing their capital.
If you are not going to differentiate according to the size of the charity, what differentiation are you going to make? Are you going to say that, if there is a trust company, a bank, or an insurance company, who are to act as trustees, then you will give them extended powers, but not otherwise? That will be a most unfair differentiation. It will not only put charities to the cost of having remunerated trustees, but it will, in fact, make an unfair differentiation, because private trustees are just as competent—and very
386
likely more so, because they take a personal interest—as these trust bodies.
Then, my Lords, if you are not going to differentiate according to whether the trustees are a trust body or individuals, how are you going to differentiate? You are not going to take a professional man, I suppose—a barrister. He is quite hope? less in a matter of business. Who are you going to take, to be given these extended powers? You will create nothing but discord and jealousy. Your conduct must be arbitrary and capricious; and I distrust altogether the suggestion that this power is to be given to an administrative body. And why should it be? Surely the right course is that which has been adopted in the past where it is desired to increase the scope of trustee investments—to do so by an Order in Council, if that is permitted under the Trustee Act, and if not, by proper legislative authority. I shall renew that argument if, when the Government bring in their Bill, I find any such provisions in regard to the extension of investment, and I shall do it with a great deal more illustration than I have found possible in the short time I have had this afternoon. Upon that matter I quarrel with. the Government, but upon every other point I would venture to support what they say in the White Paper; and, so far as I may, I give it my blessing.
4.25 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, your Lordships, I am sure, have been delighted to hear the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down, and only regret that he does not more frequently address your Lordships' House. I venture to make a few remarks (which will be very short) on Lord Nathan's Motion because I am one of the survivors of the early debate in 1953. I should like to draw attention to two aspects of this matter to which the noble and learned Viscount has just referred. To take his second point first, he said that charity starts at home, and I believe that recognition of that principle is essential when dealing certainly with parochial charities, and very often with larger charities as well. I do not believe that charity starts in county halls or in city halls, and I deprecate very much the suggestion that local authorities, whether county councils or urban authorities, should co-operate with, or consult with, and so on, the trustees of existing charities. It would be,

387
I believe, to the benefit of neither. Local authorities are elected for certain statutory purposes, the administration of charity not being one of them. With a considerable experience of local government behind me, I do not believe that any intimate co-operation of elected members of local government bodies with charities is going to be in the best interests of either.
It is true that the Charity Commissioners, when setting up a new scheme, perhaps initiated by the mayor of a town, will in that scheme designate a number of the members of the local authority as trustees. That is perfectly justifiable, and probably works very well. But it is a totally different matter to say that local authorities are to inquire into the circumstances and the administration of existing charities which never have had members of local authorities among their trustees. It is true to say that the proposals in the White Paper go nothing like as far as the proposals contained in the Report of the Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was Chairman, but I still feel that the position ought to be carefully scrutinised by the Government before they introduce any legislation, if they have the intention of so doing.
The noble and learned Viscount referred to investments in equities, and from what I gathered from his remarks he was not in favour of allowing charities to carry out such investments. But the fact is that, at the present time, charities are allowed to invest in equity shares. Only quite recently I had an interview with the Senior Charity Commissioner, when he gave his approval in principle to the investment of a proportion of the funds of a certain charity in equity shares. So the position to-day really is that a proportion of capital can be invested in equity shares, unless I 'have been misinformed on the point. But I think that there must be a limit to those who can carry out such investments. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, where do we draw the line? The point arises, as it has already arisen during recent years in the case of some charities who have bought shares which are now showing a loss on the capital involved in the transaction, that equity shares, which everybody thinks are bound to show an appreciation, may show a loss.
388
Let me finish by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, gave the impression that nothing was happening in charitable matters because the Government had not accepted in too the recommendations of his Committee's Report. That he considered to be a very bad thing. But it is hardly true. I am sorry that the noble Lord has left his place. The Charity Commissioners continue to administer charities and to bring in new schemes. Only a few weeks ago I had to approach the Commissioners to obtain a scheme, which was obtained within a reasonable number of months, and this charity is now fully set up and will start working within a few weeks. It is quite erroneous to try to make out the case that because the Nathan Report recommendations have not been adopted fully by the Government, charity has come to an end. New trusts and new charities can be set up through the Court of Chancery, if it is wished. The somewhat black picture painted by the noble Lord is far from the truth.
In conclusion, I would say that I hope that we shall see the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, more often at the Table and that perhaps on his next appearance he will have the good fortune to be able to say that common-good trusts or funds have finally been authorised.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, on the occasion of our last debate upon this Report, it was my not very pleasant duty to give voice to the genuine apprehensions which the Report occasioned in the minds of certain ecclesiastical authorities. I followed and supported the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who made a severely critical speech on the subject. However, I did not fail to acknowledge that the ecclesiastical authorities to whom I have alluded were fully aware of the need for some overhauling of the law relating to charities and found much good in many aspects of the Nathan Report. To-day, it is my much more pleasant duty to say that the White Paper has removed to a large extent and in substance the apprehensions which those authorities felt, and that they would be ready to support legislation based on the White Paper, provided that there is no material modification of the White Paper terms. Since the White Paper

389
undoubtedly represents the considered judgment of Her Majesty's Government, we have no doubt that the legislation which will be ultimately introduced will be substantially on the lines of the White Paper.
There are certain modifications of the Nathan Report recommendations which we are particularly glad to see. The standard form of rendering accounts and the necessity of the auditing of accounts would have been a real hardship to sonic small charities, in which I feel an interest. For example, up and down the country there are many small but useful convents, doing for the most part educational work, which represent in the mass a great number of small and humble trusts, who should not be overburdened with legal requirements which may be suitable enough for larger bodies. For my part, I am particularly glad to have removed the recommendation that information regarding all trusts should be sent to local authorities. I do not altogether, share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for co-operation between local authorities and charities. In my experience, it not infrequently means that charities are asked to provide for needs which, in my judgment, the local authorities have the right and duty to provide. I have seen rather too much of charitable money being used to subsidise the local ratepayer. The whole relation of local authorities, as the administrators of State welfare, and charities is a very delicate one and one which requires a great deal of constructive thought.
There are certain points in the White Paper about which I personally—and I speak entirely for myself here—do not feel very enthusiastic. I hope that before the introduction of legislation further consideration may be given to the proposal to give the Home Secretary a general responsibility for the Charity Commissioners and to abolish the Parliamentary Commissioner. Is there not a real danger of introducing charitable work into the field of Party politics? Is there not a danger that, for Party political reasons, questions will be addressed to the Home Secretary which would not have been addressed to the Parliamentary Commissioner? is there riot a danger that, under the fear of Parliamentary pressure, the Home Secretary may be deterred from exercising his discretion to its full? It
390
seems to me that that is a point to which further consideration might usefully be given.
For the rest, there is one small point which I would make regarding paragraph 49 of the White Paper, which deals with exceptions. Cathedral or collegiate churches are to be excepted, and that provision is taken from the Act of 1853. In 1853, of course, there was only one kind of cathedral; but to-day there is more than one kind. There will, at least, have to be some definition of what is meant by "a cathedral", and possibly some consideration as to whether, in fact, that exception is in the public interest or not. Apart from that, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in expressing the hope that legislation on the lines of the White Paper may be introduced at no distant date.
4.41 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is a long time since the Royal Commission produced their Report and it has taken some time for the White Paper to be: published, but now that it has come out, I believe it to be, on the whole, a most satisfactory document. I am particularly glad that the Government have come down strongly against any local interference in trusts through scheme-making or even compulsory recording. I have two main reasons for saying that. First of all, I dislike intensely the idea of what are in essence political bodies having charitable funds to administer. There is a danger that any charity might become a sort of political shuttlecock in the council chamber. If the local authorities administer the ratepayers' money badly they can be called to account by the ratepayers at the next election; but if they were to administer charitable funds badly, apart from any definite criminal negligence, they would have nobody to account to except the souls of the departed.
My second point is that testators would intensely dislike the idea that local authorities could play their fingers on the money which they had laboriously accumulated during their lifetime. One might think, perhaps, that such views of testators are narrow and old-fashioned. but gentlemen who have accumulated large fortunes during their lifetime often have strong views on subjects of this sort; and, after

391
all, it is their money. I believe that if the local authorities had been brought in there would certainly be no new era, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, because the fount would dry up. I do not mind the local authorities approaching the Charity Commissioners or the trustees of a fund and saying that they would like them to get a scheme to tackle a particular problem, because then it would be up to the Charity Commissioners or the trustees to do as they liked.
The other thing I dislike, which I am glad the Government have turned down flat, is local recording. I am not too enamoured of central recording for all these small trusts, because it involves a great deal of trouble and clerical work. Suppose some charitable gentleman died leaving £10,000 the income from which was to be held in trust for the benefit of miners' widows. The income from that fund would be about £500 a year, and at present the trustees could hunt round their district and without any difficulty find the requisite number of miners' widows on whom to spend the annual income. But suppose that, through wider recording and wider information, news was broadcast throughout the coalfields of Britain that there was money waiting for miners' widows, the trustees would be snowed under with applications; and as the applicants would, in politeness, expect a reply, the funds of the charity might well be entirely disbursed in postage and stationery. That may be considered to be a far-fetched instance, but I do not think it is so far-fetched as might be thought. In those circumstances, no trustee would continue to stand; he would not have the time or the inclination to deal with a vast postbag every day asking for the small amounts of money at his disposal.
I agree that central recording is useful from the point of view of a fount of information for professional people who are interested in the classification of particular charities and people who would be able to evaluate their financial position. For instance, they would not turn full publicity on to my mythical case, but would keep it comparatively private. Some charities, of course, like to receive publicity, because it is useful for them; but some do not. I should hope to see the recording rather follow that line of demarcation.
392
Several noble Lords have referred to this difficult question of the widening of the investment clause. It has been a real dilemma for trustees, because in the past they have had the choice between accepting a low coupon rate and some capital appreciation to set off against inflation, or a reasonably high coupon rate, low capital appreciation and a certainty of loss of real value. I should imagine that all trustees would welcome a wider investment clause. But I am not so certain that they would all welcome the responsibility. There are many people who would be rather reluctant to have the task of investing charitable funds in what are non-trustee securities at the moment. But, at any rate, the Royal Commission recommend a widening, and the White Paper accepts it. Up to date, it has been for the court to decide: the Government suggest the Charity Commissioners and the Minister of Education, and that seems a sensible line.
However, there are two difficulties that I see. First of all, there is the question of administration. The volume of requests will be enormous, and I think it will overwhelm the Charity Commissioners. Then there is the problem of differential which has been referred to this evening. Are you going to have the same rules for the small as for the big, assuming that the big have access to good investment advice and assuming, possibly quite wrongly, that the small have not? Each in its own way has exactly the same need to preserve its capital intact, so the need is exactly the same; it is just a question of whether the responsibility is there or not. It is going to be a most invidious task for the Charity Commissioners and the Minister of Education to say, "You can do what you like—you cannot."
We had this problem in the Church of England, and I think we have solved it. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford referred to difficulties in the churches. I think he was speaking for the Churches Council, and was referring to the non-Church of England churches, because I believe we have solved it. We took power in the Church Funds Investment Measure for the Church of England Finance Board—that is not the Church Commissioners—to form investment pools, and any investment in these pools was held to be a trustee investment for the benefit of the trusts in the case of

393
any trust connected with the Church of England which was truly charitable in that it was able to obtain full return of income tax.
We took power to run any form of pool—different pools to suit different types of trust—but I believe that at present only two are being run. The first is designed for the deposit of monies required intact at some specific date, and this pool tends to operate in Treasury Bills, local authority loans, Government stock, industrial debentures and so on, and it can do better than a trustee buying Government stock in the open market. The other pool invests largely to secure long-term income, and, it is hoped, a long-term capital appreciation to secure against inflation. Many charities have thrown their investments or cash into these pools to the amount of many millions of pounds, and they have thus thrust upon professional paid managers, advised by highly-skilled volunteers, the task of investing the money of the numerous parochial charities of the Church of England. I stress that this is entirely voluntary; nobody comes in unless he wants to. I suggest that consideration should be given to some similar scheme for the benefit or use of the numerous small charities up and down the land under the aegis of the Charity Commissioners or the Minister of Education.
Of course, there are arguments both ways, and if I set out one or two, that does not mean to say that there are not a great many more. From the point of view of the Charity Commissioners, it would certainly be a way out of their great administrative difficulty and, indeed, I must say, out of what may be chaos through the applications for the widened powers. It would relieve them of the invidious task of trying to distinguish between the charities, as to which should have which powers. For charities, it would be a means of getting quickly powers to spread their investments—cowers which, in the normal course, it might take a considerable time to get. It would enable a very small fund to become widespread. It would get expert management. It would get tax refunds at the same time as the income was paid out.
The contrary points that stick out are, first: would the trustees up and down the country blame the Government if the
394
pool did not do as well as they thought it should? Quite frankly, I do not know the answer to that psychological question. Could one get skilled managers? If one is prepared to pay out of the fund, as is done in the Church of England, I do not see why on earth one should not. Could one get skilled voluntary advice for the managers? I believe that there are men in the City who would be prepared to run public services of such a nature in an advisory capacity, as they do for the Church of England. Would the charities come in, in view of the management and the advisers? I think a great many of them would. They would still have the three choices: they could stay as they are, they could apply for a scheme or they could use the pool. Would the pool have any advantage over individual investment by charities? Of course, it would provide a much wider spread, a better management, and more high-powered advice, and the dividends would be paid without deduction of tax.
Then one might ask: would the pool have any advantage over permission to invest in, say, commercial unit trusts? There I think it would, because the tax refund would be available at once at least it is in the Church of England pool—at the same time as the dividend is paid out, and the pool could set off in-corners against out-goers, so that its spread between buying and selling was reduced, which would not be the case, I understand, in a commercially managed one. Whatever the pros and cons—and there are many—it would be an important step, and I earnestly hope that some thought can be given to this matter.
That is all I will ask tonight. I would not want a reply now, because I know the inclination of advisers and Ministers, when something new is shot at them, is always to produce the reasons why it will not work. That is human nature. But when we come to the Charity Commissioners, whatever happens—whether there is a pool or not—arising out of the White Paper there is a great deal more work for them, so far as I can see, and they will definitely have to be strengthened. At the moment they are extremely thin on the ground, particularly in the top grades, and anything out of routine which presumably requires the sanction of the higher authority is apt to be a slow and laborious business. There is always a danger, in selling property and that sort

395
of thing, that trustees may miss a market in cases which are not quite routine, through the lack of staff of the Charity Commissioners to deal with the matter swiftly. As I said before, I welcome the White Paper, which I think is a very suitable and realistic method of replying to the valuable Report of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
5.0 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, at this stage of the debate my desire to hear what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is going to say far exceeds any wish I have to inflict another speech on your Lordships who have the same desire. I will confine myself, if I may, to three points. Looking forward for a moment, rather than back, I think we have to take into account the fact that everybody to-day is conscious that we are living at a time of very rapid social change when, among other things, the value of money is depreciating rapidly. One growing consequence of this, I believe, is that to-day people with charitable intentions and some little capital to allocate no longer share to the full the mental attitude of testators who lived in a much more stable society.
We realise that, however prophetically minded we may be, we cannot see very far into the future; and we are therefore less anxious than our forbears were to tie up our little benefactions so tightly. We have seen in the span of our own lives the whole pattern of our society alter very much. So I believe, looking to the future, that a wise and charitable man to-day will not only wish to give his money to this or that object for which he has great care and concern, but will also want to be sure that, in the changed situation which he cannot really foresee, when the need which he did see no longer exists, his money will be transferred by some intelligent persons to meet some other object or need fairly in line with the spirit and intention of his original gift. I am quite sure that in this country we shall always be rightly conservative in not altering easily the terms of trusts formed by donors in the past. I am not, therefore, greatly impressed by the argument that some relaxation in the terms of trusts will necessarily dry up the springs of charity, as it might have done in the eighteenth or even the
396
nineteenth century. I think that the mentality of testators to-day is changing as much as the pattern of society.
The second point to which I would draw attention—it has been made already—is that those who care greatly for voluntary social service have had a growing anxiety during the past ten years that the situation is, from their point of view, worsening rather than improving. We hoped when the Nathan Committee was set up that it would lead fairly rapidly to some relaxation in regard to trusts and would in fact lead to the bringing back into real use of a good deal of the money which is locked up and tied up in obsolete trusts, or indeed is lying dormant in banks. I fancy that there is more of that than is sometimes realised. To-day, after ten years, I believe that many of the voluntary organisations and services are very seriously straitened financially. For this reason, among other things, to bring up a point already made, it is desirable, if the capital is not to wither away, that they should be allowed, I think by law, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has suggested, to invest their capital in a wider range of securities. It has been my sad experience that in the last fifteen years much the surest way of losing capital is to invest it in undated gilt-edged stocks. That has, I think, placed a good many voluntary organisations in serious financial difficulties.
The third thing I should like to mention very briefly—and one reason why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for bringing forward this Motion is that he has provoked the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to speak once again—is the subject of common-good trusts. I believe that we ought to press forward the setting up of common-good trusts, and I was wondering, when the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was speaking, whether it would not be possible to have some sort of marriage between Lord Samuel's common-good trusts and some kind of pool which would enable very small local trusts—and there are a great number of such trusts—to invest their money wisely and well and not allow it to wither away. Common-good trusts in a locality might be set up in an advisory capacity, and might foster some local trusts without actually getting rid of the actual trusteeship. I believe that locally in many parts of this country we need

397
such trusts. Voluntary organisations are sometimes unnecessarily fearful about their influence on their own finances. I do not imagine that normally a common-good trust would make wide public appeals for money. Rather would it be a depository for small monies from small trusts—for benefactions from people who were not desirous to give all their money to one particular cause, and that kind of thing.
I think it would be of immense value in many parts of this country if such trusts could be set up, because I believe that if the trustees were wise, sensible people, and were refreshed by fresh personnel from time to time, they would be a very valuable advisory body, holding together the many smaller, not always very expert, trusteeships in a locality. It is quite a different matter from handing them over to a local authority. I am sure that there is a future for such trusts—indeed, the experience of America and Scotland Chas proved the need for setting them up South of the Border. Finally, I hope very much that it will be possible for the Government, after these ten years of intensive thought, to promise us some legislation which will liberate some of this locked-up money and also help us to go forward and strengthen, rather than weaken, the voluntary organisations of our country.
5.8 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a few moments, but I want to add my thanks to those already expressed by other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, both for the admirable Report of the Committee on the Law and Practice relating to Charitable Trusts and also for raising this Motion in the House to-day.
I want to deal with only one point, among many which interest me very much in this subject, and that is the range of trust investments. That is a subject of which I have considerable knowledge, and therefore I take the liberty of addressing your Lordships' House on the matter. It is now more than 20 years since I first raised this question in the other House. I have been wholly unsuccessful during the whole of those 20 years in pressing the Government to amend the Trustee Act. The Trustee Act, if I may say so, at the present time is a crying scandal, and
398
nothing less. It was designed in times when circumstances were wholly different, and its application to trusts to-day has resulted in many trusts losing a very substantial part of their capital and income. I take it that the object of the Trustee Act, apart from the protection of trustees, is to protect and secure the trust funds. As it now stands, the Trustee Act not only fails to protect them, but makes it quite certain that a substantial portion of them will be lost. That is a situation which surely ought no longer to be tolerated, and I hope that when the noble Viscount comes to reply he will be able to tell us that something is really going to be done about it.
Paragraph 17 of the White Paper states that the Government consider that a distinction should be drawn between the arrangements relating to charitable trusts and those relating to other trusts. They do not say why. They then go on to set out certain suggestions for dealing with the investments of charities. I should consider it very wrong indeed to deal merely with the question of the investments of charities, and not with the whole range of trusts; and I feel sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, who spoke earlier, shares that view—in fact, I think he almost expressed it. The point is that there must be given to trustees a larger range of investments than is now permitted. It is all very well set out in Lord Nathan's Report, in paragraphs 277 onwards. The Report describes the existing range of investments; it explains how archaic they are; it explains the effect which inflation has had on all investments which are tied solely to money, and it goes on to give a proposed extended range of investments, with appropriate safeguards, which seem to me very good. No doubt in minor details they might be varied to meet the views of Parliament, but, broadly speaking, they seem very good. I beg the Government to tell us not only that they are going to deal with charitable trust investments, but also that they are going to deal with the Trustee Act itself and with the whole range of trustee securities. The Act must be amended, and the sooner the better.
I should like to make one other very small point before I conclude. The trustees of small trusts find it a convenience to invest in a stock which does not have income tax deducted at source, and

399
for that reason a great many trustees up and down the country invest in War Loan—it is convenient to them. It would be of great convenience to trustees if there were provided a Government stock with a date of redemption and in regard to which tax was not deducted at source, which trustees would have at any rate available to them as one of their investments. I am not suggesting that no trustee should invest money in Government funds. I know how anxious the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury must always be to maintain their large clientele of investors in Government funds; but I do say that to tie trustees to specially fixed-interest investments is wrong, and that the sooner that is brought to an end the better.
5.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am only echoing what every one of your Lordships feels when I say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for having raised this afternoon the question of legislation to deal with the future of charitable trusts. We are also grateful because it has been the occasion of the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford. We are delighted that he should have broken his silence in the House, and we hope that we shall hear him often again.
I want to say generally that there is little in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with which I have occasion to quarrel, and if I take rather a long time in not quarrelling with it it is only because the subject is important and I know that he wants to get the latest Government view on the various points. As again your Lordships have said, not only on this occasion are we grateful for the speech of the noble Lord this afternoon, but anything that is said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government ought to be prefaced by a repetition of our gratitude and appreciation of the work of the Committee of which the noble Lord was Chairman the Nathan Committee, as it is known in this context. Since we had the Report in 1952 we have had the advantage of the debate in this House in July, 1953. I should like to say that the views that were then expressed were of material assistance to Her Majesty's Government in formulating the policy set out in the White Paper, which
400
I think I can claim has received general approval from your Lordships this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, summarised the views of his Committee on a number of important points. I hope that he will forgive me if I quote what I regard as a most important passage from the Report—namely:
"The resources at the disposal of voluntary action should be put to the most appropriate use, and we therefore recommend that in exercising or taking advantage of the new scheme-making powers four guiding principles should be borne in mind:—

(a) It is the duty of the trustees to put their resources to the best possible use in the services of the community;

(b) It is for them to decide in the light of this principle what to do with these resources;

(c) The resources should, as a general rule, remain at the disposal of the voluntary movements;

(d) It is the peculiar function of voluntary organisations to pioneer."

With these recommendations Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly concur, and I should like to say here how infinitely I agree with what has been said about the importance of voluntary organisations and voluntary effort at the present time.
Last week I had the honour to address a gathering of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux of the National Council of Social Service—organisations which are of immense help to me in connection with the background of the Legal Aid scheme. If the right reverend Prelate will take this from me in the spirit in which I utter it, which is one of entire reverence, as I hope he will believe, it is a real difficulty to-day, with the extended spheres of the activities of the State, that people take the attitude, "Oh, is that not covered by the State?" I venture to put it in this way in the spirit that I have described: that if one tried to translate the parable of the Good Samaritan into modern idiom it would be wholly insufficient for the modern person to say that all the modern good samaritan needed to do was to ring up 999 and leave the rest to the National Health Service. That is an attitude which, fortunately, has not spread widely, but it is one which we have to bear in mind. Therefore, anything that we can do to underline and stress the importance of voluntary organisation will always in every field

401
have my support, as it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
I suppose that there has been some divergence on the method of carrying out the recommendations, but here again, considering the scope of the subject, the divergences are not very great The Nathan Committee suggested that there should be a relaxation of what was known as the ey-près doctrine, of which there has been much discussion this afternoon, and on which, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, there is a considerable field of agreement. But, more importantly, they suggested that while proposals for a scheme should normally be put forward by the trustees of a charity, either the central authority—that is to say the Charity Commissioners or the Ministry of Education, or any county or county borough council in whose area the charity was operated—should also have power to initiate a scheme for the reconstitution of a charity. There was a difference there and we have had the other point of view explained this afternoon by my noble friends Lord Hylton and Lord Hawke. They felt that that constituted a severe threat to the independent administration of charitable trusts.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds made what I believe was an important point in this regard. It is by no means easy to find competent persons who axe willing to act as trustees of charity; and to place charity trustees in the position of subordination to local authorities seemed to Her Majesty's Government to be in the best interests neither of charity trustees nor of the local authorities themselves. We felt that the proper relationship should be that of cooperation, not of subordination, and the proposals of the White Paper were therefore cast in this mould. The White Paper makes it clear that whatever local authorities may do in the way of co-operation with, or a review of, local charities, that may be done only in consultation with the trustees and with their consent. I believe that that meets the point that my noble friend Lord Hylton particularly had in mind, and I assure him that it is one whose importance we appreciate. It will be carefully scrutinised, although we trust that on that basis the co-operation I have mentioned is not beyond our hopes. I think your Lordships will see that it is a principle running through the proposals
402
of Her Majesty's Government that charity trustees should not be subject to political pressure by local or central authorities, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Hawke will accept that that is certainly our intention and is a point which we shall bear in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has asked when Her Majesty's Government propose to take action to implement the policy declared nearly four years ago in the White Paper. The task of preparing legislation which has been in progress since 1956 has been one of exceptional difficulty. The law of charity is traditionally the province of the Courts; it is founded less upon Statute than upon the principles evolved over the centuries by courts of equity and embodied in the corpus of Case Law. The existing Statute Law, moreover, is to be found in a variety of intricate and largely obsolete Statutes scattered over the last 150 years, and to introduce into this corpus of law the reforms envisaged in the White Paper is a matter of the greatest delicacy and complexity. The conclusion has been reached that the best course is to repeal the whole of the charity Statutes since 1800 and to re-enact their substance, with the amendments required, in a consolidated form. I believe that that again is very much within the letter, as well as the spirit, of the suggestion of the Nathan Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked me whether The Times leading article was prophetic. While at this stage of the Session and Parliament it is necessary to make the correct constitutional noises, I think that The Times is right in prophesying that next Session will see the legislation. I think I can go as far as that without impropriety on any grounds; and if your Lordships would allow me to mention a personal point, I would modestly underwrite The Times' charming recognition of the complete irrelevance of whether I hold my office or not. The working out of the policy in the White Paper has shown the need for a number of modifications, and on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who under the legislation envisaged in the White Paper would have special responsibilities for the Charity Commissioners, I should like to tell your Lordships what he has in mind for dealing with some of the problems.

403
My noble friend Lord Iddesleigh was rather worried about the introduction of the Home Secretary as a political Minister. Having held that office for three years (I speak with some diffidence in the presence of my great predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel), I would say that the Home Secretary has so many and varied tasks to perform, and occupies such a special position in the ministerial set-up, that I do not think he will find himself the subject of political pressure. He will find himself the subject of pressure to get on with his work and improve it, but I do not think the pressure will be political in the Party sense, of which I believe my noble friend was afraid.
I propose to deal with the four main topics raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and to take up as the opportunity arises the remaining points raised by other noble Lords and right reverend Prelates. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with my answer on his first point. I believe that he will agree that in May, 1959, no Minister could have been more forthcoming on that paint. I hope he agrees; for that is what I intended to be.
I come now to the problem of central records, the first of the topics raised by the noble Lord. As he said, the need for central records has been accepted by the Government. Further study of what is involved in such an undertaking has led to the development of the policy in a number of ways. It should help social workers to discover what means exist for meeting the needs of those who are not precisely covered by the public welfare services. As I mentioned a moment ago, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is at one with the noble Lord in the hope that local authorities in counties and boroughs will be prepared to maintain local public indices of charities operating in their area; and it is in his mind that the central authorities will supply copies of index entries to such local authorities. Second—and I believe this is an important point—any organisation which is included in the central register of charities must be treated as having charitable status, but independently of the Government. I am glad to inform the noble Lord that it is the intention of the Government that inclusion in the register will be treated by the
404
Inland Revenue as prima facie evidence of charitable status. The third point is this. To serve its purpose, ways have to be devised of keeping the central record complete and up to date with basic particulars of permanent or important charities. On the first point, if I may add a slight touch of levity, I would say that the noble Lord may remember that when he and I were young there was a song which finished with the words:
"Will you join me, Mr. Gramps?
I will precede you, Mr. Grips."
I think on this point I have not only joined the noble Lord but, an important particular, I have preceded him in that work.
I want to say just a word about religious charities, because some fears were expressed about the registration of trusts for the advancement of religion, a matter to which the right reverend Primate referred in the course of the debate in 1953. If I understood the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford and my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh correctly, they had that point in mind from the standpoint of their respective churches. The Government have no intention or desire to interfere with the administration of funds held by religious organisations for general religious purposes, but I think we should all agree that there should be central records of property which has been left on perpetual trust for religious purposes, and that charities administered by denominational authorities or for social welfare purposes, such as schools and holiday homes, should be treated in the same way as other charities held for similar purposes.
After careful consideration of this problem—I think, again, this is important—we doubt whether it would be practicable to find a statutory definition which did not leave great uncertainty in many cases. We have in mind, therefore, that in place of the statutory exception contemplated in the White Paper, a list should be worked out in consultation with the authorities of each of the principal denominations showing what denominational fund should be exempted from the supervisory function of the Charity Commissioners proposed in the White Paper. If this is a solution which commends itself to representatives of the churches, we will

405
certainly be prepared to consider the possibility of such an arrangement.
If I may say one or two words on the question of the relaxation of the cy-près doctrine, on which generally the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was not discontented with the approach in the White Paper, I will put two of the main—I do not say contentions: that is wrong—but approaches which we have heard of in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has emphasised the need for relaxing the existing doctrine of cy-près to enable charity to keep up to date, and I think the majority of expressed opinion has been with him. My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds has, broadly, taken the approach that the courts are well equipped to deal with the alteration of trusts in case of need and that there is not the same vital need to amend the law. I hope I am putting it fairly. That is the difference of approach as I see it. Indeed, my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds made, I thought, a cheering remark from his great experience that once you made the decision, or the decision was clear, that the trust or the purpose of the charity was obsolete, then there was not a great difficulty in finding an alternative purpose.
But I would ask your Lordships' attention for a rather different issue, which has struck me in considering this matter. It is not the courts, but charity trustees and the Charity Commissioners and the Ministry of Education, who need to know, with certainty, what standard short of absolute failure of a trust is to be applied to justify the making of a scheme. In considering what the criteria should be, we have found of great assistance a statement of principle enunciated by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds in his judicial capacity in the National Anti-Vivisection Society case in 1947. He said that a scheme should be applied for—now I quote his words:
"…if by a change in social habits and needs, or, it may be, by a change in the law, the purpose of an established charity becomes superfluous, or even illegal, or with increasing knowledge it appears that the purpose once thought beneficial is detrimental to the community."
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, had that in mind in writing his Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, pointed out, all charity is necessarily for the
406
public benefit; and the general criterion that we have in mind for distinguishing where a scheme ought to be made is that no substantial public benefit continues to be provided in the mode prescribed by the founder.
The courts, not the Government or the founder, are the judge of what is for the public benefit; and this raises a further important point. How is it possible to ensure that trustees will apply for schemes when these circumstances arise? The Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, thought that this should be the function of, inter alia, local authorities: local authorities should keep local charities under review and report to the Charity Commissioners when reform appeared to be needed. The White Paper rejected this view and emphasised that reliance must be placed on trustees themselves to take the initiative, but in exceptional circumstances the Home Secretary or the Minister of Education might direct the preparation of a scheme without the application of the trustees. Further consideration has suggested an alternative approach. It has been laid down by the court that it is the duty of trustees to apply for a scheme in the circumstances described, and we think that if Parliament declare this in the Statute it would greatly help the Charity Commissioners in inducing trustees to act, and it would render the intervention of the Minister necessary only in rare cases.
As I said, my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds has rather taken the view that the court's powers of altering the objects of a trust are already sufficiently wide. I agree that the court has a wide discretion; nevertheless, it is proposed in the legislation to give the Charity Commissioners and the Minister of Education an equally free discretion. On the noble Lord's second point, I hope that we are advancing with minds unclouded by prejudice or preconception.
Now I come to the third point, where there is more difference: that is as to the constitution of the Charity Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Nathin, drew attention to his proposal that the Charity Commission should be formed of a number of part-time Commissioners of standing in public and charitable affairs, led by an advisory body and served by a permanent staff. It is not, in our view,

407
intended that the Charity Commissioners should have any general policy to enforce upon charity trustees. Our view is that the initiative and responsibility should rest with the trustees themselves, and that the Charity Commissioners should act as their friends and advisers in assisting them to carry out their functions. It seems right—and here we are in agreement—that the Charity Commission should have a permanent staff, equipped to render the service which charitable trusts require, able to help them in their dealings with local authorities and with other Government Departments, and able to indicate where technical guidance can be obtained when they are not qualified to supply it themselves. So on that point there is, I think, agreement between the noble Lord and the Government.
My Lords, we are quite prepared to consider the appointment of an advisory committee, but we feel that further consideration should also be given to the benefit which the Charity Commissioners will receive from the functioning of the informal contacts which I have just described. So, although on that point we cannot come quite ad idern, again I hope the noble Lord will see that we have considered carefully what he suggested.
The functions of the Charity Commissioners and of the Minister of Education in relation to charities should no doubt be defined in the Statute. The present law contains no such definition, and this may well have hampered the Commissioners in the performance of their functions. We propose to make it a part of the duty of the Charity Commissioners to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them exclusively for the benefit of the charity and so as to secure the best employment of the charitable resources for the advantage of the beneficiaries so far as possible and in accordance with the intentions of the founder: that is, we are proceeding on the same principles as those I quoted from the noble Lord's Report. The Commissioners would further be required to advise and assist charity trustees in carrying out their charitable purposes; to secure the preservation of charity property; and to promote the co-operation of trustees with each other and with the statutory welfare services. Finally, they might be empowered to inquire into alleged abuses
408
of charities and to encourage the development by voluntary bodies of improved methods of administration. So I think that, there again, although our approach is not identical, we are covering much of the work which the noble Lord had in mind for the Charity Commission.
Now I come to the last main point of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which is a point that has been emphasised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds and also by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe in the last speech of the debate. I agree that the most pressing problem confronting charities of all kinds may well be the extension of the range of investment. I need not enlarge upon the disadvantages to which those trustees who are confined, by their trust instrument, to investments on the Trustee List laid down in the Trustee Act, 1925, have been subject in recent years. This list represents, in the main, what would have been considered suitable by a prudent investor of thirty years ago or more, rather than what is prudent to-day.
The Government announced in the White Paper their intention of dealing with this problem, but developments since that date have resulted in the abandonment of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the White Paper in favour of comprehensive legislation dealing with trustee investment generally instead of investment by charity trustees alone. I am using almost the same words as my noble friend Lord Clitheroe used a short time ago. I need not go into the reasons which have led to this conclusion, but I imagine it will be generally welcomed not only in your Lordships' House but outside. This is, however, a matter of great importance, affecting the private fortunes of a great many individuals and organisations, and is not to be approached lightly. A comprehensive scheme is being evolved, and I hope that a public announcement will be made shortly. Again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will say that, on his fourth point, I have not only dealt with what he expected but have perhaps gone beyond what he had hoped.
I wish that I could be as forthcoming to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, about the common-good trusts; because, if he will allow me to mention it publicly, it is now a period of forty years since we first became friends and since he showed such kindness to me when I stayed with him

409
in 1919. If the House would allow me, I should like to express the dear delight it has been to all of us that he should have come and taken part in this debate. But in regard to the common-good trusts, I think that the noble Viscount found paragraph 69 rather like the curate's egg. The good part was the first part—that the Government agree that it would be advantageous if local common-good trusts were established more widely than at present, and that they should be spontaneous in origin and unofficial in character. Then, we propose in the White Paper that the title "common-good trust" should be protected by requiring the permission of the Commissioners for its use. The sad point is that, in the last ten years, there has not been spontaneous, voluntary effort to create common-good trusts. There is no obstacle in law to the establishment by anyone of such a trust, and we have said that we are prepared to protect them; but there has not been the interest which was hoped for by the noble Viscount and others. In the absence of a greater measure of public interest, the Government is in a certain position of difficulty; but both Mr. Butler and I will pay deep attention to what has been said by the noble Viscount to-day, and will consider the matter again.
With regard to bona vacantia, first may I deal with the interesting historical point which the noble Viscount raised. The dormant funds were used for the building of the Law Courts under the Courts of Justice building Act, 1865, and that Act gave an indemnity for any claims by beneficiaries Which might arise. In the ordinary way dormant funds are transferred to the National Debt Commissioners for investment, and the income goes to the Exchequer. In these circumstances, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has two arguments: one, financial, that he does not want to lose the money; the second, moral, that it would not be a real encouragement to spontaneous charity if he started special charities out of public funds. It is in these circumstances that the difficulty which your Lordships appreciate has arisen. But I assure the noble Viscount that we will come back to consider a more extended use of common-good funds and we should be glad of any suggestions put to us.
I am sorry to have occupied so much of your Lordships' time, but I have tried
410
to deal in broad outline with what I thought were the main points which the noble Lord raised and which attracted consideration in the debate. In conclusion, I hope that I have said enough to show your Lordships how intricate are the problems of the adjustment of the law dealing with charitable trusts and how important it is to find the right solution. This is a matter of first-class importance. As every noble Lord who has spoken has said, we are considering an important aspect of the future of the voluntary movement, which for so long has made a unique (in the true sense of that word) contribution to welfare of our people.
It is a hundred years since the last comprehensive legislation on this subject. The last decade has seen great changes in our society, and once the course of voluntary effort has been reset its progress may well continue on those lines, unaltered by further legislation, for many years to come. Therefore, it is our aim that legislation to implement the White Paper should encourage voluntary and statutory services to work, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, "in partnership". There will be no dissent in any quarter from this aim. The way in which this is to he achieved requires careful working out. While informal consultations with the interests concerned have been going on for some time, of course the Government have taken no decision so final as to exclude the further improvements as a result of today's debate. We will give the greatest consideration to all that has been said, and when legislation is finally introduced it is our hope that it will be in a form which will command general acceptance. We also wish to make no change in Lord Nathan's own desire of a single intelligible Act.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, would allow me to intervene before he makes his speech in closing the debate? I was very disturbed by what the noble and learned Viscount said with regard to local common-good funds. I gather that the Government would be disinclined to put anything in their new Bill unless there is first of all a demand over the country for protection for common-good funds. The reason why so much public interest was aroused ten years ago was that it was thought that

411
some kind of dormant monies might be made available for such bodies and thereby be an inducement to their formation. Once started, they would grow by bequests and contributions from the locality. But, for one reason or another, it appears that such funds will not be available at all.
The other reason why the trusts might be formed locally would be that the term "common-good trust" would be protected by law, and there might be something in the nature of a legalised pattern which such bodies could follow. Now, however, we are told that the Government are inclined to say that until the trusts get started they are not to have any legislation to protect them. We are also to believe that, unless there is legislation to protect them, they will not get started. This is an unhappy vicious circle: no legislation without trusts being formed: no trusts being formed without legislation. So we may go on in that circle. I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount and the Home Secretary come to give further consideration to this matter, as the noble and learned Viscount has kindly said they will, they will not tie themselves up in that circle but will proceed with the legislation clearly adumbrated in the last paragraph but one of the White Paper. What harm will it do to carry out that suggestion? The worst that could happen would be that it would remain a dead letter. The best that could happen would be that all over the country people would do as Birmingham and other boroughs have done—say that this is a fine opportunity, and go straight ahead. I trust that the noble and learned Viscount will consider this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that I must have failed to make myself clear and I want to make it absolutely certain now. I was not going back on anything that has been said in the White Paper. I intended to reinforce the first half of paragraph 69, which says:
"The Government agree that it would be advantageous if local common good trusts were established more widely than at present, and that they should be spontaneous in origin and unofficial in character."
I could not agree more that it would be advantageous if local common-good trusts were established more widely. The paragraph goes on:
412
"It is proposed that the title 'Common Good Trust' should be protected by requiring the permission of the Commissioners for its use."
Again I underline that that is still the policy of the Government. The last sentence is:
"However, it is not agreed that national"—
as opposed to local—
"common good trusts should be subsidised or set up by the Government."
That is the only limitation with which I was dealing, and I thought that the noble Viscount had accepted it. I am sorry if I appeared to be receding from these words of paragraph 69, because that is the last thing I intend to do. I hope that the noble Viscount will take it that at the end of the day these words remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that he will accept my apologies if I did not make that fact clear.
5.59 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, before the debate closes, may I be pardoned a slight intervention to clear up a point that arises in my mind? I am a member of the board of management of the largest animal charity in the world. What interests me—and it is this about which I should like some clarity—is the talk about the possibility of the work of a charity coming to an end because there ceases to be any public need for it. The only way in which it will be possible to bring to an end the work of a charity dealing with animals, and giving both medical and surgical aid, is to bring animal welfare under the Welfare State as a social service. The point that I should like made clear is this. Suppose that were to happen—and I think we might consider possibilities at this stage, even though they might not arise for a long time—we must remember that in the case of the Welfare State itself quite a large number of people prefer to go to their own doctors; they do not wish to come under the Welfare State. Large numbers of animal lovers will probably have the same feeling about their animals. What would the position be if it were decided by some authority, local or otherwise, that there was no further need of this charity, although a number of people preferred to be outside any Welfare State arrangement with regard to the general welfare of animals in the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord was looking at me while he was speaking, and I want to make it quite clear that nothing that I say relates to any concrete example, because I do not carry the trust deed of any particular example in mind. But on the general approach which has been favoured this afternoon, the result would be that, even if there was a State service, most of us think, irrespective of where we sit in the House, that there is always room for a voluntary service as well which gives the particular approach and state of mind which a voluntary service carries with it. In these circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that a State organisation would contain a prohibition against a voluntary service; and if it did not contain such a statutory prohibition—that is, a prohibition in an Act of Parliament—then no one else is in a position to take any action to prohibit the charitable work. I do not think the noble Lord need let that worry him, because I cannot imagine that any Government of any political flavour would put into an Act a provision of the kind that he described. That is only my prophecy of the future; hut, such as its value is, I hope he will find it consoling.
6.3 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, this is the third debate upon charities in ten years and the last, as it seems to me in the light of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, before the Second Reading of a Bill. That is a most satisfactory outcome of this series of debates. I have always felt that the work upon which my Committee have been engaged was interesting, but this evening I feel that it has been thoroughly well worth while. I am sorry that I was unable to hear the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but I have been told what he said, and I think he rather misconstrued what I intended to convey to your Lordships. I hope I made it clear, but if not I will make it clear now, that I was not complaining of the White Paper. I felt that the White Paper went a long way towards meeting the recommendations made by my Committee, and that the points of difference were not so great as to change my mind from a general approbation into the reverse.
414
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford, seized this opportunity of making his maiden speech. He is not merely a dignitary among the Spiritual Peers of your Lordships' House, but he occupies a special responsibility in the Church Assembly for matters connected with the subject of this debate. It is most agreeable to know that he has taken his part in this debate, as doubtless he will again on similar matters.
It has long been the practice in your Lordships' House, certainly during the twenty years that I have been a Member, that no one speaking at the end of a debate raises fresh subjects of controversy. That seems to me to be a sound principle, and I have no intention of infringing it to-day. I am greatly indebted, as all your Lordships will have been, to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the enormous amount of interest which he has taken in this subject and the equally great amount of work he has taken upon himself for the purpose of enlightening us as to the intentions of the Government. It was a masterly and exhaustive statement, for which, as I say, I am sure we are all grateful.
For myself, I heard with special interest what he had to say on the future of investments which is, I think, a critical point and is bound to arouse a great deal of public interest, not to say public controversy. If I were asked how I stood to-day with regard to this whole matter, I think I should say to the Lord Chancellor what perhaps at this stage he would most like to hear: that, without prejudice, of course, to what I might wish to say on the Committee stage, I should certainly find myself voting in the Lobby in favour of a Second Reading of the Bill which he adumbrates.
It is going to be a complicated Bill. I do not complain that it should take some time to draft it. I once spoke to one of the Parliamentary draftsmen and asked him how long he thought legislation would take, and he told me that he thought it was most complex and it would take at least three years to draft a Bill. I am much relieved to know that so much progress has been made that we are likely to have such a Bill before us within the next Session of Parliament. I feel so much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for what he

415
has said, the trouble he has taken and the kind words he has spoken about myself and my colleagues, that I do not know that I can find more adequate words with which to express my appreciation than to say that I hope and believe, in the light of what he has said, that the future will have made it worth while. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCH AWE HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME
6.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEYrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to suspend the operation of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Construction Scheme No. 28) Confirmation Order. 1959, pending the agreement of a satisfactory scheme for the preservation of the beauties of Ben Cruachan and the neighbourhood. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think it would be charitable, in the light of the discussion which has been going on earlier this afternoon, if I could leave it at that; but this is an important matter and I think it requires some explanation. I feel a little diffident, or possibly a little surprised at my hardihood, in broaching a subject concerned with the interests of Scotland, because one appreciates that there is a certain amount of feeling in cases where Sassenachs intervene, and I did delay some time in the hope that one of those Members of your Lordships' House who are sensitive about damage to the beauties of the Highlands would have taken up the matter. There are, of course, many such, and I happen to know that several of those who are most keenly interested are abroad at the moment.
Eventually I decided that, as time was getting on, if the matter were to be debated I had better put down some sort of Motion or Question about it. Indeed, I suggest that the beauties of the West Highlands, which are unsurpassed in any part of the world, are the common heritage, not only of all the peoples of these islands but of humanity as a whole. I myself have had the enormous satisfaction of spending some of the happiest
416
hours of my life climbing about in the mountains of the West Highlands, and on the very mountains which are endangered by this scheme. I feel, therefore, that to that extent, at any rate, I am qualified to bring this matter to the attention of your Lordships.
Your Lordships will have observed that I have rather modified the original approach to this matter, in that I have changed what started as a Motion for the annulment of the Order for the Loch Awe scheme into a Question. I did that for various reasons. It was suggested to me that it was not altogether satisfactory to move for the annulment of an important Order of this kind; that it was not altogether satisfactory that that should be done in your Lordships' House. I was not altogether insensitive to that argument. Indeed, I was the more willing to put the matter into the form of a Question so that we might have a discussion, perhaps lively, but based on good will, because, on the whole, the history of the hydro-electric schemes in the Highlands has been one of good will on the part of the authorities towards those who are so sensitive for the protection of natural beauty. It seemed to me that it was right that the Government spokesman should be given an opportunity of representing the Government's views, at any rate before one came to a decision as to whether one would try to get this scheme annulled.
There have been more than one of these schemes in which the arrangements for the protection of the natural beauties of the situation have been very successful. The Glen Affric scheme, for example, while not 100 per cent. successful in safeguarding an exceptionally lovely piece of country, has on the whole been well done. The Loch Tummel scheme was not so well done, and the one on Loch Lomond, the Loch Sloy scheme, has, I am afraid, made a dreadful mess of what were once "the bonny, bonny banks of Loch Lomond". So the record of authority is rather like the curate's egg which was referred to by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a few moments ago—it is excellent in parts, and not so good in other parts. I could perhaps at this stage express my personal thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for having put the photographs and map of the scheme in the Royal Gallery so that we

417
might have the opportunity of looking at them this afternoon.
This particular scheme of Loch Awe is really in three independent sections. The section with which I am particularly concerned this evening, and which seems to me to be the one which is a danger to the beauties of the Western Highlands, is the Ben Cruachan section, which provides for the first large-scale pump storage works in Scotland. It is proposed to use the surplus of electricity which is not used up during the night for the purpose of reinforcing the supply of electricity required at the peak period. Therefore the scheme works in this way: electricity is used during the night to pump up water to a high level in one of the corries in Bert Cruachan, where it can be let down during the daytime, when required, in order to make further electricity which can be put into the grid.
These schemes, of course, are not possible except in exceptional parts of the country. We have already discussed one in North Wales, and this particular one, I submit, is highly objectionable because it entails the building of a new reservoir in a particularly fine corrie, perhaps the finest of all the corries of Ben Cruachan, which is certainly one of the finest mountains in all the Western Highlands. This particular corrie provides water for the lovely waterfall, the Falls of Cruachan themselves, and the difficulty is, of course, that as the water is let out of a storage reservoir of this kind by day, the mud and rocks which have been covered up are exposed. It is a particularly desolate sight, and one which anybody who has seen a reservoir which has had the water run out of it must agree is a particularly unpleasant spectacle. That that should occur at this very sensitive part of the Western Highlands seems to me to be altogether deplorable. It is above the Pass of Brander, which is famous in Scottish history, literature and song; and I am sure that all over the world, wherever Scots come together, the Pass of Brander is known, and there must be a good deal of fear lest this superb piece of natural scenery be destroyed in this way.
It is dangerous also because this may well be the forerunner of other schemes in the Western Highlands and in Wales, and possibly in the Lake District and the other beautiful mountainous country of
418
England. It is, of course, only in mountainous country with lakes and corries that this type of scheme can be carried through. It is not a question of actually producing any new electricity. All that we are doing is to utilise the electricity which has already been produced. This is not really a hydro-electric scheme in the ordinary way at all. It is not going to produce new electricity, but is simply to use up, perhaps in a more fruitful way, electricity which has already been produced; but the total saving by this sort of scheme is very small indeed. In The Times newspaper of March 31, when there was a discussion of this particular scheme, it was said that schemes of this kind, because of the obvious limitations which the natural conditions place upon them, cannot produce more than a few thousand megawatts.
It seems to me wrong that the enormous social values Which these superbly beautiful places have should be lost far the sake of saving a few thousand megawatts of electricity in this way. Even at the best of times these hydro-electric schemes are not especially fruitful. Production is comparatively small. The total production of all the hydro-electric schemes in the British Isles is only about 2 per cent. of the total electricity that is produced; the remaining 98 per cent., of course, being produced by the steam process from coal. One would think, from all that one has heard about the hydroelectric schemes in the Highlands, that their contribution to the electrical energy produced in the country was very high. That is not so, and it is rather doubtful whether, from the strictly economical point of view, these schemes are really justifiable.
I had an interesting letter from a Member of your Lordships' House who is particularly well qualified to speak on all these scientific problems, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who regretted very much that he could not come this afternoon, to take part in this discussion. I should like to quote a passage from the letter in which he says that the general impression that he gets of many of these Scottish hydro-electric schemes is that they are
"pitiful little contributions which lay waste beautiful scenery without having the slightest effect on the wellbeing of the country as a whole."

419
The Kerry Falls, at the end of Loch Maree, were one of the natural beauties of the district. They have been completely ruined to provide what he calls a "pint-sized power station". He goes on:
"As for the devastation at the head of Loch Garry and Loch Quaich, it is exactly as if some hater of God and all His works had let loose the dynamite."
In some other cases I think myself that they have been carried through more successfully and have added to the amenities of the country, and even if here and there they have involved possibly some slight sacrifice of the beauties of the district, we who have worked in this movement for the protection of the natural beauties of the British Isles have been prepared to put up with some sacrifice in order to provide higher standards of living for the people in the Highlands. All that we ask is that these schemes should not be pushed to this sort of extreme, and that superb mountains like Ben Cruachan should not, in effect, be destroyed as a result of the establishment of new reservoirs of this kind which are bound to be eyesores when the water has run out.
My Lords, the British people are a peculiar people. They have the finest natural scenery, or some of the finest natural scenery, in the world. Their culture, from the point of view of their poetry and their painting, has been more dependent on the scenic beauty of their countryside than that, I suppose, of any other of the great artistic nations of the world. They have been prepared from time to time to listen to their great poetical seers like Wordsworth, who fought almost single-handed against the introduction of the railway system in the Lake District, and fought successfully. We honour those of our great men, like Professor Trevelyan, who have devoted years of their lives to the work of the National Trust, by giving him the highest award, the Order of Merit. We confer knighthoods on the secretaries of organisations like the Commons Society and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. And yet here we are, in the most beautiful and sensitive part of the Western Highlands prepared to desecrate one of the most lovely mountains in the whole of that superbly beautiful district for the sake of a few thousand megawatts of electricity.
420
I do hope that, as a result of expressions of opinion in your Lordships' House, this particular part of the scheme, which could be cut out of the scheme without destroying it as a whole, and leaving it in substance, I suggest, very much as it is, might well be cut out. I feel that if your Lordships would indicate to the Authority, by the views expressed in this debate, that you would like to see this done, perhaps we should not have spoken in vain this afternoon in discussing this scheme. I beg to ask the Question on the Order Paper.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I make no apology for intervening in this debate. My reason for doing so is that I was the unfortunate first Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and therefore I know a little about it. In those days we had a very hot time. There was a great deal of criticism and feelings ran high. I can remember being cut in my own club in Edinburgh because it was thought that I was spoiling the amenities of Scotland. I have since visited the seats of my misdemeanours, and, far from being ashamed of those schemes, I am rather proud. It has given me a good deal of feeling of personal satisfaction to think that, although they do not know who I am, old ladies lift their nightdresses and warm their posteriors before they slip into bed, and I am glad to think that perhaps I have had a hand in warming those posteriors.
I keep closely in touch with the work of the Hydro-Electric Board because I am very jealous of their reputation. I must join issue with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I cannot admit that the country has been desecrated; I do not believe it has. I live there, and I live there in winter quite often, and I know that the comfort that has been brought to many people far outweighs any desecration of the country, which I hope has not spoiled the noble Lord's holiday. I am really rather surprised that, speaking from those Benches, he cannot consider the comfort of the people in general.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl must have prepared his speech without listening to what I said, because I particularly said that in a number of those cases they had been successful on the whole.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: But I am joining issue with that; I think that in most cases they have been successful and they have done a great deal of good. If you are going to cut out the heart of a scheme—I am not on the Board now so I am not speaking with any interest—you are going to undo the good which we are trying to do to look after the people of the country. I am very jealous of the reputation of the Hydro-Electric Board, and they care a great deal about amenity. I can assure the noble Lord that his apprehensions are really groundless. I should like to point out also that there is an Amenity Committee set up under the Act, which looks after all these cases. They have not complained about the desecration of amenity, nor have the Society for the Preservation of Rural Scotland. There are many societies which are watching these cases and they have not grumbled.
I am given to understand that the Amenity Committee watched this matter as closely as ever, and they will continue to do so; there are many permanent officials in that set-up who were there with me and who were brought up most strictly to look after the amenities of the country; and if there is any criticism to be levelled against them I would say that it is that an awful lot of money is spent in maintaining the amenities of the country. I agree that it is right that it should be so, but a great deal of money has been spent in order to preserve these amenities. I feel that the noble Lord's fears are groundless and his apprehensions unnecessary.
6.29 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I think I had better declare an interest as coming from Scotland although I work now in England. I do not wish to enter into debate with the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I should like to raise one or two general matters of policy in regard to this question. We all agree that our country is a really beautiful country. The more one travels about the world the more one realise that there is so much of loveliness here, held in a very small compass. But, with a curious irrationality, the people of this country both cherish and spoil the country. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, large tracts of this country have been despoiled by the industrial pursuits of man. We must ask ourselves
422
how far we are going to allow that to proceed.
I have lived and worked all my days in the industrial areas of this country—Clydeside, Tyneside and the West Riding of Yorkshire. On one's travels one sometimes pauses on a ridge and looks over the landscape and tries to picture it as it looked a couple of hundred years ago, before industry was let loose upon it. lt is altogether a rather sad thought. I share the concern of the noble Earl who has just spoken for the welfare of ordinary folk, and I am deeply concerned about the welfare of future generations of our urban population if we are not going to have some kind of controlled policy in regard to the preservation of the rare and natural beauty of our own country. We have been very destructive in the past. I know it is true that many who are responsible for industry to-day have a real concern for the amenities of our country, such as perhaps their predecessors had not; but still, we are liable to take rather short views and look for quick returns, and to hope that future generations will, somehow or other, be able to take care of themselves. I am not so sure that they can. It is very easy to despoil, but it is difficult to restore. I think that nowadays we are faced with a real dilemma with regard to the life of our country.
There is a second thought to which I think we should give more attention. One goes about the Continent of Europe and realises that there are some countries, most of them not as beautiful as our own, where the landscape has proved to be an economic asset of great and fluid value. In these days of international travel on a large and ever-increasing scale, holidays with pay, and so on, we ought to recognise that, for reasons of pleasure and happiness, the beauty of our country is a rare possession. But there is none too much of it. A great deal of it has been destroyed beyond restoration. While I realise that care is taken in regard to hydro-electric schemes, I am inclined to disagree that they enhance the beauty of our country as a whole. If we allow them to spread rather too widely we are going to deprive ourselves of some of our rarest landscapes such as will give pleasure and recreation and spiritual health to future generations yet to come.
I believe, therefore, that we should not think purely economically but also culturally when we ask ourselves what kind

423
of policy we are going to adopt in future in regard to what remains of this rare heritage of ours in this country. It is not for me, as an amateur, to plunge into technical and industrial questions, although I have lived in that sort of atmosphere most of my life, but I would ask—and something about which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke reinforces the question—are these rather expensive schemes for producing a somewhat limited amount of electric power the most fruitful way of spending our resources? I remember not long ago a distinguished Swiss engineer saying to me that the capital cost of producing electricity from water power in this country, or indeed in his own country where there is far more water power, was greater than from the use of coal.
I live and work in a part of the country where we are well aware of the growing recession in the coal industry. I think that the men are beginning to realise that within the next twenty-five, thirty or fifty years atomic energy is going to be the main source of power in this country. Therefore, we have to face the possibility of a big recession in our major basic industry. During this intervening period, cannot we concentrate our policy for increasing electrical power on the use of coal rather than on developing schemes which will bring power to certain points of the country while also, in the long run, doing a great deal to reduce their attractive value to those who come out from urban areas to seek the solace of the country? It is all a question of degree and balance, as I quite understand. It is so easy, I think, for the balance to be tipped on the side of a quick return in terms of production and power, and to lose sight of the long-term view that the preservation of the unique beauty of our unique country has not only a cultural but also an economic value. It is not the economic value to which I ask your Lordships to give most attention in regard to what I am saying, but there is a political as well as a spiritual wisdom in the sentence of the psalmist, which no doubt sprang out of his own personal experiences:
"The mountains shall bring peace and the little hills righteousness to a people."
6.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to apologise in advance for the
424
fact that one or two of my remarks may not be strictly on the subject as it now stands in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but I believe that this is the only chance that we have to express our views on the Loch Awe Hydro-Electric Scheme and, as probably I drive along that road more often than most of your Lordships, I should like to say a few words on it. First, I should like to say that I know that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have done all in their power to mitigate the effects of the proposed scheme on the fishing and other amenity interests, by providing a certain amount of compensation water; in fact, I believe that they are going to provide in compensation water almost as great a flow as the flow for two months last summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has dealt fully with the effects that the scheme will have on the beauty of what is undoubtedly one of the show pieces of the Highlands. While I agree with him that these effects will certainly be considerable while the scheme is under construction, if other schemes are anything to go by I feel that when it is finally completed its effect on the beauty and amenity of the district will about be cancelled out. I would, however, ask whether it is really a good thing to spend £24½ million on a scheme which will take about eight years to complete—although possibly my noble friend Lord Forbes may not agree with me on that—and which will probably be outdated fairly soon, say twelve years or so after it is finished.
I am fully aware that at the moment atomic power stations can operate only at an even rate, and that therefore what might be described as "boosters" are used during peak periods; and it is intended that the Loch Awe scheme should act as one of these. It seems not improbable, however, that in twenty years' time, such is the march of science, this snag will have been overcome; and before a hydro-electric scheme of this cost can begin to pay it must have a long and useful life. I should have thought, therefore, that it would certainly have been cheaper and quicker, and would have avoided the attendant snags, to build a coal and steam power station of equal capacity. As a sideline, it would also use up some of the surplus coal.
There are other difficulties which I feel might arise with the scheme, particularly

425
concerning the road from Dalmally to Oban which runs alongside Loch Awe. At the moment it takes forty minutes to drive from Dalmally to Oban. I have no doubt that when the hydro-electric board have made their diversions and finished their scheme, that journey will also take about forty minutes; but during the period when the dam is under construction they may block the road completely, although they say in the White Paper that they will not. Equally, they said in the White Paper that the Kinlochhoun road would not be affected when they were doing the Loch Quaich scheme, and yet I believe they flooded the old bridge of Quaich several weeks before the new bridge was completed, and Kinlochhoun was therefore completely cut off from the outside world.
I know that many of the hoteliers in Oban are worried about the effect that a partial blockage on the main road would have on trade, particularly during the summer months when it is very crowded with charabancs and other tourist traffic. We should therefore like an assurance from the noble Earl that the Hydro-Electric Board will complete all their road diversions before they start blocking the old road with the lorries and other equipment which they will no doubt need.
To sum up, I believe that if it is not well controlled the scheme will interfere with the one practicable road link between a large part of Argyll and the outside world, and that there will be a diminution, especially during the period of construction, of the beauties of Ben Cruachan and the neighbourhood, although probably this will be great only during the period of construction. This is likely to have a serious effect on the prosperity of the neighbourhood, though again only during the period of construction. The main reason why I am personally slightly doubtful about the wisdom of the scheme is that we are spending this very large sum of money on something which I feel the march of science may well have superseded in fifteen or twenty years' time.
6.45 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, to my mind it is possible that the uneasiness about amenities in connection with this scheme, evidenced by the fact that this debate is taking place, may have sprung from the two years or so that have elapsed
426
since, I understand, the scheme was first put forward and open to objection. I think it is fair to say that this uneasiness exists and that the problem is a very complex one. We have to face the fact, which I believe is the case, that in the generation of electricity by atomic power inevitably units are generated which have to be either used or wasted in terms of heat; and this pumped storage system is the only known method by which such energy can be conserved. It follows that, in order to get the head required for such a scheme, height is required, so that there must be a mountain involved.
Consequently, my feeling is that while this scheme may be, and probably is, economically necessary, we must at the same time face the fact that there must be some measure of interference with the natural beauties of that part of the Highlands. As I have said before in your Lordships House, I sometimes worry lest the electricity boards charge too much for their off-peak load. If only the boards would face up to the need for supplying off-peak load at lower tariffs, then perhaps energy which otherwise would be wasted, if it is not pumped up to Ben Cruachan, could be sold for pit-pumping, space heating and the like, thus avoiding the necessity for a scheme of this kind.
I do not, however, share the view of the noble Duke that this will be out of date so soon, because the great fact about such a scheme is that once the money is spent the actual cost of operation is low, the original outlay being the heaviest cost. If, then, the matter is to be considered from the two angles of economics and amenity, I personally feel that reasonably we need only ask Her Majesty's Government to give us an assurance that a balance is being preserved between these two matters. We are all grateful to the noble Lord the Minister of State, for providing us with the photographs which are now in the Royal Gallery, and I feel that, as a result of our experience of similar schemes of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, we can face the future confident that time will conceal many of the scars. The photographs and the map do not show the run of the transmission lines, of course, and we have to accept that some scars may result from the empty reservoir, visualised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—although one would have to be fairly active to look down upon that!

427
I feel that these amenity matters are sufficiently important to require great care in the alignment and design of power lines where there is to be this large power station in the middle of the Pass of Brander. Careful safeguards are necessary, for whilst, of course, it is economically impossible to put power lines underground (I can safely say that that is beyond contemplation in terms of cost), there will be many connecting links required between power stations. I myself feel that the power line to-day is not really so big a scar on the landscape as the railway was when it was first cut up that very Pass, and I believe that we shall get used to these things as time goes on. I have met people who say they rather like the look of these power lines. I cannot quite believe that, but I call to mind an occasion where an objection was taken, on the ground of amenity, to a power line in the neighbourhood of Hadrian's Wall. Counsel pointed out that it was possible that in about the year 200 A.D. the inhabitants of North Britain had had their own views about Hadrian building his wall, which might have led to some interference with the amenities of the neighbourhood.
I believe that we shall get more used to power lines, but perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to assure us that every possible step is being taken, and will be taken, to safeguard the alignment of the lines involved and to put them underground where it is possible; and also as regards the design of the pylons. It has to be remembered that, as the years go by, new materials, lighter structures, become possible; and it is conceivable that the type of tower which I understand is accepted throughout the length and breadth of Britain, and is applicable to this part of the country, might quite reasonably, and without additional cost—provided that the design is carefully studied—be altered in order to produce a type of tower which is less offensive (if that is the right word) to the eye.
In other words, my Lords, my contribution to the debate is rather along the lines of the observations with which the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, ended his remarks. Perhaps all we can ask at this stage is that an assurance should be given to us, as I am sure it will be, that every possible step will be taken to secure
428
the beautification, as far as possible, of all the works, including the power lines. One last point. It seems to me, looking at the photographs, that it might be possible to improve the appearance of the works in the Pass of Brander if the barrage were to be placed nearer to the outlet from the Loch. I know that that would have an effect which the owners of the fishing rights would appreciate, though I shall not be surprised if the noble Lord tells me that the cost would be quite out of the question. That is all I have to say, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord the Minister speak on the subject.
6.53 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it is always very pleasant to me, as I am sure it is to other noble Lords who have had the good fortune to be born in Scotland and to be natives of that country, when other noble Lords not so blessed show an interest in our affairs. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for having introduced this subject. The noble Lord has expressed just the same fears as have been expressed on so many occasions in connection with the schemes of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I remember very vividly indeed, when the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, was the chairman of the Board, being approached by the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire in another place who told me about the great anxieties that existed as to the beauties of Pitlochry, which were going to be ruined by some nefarious scheme for which the noble Earl was responsible. We prayed against the scheme, and we spoke very sharply on the subject. Two years later my friend came to me and said how very sorry he was that he had induced me to enter into the debate, because he had since discovered that the amenities of Pitlochry had been much improved by the work of the Hydro-Electric Board performed in that vicinity. I have been there many times and I entirely agree.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that in some cases the actual beauty of the scenery had been improved by the work. It is certainly true—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not think I said that. I said that the

429
Glen Affric scheme, while not 100 percent. successful in this respect, had, on the whole, safeguarded the position. I do not think I said it made the scenery better.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, then the noble Lord and I differ. I apologise to the noble Lord if I misinterpreted what he said. I visited Glen Affric before any scheme was started; I visited it while a scheme was under way, and later; and certainly, to my mind, the scenery has in no way suffered, and indeed has benefited, from the work done there. I have had the opportunity during recent years to visit many of the schemes of the Hydro-Electric Board, and I have yet to find one which has in any way been detrimental to the beauties and the scenery in which they are situated. Indeed, many of them have added to the interest of the scenery and have in no way detracted from its natural beauty.
I was rather surprised by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. He told us about this corrie in Ben Cruachan. I have lived for months at a time under the shadow of Ben Cruachan, and I have climbed the mountain. I would agree with him that if you have a great deal of water running away it does not leave a very nice spectacle, but when one considers the matter from every point of view, I wonder how many people in any year visit that corrie? Very few, I should say. As for doing anything whatsoever to spoil the beauty of the Pass of Brander, I do not understand how that would arise. I do not know whether the noble Lord has looked at the photographs. If he has, he will find difficulty in informing me how that would happen.
The noble Lord said one thing that certainly astonished me. He said that the hydro-schemes had not been fruitful—he was referring, of course, to the amount of electricity produced. But, really, coming from those Benches, a remark of that kind, which seemed to exclude altogether the benefit which has accrued to the people of the Highlands as a result of the Hydro-Electric Board's schemes, was very surprising. There are thousands of people in the Highlands to-day, I would tell the noble Lord, who are grateful to the Hydro Board for what they have done for them. And let me remind him of another thing.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords—
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Will the noble Lord allow me to continue? I would remind him that it is not only to produce electricity that the Hydro Board was set up, but to do for the amenities of the Highlands, for the welfare of the people, what could not be done otherwise; and in that it has succeeded to a very great extent. Now the noble Lord may care to speak.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. I said that these hydro-electric schemes were not economically very suecessful, and that the electricity costs more and is much more difficult to produce than if it were produced from coal. But I said that we in the amenities movement had been prepared to put up with a certain amount of extra expense and a certain amount of damage to scenery because it did help the standard of living of people in the Highlands. I thought I made that clear.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, so far as I know the noble Lord is incorrect in his facts. So far as I am aware (perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will inform us whether I am correct), the generation of electricity by hydro-electric power is cheaper than that produced by the most modern steam station in the country at the present day. I believe that to be true, and no doubt my noble friend Lord Forbes will be able to say whether or not I am correct.
The right reverend Prelate really did not speak to the subject of the Question at all. He spoke generally as to the destruction of interests, amenities and beauty, particularly in urban areas—and on that point I would entirely agree with him. But that does not refer to the Hydro-Electric Board and the work they have done. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for the opportunity of speaking on this Question. I feel it gives me a chance to pay credit to the Board for the extraordinary care they have taken in safeguarding the beauties and amenities in the country, and I am glad to pay my tribute to them. Before I sit down, I wonder whether I might ask my noble friend Lord Forbes whether he could tell us just how many objections have been lodged, on amenity grounds, to this Loch Awe scheme.
6.59 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lard Forbes, will allow me to express a personal view without committing any of my colleagues in this matter. Like many other noble Lords, I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not forget the work which has been put in by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie; or the work which has been put in by Mr. Tom Johnston; or the work which may be put in by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, now that he has taken upon himself the chairmanship of the hydro-electric undertaking. At the same time, I am also aware that a case can be made out for the expansion of electrical energy by some of these new schemes.
In spite of all that, one has the feeling that perhaps we are overdoing things these days in the way of the generation of electricity, in the belief that if we give electrical energy to the people of the Highlands we are thereby raising their standard of living. To a certain extent, but only to a certain extent, that may be true. It is true that a great many houses now have electric light where formerly they had none. It is also true that some of the electricity is being used for industrial purposes. But I am bound to say, if I may express my personal view, that I view with horror the sight of a lovely piece of our country being spoilt. For example, travelling from Helensburgh to Fort William, one sees those awful scars along Loch Trieg which have been there for too many years and which have not yet been covered. Even on the assumption that there may be some commercial advantage from the generation of the power, I say: is it worth while to despoil the beauty of our country by these undertakings? I have the feeling, unfortunately, that this division of opinion exists between those who, if I may say so, perhaps unkindly, are the commercial Philistines to-day and that rather large minority who have a sensitivity about beauty which apparently a large number of people do not possess.
I do not deny the advantages which come from cheap power. I am not so sure that the consumers of electricity in Scotland, or in the Highlands, are getting their power at so reasonable a rate as to justify the adoption of its use to a much greater extent than now: but, apart altogether from that, must we emphasise the need for these things solely
432
on economic or commercial lines? Is there not something which we ought to be prepared to sacrifice in order to retain some of these irreplaceable beauties which we still have in Scotland and which, unfortunately, are being reduced at an increasing rate? It may be that we have already gone too far in our commitments to withdraw from these particular ventures or projects; but I still say that, in spite of all that the Hydro-Electric Board has done to reproduce—I will not say "preserve"—amenities in its operations, the fact still remains that Scotland, and the Highlands in particular, is being defaced by these attempts to modernise the country in the interests of a so-called progressive outlook.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Has the noble Lord seen the new Barony Pit near Cumnock, and the other new pit at Killoch in Ayrshire, both sunk to produce coal which will eventually produce electricity; and does his heart not bleed for that beautiful part of Ayrshire which is being destroyed, when he compares it with the way that the Hydro-Electric Board has been able to preserve the beauties of the country?
LORD GREENHILL: I should express the same regret at the defacement of our country by these unsightly mounds as I do about this particular hydro-electric scheme.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes, could I ask him a question? I always listen to what he says with the greatest interest. If you go to Loch Lomond now, is it not true that you will find there a mass of speedboats, and the like, and that it is almost like Blackpool; and is not that as bad as anything else put there by the Hydro-Electric Board?
LORD GREENHILL: I agree, my Lords, and if it were possible to do away with these destructions of the amenities of our country I would certainly lend my own efforts to see that they were stopped. The trouble is that we have far too many of these activities which are spoiling our country; and I, for one, hope that public opinion will rouse itself to see that even projects of this kind, which have a value, are not proceeded with at the pace at which they are being proceeded with to-day.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt continually, but I think sight has been lost of why this Board was set up. It was set up to develop areas which otherwise would not reap the benefit of electricity—the Outer Islands and the far-flung districts. That is why it was set up; and it has undoubtedly brought amenities to people who would otherwise not have been able to receive them.
LORD GREENHILL: I would not pretend to deny what the original aims of the promoters of this scheme were, but what I am certain of, and what I think cannot be denied, is that, in their intention to do good to the people of the Highlands, they are destroying an irreplaceable and most valuable asset. That is my point, my Lords. These enthusiastic contractors, who admittedly are trying to assuage the fears of a great many people, are nevertheless doing considerable harm to the beauties of Scotland by these measures, and I, for one, hope that the people of the country will see that some restraint is exercised in these so-called progressive activities.
7.7 p.m
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to intervene briefly in this debate. I have spent many years of my life in Perthshire. I rarely visit there now, but I did holiday there last summer. I had occasion to visit Pitlochry Dam, which has been mentioned in this debate, and I can say that it is not only a very fine piece of engineering but it has enhanced the prosperity of that particular area tremendously. Pitlochry is now, I would say, one of the most important tourist centres in Scotland, and the number of people who visit that dam is enormous. The dam itself was heavily criticised. It meant the flooding of the surrounding estate, but the panorama has increased in beauty. I visited the Loch before this dam was erected and after it was erected, and, to my mind—and I am very jealous of Scotland's beauties—the beauty of the whole area has been tremendously enhanced.
There is just one other point I should like to raise in connection with the White Paper on the Constructional Scheme No. 28. Section D in the additional recommendation says:
"The Board shall pay for such traditional Watchers as may be required during and after
434
the construction of the works, and shall provide suitable accommodation for them."
I would ask the noble Lord whether he can say how many watchers will be, needed, what their duties will be, and how they will be housed. It seems to me that temporary housing on a large scheme can blot the landscape far more than the scheme itself. I think that your Lordships' House should be assured that these houses will be built with deference to the scenic nature of the neighbourhood and bearing in mind that something like five men operate the whole of the Pitlochry scheme, both technically and in guarding the plant. Finally, I should like to say that the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, despite all the criticisms which have been levelled against them, have performed a job of which Britain and the world can be proud.
7.11 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I wish to intervene for only two moments because for about five days sat on the Select Committee of this House on the Blaenau Festiniog scheme in North Wales, which was the first pumped water scheme in this country. This is entirely new to this country, although such schemes have been in operation for some time in Switzerland. The water runs down from the top reservoir during the day and is pumped up at night time with the surplus power from the atomic or coal station, and it has been proved conclusively that it saves a great deal of capital in our not having to build another station, in view of the short peak period in this country during the day-time.
Neither in North Wales nor in Scotland are the mountains very high, and therefore the pressure of water is not great, and such a scheme uses a large volume which otherwise would run out to sea and not be used again. On the North Wales scheme, we went into the question of amenity at great length, because this scheme is very near the Snowdonia National Park, We were satisfied that the top reservoir did not completely drain into the lower one during the day, although the level was lowered a good deal, and the pumping plant was placed in such a position that it could not be seen very much. I have not seen the area of the Ben Cruachan scheme, but I do not think that it is likely to do much damage to the surrounding amenities. It

435
is important that we should get as much power as we possibly can, and water power runs a little cheaper than coal power, even to-day, allowing for the pretty high price of coal. This scheme is important for Scotland, because the availability of electric power has given tremendous benefit to the Highlanders and also to the important industrial belt in the Glasgow area and the South West.
7.14 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken at considerable length on this subject, so perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I go into the matter fairly fully. A short time ago we were discussing deer in Scotland. I think that if your Lordships shoot as wide of the mark at deer as you have been shooting at the Loch Awe scheme, the deer in Scotland have a very good chance in future. I am glad to be able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who straight away began belittling the Loch Awe scheme. I really could not follow him when he said that this scheme, which is going to produce 12 per cent. of Scotland's electricity, is a small scheme.
I am sure your Lordships are already aware that very great care is given to the preparation and consideration of all hydroelectric schemes. That is as it should be. Your Lordships will also appreciate that with almost any hydro-electric scheme there are bound to be conflicting interests. On the one hand, it is plain that we cannot have hydro-electric schemes at all without disturbing the natural topography to some extent; and that to many people is essentially disquieting because, quite rightly, they have, as I myself have, a deep-rooted affection for the natural beauty of our land and wish to preserve it. On the other hand, hydro-electric schemes are an extremely important means of providing the power on which our economy depends. That is why the procedure through which these schemes have to go has been designed to ensure the fullest consideration of all aspects, together with the views of all the interests concerned; and, as I shall show, special obligations are placed on the Board for the preservation of the beauty of the scenery.
The procedure laid down by the Hydro-Electric Development Act of 1943 is, I consider, quite exacting. Perhaps your Lordships would like me to give you a
436
short account of this procedure. I believe that it may allay some of the fears that were in the mind of the right reverend Prelate.
First of all, each scheme must be published, with its relevant plans and sections, and made available for public inspection. From then on, for a period of up to forty days, objections may be lodged with the Secretary of State. An objector may ask for a public inquiry, and if he does so the Secretary of State must grant his request, unless the objection is withdrawn or is a frivolous one. When the Secretary of State finally decides, after an inquiry if need be, that the scheme should be confirmed, it must then lie before both Houses of Parliament for yet another period of forty days, and during that time it may be annulled by a Prayer in either House. Incidentally, the forty days expire to-day. Your Lordships will appreciate, therefore, that there are many opportunities for the public to criticise these schemes and for their objections to be heard and considered.
In addition to all this, the Scottish Electricity Boards, in preparing hydroelectric schemes, have a special responsibility as regards amenity. Section 9 of the 1943 Act places on the Board an obligation to
"have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery and any object of architectural or historic interest."
To assist them in carrying out this duty a special Committee exists for dealing with amenity questions. It is set up under Statute and is composed of independent members appointed by the Secretary of State. The Board are obliged to consult the Committee before and during the preparation of any constructional scheme. In addition, of course, the Board may consult it at any other time, and frequently do. The Committee advises not only the Board but also the Secretary of State, and, furthermore, its recommendations are before the Secretary of State when he considers whether any scheme should be confirmed. A similar Committee advises the Board and the Secretary of State on fisheries matters. If a public inquiry is held, it is the Secretary of State's practice to make the recommendations of both Committees available at the inquiry.
The Loch Awe scheme was published by the Board on July 17, 1957. No objections on amenity grounds were

437
received. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde asked whether there had been any objections. The answer is that there were none. Any other matters that were raised were withdrawn after negotiations. On the amenity side, the Amenity Committee did not object to the scheme in principle but made certain recommendations on points of detail. Some of these the Board were able to meet, and of course they will continue to consult the Committee at further stages. The Committee did not, however, find any fault with the scheme on the grounds that have been suggested.
I should also point out, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Airlie, that during the course of this procedure the Board provided information for the Further enlightenment of, among otters, the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland, the Scottish Rights of Way Society and the County Council of Argyll. Incidentally, the National Trust for Scotland did not ask for any information beyond what was publicly available. From this I would conclude that none of these bodies share the fears which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
Having recently myself visited the Loch Awe area, and discussed the scheme, I can safely say that the fears which have been expressed about the Cruachan works will not be realised. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggested that we might cut out the Cruachan part of the scheme. I do not think the noble Lord realises that this is the major part of the scheme. The Cruachan part of the scheme will produce 400 million units a year; the Nant part of the scheme 27 million units, and the Inverawe part 100 million units.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, asked me about the completion date. The Inverawe section is due to be completed in 1962, and the whole scheme is due for completion in 1966. The noble Duke also asked me about road diversions, and I can give him an assurance that the road diversions will be made before there is any interference with the existing road. I was in Oban the other day, and I gave that very assurance to the local hoteliers' association. Then the noble Duke wanted to know about the economics of the scheme, in view of nuclear power. We cannot tell, of course, exactly what will happen in twenty years' time, but at present nuclear power stations cannot be
438
used economically for peak-load periods. What we want is power available in 1965.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that the hydro-electric contribution to our electricity supplies was pitifully small; I think he suggested 2 per cent. That is not as I understand the position. In the North of Scotland the hydro-electric generation provides the greater part of electricity used—in fact, 80 per cent. At the same time, it produces electricity more cheaply than it could be produced otherwise, and at a profit, which enables the supplies to be distributed to other parts of the North of Scotland; that is, to the uneconomic schemes that are still left to be done in the North of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked me to give an assurance about power lines. I cannot go far into that matter, because power lines do not come into the scheme, but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the Hydro-Electric Board will make every effort, in consultation with the Amenity Committee, to secure an acceptable route for the transmission lines. I can also give an assurance that they are, in. fact, preparing to discuss this matter with the planning authorities now. The noble Lord also expressed some concern about the barrage which is to be set up at the end of the Loch. The Amenity Committee and the Hydro-Electric Board recommended that the Board should consider, if the cost was not excessive, whether the weir over the River Awe could be moved upstream by about half a mile. For technical and financial reasons, the Board were unable to accept this suggestion.
The reasons were as follows. First, the barrage must be of sufficient width and height to allow large volumes of water to get away quickly in times of flood. If the barrage were moved upstream, it would be narrower and, in consequence, would have to be made much higher or deeper. The bed of the river prevents its being made deeper, and it must not be made higher because the level of the Loch has to be kept within narrow limits. The disposal of flood water would thus be very difficult. Moving the barrage half a mile upstream would add considerably to the length and to the cost of the tunnel. The tunnel costs about £180 a foot, and that would mean adding to the cost something like £475,000. As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum on the

439
scheme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepted that, for these reasons, it would be impracticable to site the weir upstream.
Over the roads I travelled in the area the sites of these works high up on the mountainside will be most inconspicuous and visible only from one or two rare vantage points. I therefore believe that this part of the scheme will prove as innocuous as similar works which have been carried out by the Board on Ben Lawers, Ben Vorlich and so on. For example, from the main road between Dalmally and the pass of Brander nothing of the Cruachan works will be seen. Even the main generating station will be underground and will be fed by tunnels, not by pipes on the surface.
I can give every assurance to climbers, including the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that they need have no cause for alarm, as the steep-sided reservoir on Cruachan will not empty daily. The only persons who might have some cause for alarm about the dam are the skiers who cannot stop when they get to it. This dam holds about one and a half weeks' supply, and when the station is working at full capacity in the winter months the maximum drawdown during a heavy week will not empty the reservoir but will reduce the loch surface area only by about 50 per cent. This is no worse than occurs from time to time at Loch Sloy, which I know is enjoyed by many visitors and climbers.
I believe, that, as my noble friend Lord Airlie said, it is widely felt that the Board's record in these matters of amenity is a good one. I know that they have gone to considerable trouble to avoid any grounds of criticism, and I think that their efforts have met with conspicuous success. Perhaps I might mention two examples. It will be remembered that one of their first schemes, the Tummel-Garry scheme, was criticised because of the harm it might do to the amenity of Pitlochry. But in practice, as my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Auckland have pointed out, the contrary has proved true, and the Board's reservoir at Pitlochry and the fish-pass associated with it are regarded as an additional attraction to tourists. The same fears were expressed about Glen Affric; but there again the Board have, in fact, enhanced the area by opening it up to visitors. I can therefore assure noble
440
Lords, from a personal investigation of the site, that I see no reason to fear for the beauties of Loch Awe and Cruachan. As I have explained, the Board will continue to consult the Amenity Committee as the scheme proceeds. This is the procedure that Statute envisages for the preservation of amenities. Experience has shown that it works well, and I do not think there is any justification to hold up the scheme for further consideration on that account.
I should point out that the Scottish sales of electricity increased by 64 per cent, in the seven years to 1957, while the peak demand advanced by 71 per cent, in that period. Now there is nothing to suggest that this progress will not continue, and the Scottish Boards expect that by the end of 1964 the peak demand will be some 69 per cent. more than in 1957, and will total 3,250 megawatts, of which the Awe scheme will supply 450 megawatts; that is to say, 12 per cent. of the total Scottish demand, or 34 per cent. of the additional capacity that the Boards expect they will have to provide in the next five years.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had some observations on the economics of the scheme, so perhaps I could briefly go into how the economics of the Loch Awe scheme are going to work. One of the features of conventional hydro-electric work is, of course, their high initial cost per kilowatt of capacity installed, though this is compensated for by the lower running costs of hydro-generating plant compared with those of steam generating plant. But when, as in the present instance, the hydro-electric works are used in the form of a pump-storage scheme, the capital cost per kilowatt installed can actually be lower than those of nuclear or coal fired stations. The figures given in the Explanatory Memorandum are £44 per kilowatt installed at Cruachan, which includes an allowance for transmission cost and between £50 and £55 for a new steam station of the kind being erected in the South of Scotland. The running costs are higher than in a conventional station. For the power required, the pumping has to be paid for, and some of the power is lost in the process. But the electricity used for pumping will be cheap, because it will come from plant

441
which would otherwise be idle. The pump storage scheme therefore makes fuller use of existing steam or nuclear plant, and that in itself is an advantage.
The net result, however, is that the peak-load power, which is always the most expensive kind of power to produce, can be provided by a suitable pump storage unit more cheaply than it could be provided by a new steam or nuclear station—and that would be the alternative. The Explanatory Memorandum goes into the details of the cost, and shows that the pump storage part of the scheme is estimated to show a saving of ·2d. per unit over the cost of production for the same load factor by a new steam station. The conventional hydro-electric part of the scheme—that is to say, in particular the Nant and Inverawe sections—shows a saving of ·4d. per unit compared with costs at a steam station of corresponding capacity. This margin of profit, part of which, of course, will be shared by the South Scotland Electricity Board, enables the North of Scotland Electricity Board to finance their uneconomic schemes, particularly the schemes in the North of Scotland. So it can be seen that economic and profitable generating schemes like the Awe scheme are essential if the Board's policy of bringing electricity to the remoter areas is to be completed.
I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to sit down without paying a tribute to the Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the right honourable Thomas Johnston, who is shortly to lay down the office in which he has now
442
served for over thirteen years. Mr. Johnston, on succeeding the first Chairman of the Board (my noble friend Lord Airlie, who had the task of starting the Board on its great work), has been responsible for carrying out the design that he himself planned. Under his chairman-ship the Board has acquired a high reputation, not least for the care it has taken to preserve amenities. I am glad to say that Mr. Johnston will not sever his connection with the Board after this summer, for at their request and with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, he will continue his efforts in conjunction with the Board to attract industries to the Board's district. I am sure your Lordships will wish him well in this work, and will at the same time wish every success to the new Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have no right to reply, but I would, I am sure, be expressing the views of your Lordships if I were to thank the noble Lord for the great care which he has obviously put into his detailed explanation of the scheme.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty four minutes before eight o'clock.